Since he's already said he's going and it looks like he's not going to be able to get his controversial education reforms through. Do you think he should step down now and allow Brown time to take over and settle in?

Well, it's a bit late now.

He's already screwed the Labour Party up beyond all recognition.
We would have probably had a better time the last few years if they'd stuffed and mounted John Smith and kept him as leader.

But to answer the question, yes, he should.

I'd like him to go, but I'm not sure there's any reason for him to do so from a self-interested perspective, which is no doubt what he's acting in. Besides, I don't know if I'd prefer Brown much anyway.

It's all about the Lib Dems for me, but at the moment I'm ashamed to say for the first time ever I might even prefer the Tories to Labour.

Why though?Surely Cameron is just using the same spin and pr image marketing as Blair and what did he actually do in office? Aren't people a bit fed up with image over substance? The Tories may claim they are now centerist but trust me its a ploy to get them elected.

I'm so fed up of all this centerism, its all about appealing to the middle classes who essentially decide the elections. But really what does centerism achieve, surely its prinicples, ideologies and leadership that really change things.Not just a bunch of third way policies that are a complete fudge, and end up barely changing any of the systems in place.

All the radical ideas and people seem to be shunned in current politics.

I very nearly voted Socialist Alternative in the last election, but I figured LibDem would be more likely to get in if I voted for them. Turns out the constituency I was then living in was made up of Blair fans.

It's frustrating that the major parties (particularly labour and conservative) seem so similar to me. And labour should be all about the WORKING class, or at least have policies which favour your everyday folk. They're called LABOUR after all. Roots = forgotten methinks.

But I rather feel that there's no point throwing the ruling party into upheaval now and maybe again later, when we can just do it once at the end of his term.

i think the reformist side of this Labour government is often overlooked. Infact, I'd argue that Blair has put a lot of effort in to ensure that it is overlooked. They don't want to be attacked with the old 'tax and spend' moniker that kept them out of power in the '80's. Brown is a massive part of that, as he has almost single-handedly given the government an image of fiscal responsibility that they had hitherto lacked. But the benefit schemes, minimum wage etc are all fairly profound endorsements and extensions of the welfare system. Sure, these are outweighed by the PFIs and top-up fees mess, but you can still see these as part of a wider system of social reform. I genuinely don't think this government is disinterested in radical change in the same way that the Tories are (did anyone see Cameron's '6 point programme' in Private Eye this week? Hilarious). Its just that the facade of 'New Labour' is so successful that people presume that they are. I mean, what actually changed in 1994? The whole clause IV thing was a publicity stunt; there hadn't been any real commitment to nationalisation since the Bennite challenge.

I think it'd be best for the Labour party if Blair stepped down closer to the next election, as it would reinvigorate the party's image and Brown wouldn't have any potential millstones around his neck, but from a wider perspective, I don't think much will change under a Brownite govt. He's been as central to the 'New Labour' project as Blair.

P.S I'm not a Blairite. That would be dreadfully uncool. I'm not even a Labour voter, actually.

I'm not sure it's a "ploy" as such - this is what the right claimed about Blair in 1994 - "he's just pretending - once he's in office he'll actually institute full-on socialism just like the 1970s" etc etc. I'm sure that the Tories haven't actually changed their core beliefs as a party much - for starters, I'm not sure they have many - but that doesn't mean that they haven't shifted centre-wise on policy. And yes I do think that's an improvement. The reason I prefer them to Labour is not that I think they're incredibly new - I agree they'd probably be just like New Labour in most respects - it's because at the moment they're less authoritarian and not trying to hack into every civil liberties we possess in the way that Labour are. Which is my primary concern about the current Labour government. Though again it's why I prefer the Lib Dems to both.

The fact is, parties seek votes. If people really did want radical policy then parties would spring up providing it. Unfortunately to a large extent we get the politicians we deserve. Voters can't commit to large scale ideological agendas, only to truisms about improving public services (witout saying how), cutting crime, etc etc. Part of the reasons we have such a centrist agenda though is that our electoral system means that swing voters (who tend to be centrist and non-committal) get huge power and voters at the margins become irrelevent, thus worsening matters even further.

