Game over for Labour

[original PM]

well the English parliament first came about in 1215.

And since then on the whole the UK has generally been prosperous.

So it actually means it does not matter who gets in - it will be slightly better for some and slightly worse for others.

So really your vote actually makes no difference.

[Zero Liability]

If you're talking about Labour supporters, they are on the left of the Tories but right of centre according to the latest policy mappings.

I tend to take those with a pinch of salt, plus I doubt Miliband and his policies would qualify as such. Maybe Blair and New Labour, though. For instance, UKIP come to the left of the Tories on these things, when they're about the same on economic issues if not slightly more free enterprise oriented.

[Platypus]

well the English parliament first came about in 1215.

And since then on the whole the UK has generally been prosperous.

So it actually means it does not matter who gets in - it will be slightly better for some and slightly worse for others.

So really your vote actually makes no difference.

That's an interesting perspective

[Batcher]

I tend to take those with a pinch of salt, plus I doubt Miliband and his policies would qualify as such. Maybe Blair and New Labour, though. For instance, UKIP come to the left of the Tories on these things, when they're about the same on economic issues if not slightly more free enterprise oriented.

Blair got in because he realised he needed to win over "Middle England" by going towards the right and looking after the corporates. At that time Scotland and the North of England could be counted on to vote Labour regardless. Now though it's got to the point where Labour (Scottish Branch) tries to appeal to the left whilst the Labour (Head Office) appeals to the right down south. They have been found out though and SNP and UKIP will possibly take over their heartlands.

[xoggoth]

I think the election could go to the tories

Wouldn't it be nice of the electorate was actually that rational?

[OwlHoot]

well the English parliament first came about in 1215.

That may have been the first Parliament since the Conquest, but for a long time before that there was the Witan

And since then on the whole the UK has generally been prosperous.

Until the late 19th century only male property owners had a vote. ..

[original PM]

Obviously worked well then...

[Zero Liability]

Blair got in because he realised he needed to win over "Middle England" by going towards the right and looking after the corporates. At that time Scotland and the North of England could be counted on to vote Labour regardless. Now though it's got to the point where Labour (Scottish Branch) tries to appeal to the left whilst the Labour (Head Office) appeals to the right down south. They have been found out though and SNP and UKIP will possibly take over their heartlands.

Miliband is pretty leftist. The issue I take with the sort of tests used to situate the parties, such as the political quadrant, is that the way they questions are classified is very arbitrary. Is corporate welfare and regulation written to benefit big business but hamper everyone else "right wing", for instance? So, would someone on the right necessarily support the contention that whatever is in the best interests of the biggest businesses, is in everyone's interests, when they so often feed out of the state's trough? I would say it's not particularly "right-wing", as this requires the invasion of the property rights of others. Then again, the right/left spectrum itself was born out of historical particularities regarding how people situated themselves in the French National Assembly, which means the term isn't very useful in and of itself in modern day politics. Something along the lines of economic interventionism/laissez-faire and social interventionism/laissez faire may capture the concepts better. People get too mixed up with the disparate uses of right/left wing to bother with them.

As such, I don't think these tests are particularly useful in gauging where a party sits on the ideological spectrum, and that is even assuming you could take their professed policies, manifestos etc. seriously. I think Labour and the Tories both have a pragmatic aspect to them that comes with seeking to retain power. For the first time in a while, the FPP is not protecting them from competition and may even damage them, so they may have to abandon their vote-maximising blandness. Labour politicians are probably not so stupid or self-absorbed as to think the UK can go on indebting itself forever and never make credible commitments to rebalance the economy, thus why they offer a more tepid version of what the Tories do, whom I do not regard as very 'right-wing', either. The current system has incorporated aspects of the Communist Manifesto, for instance, central banks. So really, when a party is described as "right-wing" or "left-wing", it is relative to this system, which makes the whole thing awfully self-referential, thus the absurdities such as Labour or the US Democrats not showing up as particularly left-wing, simply because it is all done with reference to the current system occupying the centre.

[tractor]

...

Blair got in because he realised he needed to win over "Middle England" by going towards the right and looking after the corporates. At that time Scotland and the North of England could be counted on to vote Labour regardless. Now though it's got to the point where Labour (Scottish Branch) tries to appeal to the left whilst the Labour (Head Office) appeals to the right down south. They have been found out though and SNP and UKIP will possibly take over their heartlands.

Blair got in on the back of the work done by John Brown and the fact that the nation didn't like Major smelling like curry.

And the fact that Andersen's taught them how to behave helped.

[darmstadt]

I see the populace is looking more and more at socialism: Communist Manifesto sales Penguin bargain little black classics | Books | The Guardian is that right ring rankers brushing up on the enemy