The Third Way

[Hate Is Art]

Is the Third Way at all productive? Under Blair/Brown with the Third Way the Labour Party is more sucsessful then ever with the Tory's on a real low.

So are we idealist's or are we prepared to give up a little bit of Socialism in the short term to try and make some long term benefits?

Should we get back to the grass roots of the labour party or try to "move forward"

[cubist]

we should burn tony blair and rename the party, the workers union, the name "labour" has been soiled.

we as socilaists shouldn't endorse bourgoise parties and certainly shouldn't sacrifice aspects of socialism short term or not.

there is no benifit if the working class aren't being represented and tony blair doesn't know what working class means

[Hate Is Art]

:)

But it has got a Labour government in power, which has made minor steps forward. We'd still be living under the Tories if it wasn't for the Third Way?

[Louis Pio]

Labour could have taken power nomatter what. There was extreme discontent with the tories. Actually "the third way" is what's getting Blair in trouble now.

[socialistfuture]

prehaps there is another 'third way' which as opposed to neo liberalism ( i guess that is the definition of third way) - well what i mean then is that prehaps Chavez and that type of revolution - by a party with a large support base that is attempting reforms but not an all out revolution (abolition of private property) can in the long run get more done -

look at the tariq ali post i have and read what he has to say about venezuela and latin america. i just dont see socialist/communist parties getting us out of capitalism in the west - well definatly not britian and the USA in the short term or long term. I wonder if oil running out will be the thing that forces change.

while the war in the middle east and revolutionary situation in south america are pressing and there is changes happening elsewhere i find it hard to see how parlimentary democracy is going to be anything over than neo liberalism or close to that and how a different system could be implimented on a mass scale.

certainly i dont believe the answer lies with 'labour' but how can countries get past the two party system - ? i cant see the west having a succesfull armed anti capitalist revolution.

[cubist]

But it has got a Labour government in power, which has made minor steps forward. We'd still be living under the Tories if it wasn't for the Third Way? .

the tories lost becuase people were fed up not becuase of the third way, tony bliar appeared to be a good man but like all bourgoisie politicians he turned sour quickly

[T_SP]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 22 2004, 01:57 PM
:)

But it has got a Labour government in power, which has made minor steps forward. We'd still be living under the Tories if it wasn't for the Third Way?
Get real TAD! They may have made minor steps forward but they also have made MAJOR steps backward! There is no way we should sell out especially to the Labour party, hell that's why so many hardlining Socialists left in the first place and things have gotten distinctly worse since then! No No, R.I.P Labour party there is no hope here for the working class and neither of the other 2 parties can offer a viable alternative! We must fight for a new workers party, run for and by working class people! This is the only hope we have for a Socialist future here in the UK!! The other parties have simply sold out to big buisness!!

[T_SP]

I wonder if oil running out will be the thing that forces change.( Socialist Future)
No this will bring a bad change about! Those who control the oil will essentially control the world! Hence the reason that Bush was so adamant about the Iraq war going ahead, I mean, how much sense does that make, Bushs' admin knows that control of the oil ( a Non-renewable energy source) is the only way to make a super power even more powerful! Why do you think so little Government funding goes into researching alternative fuel? Especially infinite fuel sources like hydro, solar and wind.

[h&s]

But it has got a Labour government in power, which has made minor steps forward. We'd still be living under the Tories if it wasn't for the Third Way?
We are living under the Tories, they just stand under a different name. A party that creates a two-tier health system, introduces top-up fees, continually lies to the public, joins in imperialistic wars, and proposes cutting 104,000 jobs in the civil service can not be considered anything to do with us.

[socialistfuture]

some people say blair has been beating thatcher at her own game

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:59 PM
some people say blair has been beating thatcher at her own game
Quite SF, many of his new policies are very 'Thatcherite' he even almost did the 'ladies not for turning' line in one of his speeches! And where have them WMD's got to?
What I can't understand is groups who sit in the Labour party disagreeing with everything they do and yet still fund them and claim that Labour can be turned around!!!! It's crazy! Most Labour MP's and Councillors just like the wages and there prestigious position! It's really sad!

[monkeydust]

Is the Third Way at all productive?

