It’s great to see someone properly damning Labour, the UN and ICC as the imperialist clubs they are.

It’s a shame Lord Ahmed placed a bounty (or not) on US leaders instead of UK ones. Isn’t it a bit of a tradition among the Labour Left, while equivocating about British imperialism, to bang on all the more loudly about US imperialism as compensation? As Karl Liebknecht said, the main enemy is at home!

(Although, of course, who’s expecting a Labour peer to be a good communist?)

However, your shallow analysis of Galloway is merely an echo from the corporate media who manufactured the celebrity reality of which you draw your criticism. Your piece demonstrates your conformity with the corporate media’s worldview (in other words you have swallowed the propaganda of the elite).

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/03/marx-was-right.html

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2010/03/19/is-the-marxian-labour-theory-of-value-correct/

As Jonathan Rose notes in his brilliant “Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes”, the religious ethicism of the Labour Party has always managed to attract more working class support than the secular communist movement. Rose is blatantly liberal-biased but his book is still extremely valuable, if only to marvel at how the arrogant and exclusive CPGB managed to alienate itself from a populace that was showing signs of interest.

(if interested, there’s a free preview of an earlier edition here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3B-qbvQTYyEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

That firstly, the idea of a minority government being an effect promoter of policy in the UK is not viable. The experiment of the modern coalition can be seen two years on as heading into failure. The Liberal Democrats have damaged their brand severely, and received little in return save minister cars. It could easily be argued that they should have gone in with Labour if they could have received their cherished AV system outright, avoiding a referendum. After all, the most damaging and regressive part of policy they pushed through, they fixed term parliaments act, which could condemn the Commons to the same kind of political paralysis commonly seen in the US Senate, received no such referendum.

But with respect to getting Labour back in power, the reality is that you ignore the vast influence of psychology on electoral behaviour. Likeability tends to be a much more important factor in first past the post American/UK systems than proportional representation systems in Europe. In the US, personal voting is marginal and there are no party lists. Of course votes are lost as candidates become less fresh and lose their luster, and one can see that problems with Labour stewardship dragged down turnout as the years went on — but the main reason for initial large increases in turnout whether or Obama or support for Bush — was perception.

You are wrong in saying that the democratic base was the reason for Kerry’s lack of a victory in 2004. It is the independent vote that is the most important in US elections, and the fact that party registration is free and almost universal, and therefore voters are not as unduly loyal as they would be in the UK. The ‘Reagan Democrats’ or the ‘Obama Republicans’ are indeed the groups that tip elections.

So what was the key to Blair’s victory in ending two decades of Tory leadership? He was a media figure. He was likeable. The fact that the union backing in the Labour party seems completely oblivious to this threatens to plunge the party back into the irrelevance of the Foot era. Like it or not, in the X-factorised world of politics, it is appearance that often counts equally with substance. Contrast Blair with Milliband — a lisping, haggard figure who sold his own brother out. It is his own dislikeability and failure to promote new ideas that enables Cameron to appear comparatively endearing.

I hope Labour doesn’t have to lose another election realise that no one wants a Daffy Duck prime minister.

Lastly, the rightward trend of the Labour is a reflection of the new progressivism of the 21st century. An outlook that recognises the globalised world as being fundamentally more connected, but less communal than than the industrial revolution has seen. There is less and less need to live in large cities, to centralise businesses, and in some cases production. The bottom line is that the conservatives were able to tap into a sea change in sentimentality among voters that stressed individual responsibility and reward, and when Labour was able to seize that narrative it gave it a chance to reform as well as to bring about progressive social policy.

Thanks for posting this.