NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States of America has an odd tradition of alienating or antagonizing third-party candidates or members. This was evident when the electoral college was implemented, this was evident when communists were black-listed and bullied, this was evident when socialist presidential candidate eugene debbs was incarcerated for being "radical", and so on...
One thing that has always bothered me is the structure of the house of representatives. When one party holds the majority of seats in the house, that party gets to have a house-majority leader....however, the party with the fewest members isn't always given a house-minority leader. Case and point, there was a socialist representative from Vermont (Rep. Sanders)...oddly enough, he was not made the house minority leader....this is confusing...the socialist party was technically the minority party in the house of representatives...it wasn't technically the republicans or the democrats.
In essence, our nation is a political waste-land.

I'm Constitution.;)

Hey, that's great. Go look up "dictatorship" in the dictionary, then come back.

Vote Bull Moose in November! :)

hahaha,
that's great.
Okay, so instead of offering some form of logic to defend an obviously stupid tradition (which I assume you support)....you tell me to look up "dictatorship"...alright, I did just that:

Dictatorship: Absolute or despotic control or power, a government in which the status-quo is defended violently, a government in which decisions are made by one ruler or one power-source.

^Now offer some logic to defend the stupidity of the american political system.

Vote Bull Moose in November! :)

We can't do that! No one would know what to refer to the members of the party as!

Bull Meese?
Bull Mice?
Bull Mooses?
Bull Moose?

It would be worse than having to listen to Politicians and News Casters mispronouce words constantly!

Now offer some logic to defend the stupidity of the american political system.

You call it a dictatorship. If it were a dictatorship, you wouldn't be posting here.

You call it a dictatorship. If it were a dictatorship, you wouldn't be posting here.

I find it hillarious that you can't get past the usage of the "dictatorship" word....okay, if it makes you happy, we'll call it an oligarchy...better?
Whatever euphemism you choose, you haven't addressed my main point...suggesting to me that you only read the title.

You call it a dictatorship. If it were a dictatorship, you wouldn't be posting here.
Not true-a dictatorship dosn't have to have censorship or anything. Just becuase most do dosn't mean they ahve to. It's possable to have a dictatorship and still have freedom of the Press. However the US is not a dictaorship.

hahaha,
that's great.
Okay, so instead of offering some form of logic to defend an obviously stupid tradition (which I assume you support)....you tell me to look up "dictatorship"...alright, I did just that:

Dictatorship: Absolute or despotic control or power, a government in which the status-quo is defended violently, a government in which decisions are made by one ruler or one power-source.

^Now offer some logic to defend the stupidity of the american political system.

Dictatorships seldom tolerate even two parties.

Alright, I'm going to clear this up once and for all. The use of the word "dictatorship" is not intended to be taken literally, it's been used to offer an exaggerated and negative view on the current state of the American two-party system...ok?
Furthermore, I would be thrilled if somebody would address the actual point of my post.

You call it a dictatorship. If it were a dictatorship, you wouldn't be posting here.
no. thats totalitarianism.

Which of your words should be taken literally and which ignored?

It is easier to address your points when they are in a common language with shared definitions of words.

Which of your words should be taken literally and which ignored?

It is easier to address your points when the are in a common language with shared definitions of words.

Here's a novel idea, how about you get past the title for just a second, and comment on the body of my thread....you know, the whole thing about the house minority leader...the position of third-parties in the united states...you know, something of that sort.

We can't do that! No one would know what to refer to the members of the party as!

Bull Meese?
Bull Mice?
Bull Mooses?
Bull Moose?

It would be worse than having to listen to Politicians and News Casters mispronouce words constantly!
The plural of Moose is Moose.

I find it hillarious that you can't get past the usage of the "dictatorship" word....okay, if it makes you happy, we'll call it an oligarchy...better?
Whatever euphemism you choose, you haven't addressed my main point...suggesting to me that you only read the title.

Ok, I'll address your post. The other parties aren't considered because they all SUCK. I mean, what are socialists going to do, pull a Lenin?

Ok, I'll address your post. The other parties aren't considered because they all SUCK. I mean, what are socialists going to do, pull a Lenin?
Pull a Lenin as in what? Dieing?

no. thats totalitarianism.

There's rarely a difference.