I'm just about sick of "Third Ways".

Anyone in British politics who claims to be "neither left nor right" is talking out of their arse.

New Labour set out with the ostensible intention of reconciling the free market with social justice. Unfortunately, they forgot to explain precisely how they were going to do this. I It's probably fair to conclude that it was all a load of balls.

Apart from a few social reforms "here and there", the minimum wage, for instance, New Labour, and Blair in particular, has shown itself to be almost as right wing as the Conservatives.


Should we get back to the grass roots of the labour party or try to "move forward"


Contrary to Kez's opinion, I fear that it's too late to do so.

Already, a number of unions have broken their historic ties with Labour. And membership numbers are the lowest they have been since the 20s.

It seems that the "grass roots" of the party, have begun to realize that they have little or no power to change things these days.


But it has got a Labour government in power, which has made minor steps forward. We'd still be living under the Tories if it wasn't for the Third Way?


Rule number one of British Politics: Parties don't win elections, they lose them.

In 1997, Britian was "fed up" with the Tories, and rightly so.

Even without the "third-way" (which I doubt many people actually understood), Labour would have got into power.

[cubist]

Contrary to Kez's opinion, I fear that it's too late to do so.

Already, a number of unions have broken their historic ties with Labour. And membership numbers are the lowest they have been since the 20s.

It seems that the "grass roots" of the party, have begun to realize that they have little or no power to change things these days.


AGREED, the labour party sacrificed its routes when it upped the commies of the back benches to save face in the thatcherite era

[cubist]

Contrary to Kez's opinion, I fear that it's too late to do so.

Already, a number of unions have broken their historic ties with Labour. And membership numbers are the lowest they have been since the 20s.

It seems that the "grass roots" of the party, have begun to realize that they have little or no power to change things these days.


AGREED, the labour party sacrificed its routes when it upped the commies of the back benches to save face in the thatcherite era

[cubist]

Contrary to Kez's opinion, I fear that it's too late to do so.

Already, a number of unions have broken their historic ties with Labour. And membership numbers are the lowest they have been since the 20s.

It seems that the "grass roots" of the party, have begun to realize that they have little or no power to change things these days.


AGREED, the labour party sacrificed its routes when it upped the commies of the back benches to save face in the thatcherite era

[Hate Is Art]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

[Hate Is Art]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

[Hate Is Art]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

[monkeydust]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

No, but it was at least a "workers" party, at some stage.

[monkeydust]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

No, but it was at least a "workers" party, at some stage.

[monkeydust]

The Labour Party was never a Marxist-Socialist revolutionary party. It may have had a few Socialist MP's but it was never a revolutionary party.

No, but it was at least a "workers" party, at some stage.

[h&s]

"No matter who you vote for, the government will always get in."
I don't know who said that, but they spoke the truth.
On the Blair-Brown issue has anyone thought that it could all be made up? Think about it. Tony Blair has disenfranchised the whole left, so Labour can no longer rely on him to gain the vote of the left. However, if they got rid of him, they may lose the vote of 'middle-england,' which they can not afford to do.
Solution? Gordon Brown. They spread out the rumour that Brown will represent traditional Labour values, and he wants the top job after the election. That way the middle-classes still vote Labour as they like Tony Blair, and just consider Brown to be a rumour, and the working-classes vote Labour in the vague hope that Brown will take over and start to represent them.
Come the eve after the next General Election, Tony and Gordon will be having champagne together in No. 10, the best of friends. <_<

[h&s]

"No matter who you vote for, the government will always get in."
I don&#39;t know who said that, but they spoke the truth.
On the Blair-Brown issue has anyone thought that it could all be made up? Think about it. Tony Blair has disenfranchised the whole left, so Labour can no longer rely on him to gain the vote of the left. However, if they got rid of him, they may lose the vote of &#39;middle-england,&#39; which they can not afford to do.
Solution? Gordon Brown. They spread out the rumour that Brown will represent traditional Labour values, and he wants the top job after the election. That way the middle-classes still vote Labour as they like Tony Blair, and just consider Brown to be a rumour, and the working-classes vote Labour in the vague hope that Brown will take over and start to represent them.
Come the eve after the next General Election, Tony and Gordon will be having champagne together in No. 10, the best of friends. <_<

