Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yeah so I never said any of them were formed in the 1980s. I just said they had increasing power. So thanks for the dates but sorry, irrelevant.

 

And I don't necessarily object to them. But as I keep trying to say, and which no one seems particularly interested in because apparently this is entirely a domestic problem according to the intellectual titans of this forum, this is an international war between globalism and anti-globalism.

 

Neoliberalism is a globalist ideology that has brought us many positive things (global community, reduced chance of destructive war through interdependency of markets) at the expense of a great number of other factors (domestic political stability, social mobility, the consumerisation of humankind, and climate breakdown). I do not have the specific answer for what we should do about this, but I do know that going back to full on Neoliberalism isn't the answer because the consequences have been dire. You can blame Corbyn, Cameron, Brexit, whatever - but the reality is that they are all symptoms of a wider malaise at the heart of western culture. Too few people have enough stake in the system to vote to maintain it. The chickens have come home to roost.

 

I kind of agree with much you say but find your dichotomous labelling irksome. Globalism, neoliberalism, and even socialism mean different things to me than you. There is a malaise in the west and that is caused by the rise of the right wing, seen throughout history. You might call that a symptom, whatever. Maybe we need a proper war.

 

You haven't got the answers, neither have I. But I'm sure as hell it isn't a violent swing to the far left. 

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I kind of agree with mich you say but find your dichotomous labelling irksome. Globalism, neoliberalism, and even socialism mean different things to me than you. There is a malaise in the west and that is caused by the rise of the right wing, seen throughout history. You haven't got the answers, neither have I. But I'm sure as hell it isn't a violent swing to the far left. 

 

See, I think the right wing is opportunistically making the best of it rather than causing it. Sometimes I think that the reality simply might be that cultures die - and maybe we're in our death throes.

 

I'd argue the more fundamental problem is that the system just isn't working for most people - and bizarrely that's despite the fact that on many levels, it is working for most people. I come back to vision, which you deplore but I think is vital. Whether it's a centrist vision, or left wing one, or terrifyingly a right wing one, that's what the West is crying out for. Because consumerism, it turns out, wasn't much of a substitute.

 

And I don't think we should have a violent swing to the far left either - but given the choice between that and the far right, you know where I stand. The main point of disagreement we have, I think, is that you believe the centrists could be cleaning up if only they hadn't been denied by Corbynite Labour. I think they've been wiped out harder than even the Labour left have just been.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me nihlistic but I'm willing to say that life's always been fairly shit for most people throughout history. I don't see why human nature would change radically now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree but there have always been movements to improve it. And even in recent times we can see unified visions from western countries. Resisting Nazi Germany, then the Soviets. Before that, for Britain, Empire.

 

Now we have nothing but negative fear driven threats because the political class have run out of ideas. So you get warnings about not leaving the EU, warnings about Scottish independence, warnings about socialism, even climate change can be added to this list. Because as far as the political class was concerned, we'd arrived. End of history. There was no positive vision to sell apart from 'more of the same'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, this article by Tim Farron is interesting, concerning what needs to happen for the Tories to be ousted.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/progressives-defeat-tories-next-election-2024?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

In a nutshell we abandon the idea of working with the SNP, Labour stands down in about 100 rural seats that they will never win but the LDs could, and the LDs stand down more or less everywhere else. At least I think that's what he's saying.

 

EDIT - would have the benefit of allowing Labour to remain "pure" ideologically while reassuring everyone outside of urban centres that there was a steadying hand on the wheel. Presumably for a single coalition government within which we can achieve electoral reform.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ewerk said:

That's EXACTLY what I said.

I got the same treatment for suggesting it's harmful for current MPs to slag off New Labour needlessly.

I didn't mention bringing back Blairism/Centrism or whatever only it'll do Labour more favours to celebrate these achievements rather than the opposite. 

The majority of the manifesto was very popular among people polled but dislike of the leadership & the Brexit policy fucked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tom said:

I got the same treatment for suggesting it's harmful for current MPs to slag off New Labour needlessly.

 

 

:lol:

 

What treatment is that then? You make snarky comments consistently rather than tackling actual arguments and then get dismissive comments thrown at you? ewerk spends more than enough of his time baiting me as he well knows.

 

Bloody hell man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

:lol:

 

What treatment is that then? You make snarky comments consistently rather than tackling actual arguments and then get dismissive comments thrown at you? ewerk spends more than enough of his time baiting me as he well knows.

 

Bloody hell man.

 

Hold on. Do you think it's right for newly elected labour MPs to insult their predecessors in the worst possible way, by calling them Thatcherites? You dont see anything wrong about that? Do you think it will promote party unity? Its ridiculous,  its needlessly offensive, its counter productive, and fuck off Momentum, you share plenty of blame in destroying this country. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, IMO the biggest problem with Labour in the last election was Corbyn. Not necessarily his policies but the man himself. The public didn’t like him and they trusted him even less. 
 

When I look at the candidates now my main concern is electability and RLB doesn’t have it. The only one who I think can appeal to the general public and deliver a Labour government is Starmer. 
 

That should be the main concern of anyone voting for leader. Who has the best chance of becoming PM.

If that makes me a centrist/Tory then so be it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have to crush the extreme fringe that still think they're in control: McClusky, Milne, Fisher, Murphy etc. if they get what they want and RLB wins, the country really is fucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

Hold on. Do you think it's right for newly elected labour MPs to insult their predecessors in the worst possible way, by calling them Thatcherites? You dont see anything wrong about that? Do you think it will promote party unity? Its ridiculous,  its needlessly offensive, its counter productive, and fuck off Momentum, you share plenty of blame in destroying this country. 

