news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

that's terrible.

good thing about all the lack of funding though is there's hardly any police about now so you can do what you like.

problem was local hospital who couldn't take in patients cos of covid.

[steviewevie]

 

[Kurosagi]

11 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Which cycles that then?

I don’t see any circularity. I just one long process of continuous decline in the political and economic management of the uk since Thatcher. Each administration both an inevitable consequence of the last and inevitably even worse in its consequences than the last.

New Labour didn’t ’fix’ thatcherism. They were/are thatcherism. They spent more on health and education granted, but funded it by flogging assets, allowing private actors in to fund the initial capital costs and then reap the profits for seemingly the rest of time, and riding on the coattails of a dangerously deregulated financial system + were corrupt warmongers to boot.

The country may well have been better off in the late 90s/early 2000s, but thats because labour received a bucket with some holes in, and instead of patching it up, poked some more in, passed it on the next guys to do the same.. then by the year of our Lord 2022 there isn’t gonna be much liquid left in that poor old bucket is there?

In this analogy the liquid in the bucket is some kind of mix between economic resilience, human capital, the goodwill of the public towards politicians/the political system.

You don’t get to do New Labour again. The UK’s finances don’t permit that level of government spending, the debt is too large, interest rates are on the rise. There are very few state held assets left to flog to raise funds. The trade deficit is exacerbated by Brexit. The costs of climate change and realigning the energy sector are already big and are going to only get bigger. Its a mess.

So if you’re voting for Starmer because you think New Labour policies firstly, are possible, and secondly, could somehow ameliorate the disaster the UK now finds itself in, without seeing that they are partly responsible for that disaster, then you are misunderstanding things.

The long one way ’cycle’ of decline since the 1970s can only be reversed by policies that are centred around maximising long term outcomes for the people of the uk. That, I’m afraid, leaves no room for neoliberalism in any of its guises, including New Labour.

I enjoy your occasional overviews of the state of politics mattiloy. I find it true that the circularity issue makes no effing difference in the longer term, or arguably makes matters worse...but voting is the only intervention we have in the short term outside of mobilising a revolution, which I don't sense is happening anytime soon...riots due to cost of living notwithstanding, but at its heart that would be apolitical I'm guessing.

For many, I guess it's down to how you like to be shafted by the govt, most people prefer to be shafted by a leader that at least throws a few tiny morsels our way. Tory-boy Blair managed it for a while with the same smile on his face as Clinton managed in the US. Corbyn tried to address the longer term with more traditional left-wing values, but got savaged and made outcast because his smile wasn't right and his attempt at nuance unfamiliar and misunderstood in the football style political arena of the day.

Not sure where that leaves us come 2024. I'm hoping that labour don't take advantage of the current abject stench of govt by pulling a Blair. His biggest mistake in my book was being drunk on his landslide victory and reneging on his pre election agreement with Ashdown to bring in PR. I'm crossing my fingers that 2024 is the moment that non tory parties unite in the short term with the purpose of constitutional change so there's a chance of facing towards our longer term issues without getting repeatedly shafted by entitled sociopaths.

I'm not a natural centrist at heart, but if a left wing govt is dead in the water (which it is with Starmer at the helm) then I'd prefer the next few decades to have a chance of a centre-left coalition than be dominated by Truss riding a tank.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Corbyn tried to address the longer term with more traditional left-wing values, but got savaged and made outcast because his smile wasn't right

laughable revision-ism.

 corbyn didn't fit because his baggage caught up with him, he was only accused of being himself.

[Kurosagi]

21 minutes ago, Neil said:

 corbyn didn't fit because his baggage caught up with him, he was only accused of being himself.

Try playing the ball rather than the man. My reference to Corbyn wasn't to reify the man, but the policies he tried (and failed) to get buy in for - I was addressing the context of mattiloy's post, which was about policies and long-term vision. Membership wanted and voted (twice) for a left wing candidate...unfortunately he was all there was. He was a demonstrably poor leader, but personally I'd rather a poor leader with worthy long-term intentions than an Eton sociopath.

[steviewevie]

yay, a corbyn argument.

[steviewevie]

Anyway...let's see what is in the manifestos in a few years time...quite interested in what labour's will be..