[h&s]

"No matter who you vote for, the government will always get in."
I don&#39;t know who said that, but they spoke the truth.
On the Blair-Brown issue has anyone thought that it could all be made up? Think about it. Tony Blair has disenfranchised the whole left, so Labour can no longer rely on him to gain the vote of the left. However, if they got rid of him, they may lose the vote of &#39;middle-england,&#39; which they can not afford to do.
Solution? Gordon Brown. They spread out the rumour that Brown will represent traditional Labour values, and he wants the top job after the election. That way the middle-classes still vote Labour as they like Tony Blair, and just consider Brown to be a rumour, and the working-classes vote Labour in the vague hope that Brown will take over and start to represent them.
Come the eve after the next General Election, Tony and Gordon will be having champagne together in No. 10, the best of friends. <_<

[Comfort]

i&#39;m not sure how you get out of the two party system but canada is doing pretty good in that respect. the liberals have gotten in power the last 20 years or so but we have 4 main parties that get a lot of votes Progressive Conservatives (right wing), Liberals (centre), New Democrat Party (left-leaning), Bloc Quebecois (quebec seperation) and the green party is starting to get a decent percentage of votes. not that i&#39;m answering your question at all i&#39;m just bragging about the few things canada has going for it.

maybe its because countries like britain and the states have a lot of tradition with two parties. canada is a bit more sceptical of our politicians on the whole. from what i hear the states is very family oriented like, my grandpa voted republican, my dad voted republican and now i&#39;m voting republican. my mom voted progressive conservative, my dad liberal, my sister green and me NDP. do i have a point?

actually maybe i do...in canada if you get 5% (i think) of popular vote the gov&#39;t gives you &#036;1.25 per vote (not sure of exact figures but something like this) that way the party can start being competitive. not sure if the states or britain has this but if they don&#39;t then God help you break the two party system.

shit, i wrote way too much in the wrong forum. thank you for your time.

[Comfort]

i&#39;m not sure how you get out of the two party system but canada is doing pretty good in that respect. the liberals have gotten in power the last 20 years or so but we have 4 main parties that get a lot of votes Progressive Conservatives (right wing), Liberals (centre), New Democrat Party (left-leaning), Bloc Quebecois (quebec seperation) and the green party is starting to get a decent percentage of votes. not that i&#39;m answering your question at all i&#39;m just bragging about the few things canada has going for it.

maybe its because countries like britain and the states have a lot of tradition with two parties. canada is a bit more sceptical of our politicians on the whole. from what i hear the states is very family oriented like, my grandpa voted republican, my dad voted republican and now i&#39;m voting republican. my mom voted progressive conservative, my dad liberal, my sister green and me NDP. do i have a point?

actually maybe i do...in canada if you get 5% (i think) of popular vote the gov&#39;t gives you &#036;1.25 per vote (not sure of exact figures but something like this) that way the party can start being competitive. not sure if the states or britain has this but if they don&#39;t then God help you break the two party system.

shit, i wrote way too much in the wrong forum. thank you for your time.

[Comfort]

i&#39;m not sure how you get out of the two party system but canada is doing pretty good in that respect. the liberals have gotten in power the last 20 years or so but we have 4 main parties that get a lot of votes Progressive Conservatives (right wing), Liberals (centre), New Democrat Party (left-leaning), Bloc Quebecois (quebec seperation) and the green party is starting to get a decent percentage of votes. not that i&#39;m answering your question at all i&#39;m just bragging about the few things canada has going for it.

maybe its because countries like britain and the states have a lot of tradition with two parties. canada is a bit more sceptical of our politicians on the whole. from what i hear the states is very family oriented like, my grandpa voted republican, my dad voted republican and now i&#39;m voting republican. my mom voted progressive conservative, my dad liberal, my sister green and me NDP. do i have a point?

actually maybe i do...in canada if you get 5% (i think) of popular vote the gov&#39;t gives you &#036;1.25 per vote (not sure of exact figures but something like this) that way the party can start being competitive. not sure if the states or britain has this but if they don&#39;t then God help you break the two party system.

shit, i wrote way too much in the wrong forum. thank you for your time.