Labour or are they Social Democrats?

[Niall Warry]

I though these definitions might interest you.

Socialism – A political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates state ownership and the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Conservative – The inclination especially in politics to maintain the existing traditional order.

Liberal - A political orientation that favours social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than revolution.


Reading the above you would have thought the Coalition had everything covered but the trouble is in my opinion the Conservatives are no longer conservative and the and Liberal Democrats no longer liberal.

The Lib Lab Con now all fall into the new mould of Social Democrats who seem to give us the worse of all worlds!

Social Democracy - is an international political movement seeking a gradual path to socialism through reforms made on behalf of the working class. It relies on the use of the democratic process to achieve its aims as opposed to revolutionary means.

I believe a workable combination would be mix of traditional Conservative and traditional Liberal values. The introduction of any kind of Socialism into a political mix has always proved to be a disaster!

Interestingly the EU is very largely run by Social Democratic types (some even being ex-communists) which I believe explains why the EU mirrors, in so many respects the old USSR, and why it is so catastrophically failing.

What do you all think?

[Snag]

I though these definitions might interest you.

Socialism – A political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates state ownership and the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Conservative – The inclination especially in politics to maintain the existing traditional order.

Liberal - A political orientation that favours social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than revolution.


Reading the above you would have thought the Coalition had everything covered but the trouble is in my opinion the Conservatives are no longer conservative and the and Liberal Democrats no longer liberal.

The Lib Lab Con now all fall into the new mould of Social Democrats who seem to give us the worse of all worlds!

Social Democracy - is an international political movement seeking a gradual path to socialism through reforms made on behalf of the working class. It relies on the use of the democratic process to achieve its aims as opposed to revolutionary means.

I believe a workable combination would be mix of traditional Conservative and traditional Liberal values. The introduction of any kind of Socialism into a political mix has always proved to be a disaster!

Interestingly the EU is very largely run by Social Democratic types (some even being ex-communists) which I believe explains why the EU mirrors, in so many respects the old USSR, and why it is so catastrophically failing.

What do you all think?

If i recall corectly , it was said that they had " lost touch " in what the British people really wanted or what ever. IMO They lost their socialists views, under their 12/13 year watch did they not have Hospitals built under the Private Enterprise Inititive, thus putting a staggering amount of costs on to the NHS, one example would be the cost of changing a light buld which was in the Press stated at £300 ?.
In these times {IMO } Some industries lost such as a Steel works up in the north east would have been better of being Nationalised, run by some top proffessional Management , if then the whole thing only ran at a break even point it would be better to keep people in jobs, these jobs saved would save lots more in the related surply chain ect:.
The old USSR i read some where, basically had a big problem with infrastructure such as roads, which is bad for any economy / industries.
Us ? do we own our Electric or Gas any more if not why not.

[youngian]

Interestingly the EU is very largely run by Social Democratic types (some even being ex-communists) which I believe explains why the EU mirrors, in so many respects the old USSR, and why it is so catastrophically failing.
What do you all think?

The EU founders were more from Christian Democrat and right of centre backgrounds. Social Democratic and Labour Parties tended to regard the project with suspicion as the Treaty of Rome could undermine levers of economic planning while increasing the freedoms of international capital.

In the past three decades Social Democrats have warmed to the project (many in the British Labour and the French socialist advocated withdrawel until the 1980s). The advance of a social dimension to the European project and as a powerful bloc which could counterbalance accelerating globalisation has made it more attractive to them. At the same time hostility to the EU from the neo-liberal right like Thatcher grew as they saw the EU becoming more than just a zollverein.

You mention the USSR and ex-Communists but the left bloc in the EP is still very hostile to the European project, not to mention the ex-Soviet apparatchiks of Putin's Russia who regard the EU with great suspicion as it moved closer to the borders of mother Russia.

If anything centreground liberal politician have been the most enthuiastic and the further you move either way the more the objections to the EU increase.

[Plutonium]

I
Social Democracy - is an international political movement seeking a gradual path to socialism through reforms made on behalf of the working class. It relies on the use of the democratic process to achieve its aims as opposed to revolutionary means.

Well, it's "international" only insofar as there are social democratic parties in many countries, just as there are conservative and liberal parties in many countries. You are correct that social democrats rely on the parliamentary process rather than revolution.

The question you need to ask is, "what is social democracy"? Everyone understands the meaning of political democracy - political rule by the people. But that, to my mind, is not enough. There has to be social justice, and some measure of economic rule by the people. That is encapsulated by the reformed Clause 4 of the Labour party constitution: "power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few".

Unfortunately, in this respect we are regressing: income differentials are widening, as more and more wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, while for the majority of people, living standards decline as prices go up and incomes are stagnant, and therefore fall in real terms.

I would like to see a party that is genuinely committed to policies that reverse this process and ensure that there is an equitable distribution of income across society.

That doesn't mean that everyone is paid the same - some people will always earn more than others. But there is a limit to that. I would like to see the rule of 20 imposed - nobody in society is paid more than 20 times the poorest member of society. At present, we have people who are paid 50 times, or 100 times, 200 times, more than the worst paid people. Are they genuinely that much better than the poorest people, or is there some measure of injustice here?