WI: Clause 4 of the Labour Party Manifesto had not been Repealed?

What effect would this have had on UK Politics?Who would be in power today?Would A more left wing Labour Party have prevented Blair's OTL sniping at the NHS & Dodgy privatisation by stealth policies?Could the current hack & slash policies in the name of Austerity by the present day Unelected back room deal Coalition Govt have been butterflied away or stopped?Would Royal Mail or British Rail have remained State run Utilities with Improvements or Reforms?Would the Economic Crisis have been as bad for the UK?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16
 
What effect would this have had on UK Politics?Who would be in power today?Would A more left wing Labour Party have prevented Blair's OTL sniping at the NHS & Dodgy privatisation by stealth policies?Could the current hack & slash policies in the name of Austerity by the present day Unelected back room deal Coalition Govt have been butterflied away or stopped?Would Royal Mail or British Rail have remained State run Utilities with Improvements or Reforms?Would the Economic Crisis have been as bad for the UK?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16

No difference at all.

Repeal of clause 4 was simply a symbolic renunciation of the past. By the early 1990's most people understood that the Labour Party had changed and they knew that they wouldn't renationalize everything if they were elected.

Once Tony Blair is elected people knew that the Labour Party had become a watered down version of the Tories.
 
To prevent Clause IV from being repealed, then you need someone other than Blair or Brown to run the Labour Party. The only obvious alternative is John Smith, who died of a heart attack in 1994. If Smith doesn't suffer from the attack then he goes onto lead the party to victory in 1997. Unlike Blair, he didn't see the need to repeal Clause IV, even though he went about a series of equally important reforms to the Party. Smith probably lasts one term due to his health, and hands over the reigns to Brown (Blair might challenge him, but if the Party is coming off the heels of a landslide in 1997 they won't see the need to shift ideological course) who holds office until sometime between 07-10.

It's important to note that Blair booted Clause IV due to image purposes. Unlike many Labour MPs, Blair thoroughly understood the importance of the media in deciding elections. By dropping Clause IV, the Labour Party projected an image of change and moderation. If they had kept it, they would have won in '97, but the Conservatives and Lib Dems would have still been able to argue that the party was a bunch of socialists. In the long run, they may not lose so many frustrated lefties, and there would be no awkward New Labour movement.
 

stefanbl

Banned
Depends.

If we assume they don't repeal clause IV but don't change any major policy points either then very little.

If they are actually planning on giving the "Workers" the means of production they keep on losing elections.

And if their is a compromise, they do a lot less well in '97 and may end up losing in 2001.

Could the current hack & slash policies in the name of Austerity by the present day Unelected back room deal Coalition Govt have been butterflied away or stopped?

:mad:

The Government in not unelected. :mad:

I'd say it had a far greater mandate than Labour did in 2005 with their 35% of the vote.
 
Hmmm...Were you aware that Polling Stations were turning away registered Voters during the Election?I personally would have been far less Disgruntled if their had been A 2nd Election to resolve the inconclusive Election Result.The Backroom Deal Decision to make A Tory/Lib Coalition without even A Poll/Consultation of Party Members really undermines the legitimacy of Democratic rule via the will of the People.You are of course entitled to your own opinion.
 

stefanbl

Banned
Hmmm...Were you aware that Polling Stations were turning away registered Voters during the Election?

The numbers were extremely minimal, and it was their own fault for turning up at 8 O'clock.


I personally would have been far less Disgruntled if their had been A 2nd Election to resolve the inconclusive Election Result

The people spoke and they said "Meh", we can't ask them again becasue we didn't like the result.

The Backroom Deal Decision to make A Tory/Lib Coalition without even A Poll/Consultation of Party Members really undermines the legitimacy of Democratic rule via the will of the People.You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

We live in a representative , democracy not a direct one. And both parties MP's (A majority of the total MP's) agreed to the coalition agreement, thus the government is entirely legitmate.

Also I'll ask again, in 2005 the Labour party received 35% of the vote and then formed a government.

If 2010 the Conservative party 36% of the vote, but due to the quirks of the electoral system did not have a majority, so they formed a government with a party with 23% of the vote.

How is the Labour government of 2005 more legitimate than the current coalition government?
 
Isnt the issue that the Parties by not letting the public decide on an election or compromise acted counter to the representational system that elects them?Was the 05 election the same situation though,It did not have A Coalition agreed upon behind closed doors like recently&wasnt the 05 result more down to logistics&low voter turn out?If wrong please let me know,I am not disregarding your input,I welcome it.
 
Isnt the issue that the Parties by not letting the public decide on an election
The public did decide. That is what an election is - the public decides by voting.

or compromise acted counter to the representational system that elects them?
I believe the issue here is that FPTP automatically reduces the need for compromise. If we had AV or STV then coalitions would be expected slightly more and there would be various coalition plans drawn up sooner.
Was the 05 election the same situation though,It did not have A Coalition agreed upon behind closed doors like recently&wasnt the 05 result more down to logistics&low voter turn out?If wrong please let me know,I am not disregarding your input,I welcome it.
What's wrong with MPs making policy agreements behind closed doors? That's what they do normally and isn't that what we elect them for? So we don't have to do it...
 

stefanbl

Banned
Isnt the issue that the Parties by not letting the public decide on an election or compromise acted counter to the representational system that elects them?

The point of a representational system is once every five years you elect some people and them let them run things.

They make the decisions, if you don't like them then kick them out at the next election.

Was the 05 election the same situation though,It did not have A Coalition agreed upon behind closed doors like recently

My point was that Labour received very few votes thus had very little mandate to govern if you are going by the no. of votes model. The coalition had more.

And if you are going by the majority of seats = mandate to govern, then the coalition had an equal mandate to the government of 2005.

Thus it is just a legitimate or more so than the government of 2005

Wasnt the 05 result more down to logistics&low voter turn out?

35% of a low voter turn out if even less of a mandate.

If wrong please let me know,I am not disregarding your input,I welcome it.

:)
 
Could the current hack & slash policies in the name of Austerity by the present day Unelected back room deal Coalition Govt have been butterflied away or stopped?

At the risk of sending this even further off-topic, it's worth pointing out that Labour's manifesto in 2010 committed themselves to, as Alistair Darling put it, "cuts greater than Thatcher's", so we'd just have seen hack & slash policies in the name of Austerity by an unnelected back room deal Labour Government instead. Which would have been quite fun, actually.

On topic, it wouldn't make much of a difference really, unles Blair took on the party over Clause four and somehow contrived to lose. The Party's constitution was never going to change New Labour policy in the way you suggest, and if Blair were to somehow embrace renationalisation he'd have seen his opinion-poll lead plummet as memories of '83 were aired again.

By 1995 Clause 4 was about as relevant as the Emperor Franz Josef's claim to be "King of Jerusalem"; a nice relic of the past that deserved to be cherished, but not a practical proposition.
 
Top