This is primary because the Republicans are such right-wing idiots that they’ve defined environmental policy, decent health care, workers rights, even sensible foreign policy as “left wing” concerns.

Yet they cannot seem to drum up a decent presidential candidate between them, let alone win an election. In fact, most criticisms of the Democrats is exactly the opposite to what you say: that they do not have any concrete policies on which to base their campaign platform.

The Republicans, regardless of what you think of their policies, have them in spades.

b) Good grief. Isn’t this the old ‘you can’t say A if you won’t also say B’ argument?

I realise different people said them, but a = b* in this case, shirley?

* where = means ‘a similar version of the same’

This is primary because the Republicans are such right-wing idiots that they’ve defined environmental policy, decent health care, workers rights, even sensible foreign policy as “left wing” concerns.

I agree totally with Mr. Monkey. From an American perspective the Euston manifesto is, um, … boring? Come on, guys, let’s get some practical, different ideas going here.

For an idea of what practical political blogging can look like – I recommend surfing regularly to dailykos.com…

I agree with you – I just think a lot of the more visible parts of the British left either

a) don’t (the unions, the SWP etc); or
b) don’t care (all those who obsess with Iraq instead)

I think the more economically liberal elements need to make themselves a bit more visible sometimes. And stop inviting Hugo Chavez round for tea.

(A good counterpoint to all this, incidentally, is Jacques Chirac, who simultaneously manages to be both right-wing and anti-market, and consequently is loathed by everyone and their dog.)

Good point. The question is whether the phrase in question has been or is being abused in this way.

And if they have in the past? You can say “track record” or you can give people a chance.

Good grief. Isn’t this the old ‘you can’t say A if you won’t also say B’ argument?

Certainly not. I’m saying: apply the same cynical/naive filter to each argument raised – to “humanitarian intervention”, to “non-humanitarian intervention”, to “non-intervention”, to “let’s do nothing” and so on.

And isn’t this also a convenient alibi for the current crop of…

I think my observation was fair enough: the view expressed was a conservative one, but I didn’t say that any old change was better than nothing.

==

Jonn:

The problem is, the left – the old, pre-80s, red blooded socialist left – have pretty much lost the argument on economic issues. The right has taken this as validation for unregulated free market capitalism

Those left-right terms again. Plenty within what currently calls itself the liberal left want to reclaim the term ‘markets’ from those interchangeably called the right/neoliberals: encouraging markets, tackling failures, and supported by a broadly familiar welfare framework.

There’s nothing wrong with that – if you can translate them into workable policies.

The problem is, the left – the old, pre-80s, red blooded socialist left – have pretty much lost the argument on economic issues. The right has taken this as validation for unregulated free market capitalism, which it isn’t at all – free markets work best, except in those cases when they don’t (and that’s assuming those who lose out don’t get so pissed off that they revolt in some way, Latin style).

But the left don’t know how to fight back because they have no coherent economic platform whatsoever. And Hugo Chavez is not it.

I say again – the world is complex, politicians oversimplify, everyone go read John Kay.

Rant over.

Planeshift – Respect is one small section of the left, and itself is a symptom of the wider malaise. I don’t deny that the party has some domestic policies, but again that party gives the impression of being obsessed with Iraq, albeit from the opposite end of opinion to the Eustonites. This in turn drowns out any of its domestic policies, as does the perception that it’s basically the SWP under another name.

The Parliamentary Labour Party, meanwhile, remains the left’s best hope and main focus, yet under the current leadership has few policies which could be wholeheartedly described as left-wing.

In fact, so vague are the aims of the left as a whole now that the desire for global revolution seems to have died out in all but a few on the fringes, I’m no longer entirely sure what being “on the left” means any more.

Good point. The question is whether the phrase in question has been or is being abused in this way.

Isn’t it double-standards to use that technique to rubbish just one particular view?

Good grief. Isn’t this the old ‘you can’t say A if you won’t also say B’ argument? And isn’t it a recipe for complete silence all round, or more realistically for the complete replacement of debate with polemic? (“How can you criticise me for failing to criticise the situation in Khazaria, when you stand convicted by your failure even to mention the oppression of the Mamelukes…”)

And isn’t this also a convenient argument for those who don’t want anything to change, ever?

I don’t know, isn’t it? I mean, is it? And isn’t “And isn’t this also” a sentence-opener which can be followed by anything at all while maintaining the surface appearance of logical coherence? And isn’t this also a convenient alibi for the current crop of Muggletonians, Fifth Monarchy Men and assorted predestinarians and chiliasts?

(You see what I did there…)

It simply isn’t true to say the left lacks policies for domestic British politics. Respect supporters will argue that their success in local elections recently had as much to do with Housing policies as it did Iraq. Similarly there are lots of campaigns at local level involving left groups – campaigns against hospital closures, road building, PFI projects etc.

The EM itself is indeed vague about what it wants to do domestically, but as Norm said it is not meant to be a programme for government. Some of those who signed it are still labour party supporters/members, which does give a clue as to what it stands for domestically. As to whether they should be more explicit about what policies they advocate, that is a matter for them.