 

I said earlier it was a needless dig at Blair. Do you want me to say something stronger? It's not as if she's a high profile MP or anything, she's just a fringe left winger.

 

I believe that the moderates within the party will probably win this fight, and get Starmer elected - but all of this rounding on the left wing side is going to set up a siege mentality that is going to create problems. If the moderates win, it has to be with the consent of the left. Let the fringe left wingers make their comments, it's not like there aren't plenty of people in the moderate wing calling Corbyn a Tory enabler so let's not pretend this is one way traffic. In fact, it's been the moderates over the course of the past 4 years who have been the divisive ones. They set the entire PLP against the membership ffs.

 

But now of course it's all about unity because now, the moderates are returning to save the day. Hypocritical bullshit. Have tantrums, get your way, close up shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I said earlier it was a needless dig at Blair. Do you want me to say something stronger? It's not as if she's a high profile MP or anything, she's just a fringe left winger.

 

I believe that the moderates within the party will probably win this fight, and get Starmer elected - but all of this rounding on the left wing side is going to set up a siege mentality that is going to create problems. If the moderates win, it has to be with the consent of the left. Let the fringe left wingers make their comments, it's not like there aren't plenty of people in the moderate wing calling Corbyn a Tory enabler so let's not pretend this is one way traffic. In fact, it's been the moderates over the course of the past 4 years who have been the divisive ones. They set the entire PLP against the membership ffs.

 

But now of course it's all about unity because now, the moderates are returning to save the day. Hypocritical bullshit. Have tantrums, get your way, close up shop.

So it’s the moderates who have been proven right that are to blame?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ewerk said:

For the record, IMO the biggest problem with Labour in the last election was Corbyn. Not necessarily his policies but the man himself. The public didn’t like him and they trusted him even less. 
 

When I look at the candidates now my main concern is electability and RLB doesn’t have it. The only one who I think can appeal to the general public and deliver a Labour government is Starmer. 
 

That should be the main concern of anyone voting for leader. Who has the best chance of becoming PM.

If that makes me a centrist/Tory then so be it.

 

No no, I'm the Tory because I'm enabling them.

 

I'll vote for Starmer to be the next defeated Labour leader too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ewerk said:

So it’s the moderates who have been proven right that are to blame?

 

Blame for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I said earlier it was a needless dig at Blair. Do you want me to say something stronger? It's not as if she's a high profile MP or anything, she's just a fringe left winger.

 

I believe that the moderates within the party will probably win this fight, and get Starmer elected - but all of this rounding on the left wing side is going to set up a siege mentality that is going to create problems. If the moderates win, it has to be with the consent of the left. Let the fringe left wingers make their comments, it's not like there aren't plenty of people in the moderate wing calling Corbyn a Tory enabler so let's not pretend this is one way traffic. In fact, it's been the moderates over the course of the past 4 years who have been the divisive ones. They set the entire PLP against the membership ffs.

 

But now of course it's all about unity because now, the moderates are returning to save the day. Hypocritical bullshit. Have tantrums, get your way, close up shop.

the membership backed an unelectable leader. the PLP did what they had to do. they're not to blame for ed miliband changing the rules in 2014 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

the membership backed an unelectable leader. the PLP did what they had to do. they're not to blame for ed miliband changing the rules in 2014 

 

The PLP had to make an inconsequential and doomed rebellion that only ensured that the Corbyn project would last longer as it entrenched attitudes amongst the membership, and which ultimately led to all the name calling now?

 

Please advise what on earth that ridiculously childish display achieved?

 

EDIT - I just checked, and it turns out that Miliband's move was "overwhelmingly backed by a special conference the year before it was implemented". So it's not like one man took us blindly into populism, the whole fucking party signed up to it.

Edited by Rayvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately two completely uninspiring people (smith and eagles) put themselves forward. 

i don't think the PLP was wrong in trying to remove corbyn - they could see what was coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was politically inept, but I guess they can comfort themselves with the notion that it was true to their principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing I miss most about Blair and the years associated with him, is that the Labour Party genuinely looked like the adults in the room. They knew what they were doing, where they were going, no soul searching. They had a vision, and ok, it only had a 12 year shelf life, but it was a very stable 12 years.

 

There is no one within the Labour Party now that looks anything like that. We're all kind of hoping that Starmer might be about to pull us around somehow just by virtue of appearing competent, but he's just another opportunistic leadership candidate - he doesn't have a plan. He has no committed and functional team of MPs with a clear vision behind him. He will be taking over a divisive mess caused by a party that no longer believes, deep down, that it should be a united entity.

 

I mean come on, he's not going to win next time out. Labour has no one who could. The only person I genuinely believe could restore some Blairite semblance of order is Cooper, and she isn't running - and even if she was, the paucity of talent within Labour is staggering.

Edited by Rayvin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

corbyn is politically inept, which explains the move. 

 

Fight fire with fire. Smart. I mean, I wouldn't consider a race to the bottom in stupidity to be smart at all actually, but then I'm stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ewerk said:

:lol: Rayvin has definitely taken the ‘stupid’ digs to heart.

 

Actually no, I'm thoroughly enjoying myself with it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×