Why Labour is at war with itself

[andrewducker]

I've been watching the fun and games around the Labour election at the moment, and how incredibly emotional it's getting, both from people who hate what Labour has become (and hope Corbyn can rescue it from that), and from people who believe that a left-wing Labour will never get elected (and will thus settle for any electable party that's to the left of the Conservatives).

And this is really tearing Labour apart, to the point where MPs are plotting a coup if he wins.

And the one thing that's _really_ obvious to me is that this is all the fault of the electoral system. If we had a proportionate electoral system then at some point either the centre ground would have split off (presumably in the 90s) or the left-wing would have split off (presumably in the 2000s), and we'd have two reasonably sized "Left of the Conservatives" parties, which would give voters a choice of who they supported in each election, and where they wanted the government to go.

As it is, we're stuck with parties constantly at war with each other - and frequently at war with their base, as most of the MPs want a party that wins elections, and the base want a party that represents their views.

Comments

[pseudomonas]

And in a lot of respects they have the Green Party that does in fact represent their views, but that's not a good substitute because it doesn't win elections.

[birguslatro]

NZ's Labour Party has been doing poorly for the last three elections regardless of NZ's proportional electoral system. They split the last time they were in government, the Maori Party being the result. And they've supported the National Party (the main and ruling conservative party) ever since. (If my memory serves me right.)

History has made Labour parties kinda redundant, since their natural supporters (those who sell their labour) are forever dwindling. Conservative parties on the other hand can claim to have an ideology that anyone might support, as can the Greens.

(That said, I expect the NZ Labour Party will 'win' the next election, since the NZ economy has gone into a nose-dive and they're remaining the biggest second party.)

[andrewducker]

"History has made Labour parties kinda redundant, since their natural supporters (those who sell their labour) are forever dwindling."

Don't the vast majority of people sell their labour?

[birguslatro]

There's a difference between the plumber's labourer and the plumber who owns the company, the difference being who sets the price for the labour that gets sold. Labour parties (and unions) were formed to support the one who doesn't get to set the cost of their labour.

Once the number of those who didn't get to set the cost of their labour was huge, but the numbers have been steadily dropping (in the West) and with it the support for the Labour parties. (Or at least the ones in the English speaking countries.)

The Labour ethos is a them and us ethos, and they're on the wrong side of the numbers for that to work (unless the economy really tanks). It's just the wrong POV for a political party to retain broad support long-term.

[andrewducker]

Self employment in the UK is at 15%.

That leaves a lot of people whose pay is set.

[birguslatro]

Not necessarily. If there's a shortage among the higher-paid professions, (which there usually is, which is why they're the higher paid professions), those in them can demand (or earn) a higher rate of pay without needing to be self-employed.

Labour parties, you may have noticed, don't see much mileage in going into bat for stock brokers and the like.