The Coalition

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Apart from the fact that he's just another political careerist, nothing. We've been through the reasons why it wasn't an open contest. And the point was about you claiming the labour party as socialist whilst at the same time electing a Milliband as leader. How can a party be socialist if, in an open contest as you claim it to be, it elects a leader that fundamentally isn't a socialist?

[Uncle Liam]

You do know the difference between Socialism and Liberalism, dont you?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

You do know the difference between Socialism and Liberalism, dont you?

[Uncle Liam]

It depends what terms you use it on. There's no real static rule of the two. But fairer wages, giving those who pay tax a democratic say on how its spend, making sure that poor kids can get something to eat at school, taking away the benefits of the privately educated, making sure that when we have a minimum wage that we work towards fixing the top end of wages as well to make a fairer society, taxing people correctly, etc etc

Those are all socialist priniciples.

Liberalism is wishy washy. It stops short. "We're all in it together" is its ethos, but socialism realises that some people can't afford to be in it together.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Uncle Liam

[Alcatraz]

To be brutally honest, if i asked you that question in my class, and you came up with that answer, I'd kick you off the course.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

To be brutally honest, if i asked you that question in my class, and you came up with that answer, I'd kick you off the course.

[llcoolphil]

I wouldn't suggest that the Milliband brothers aren't socialist, especially not Ed.

Ed

-Introduce living wage on more than £7 an hour

-Introduce a high pay commision for both public and private sector

-Votes at 16

-Introduce AV and elected House of Lords

-Reduce excessive stop and search powers

-50% of shadow cabinet to be female

-International alliances spread over

-Improved opportunity for interns (including payment of at least min wage)

David

-Introduce Living wage and high pay commision

-Employee representation on pay committees of top firms

-Scrap tax breaks for private schools

-Extension of free school meals

-Mansion tax on homes £2million and over

-Community meetings to discuss problems

These are just a few things I can think of, go to their websites to see more. And are you suggesting that someone who has worked in politics previously should be barred from becoming an MP?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

Easy to say whatever you like in opposition. What happened when they had the opportunity for all this in government? You may recall I pointed out that having a minimum wage set below what your own government agreed was a living wage was crumbs from the table, not socialism. Seems now they can do f*ck all about it, they agree. You carry on believing pogo and leave the rest of us to laugh at you

[Uncle Liam]

Don't you teach Religion?

You shouldn't let your own political preferences take away from debate in your classroom as well.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I actually teach politics.

Your lists above were lists which were primarily liberal. You are confusing a ideology which seeks to enchance peoples freedom and choice, and one which seeks to destry inequality.

Both Millibands are, more than anything, committed Blairites (David more than Ed). Blair was not a Socialist. Blair enshrined Liberal and Neo-Liberal principals in public services, and neither Miliband have made any suggestion that they would move away from this. And before you say, there's a difference between moving on from Blair and Brown, and moving away from Blair and Brown.

[llcoolphil]

You carry on sitting on your arse talking about it on a festival internet discussion board. Change the world by being a keyboard warrior?

I think you'll find that all the candidates, bar Burnham, have admitted that Labour made grave mistakes.

I didn't say I was voting for David or Ed Milliband anyway, but a party led by either one would still be a party worth fighting for.

[Uncle Liam]

So having a Cabinet of 50% women is representative of all society? Ummmmmm... ok then. *scratches head*

Most of the rest of it is just tax the rich so to bring them down and thus narrow the gap. All very and good to say it knowing that it'll sound nice with the rank and file and will be forgotten about. A *true* Socialist woul actually recognise that the problem lies not with the rich per se, but society itself. Taxing the rich is meaningless, true Socialism requires tackling the root causes of inequality, not just taxing out of envy. But then, I suppose having been at the forefront (whether in Parlaiment or not) of a party which has

1) caused the gap between rich and poor to increase over thirteen years in government

2) enshrined this gap in the education system

3) Saw social mobility effectively grind to a halt

makes it pretty obvious that the Labour Party will return to being a Socialist party come September. *need wink smiley here*

If you are "Serious about Socialism" you should at least be bothered to know what it is.

EDIT: I'm in danger of agreeing with llcoolphil. I need a drink... ;-)

Edited August 8, 2010 by Uncle Liam

[llcoolphil]

Scraping tax breaks for private school and giving free school meals aims to tackle the differences between rich kids and poor kids, tackling inequality

[Pogues Mcgogues]

You have no idea what political- or other - activism Im currently involved in so I shall laugh at that comment.