Pull a Lenin as in what? Dieing?

Trying to rush change. If socialism is ever going to take place in somewhere like the United States, massive change in circumstances and huge amounts of time would be required.

Besides, socialism is mostly irrelevant nowadays.

Trying to rush change. If socialism is ever going to take place in somewhere like the United States, massive change in circumstances and huge amounts of time would be required.

Besides, socialism is mostly irrelevant nowadays.

Yeah, you're right, other than the BILLIONS of dollars that are pumped into socialized health care throughout the globe and the millions of socialists world-wide...socialism is totally irrelevant.
Don't you think it's a bit two-faced that only a democrat or a republican can be a house minority leader?

Here's a novel idea, how about you get past the title for just a second, and comment on the body of my thread....you know, the whole thing about the house minority leader...the position of third-parties in the united states...you know, something of that sort.

Yes dear.
All others hide and watch for new definitions to crop up.

The United States of America has an odd tradition of alienating or antagonizing third-party candidates or members.

This is not odd at all. Wherever political parties exist, politicians alienate and antagonise opponants, especially those who are in a different party.


This was evident when the electoral college was implemented, this was evident when communists were black-listed and bullied,

This is evident today in all political systems with parties.

One thing that has always bothered me is the structure of the house of representatives. When one party holds the majority of seats in the house, that party gets to have a house-majority leader....however, the party with the fewest members isn't always given a house-minority leader. Case and point, there was a socialist representative from Vermont (Rep. Sanders)...oddly enough, he was not made the house minority leader....this is confusing...the socialist party was technically the minority party in the house of representatives...it wasn't technically the republicans or the democrats.


What possible use would it be to "name" a house member who was a single representative of his/her party a minority leader? Would it not be painfully obvious that he/she was the leader of their party in the H.of R anyway? If there was a single socialist and a single libertarian in the H of R would they both be minority co-leaders? No. It makes sense that the leader of the second largest party in the H of R is the minority leader, and not the leader of the tiniest minority. Unless of course you have a different idea of what minority means as well as dictator.



In essence, our nation is a political waste-land.



Either that or your personal politics are so far away from mainstream that you consider mainstream a wasteland. Sometimes it isnt the entire rest of the voting community that is wrong.

There's rarely a difference.
actually, theres a huge difference.dictatorship means you cannot elect the government. totalitiatianism means that the government control every aspect of life.

Speaking as an outsider, it does seem that a lot of contention over certain issues is heightened by the polarisation that the domination of just two parties has. Also the fact that it seems you are forced to choose either Democrat or Republican to align yourself with dictates your political view on many "secondary" issues.

Yeah, you're right, other than the BILLIONS of dollars that are pumped into socialized health care throughout the globe and the millions of socialists world-wide...socialism is totally irrelevant.
Don't you think it's a bit two-faced that only a democrat or a republican can be a house minority leader?

1) Socialism IS irrelevant. Socialised health care is just the tips of the iceberg. Socialism was meant to improve conditions and end oppression and exploitation in Tsarist Russia. Tell me, how many people are truly exploited or oppressed in modern Western democracies?

2) Not really. "Minority" means "opposition". It's the same way that only the Coalition and the ALP can be the opposition party in Australia. When one of those third-parties get a few million supporters, they can be considered for such a position.

actually, theres a huge difference.dictatorship means you cannot elect the government. totalitiatianism means that the government control every aspect of life.

What, so Hitler and Stalin weren't totalarian?

1) Socialism IS irrelevant. ... Socialism was meant to improve conditions ...

I'm not a socialist, but I don't think socialism can just be fobbed off as "irrelevant", especially given (according to a recent documentary at least) 1 in 9 US Americans are below the poverty line.

What, so Hitler and Stalin weren't totalarian?
they were. but they were not the only dictators.

I'm not a socialist, but I don't think socialism can just be fobbed off as "irrelevant", especially given (according to a recent documentary at least) 1 in 9 US Americans are below the poverty line.

And would that have anything to do with immigration, particularly illegal?

And would that have anything to do with immigration, particularly illegal?

I cannot speak for the USA, my first response would have been "I think that's an unfair generalisation". It may be true that many of those below the poverty line are recent immigrants, that was not apparent in the documentary I mentioned. It was mentioned however that a disproportionate number of black families were below the poverty line.

