Rayvin

This also concerns me more than I'd care to admit - in a bid to turn the tide if polling continues to go low maybe.

Run! It's too late for me but you can still save yourself!

I did go and look, and while it's a very difficult thing to locate, I did find this. This isn't to call you out btw, this is to make really fucking clear that we have to be vigilant.

I think there's some revisionism here - What tended to be said in here was that we expected a GE as a result of government collapse. This has never happened. I'm not going to go delving to prove that though so let's just say I'm wrong in my understanding of what people meant when they made those comments, and they in fact meant that the Tories would fall in the polls. I think the thing you're sore about here is I'm not joining in the celebration of Truss being a moron. I know she's a moron. I am not "complaining" that we haven't won yet, I am stating it. It is a fact. We haven't won yet. I have outlined why I think we need to be careful and why I think Truss could be a threat. I may be wrong - I'm fine with that. But this place has a pretty fucking poor record on predicting outcomes in a political sense, so you'll forgive me if I'm not reassured by the notion that she'll be gone in February

I don't want anything more to have happened - in fact I'd far rather less had - I am saying that the final 10 minutes should be played with the same intensity as the preceding 80 minutes. We haven't won yet, we cannot assume she will be gone by February (we thought Johnson would be gone within 6 months for fucks sake, he rattled on for over two years despite being an unmitigated disaster of a human being). And to reiterate, we have on many, many, many occasions predicted the collapse of the Tories over the past few years. It has not happened. They still have the press and the forces of darkness to call on, we still have to be vigilant. If we fuck this up at this next opportunity, I honestly don't think there's any coming back for this country. There probably isn't already.

Maybe I am - the fact that what she said was well received with me (argument aside) suggests that this could just be my own preference for truth and principles in political discussion trumping other considerations. I very much hope you're right but I am worried nonetheless.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - I have been on this forum since 2012 and every fucking year we predict the imminent demise of the Tories, and every fucking year they're still in power. I agree that we have to be getting close to the end of what the public will tolerate now, genuinely, but we should take her very fucking seriously so that there is absolutely no possibility that this gets fucked up. There should still be an electoral pact even if Labour gets to an 80% poll lead. We cannot afford to write her off and call this an inevitability.

Aside from the nature of the argument, I think there's a risk here in terms of strategy concerning truth. Starmer has set himself up to fight this battle in a Johnsonite playing field where truth is whatever you want it to be and you won't be harshly questioned for saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I doubt that it's an exaggeration to say that a lot of people will be genuinely tired of seeing this level of bullshit from politicians. On the left we acknowledge that Starmer has had to play this game because it's the tone that has been set by his adversary, even if some of us (you and I amongst them) were repelled by it. On the right, they saw it too - but they chose to tell themselves that "all politicians were the same" in order to justify their continued backing for Johnson. If Truss comes in here and starts speaking her truth about the economy - and for all I think she flip flops on a great many things, her overall framework for economic management seems pretty consistent - it is possible that people start seeing her as an antidote to the bullshit of the last few years, and that she manages to portray herself as a serious politician who needs to make adult decisions. I guarantee that's what she's going for at the very least. And that distinction with Johnson - gained simply through openly committing to her principles, could permit her to get away with all manner of total idiocy while looking like she is simply doing what has to be done. How it is received does depend on the average voter, but they've let us down a great many times before.

Superb

I hope it is!

Yeah this is worrying me a bit actually. Truss clearly believes what she's saying, which means she can speak on it from a position of conviction and win people over potentially. It may fail, and if it does it'll prove why Starmer is "right" to avoid doing the same - but I actually respect the fact that she's saying what her position is and committing to it even if I fundamentally disagree with it. I think if she makes it digestible enough, the middle of the road voters could be swung over by it. I mean you're all talking like it's self evident that people will look at this and think 'fuck that, why should we pay more for the principle of the free market' but actually they made that choice over Brexit and austerity. If she talks up 'hard working and ambitious' enough, it could happen. Depends how the press handle it I guess but since she'll have all the usual bellends behind her on that side, I am concerned.