They all say labour made grave mistakes? f**k off you mindless twat. Under your 'socialist' government, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the gap between the two grew to its widest ever. If, after 13 years of government, you find it acceptable to shrug that off by going 'yeah they made grave mistakes', I'll refer back to the point that following idiots like you becoming active in the labour party, the labour party recorded two of its worst sets of election results in its history. I become less convinced that these facts are not related.

If the sum total of your activism is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the gap between the two is wider than ever, Id suggest you stop being active and start practicing the line 'do you want fries with that?'.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

So having a Cabinet of 50% women is representative of all society? Ummmmmm... ok then. *scratches head*

Most of the rest of it is just tax the rich so to bring them down and thus narrow the gap. All very and good to say it knowing that it'll sound nice with the rank and file and will be forgotten about. A *true* Socialist woul actually recognise that the problem lies not with the rich per se, but society itself. Taxing the rich is meaningless, true Socialism requires tackling the root causes of inequality, not just taxing out of envy. But then, I suppose having been at the forefront (whether in Parlaiment or not) of a party which has

1) caused the gap between rich and poor to increase over thirteen years in government

2) enshrined this gap in the education system

3) Saw social mobility effectively grind to a halt

makes it pretty obvious that the Labour Party will return to being a Socialist party come September. *need wink smiley here*

If you are "Serious about Socialism" you should at least be bothered to know what it is.

EDIT: I'm in danger of agreeing with llcoolphil. I need a drink... ;-)

[Uncle Liam]

No, the problem here isnt my inabilty to follow the debate, its your inabilty to 1) understand what socialism is and 2) the understand what the modern Labour party stands for.

David or Ed are going to be the next leader, most likely David. This means that the party is not going to be Socialist, its barely going to be Social democratic. Yet you claim this is a party worth fighting for? Why Labour, why not campaign for actual Socialist parties?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

No, the problem here isnt my inabilty to follow the debate, its your inabilty to 1) understand what socialism is and 2) the understand what the modern Labour party stands for.

David or Ed are going to be the next leader, most likely David. This means that the party is not going to be Socialist, its barely going to be Social democratic. Yet you claim this is a party worth fighting for? Why Labour, why not campaign for actual Socialist parties?

[Alcatraz]

My membership currently depends if David becomes leader or not. If he does, thats it. I can't prop up someone who spouts "Multilateral disarmament" or has covered up UK involvement in torture

[Pogues Mcgogues]

My membership currently depends if David becomes leader or not. If he does, thats it. I can't prop up someone who spouts "Multilateral disarmament" or has covered up UK involvement in torture

[Uncle Liam]

But you havent said why the Labour Party is Socialist.

What does it stand for which is explicity Socialist?

Lets see. AV, nto PR. So all voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others?

Neo-Liberal principals enshrined in public services i.e. Marketisation in schools and hospitals.

Commitment to a capitalist economy

Commitment to the European Union- a classic liberal/idealist international institution. An instituion which enshrines Liberal, Capitalist ideology across its member states?

Just because you have a bit of wealth distribution doesnt make a party Socialist.

[Alcatraz]

Rather than stay and fight you'll run away, tail between legs? Phil would be proud.:-p

Out of interest, who are you voting for?

[Pogues Mcgogues]

But you havent said why the Labour Party is Socialist.

What does it stand for which is explicity Socialist?

Lets see. AV, nto PR. So all voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others?

Neo-Liberal principals enshrined in public services i.e. Marketisation in schools and hospitals.

Commitment to a capitalist economy

Commitment to the European Union- a classic liberal/idealist international institution. An instituion which enshrines Liberal, Capitalist ideology across its member states?

Just because you have a bit of wealth distribution doesnt make a party Socialist.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I'm supporting Ed Milli, who I still believe will win

As for running away, yup I'm happy to do that. I don't support Trident or Human rights abuse. If I continued my support for the party, that can easily be interpreted as support for those policies by those at the top

[Alcatraz]

You change the party from within, the difference between Diane Abbott and George Galloway.

One stuck in the party and fought for change, the other left tail between legs.

One has now seen nearly every other leadership candidate support take on her views of Iraq and adopt foreign policy in tune, the other is forever standing on podiums in the pouring rain preaching to the converted but never achieving anything.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Alcatraz

[Pogues Mcgogues]

I'm fairly sure he was kicked out