Whether they are in your country or not, recently immigrated or have lived there for many generations, there is still injustice. Its everyone's choice how they deal with that, and many believe socialism is the answer. Others disagree, I think every point of view should at least be considered.

And would that have anything to do with immigration, particularly illegal?


Has been proved many times that inmigration rises the life levels for the general population in a country, due to the unwanted jobs they cover. Look at the US, right now their NBP (¿?) is growing very fast, in part thanks to the "army" of cheap workers from Mexico and the rest of central and south america. It's happening also in my country, Spain. The problems about this 1/9 of poor population is more related with the tiny redistribution via taxes. In our empire the gov prefer to cut taxes to the wealthiest.

I cannot speak for the USA, my first response would have been "I think that's an unfair generalisation". It may be true that many of those below the poverty line are recent immigrants, that was not apparent in the documentary I mentioned. It was mentioned however that a disproportionate number of black families were below the poverty line.

I'm tempted to say something there.

Whether they are in your country or not, recently immigrated or have lived there for many generations, there is still injustice. Its everyone's choice how they deal with that, and many believe socialism is the answer. Others disagree, I think every point of view should at least be considered.

Socialism is not the answer. It all comes down to capitalism being some people suffering, a few rich, with most in between, and socialism being everyone suffering together.

It's important to remember that the middle class is much more varied, and much larger, now, than it was in the 20s. Many workers now find themselves in the middle class. And many middle class people are homeowners, and thus, landowners. I don't think that the large number of middle class people and homeowners, would appreciate redistibution of land to the communes that socialism brings.

The problem with socialism is that according to Marx, you need to get to capitalism first, and once Western-style capitalism has been reached, the majority would be content with the current system.

I'm tempted to say something there.

What do you want to say?

I also think you may be confusing socialism and communism.

What do you want to say?

Guess.

I also think you may be confusing socialism and communism.

No, no I'm not. Communism has never been achieved; the furthest we've gotten is socialism. Communism is utopian and impractical.

Well my country had a socialist government until they struck that line from their manifesto a few years ago, and no land was siezed by the government to be used for communes. I don't know why, as an anarchist, I'm defending a system which is based on state intervention though. I suppose I'm just trying to defend the notion that other opinions may be valid, and can't simply be dismissed as irrelevant for all situations.

Communism has never been achieved; the furthest we've gotten is socialism. Communism is utopian and impractical.

Communism has never been achieved, so, nobody knows how it works, if it's efficient or not, practical or impractical, etc.


btw, are there any REAL left wing parties in the USA?

Communism has never been achieved, so, nobody knows how it works, if it's efficient or not, practical or impractical, etc.

It won't work. It assumes that all people will live in harmony, and the govt will disappear because it's no longer needed.

Guess.

I really don't have a clue what you were going to say. I can see however that prejudices on both sides exacerbate the discrepancy between much of the black and the white US population's social and economic welfare.

It won't work. It assumes that all people will live in harmony, and the govt will disappear because it's no longer needed.

Now that isn't socialism, that is anarcho-communism. Socialism is founded on state intervention, not a disregard of ownership rights.

It won't work. It assumes that all people will live in harmony, and the govt will disappear because it's no longer needed.

Nobody knows, because it never actually happened.
It came to my mind that Thomas Watson, the Chairman of IBM, once said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

If you want to claim socialism is irrelevant, or that it doesn't work, you might want to take a look at Sweden first. They are unarguably a socialist nation, embracing the concept completely, and yet have a higher overall standard of living than the US (and virtually no poverty).

Now that isn't socialism, that is anarcho-communism. Socialism is founded on state intervention, not a disregard of ownership rights.

I know that's communism. Socialism is the stage before communism, in which all the Soviet stuff takes place. Dictatorship of the proletariat, redistribution of land and wealth, etc.

If you want to claim socialism is irrelevant, or that it doesn't work, you might want to take a look at Sweden first. They are unarguably a socialist nation, embracing the concept completely, and yet have a higher overall standard of living than the US (and virtually no poverty).

What, so Sweden is ruled by the proletariat? Is all the land controlled by the state? Are people not allowed private property, ownership of factories and businesses?

