An ideological attack has to be met with an ideological response….

Ideology, it is assumed, is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs and you can still see the echos of that in some of the Labour attacks on the Coalition. It is true that the actions of the government are ideological in nature but it is equally true that none of these attacks are profitable to Labour in the polls. New Labour despite its endless fancy phrases about triangulation and desperate attempt to appear totally ‘managerial’ often deployed ideological arguments; most notably in its bogus defence of the Iraqi intervention. I have a great faith in people, unlike Labour’s political strategists it seems, and their ability to see through the hypocritical attacks on ‘ideology’ which is a component of every parties politics (and usually a greater one of those who say it’s not than the others) and make sensible ideological choices, if they are given one.

Most people with eyes in their head and a corresponding brain can see this governments choices are ideological and they don’t care because that isn’t issue; the issue is whether it’s the right ideology or not. Sadly, Mr Miliband has yet to articulate a coherent and ideological response to this Coalition and he, having been so bold during the leadership election, has become something of a shrinking violet in these terms. It is in this regard that the frankly gutless and cowardly inability of the leadership to stand-up for the poor should be regarded. This also feeds into the growing chaos in people’s minds about how they view these cuts; when asked whether they support the individual measures they invariably say ‘yes’ but use questions around the timing to express their uncertainty. A perfect example of this is todays Ipsos-Mori poll on the CSR. Notice how people occupy broadly contradictory positions: thus more see the cuts as being needed but number who view them as being likely to be beneficial is dropping at the same time. Logically, the question follows, why support them if you see their effects as being detrimental? The simple answer that squares the circle is people see there being no alternative.

Because the opposition is weak and unable to present some clear-cut alternative arguments people are hesitant about expressing outright opposition but in their gut the vast majority of people know what is happening is wrong. Anybody who thinks that the current hesitancy and weakness of the Labour opposition will be enough to win a general election is very much mistaken indeed. People, when hesitant, tend to plump for the devil they know and in this case that will be good news for Mr Cameron (though not Mr Clegg who will be punished for an ideological mistake, his betrayal of his expressed principles). Relying on the spontaneity of people’s anger will only take us so far and not into government. Sleepwalking into government simply never happens and at this moment this Party is very much asleep.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

About darrellgoodliffe


2 responses to “An ideological attack has to be met with an ideological response….”

  1. Oranjepan says :

    I’m not sure people such as yourself who promote the relativist view that there are equally valid ideologies and then argue one is more correct than another are qualified to comment on questions of logic. I think you disqualify yourself.

    If an ideology is to be valid then it must be sound, and since coherence tends to exclude contradictions this determines that there may only be one sound ideology.

    It is a fair debate to consider what this comprises, but you’ve started from completely the wrong point – instead of discovering the country and drawing the map, you’re starting with the map and trying to draw the landscape!

    The alternative for a relativist would be to continue promoting the view that there are different conceptions of equal validity, but to reason out why your choice is more relevant.

    However neither do you do this. From what I read you habitually assume the relevance of your choice and then assert the validity of it.

    Sadly this is what isolates you from engaging with the real issues and leaves you increasingly circulating among those with preconcieved conclusions. It’s why you left the LibDems, and how ‘coalition of resistance’ were able to identify you as a potential fellow-in-arms.

    It’s sad to watch such hopeless drift to the extremes from someone by one who takes themself seriously, I just hope you don’t end up martyring yourself violently for a ’cause’. That’s how innocent bystanders get hurt.

    Having passed along that route in my formative period myself before rejecting it when I was confronted with a set of perverse plans with a futile objective I’d urge you to keep a sceptics voice at the back of your head to keep you in balance and avoid tragedy.

    Somewhere along the line it is an issue which all idealists must confront.


  2. darrellgoodliffe says :


    Now when did I say ideologies were of equal value? I make it quite clear I have ideological preferences.

    I think the reasons I documented the Liberal Democrats are well documented. Given the trajectory they have followed is pretty much exactly the one I said they would I feel quite vindicated in my decision too. So, remind me again how I am disengaged from reality?

    I really dont think I need to respond to that absurd suggestion. I reject martydom thank you very much and wont be partaking in it.

    I am always skeptical and critical so thanks for that, I will be definately….however, that skepticism does not mean there is not also room for a little idealism as well….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: