I would recommend an issues based approach. I think that Labour – or any political party – should begin by asking what the key issues of the next 25 years will be. Not what they think the electorate thinks, which is what most political debate seems to be about at the moment.

Do Labour really believe that, say, terrorism is the biggest threat to the country? Or is it immigration? Or global warming? Despite all the chat about how the three main parties are “identical” these days, I think you will find that the answers given would be fairly different.

I try to remain party neutral

LOL!!

I think that Labour – or any political party – should begin by asking what the key issues of the next 25 years will be.

I agree. But what are those issues? The comments on the “we need a new manifesto” piece came up with repealing trade union legislation and not much else…well, good luck with that one!

I think the liberal right has strong ideas, but of course Cameron is no more likely to adopt those than Brown is likely to adopt those of the left.

Depressing for both sides.

the Labour Party seems stuck in an intellectual rut. Frankly, its becoming rather embarrassing.

Quite agree, Sunny. A moral and political one, too. I held my nose and voted Labour locally – because the candidate is decent, the Lib Dems haven’t a prayer in this ward, the Greens aren’t standing, and letting the Tory in would be foolish. But feeling compelled to keep the worst out isn’t exactly inspiring.

cjcjc – I have to say that while your comments are generally amusing, they’re not very enlightening.

The liberal right has good ideas? Oh yeah? Like what? And if so, why aren’t any of the parties or most people enamoured by them? Are the people too stupid?

I agree. But what are those issues? The comments on the “we need a new manifesto” piece came up with repealing trade union legislation and not much else…well, good luck with that one!

Trade unions, as the American TU boss Andy Stern said recently on ABC News, have been the source of the biggest anti-povery programme in history. Without them we would see much more inequality and poverty in our societies. You may not appreciate that or want to acknowledge it, but its a fact.

I don’t want to see a return to the bad old days, but when the Tories are talking more about strengthening labour laws than Labour, there is a problem. And the problem is that for all the talk about anti-poverty and helping the bottom percentile in society, very little is being done to lift their incomes.

And here, the right has no answer. After years of advocating free labour movement and of capital, we’re seeing huge inequality and depressed living standards. Why? Because employees are not protected by the law and hence their wages keep falling in real terms.

Now you can blame immigration for that… you can even use euphemisms like ‘our culture is under attack’ – but the fact of the matter is that people’s living standards are falling in the way we conduct our economics and politics. I’ve argued on here earlier that if we want to deal with the negative side-effects of immigration, the answer is to raise living standards by protecting employment rights. If the liberal-right have a better answer that the people will like, which will raise their standard of living, let’s see them take that to the public.

You may not appreciate that or want to acknowledge it, but its a fact.

It’s certainly an ambitious assertion.

The greatest “anti-poverty programme in history” is the advancement in global living standards over the last century brought about by the free market – as you well know.

the answer is to raise living standards by protecting employment rights

Well, that might raise the living standards of those already in work.
How about those people who are not taken on in the first place as a result of those strengthened rights?

If the liberal-right have a better answer that the people will like, which will raise their standard of living, let’s see them take that to the public.

I wish they were allowed to do so.
Unfortunately the “right” only has the Tories just as the “left” only has Labour.
We’re both stuffed.

And they key ideas are of course as simple as they always have been.
Free trade.
Small – not zero, but small – government.

That’s it. The two most liberal ideas it’s possible to come up with.

I try to remain party neutral

… does anybody actually believe this? Do you, Sunny? I didn’t read further than this point because I know that it is untrue.

Perhaps that’s something politicians could learn, though. When you say something that people know is untrue, they stop listening.

Jennie:

“Does anybody actually believe this? Do you, Sunny? I didn’t read further than this point because I know that it is untrue.”