Nobody knows, because it never actually happened.
It came to my mind that Thomas Watson, the Chairman of IBM, once said "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

And it will never happen. Not Marx's communism, anyway. The USSR's failure to advance to communism from socialism put the final nail in the communist coffin.

I know that's communism. Socialism is the stage before communism, in which all the Soviet stuff takes place. Dictatorship of the proletariat, redistribution of land and wealth, etc.

Are you just trying to goad people here? If you take socialism to its extreme, yes you do end up with communism, provided you make some assumptions about human rights and authority, which I would expect most of the liberal left would have huge issues with. I don't see any sign of the socialist nations in the world becoming corrupt fascist dictatorships under the guise of a communism.

Are you just trying to goad people here? If you take socialism to its extreme, yes you do end up with communism, provided you make some assumptions about human rights and authority, which I would expect most of the liberal left would have huge issues with. I don't see any sign of the socialist nations in the world becoming corrupt fascist dictatorships under the guise of a communism.

I'm not taking socialism to the extreme. That IS socialism. So-called modern socialist nations are just capitalist with a few little socialist ideas.

And it will never happen. Not Marx's communism, anyway. The USSR's failure to advance to communism from socialism put the final nail in the communist coffin.Ok, so if we exaggerate things into absurdity, does that mean the US is a fascist dominion? After all, "Facism is when coporations and governments merge as one" - according to Mussolini.

Given your country is run by a corporate-funded two-party system, you'd seem to fit his criteria perfectly.

Alemannia, if you definition of socialism is communism, then I change tack. Many people believe that to solve the problem of poverty in the US, incorporating a few more socialist ideas is a valid solution.

Alemannia, if you definition of socialism is communism, then I change tack. Many people believe that to solve the problem of poverty in the US, incorporating a few more socialist ideas is a valid solution.

Oh, it's not my definition. It's Marx's. He invented the system. Go dispute it with him.

My old uni lecturer always said that the only truly successful government, that really cared about the people and actually had the ability to do everything that would be necesary to make them happy would have to be a benevolent dictatorship. Anything more to the right (i.e. your average dictatorship) and everybody gets screwed, and anything further to the left (i.e. socialism) and there are too many people with opinions and so you must always compromise.

Just thought I'd throw that one in there and see what came up.....

Ok, so if we exaggerate things into absurdity, does that mean the US is a fascist dominion? After all, "Facism is when coporations and governments merge as one" - according to Mussolini.

Given your country is run by a corporate-funded two-party system, you'd seem to fit his criteria perfectly.

1) Corporate-funded is not "merged with the government."

2) I didn't exaggerate anything.

3) You assume that I'm American.

My old uni lecturer always said that the only truly successful government, that really cared about the people and actually had the ability to do everything that would be necesary to make them happy would have to be a benevolent dictatorship. Anything more to the right (i.e. your average dictatorship) and everybody gets screwed, and anything further to the left (i.e. socialism) and there are too many people with opinions and so you must always compromise.

Just thought I'd throw that one in there and see what came up.....

I agree entirely. Although the problem with that system is coming up with said dictator; it's just luck that you don't end up with Hitler or Stalin.

Socialism as a concept has been around at least as long as Plato. Marx merely took many ideals, mainly from British and French philosophers and socially-minded writers of the time, and formed them into political doctrine.

Socialism as a concept has been around at least as long as Plato. Marx merely took many ideals, mainly from British and French philosophers and socially-minded writers of the time, and formed them into political doctrine.

And without political doctrine, ideas are nothing.

What, so Sweden is ruled by the proletariat? Is all the land controlled by the state? Are people not allowed private property, ownership of factories and businesses?

That's called communism. You might want to look up the difference between it and socialism. In fact, how about you take a look at the wikipedia article on Democratic Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) and then come back to me claiming Sweden isn't a socialist country.

And without political doctrine, ideas are nothing.

I actually said ideals not ideas. That would be true if political action was the only way to affect change. I'm willing to accept it may actually be the only way to affect large scale change, but as individuals we can at least make a difference (for instance in the poverty situation) through small scale action, or even just by challenging bigoted or prejudiced ideas. Diversity of ideas and an open mind are probably the most valid tools in eventually finding a solution to a problem.

That's called communism. You might want to look up the difference between it and socialism. In fact, how about you take a look at the wikipedia article on Democratic Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) and then come back to me claiming Sweden isn't a socialist country.

For the last time, it's not communism. It's socialism. The welfare state leftists can call themselves socialist all they want, but it's not going to rewrite the Manifesto. Unless Sweden puts the proletariat in power and takes control of all private property, it's not socialist, it's left capitalist. Capeesh? I don't write the book.

I actually said ideals not ideas. That would be true if political action was the only way to affect change. I'm willing to accept it may actually be the only way to affect large scale change, but as individuals we can at least make a difference (for instance in the poverty situation) through small scale action, or even just by challenging bigoted or prejudiced ideas. Diversity of ideas and an open mind are probably the most valid tools in eventually finding a solution to a problem.

Hey, all I said was that Sweden isn't socialist. It's a welfare state with some socialist bits, but it's clearly capitalist.

We can't do that! No one would know what to refer to the members of the party as!

Bull Meese?
Bull Mice?
Bull Mooses?
Bull Moose?

It would be worse than having to listen to Politicians and News Casters mispronouce words constantly!
Progressives.

Hey, all I said was that Sweden isn't socialist. It's a welfare state with some socialist bits, but it's clearly capitalist.

I wasn't referring to your comments on Sweden, I was referring to the implication that social action to end poverty is irrelevant.

I wasn't referring to your comments on Sweden, I was referring to the implication that social action to end poverty is irrelevant.

Didn't say that. I said SOCIALISM was irrelevant. The cornerstone of socialism is proletariat rule and redistribution of wealth and land.

What puzzles and generally confounds me about the USA's electoral system is the wide-spread gerrymandering of the Congress' electoral districts in favour of whoever is in control of a state. How on earth that can be considered compatible with democracy is beyond me.

And indeed, Sweden is a captalist market economy. We just have slightly more state involvement than some other market economies as our population generally believes in equality and ensuring that their is a safety net for people when things aren't going as well as they could be. So, I guess we are a social democracy. But who knows, one can argue over these definitions forever (which I'm not condemning, as I quite enjoy arguing about them ;) )

Just to point out-Communism is a form of Economics, Socalism is a form of Economics, Democratic Socalism is a form of Goverment.

Vote Bull Moose in November! :)

Unfortunately, the Bull Moose party has disbanded, reformed as the Bull Shit party, and has now been absorbed into the two main parties. :)

And as far as I'm aware Sweden, Britian, France (And to a small extent) America all have Democratic Socalist Goverments. A democratic Socalist goverment means state involvement in public life (Pensions) and restircions on Captlism, and the goverment owning certain inducstrys.

And as far as I'm aware Sweden, Britian, France (And to a small extent) America all have Democratic Socalist Goverments. A democratic Socalist goverment means state involvement in public life (Pensions) and restircions on Captlism, and the goverment owning certain inducstrys.

>_>

Democratic Socialist to a weird term. You can be "Democratic and Socialist", but if you're a Democratic Socialist, you're actually just a left-wing capitalist. What's with that?

What abou actual American third parties. Is there any realreason why the Libertarians, or the Greens, or the Communists never took off.

>_>

Democratic Socialist to a weird term. You can be "Democratic and Socialist", but if you're a Democratic Socialist, you're actually just a left-wing capitalist. What's with that?

Semantics. :) I apologise for any misunderstanding on my part in this discussion.

That's called communism. You might want to look up the difference between it and socialism. In fact, how about you take a look at the wikipedia article on Democratic Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) and then come back to me claiming Sweden isn't a socialist country.

I think there are so many different definations floutting around. Maybe we can agree on some terms

Soviet Socialism or Leninism - Soviet Union 1917-1924 and again 1953-1985. Moderate controls on daily life, State control of most major businesses and low-moderate political freedom.

Stalinism - Complete government control of the political, social and economical life of a country.

Marxist Socialism - Workers' democratically control the government and run factories.

Communism - A classless, stateless, society that lives in economic and social harmony.

Social Democracy - Sweden would be a S.D. Some would also say the Gorbachev's USSR was moving in this direction. It would be discribed as a democratic state with a regulated capitalist economy.

And as far as I'm aware Sweden, Britian, France (And to a small extent) America all have Democratic Socalist Goverments. A democratic Socalist goverment means state involvement in public life (Pensions) and restircions on Captlism, and the goverment owning certain inducstrys.