"Voters can't commit to large scale ideological agendas, only to truisms about improving public services (witout saying how), cutting crime, etc etc. Part of the reasons we have such a centrist agenda though is that our electoral system means that swing voters (who tend to be centrist and non-committal) get huge power and voters at the margins become irrelevent, thus worsening matters even further."

I agree with most of that, I know the reasons why the middle classes are the ones targeted. I just find it so frustrating that ideologies seem to have been discarded in modern politics in favour of "truisms" as you put it. I'm not sure I'm advocating radical ideologies as such, but some kind of leadership, some kind of element at least of policies rooted in idelogical beliefs of the parties, not just a bunch of fudges designed never to offend anyone, but that actually make no discernable difference to peoples lives.I'm a disenchanted labour voter really, I'm not sure who I'll vote for at the next election. I find that the parties have become so similiar most people will be apathetic.

I'd agree that Brown/Blair have done some left of center things, minimun wage, investment in public services ect ect But essentially they are doing it in such a controlling way and taking so many of the targets that were pioneered by the Tory's that the investment doesn't seeem to be getting to where its needed. Also its negated by all of the poor policy making(PFI, the education bill) and like Alex said the authoritarian stuff like the terrorism bill, detention, id cards ect.All of which I'm unsure of. I think the state is big enough already, we can affect change without having to take more control of people's lives. All I'm looking for a sensible modern socialist agenda, that instigates a fairer distribution of wealth, takes the enviromental agenda more seriously, doesn't attempt to turn the education system into a two tier system, at least attempts to strike a fair balance between workers and employers.

I think the whole of Politics shifted to the right post Thatcher and I really think to quote a phrase its time for a change. Labour in 97 had an opportunity to both reform and invest in public services but they did neither for two years and have been trying to catch up ever since.

I don't get how you can currently prefer the Torys to labour when they haven't actually specified any detailed policies?I understand your point on authoritarianism but I really think the Tory's will always be an essentially right of center party and for me thats more of a concern. I for one don't think I could ever vote Tory after their dreadful style of government in the 80s.(I know thats a tad ignorant but frankly any party that impliments awful policies like the poll tax should never be in office again).

Beause parties don't change? its's 2006.

At the end of the day, politics is a game battled out on the media playing field. I don't take anything at face value anymore.

As I said, I'm aware its a tad ignorant and of course parties change but largely I just don't think the Tories will ever closely resemble my beliefs. They can dress themselves up in different clothes, and even have centerist policies, but essentially as a party they are right of center and I'm not.

Good Lord! No more room parties for Alex

Your girlfriend voted Tory, mate - I still wouldn't even consider that!

I am close to finishing my dissertation on the future of the labour party so excuse me coming across a bit of a 'swat' haha

Its about 'means and ends', Clause VI might have been a 'publicity stunt' but what it did change was the way Labour wanted to achieve the social democratic aims that it was founded on and make the break from the 'statism' that had become outdated and unpopular. Many people (including me) have been critical of some of Blairs policies and reforms, but i stop short of saying its merely a 'media' construction. The key difference between 'socialism' to Blair's 'social-ism' is the agents used to provide social justice and 'left of centre' reforms, state power should be ONE of the agents used, but not the ONLY one to achieve a fair and just society. 'Blairism' also does have links to many of the social revionist politicians of the past (Crosland etc), and isnt some puff of smoke out of Alistair Campbell or Will Hutton's magic hat of spin. There has been many opinions that Blairism stands for nothing, and Third Way politics is open to this criticism sure, but in an increasingly pluralist and fragmented society, it is hard to have a black and white political mantra or ideology that satisfies any decent majority of people at one time. I truly believe that there is a liberal/social democratic tradition and sympathy in this country, and i believe Labour will perhaps return to a more democratic socialist position (which will begin slightly under Brown, who see politics still in idelogical terms rather than managerial terms