Sunny has always made an effort to remain non-partisan, despite his strong views. I say this as someone who has disagreed with him frequently. And he let me write for his site, despite me being right-wing. Even Iain Dale said that he goes out of his way not to be tied down to one party:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/09/guide-to-blogging-2007-top-30-non.html

“Sunny allows people who don’t support Labour to write for his site” is not the same thing as “Sunny is not completely transparently a Labour supporter”. He even had it in this site’s manifesto for a long while. It might still be there for all I know. Now, I’m not saying that Sunny’s editorial line is biased, and am happy to see a broad church of writers here, but his own writing is as clearly pro-Labour as it’s possible to be.

* shrug *

This is not to say I won’t read his articles, because generally they are very good, and triangulation of viewpoints is a good thing. But in no way shape or form is Sunny party neutral.

I’m party neutral in the sense that I’m not party tribal. I’m not wedded to Labour – I just voted for the Greens for all the relevant sections except the second vote for Ken. But I am progressive ane left-liberal.
Whichever party advocates policies and ideas I believe in at its core – I vote for them.

“I’m not wedded to Labour”

Maybe this is just my inherent biases, but I don’t think anybody /is/ wedded to their favoured party; even MPs cross the floor, after all. But you do tend to /default/ to Labour in situations where it makes no sense to someone like me who decided (as a leftie) that they were going in entirely the wrong direction when they elected Blair as their leader.

Labour have been neither left nor liberal for a very long time. Green /does/ seem more your style, if the “left” is the more important bit of “left liberal” for you.

that they were going in entirely the wrong direction when they elected Blair as their leader.

I agree of course… though not all their policies have been bad. It was a better administration than the tories would have been I’d say. And as much as I love the Greens, they are not getting into power anytime soon. So I have to also work within the existing system… right? Can’t be a revolutionary forever. If you want to change the system, you have to get inside first.

“So I have to also work within the existing system… right?”

To an extent, I’d agree with you, but not to the extent of empowering the current incarnation of the Labour party

This is the full piece

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunder_katwala/2008/05/the_time_for_caution_has_passed.html

“After years of advocating free labour movement and of capital, we’re seeing huge inequality and depressed living standards. Why?”

Sunny, where the hell are you getting this from? Despite our manifest problems, we are materially better off than we have ever have been before, including the worse off. Depressed living standards do not consist of things like dramatically longer life expectancies (extending even for the poorest), greater health care outcomes, “obesity” (we can all eat for the first time in history!) and access to fun things like consumer products and holidays.

As for inequality, of course there are some widening gaps between monetary incomes, but that doesn’t necessarily correlate against more inequality of access to material resources: http://adamsmith.org/blog/misc/rising-inequality-or-not-rising-inequality?-200804281296/

I am on a relatively low income (not poor but significantly less than, for example, a state school teacher’s starting salary), living in London. There are loads of people shuffling around this city with dramatically more spending power than I have. But what do I get for my pay? I can rent my own room (not sharing with siblings or strangers as would be the norm for single people in the vast majority of history). Thanks to our advanced service economy, I can afford to buy prepared food for myself, either in a supermarket or in cafes. I can buy a decently sized round of drinks 3 or 4 times a week, go to the cinema and even go to a rave or club twice a month. If I am careful over the course of a month, I can even save some money. I have a very decent lifestyle and the fact that others are doing even better (at least in monetary terms) doesn’t really bug me.

Inequality is NOT a problem, and once the left realise that and start concentrating on the cases of genuine deprivation (which usually have associated social and economic causes), then they will start to win again. There is no call for the old politcs of the left while the highly uncumbered but successful free market economy is making people so much more better off than what the left offered, either via “liberal” democratic means or non-democratic means.

Very interesting Adam Smith Inst. post.

Though probably now reversed given the rise in food prices…but that of course only a recent event.

party neutral=not party tribal?

Nope, that’s not the same thing at all, Sunny.

And you add expressions of love for the Greens…hmm.

I think there are plenty of issues and ideas that have fulminated in recent years which will continue to be relevant well into the next century, but it is a reflection of individual bias to fail to overtly recognise the fact of their existence and an effort of machination to try to reshape these contemporary debates for personal or party benefit by feigning ignorance – which can also be interpreted as intellectual drift and political tiredness, although I don’t think that description wholely sticks to all of the contributors to this site.