Just for the record, Britain is NOT socialist. Not by a long way. New Labour is centrist, just like the tories and libdems. The agony of choice!

Yeah, you're right, other than the BILLIONS of dollars that are pumped into socialized health care throughout the globe and the millions of socialists world-wide...socialism is totally irrelevant.

It is in the United States. Those millions of socialists probably don't live here and the socialists who do live here are not very common and most certainly not a political force. America is so staunchly capitalistic that the stuff we consider socialist would be considered way too capitalistic for most other countries. Socialism is totally irrelevant in America if socialist was relevant then the democrats would probably take a sharp turn to the left to start taking those votes. America works because our parties are for the most part catch-alls.

Just for the record, Britain is NOT socialist. Not by a long way. New Labour is centrist, just like the tories and libdems. The agony of choice!
Welfair State
Controlled Stock Market/Buisness
Higher Tax on the Welthy.

Sounds like a Democratic Socalist state to me. Just because we have a right wing goverment in dosn't mean that our previous goverments wern't left wing (Most notably the Liberals of 1909 and Artlee in 1948)

Welfair State
Controlled Stock Market/Buisness
Higher Tax on the Welthy.

Sounds like a Democratic Socalist state to me. Just because we have a right wing goverment in dosn't mean that our previous goverments wern't left wing (Most notably the Liberals of 1909 and Artlee in 1948)

Oh, right, your post made out that the UK is democratic socialist now. But yeah, Clement Attlee rocks my socks!

The United States of America has an odd tradition of alienating or antagonizing third-party candidates or members. This was evident when the electoral college was implemented, this was evident when communists were black-listed and bullied, this was evident when socialist presidential candidate eugene debbs was incarcerated for being "radical", and so on...
One thing that has always bothered me is the structure of the house of representatives. When one party holds the majority of seats in the house, that party gets to have a house-majority leader....however, the party with the fewest members isn't always given a house-minority leader. Case and point, there was a socialist representative from Vermont (Rep. Sanders)...oddly enough, he was not made the house minority leader....this is confusing...the socialist party was technically the minority party in the house of representatives...it wasn't technically the republicans or the democrats.
In essence, our nation is a political waste-land.

As you suggested previously, I'll ignore your puerile use of the term "dictatorship."

The United States is a republic. It's not a pure democracy. Many of its institutions represent compromises between different interests and are deliberately structured to include checks and balances. The federal system also protects the interests of individual states.

The electoral college exists to ensure that election of the President isn't controlled by a few large states. It has nothing to do with political parties. It gives the smaller states a greater say in the election and requires candidates to run a truly national campaign rather than focusing on a few large population centers. Given the choice between having all Presidential elections determined by the outcome in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, LA and a few other urban conglomerations or giving "flyover country" a voice as well via the electoral college, I prefer the latter.

As for dissing third parties, it should first be noted that there is no actual recognition of the "two-party system", or of political parties in general, in the Constitution. This is an institution that has evolved over time within the larger framework of republican government. Consider it a compromise between pure democracy and practicality. A proliferation of minor parties clogging up the Congress would be a recipe for instability at best and paralysis at worst. Under the two-party system, one party is generally able to attract the support of a majority of voters in a majority of Congressional districts and states, as well as a majority of electoral votes, and thus to implement its programs, while the other party has enough strength to check any excesses of the majority party (which can be taken to extremes, e.g., Democrat judicial filibusters).

The bottom line is the present system works, the overwhelming majority of voters accept it, and it isn't going to change for the foreseeable future.

And here's a suggestion: before whining about what a "political wasteland" our country is, try actually studying constitutional law.

Oh, right, your post made out that the UK is democratic socialist now. But yeah, Clement Attlee rocks my socks!
Technically it still is...

Technically it still is...

Well, technically according to the Labour party constitution. But no way in practice. Hint: Blair=Thatcher lite.

EDIT: What does this have to do with US third parties?

Democracy...


1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.


Which part of Majority Rule do you NOT understand?

Well, technically according to the Labour party constitution. But no way in practice. Hint: Blair=Thatcher lite.

EDIT: What does this have to do with US third parties?
No, I meant most of the state is still intact, other than the railways.