Why do people think that Labour and the Conservatives are the same?
There was a great article in the New Statesman a few days ago by George Easton which asked
"Labour and the Tories aren't the same so why do voters still think they are?"
He correctly pointed out that while there have been periods in British politics such as "Butskellism" in the early 60's or "Blameronism" in about 2006 and 2007, when the parties were not far apart, this is no longer the case, saying
"The crash ... brought this era to a close. By ending the illusion of permanent growth, it resurrected the distributional questions rendered irrelevant by the boom. As a result of the shrinking economy, it was no longer possible for Labour and the Conservatives to pledge to avoid both tax rises and spending cuts: choices had to be made."
"The two parties have made different ones ever since. In the months that followed the crash, the Tories opposed Labour’s fiscal stimulus and relinquished their commitment to match the government’s spending plans. Gordon Brown broke the decade-long taboo on increasing the top rate of income tax by raising it first to 45 per cent and then to 50 per cent. Politicians retrieved the works of Keynes and Hayek from the shelves where they had long gathered dust.
"After 2010, the gap between the two parties grew wider still. Labour elected Ed Miliband as its leader. His defining aim was to overturn the 30-year consensus against market intervention. In office, David Cameron proved more radical than his emollient manner and One Nation rhetoric suggested, unleashing the private sector in areas where Margaret Thatcher had feared to tread.
"Most in Westminster agree that the ideological distance between the two parties is now greater than at any time since 1992 and possibly earlier.
"Labour would restore the 50p rate, introduce a mansion tax, roll back privatisation, maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and impose spending cuts of about £7bn.
"The Tories would avoid tax increases on the wealthy, extend privatisation, stage a referendum on whether to leave the EU and impose cuts of about £33bn. When Britons go to the polls on 7 May, they will be offered two vastly different conceptions of the country’s future.
"The irony is that ever fewer recognise this. The charge that the main parties are “all the same” is levelled with far greater frequency now than in the age of Blameronism."
He suggests that one possible explanation for the perverse perception that the parties are offering the same thing is the similarity of their political styles and cultures, combined with the fact that there are still some areas where the consensus has not been broken.
You can read the article in full and access a podcast audio record of the author explaining differences between the parties here.
"Labour and the Tories aren't the same so why do voters still think they are?"
He correctly pointed out that while there have been periods in British politics such as "Butskellism" in the early 60's or "Blameronism" in about 2006 and 2007, when the parties were not far apart, this is no longer the case, saying
"The crash ... brought this era to a close. By ending the illusion of permanent growth, it resurrected the distributional questions rendered irrelevant by the boom. As a result of the shrinking economy, it was no longer possible for Labour and the Conservatives to pledge to avoid both tax rises and spending cuts: choices had to be made."
"After 2010, the gap between the two parties grew wider still. Labour elected Ed Miliband as its leader. His defining aim was to overturn the 30-year consensus against market intervention. In office, David Cameron proved more radical than his emollient manner and One Nation rhetoric suggested, unleashing the private sector in areas where Margaret Thatcher had feared to tread.
"Most in Westminster agree that the ideological distance between the two parties is now greater than at any time since 1992 and possibly earlier.
"Labour would restore the 50p rate, introduce a mansion tax, roll back privatisation, maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and impose spending cuts of about £7bn.
"The Tories would avoid tax increases on the wealthy, extend privatisation, stage a referendum on whether to leave the EU and impose cuts of about £33bn. When Britons go to the polls on 7 May, they will be offered two vastly different conceptions of the country’s future.
"The irony is that ever fewer recognise this. The charge that the main parties are “all the same” is levelled with far greater frequency now than in the age of Blameronism."
He suggests that one possible explanation for the perverse perception that the parties are offering the same thing is the similarity of their political styles and cultures, combined with the fact that there are still some areas where the consensus has not been broken.
You can read the article in full and access a podcast audio record of the author explaining differences between the parties here.
Comments
Direct Democracy - Neither Party want it, both parties think that a vote every five years with no say to the general pubic in between is a healthy democracy
Taxation/spending - both parties want to set their own budget and wont put it to referendum for acceptance
Recall - despite many promises, both parties dont like the idea of having mp's sacked by the public
Reversal - as much as one party rails against an idea in opposition not a lot is done about it when power changes hands. Pension scam being a good example
Lawmaking - new laws are added all the time by both parties, but never are the public allowed to vote on any of them
I guess its kind of like asking to you want a red basic range ford fiesta or do you want a blue basic range ford fiesta? - of course after the initial impression it does not take long to realise, they are both the same.
Hope that goes some way to answering your question :)
"The Tories would avoid tax increases on the wealthy, extend privatisation, stage a" [rigged] "referendum on whether to leave the EU and impose cuts of about £33bn. When Britons go to the polls on 7 May, they will be offered two vastly different conceptions of the country’s future.
and both parties would do that anyway an impose what ever else they like in the next five years, giving people a fair vote on this never comes into the equation, in the same sort of way David Cameron offered Nick Clegg a vote on AV, well its not really his to "offer" its a vote of the people, and if the people want PR then we should blooming well use PR. Or the Scot referendum, what a hogwash that was.
The people are tired of political games, we want back that which is ours, neither the labour party or the conservative party sign up to that and that is exactly why as Tim quite rightly said in a previous comment, you cant put a rizla paper between them.
Direct democracy
See above. Neither main party wants to extend it as much as you do, Jim, but that doesn't mean there is no difference. Labour only give people a choice when they don't care about the result. The Conservatives sometimes put things they really care about to the people - Europe is one example, the Scottish referendum was another.
Taxation / spending
MPs of all parties are keen on putting local council budgets to a vote, less so on the national budget. But you cannot argue that there is no choice in the sense that the parties' tax policies are the same, as they clearly are not.
Recall
The bill which the coalition eventually introduced did not go as far as many people wanted but it does introduce a power of recall in some stages and this bill has passed through all five stages of the House of Commons process. Unless the House of Lords passes a wrecking amendment it will be law by the end of this parliament. So that is some action from the Conservatives and Lib/Dems on the issue while Labour talked about it but did nothing.
I really don't think you can argue that the parties are the same on these issues, even though none of them have moved as far towards direct democracy as you would prefer.