Also its easy to say Blair has 'ruined' the party, but what party are we talking about? The early 1980's party that was so out of touch with the electorate that some might have argued they would never get elected again. At least new Labour has allowed people who believe in 'left of centre' politics to enter a debate with a elected party that at least shares some common ground with. I do not subscribe to New Labour whole heartedly, but i totally accept that New Labour was the shock that the 'left of centre' need to reasses its aims and objectives into the modern context as will hutton wrote in the Guardian

"But any sustainable left politics has to come to terms with the reality that the good society is plural rather than organised from the top down; that a way has to be found to marry equity and individualism; and that if Labour is to build a majority coalition it must include the rich (and those ambitious to be rich) who also believe in social justice and the public interest. It is possible both to want the best for yourself and for others."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/stor...1739956,00.html

New Labour's old roots by Patrick Diamond (eds) is a good book to consider and does make a convincing argument that New Labour is in fact a continuation of Labour core values, albeit with a changed view (and perhaps justifiably so) about how to achieve some of Labour's core aims. It includes much of the important essays written by Labour members during the 100 years including Gordon Brown in 1997. Croslands essay in the book is an excellent read and pretty essential to any potential left of centre enthusiast.

As for David Cameron, i find him an engaging politician, and believe that he has more substance than people give him credit for, it would be silly if he started reeling off his core policies etc at such an early stage. Blair didnt mention the revision of clause vi in his leadership campaign for example...

The problem i forsee for Cameron is that he isnt bringing the 'core' of the party with him, and his party are less 'extreme' than the Labour party was pre-Kinnock so he maybe cant play the 'unelectable' card like New Labour did. It is often overlooked that New Labour had broad support from the Parliamentary wing of the party and appeared more in touch with public than 'Bennite' Labour, it also had many historical links to the Labour values that people are aware of.

If i was Gordon Brown's or the future Labour leaders advisor (my dream job but i digress!) i would soften his approach slightly, but maintain his stance that politics is about principles and following the correct course of action to implement this. He should emphasise the difference between the faults of 'old' Labour and how he is more 'traditional' Labour and a 'party' person than Blair, and perhaps expose the lack of principles (or any historical links) that Cameron's stance appears to have.


*christ i should have put some of this in my dissertation haha*

OK, I haven't written a dissertation on it, but I am also studying this as part of my university course too...

I accept some of what you're saying. However I do think that the ends have shifted to some extent. It will not do to say that the Labour party still values ‘social justice’ as so many do and assume this makes their basic ends the same. This is a vague and amorphous concept that could mean virtually anything, as demonstrated by the fact that it is not, in itself, something that one could be against. Where are the politicians arguing for ‘social injustice’? Particularly now that Cameron has also taken it up its distinctiveness is totally gone. The point which proponents of this view refuse to acknowledge is that for the Labour party of 1945 policies like public ownership were not simply a means to an end – they were a matter of principle in themselves. They were not subject to changing political circumstance (in the way that Blair argues based on the contingencies of the modern world), because they were moral beliefs. Social justice was only part of the picture, because what was considered to be social justice is not just a question of means - its a question of principle. Saying you're in favour of social justice is only slightly more revealing than saying you're in favour of good stuff. The question is what you consider to be social justice. And therein lies whether you are 'social-ist', as you put it, in any way. Socialism or even 'social-ism' is about a hell of a lot more than comitting to the concept in its vague form.

In fact the vast majority of Blair's justification for policy are exactly what he claims they aren’t – compromises of ends. He argues for markets on grounds of consumer sovereignty and efficiency, but commits to limiting them on grounds of inequity and morality. He simply asserts that equality of outcome is only an issue insofar as it affects equality of opportunity – an ideological, not methodical, issue if there ever was one. It is true that the ‘third way’ position is not just the same as Thatcherism. It is distinctly more communitarian, slightly more interventionist and redistributive, and for what it’s worth, has a greater role for social justice. However, to say that it maintains all the values of the Attlee government is to fundamentally misunderstand one of the two, if not both.

Incidentally, are you a 'marcusian' after Marcuse? You certainly don't sound it!

we'll leave the academics to it then.