Is it simply the failure of social-democratic echelons that forget whom they are meant to represent? Labourers have become lower (middle) class, but the Labour party has already moved on to upper class...?
all suffer from a similar ailing - selling out to the Third Way. How come that this zeitgeist is present in so many countries?
Nomad:
I didn't think the middle classes (which most UKanians don't identify themselves as anyway) were who a labour party was supposed to fight for
Now, lately the Social Liberals and the Social Democrats are nearly indistinguishable in policy though they remain distinguishable in which social network (or "base") they represent. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Labourers have become lower (middle) class, but the Labour party has already moved on to upper class...?
Note the parentheses. I wanted the focus on the lower class and with bits of lower middle class. I meant the same thing what you're writing.
When policies of Social Democrats shift closer to that of the Liberals, the Overton Window is at work. It only means Social Democrats represent their base in name only.
Brown wasn't interested in any of that. He didn't smile for the camera. He wasn't policy-lite, bobbling along on a froth of publicity. He wouldn't co-operate.
So his very stodginess made him a problem to be derided. And no insult was worse than "Old Labour". Even Prescott, who really was old labour, had to be protected from that slur. keep to the Fen Causeway
Isn't that the definition of Zeitgeist?
Once the labourers become middle class they lose their class consciousness and become individualistic. Pandering to "middle class concerns" tends to result in regressive policies, for some reason.
The 'middle class' is a largely rhetorical category in Anglo-American politics.
Used to be that middle class meant you had some economic power, some economic independence - professionals, successful small business and so on - and working class meant you depended on a boss to pay you.
Still, it is at least on the medium term suicidal for social democratic parties to practice actual middle class politics that negatively affect labour, like, say, labour market flexibilisation and union-busting policies. Or cutting the top income bracket tax rate below 50%.
That should have been obvious, but the third way social democrats seem to have practiced a wilful blindness to longer term political economy.
Ok, that is a bit reductionistic. But according to swedish politicla historians, the last break in swedish political culture came with the rise of television as media. Until then every party tried to build a huge organisation (socialdemocrats were best at it, but all tried) with as many members as possible. After that a small, media-trained, good-looking, fast-moving, party elite becomes better then thousands of activists that might not work on television. Television also becomes the fast medium, activists get to hear from the news that the party line has changed, instead of them participating in forming the party line. Power was centralised, members dropped off, the lack of activists made it even more important to get the television part right, and so on.
The turning point in politics comes a bit later then the rise of television but this is slow processes so that should not surprise. By the time of the 90'ies crisis the parties were centralised and the socialdemocrats bought into the third way - with some hollering and even more lost members.
Total membership in all the parties represented in the parliament:
To put a glimmer of hope, I would say that internet is creating a similar process. It makes huge campaigns easier, makes direct communication faster then through television, increases the weight of the written word. All pointing towards the rising importance of members, which will put demands on rising participation in deciding the parties politics. But it will take time, and newer parties might have it easier to build online then for example the socialdemocrats. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
A modern party would probably run as a media party above all else.
You wouldn't only get a say in making your favourite media content, you'd get a chance to set policy too - a sort of Strictly Prime Minister, or Big Westminster.
You could even make a living from it - shares in the new party could be unitised and traded, with each share giving the owner a vote, and a claim on future income.
However, I am not so sure buying media will do it for everyone. Media will not turn a profit if you can not sell the ads, and your policies will affect your advertising income. It will work if you push for the agenda of those that has the money to buy ads. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
How 20th century.
No - the idea was to use the machinery of government for personal profit, like Berlusconi, Murdoch, Blair and the rest, but with the chance for the public to get involved in the racketeering and profiteering, as seen on TV, with enthusiastic audience participation, covered by the same media channels that everyone has a share in.