I actually think she's better at this than Johnson. There has been something shading an actual debate here which I don't think I've ever seen in PMQs.

I think people forget that it's not like City were winning the league overnight. It took them 3 years to get their first trophy.

Chelsea fans seem to be suggesting this happened because he lost the dressing room. Apparently the effort applied last night was non-existent.

I'd be very surprised if Howe left since he seems to be committed to the project here. Chelsea isn't a project, it's a payday.

They're the Sunderland of political parties. Short lived and incompetently replaced managers, paedo scandals, Brexit backing, inflated sense of self regard, etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2022/sep/06/david-squires-on-the-great-var-and-refereeing-crisis-of-2022 Squires having another pop at us but I have to admit I laughed The Death Star's football team. I think I would genuinely be ok with that title.

I'm off down a rabbit hole on this now but the quick and easy answer is seems to be the idea with the former is the government steps back and lets the market get on with it, and the latter has the government serving the market to ensure optimal conditions for capitalist success, bending all of society into its service at the same time. On that definition, Truss is a neoliberal. Rather than letting consumers fail, refuse to pay or go without, as they would do through a laissez faire approach as a reaction to price increases, she is ensuring the market is sustained through the use of public money. That's how I -think- we should interpret this. https://brill.com/view/book/9789004464452/BP000023.xml

Thanks, will listen to this. I'm even providing citations, what more could you want?!

Here, I found a decent academic article on it - came into academic usage in the 1970s. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1951704 The European model, I just read myself, is social liberalism - a school of thought created by the Germans. Neoliberalism has no interest whatsoever in any state intervention. It seeks to remove trade barriers, remove regulation, and treat all of society like consumers. It is entirely focused on the market, and removing it from government oversight. I think you would struggle to find anyone claiming it was anything other than this. So I would say you're thinking of Social Liberalism. With respect of Blair, in the sense that he was pro-globalization, pro trade, we can say that there were neoliberal elements to philosophy. I don't think that means he was fully neoliberal though, and that should be something you consider too as it means that the government intervention elements, his third way, was actually a blend of neoliberalism and social components. Thus, neoliberalism itself is not about that blend, Blair's approach was. Sort of like saying that there are elements of fascism that all governments demonstrate in some form, but that doesn't make them wholly fascist. The issue with neoliberalism for me is about the transfer of state assets to private entities, usually done for the mass enrichment of those individuals. Any time a state asset is sold, it's a neoliberal move. The market gains control, government loses it. In this case, Truss is taking a huge amount of public money and transferring it to private entities. Thatcher did the same with our oil. Neoliberalism is the mechanism through which this is done - rather than tax or regulate those companies, she is transferring public money.

I've literally just given you the definition of it - and it was called Neoliberalism then, just within academia and not the mainstream. You're the one who said Blair was neoliberal btw, I've not said anything of the sort. I'm just telling you what it actually means. Although I have heard people suggest that he was.

The selling off of UK oil wealth in the 80s to friends of the Tories instead of investing it into a sovereign wealth fund like Norway did would qualify as corruption delivered through the vehicle of Neoliberalism. Which is what this energy policy also is.

Blair didn't invent Neoliberalism and neither did Monbiot. I vaguely feel as though Hayek (not that one MF) might have done? It's a long standing economic policy concerning the transfer of state assets to private ownership. Defined by investopedia as follows: Neoliberalism is a policy model that encompasses both politics and economics. It favors private enterprise and seeks to transfer the control of economic factors from the government to the private sector. Many neoliberal policies concern the efficient functioning of free market capitalism and focus on limiting government spending, government regulation, and public ownership. Neoliberalism is often associated with the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of the U.K. from 1979 to 1990 (and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990) and Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the U.S. from 1981 to 1989. More recently, neoliberalism has been associated with policies of austerity and attempts to cut government spending on social programs.

I think neoliberalism and corruption may be synonyms. PL's understanding is exactly how I have it pinned. The only variant I've ever come across is a misinformed right wing one that equates it with "liberals" in the American sense. It is not that, and that false definition gives the real thing cover. Don't make me link that Monbiot article at you again

It's exactly what it is.