[steviewevie]

Whilst labour still has a chance of winning a majority using fptp I don't know why they'd back PR.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Whilst labour still has a chance of winning a majority using fptp I don't know why they'd back PR.

pr won't be the panacea many like to think it'll be,  its not only left leaning people who'll change their vote.

[Kurosagi]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Whilst labour still has a chance of winning a majority using fptp I don't know why they'd back PR.

So as not to repeat Blair's mistake and prevent the chance of ever again having a decade + of tory rule? Surely, there must be some MPs left in the party willing to learn from the past? I'm also hoping that they see the value in the need for wide reform given that Johnson has shown he can lie with impunity and (so far) get away with it.

[Neil]

13 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Try playing the ball rather than the man.

the ball are the policies, when corbyn was criticised for his baggage, that was the ball, the policies he'd backed.

[Kurosagi]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

pr won't be the panacea many like to think it'll be,  its not only left leaning people who'll change their vote.

Agree. PR for example would have given Farage a potential kingmaker role at the table pre Brexit. There's no doubt it has the potential to give voice to extremes on both the left and the right.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

So as not to repeat Blair's mistake and prevent the chance of ever again having a decade + of tory rule? Surely, there must be some MPs left in the party willing to learn from the past? I'm also hoping that they see the value in the need for wide reform given that Johnson has shown he can lie with impunity and (so far) get away with it.

yes...true...but pr would probably lead to a labour split...such a big coalition...I mean it's crazy that blair and corbyn could even be in the same party.

[Neil]

Just now, Kurosagi said:

Agree. PR for example would have given Farage a potential kingmaker role at the table pre Brexit. There's no doubt it has the potential to give voice to extremes on both the left and the right.

people vote to create an outcome to their liking, and the majority obviously like tory govts.

that side of things stays constant, even if the voting system is changed.

[Neil]

coalition govts under pr won't be popular, just look what happened from 2010.

[squirrelarmy]

My post wasn’t about New Labour or Corbynism. There’s a mess that needs fixing and it will be down to the next government to sort it. Things are going end up costing us more due to the countries cash reserves being depleted by the current government. 
 

An increase on taxes extra is exactly the kind of ammunition the Tories love as they will use it to get back into power when the time comes and get all their mates rich again. 
 

The only real fix is an end to the two party system and have genuine coalitions where parties can work together to have a level of continuity that works for the country. 
 

There is two much corruption in politics so it will never happen. 

[Neil]

if you cant beat them whats the point of children or teaching? 😄 

[Kurosagi]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

the ball are the policies, when corbyn was criticised for his baggage, that was the ball, the policies he'd backed.

Disagree. Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party is an historical fact. It's depressing not to be able to refer to this historical fact in the context of a wider debate about changing future politics without being dragged back into a discussion about the man.

As I said, he was the only left wing candidate on the leader ballot and was demonstrably unfit to be leader, that doesn't change the context of the resurgent interest in left wing policies at the time.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

The only real fix is an end to the two party system and have genuine coalitions where parties can work together to have a level of continuity that works for the country. 

o you think the voting public would accept the honesty of your best days are behind you?

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Neil said:

people vote to create an outcome to their liking, and the majority obviously like tory govts.

that side of things stays constant, even if the voting system is changed.

ah...well that's it...the majority don't...tories won in 2019 with 43% of the vote.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, Kurosagi said:

demonstrably unfit to be leader,

that was known before people voted for him, the error was with those who supported him.

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

...tories won in 2019 with 43% of the vote.

and that 43% is happy with that outcome, so will still vote under pr to achieve that sort of outcome.

[lost]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes...true...but pr would probably lead to a labour split...such a big coalition...I mean it's crazy that blair and corbyn could even be in the same party.

They do keep splitting sort of. SDP under Benn and change UK under Corbyn. What happens though is then when the left have control, labour get decimated at the polls and those that stuck around then seem to get back in under a period of self relection.

Didn't Arthur Scargill have a crack at a unionist labour party too when Blair took control?

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, Kurosagi said:

Disagree. Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party is an historical fact. It's depressing not to be able to refer to this historical fact in the context of a wider debate about changing future politics without being dragged back into a discussion about the man.

that's not a change people want. as demonstrated in two elections.

[Neil]

Just now, lost said:

They do keep splitting sort of. SDP under Benn and change UK under Corbyn.

it wasn't benn it was foot.

 

can you see a theme with those splits? that theme has as much relevance as anything else anyone might raise.