2017 GE 1

[Park Life 71]

There are two factions in the Tory party as there are two maybe three factions in the Labour Party. The difference is that the Tories at election time fall into line and the party machinery is just that much more polished. Of course one can't underestimate the power of having 70% of the MSM batting for you.

[Rayvin 4964]

There are two factions in the Tory party as there are two maybe three factions in the Labour Party. The difference is that the Tories at election time fall into line and the party machinery is just that much more polished. Of course one can't underestimate the power of having 70% of the MSM batting for you.

This is true, but Labour's groups are now separate. Half are Neolibs like Renton and the other half are those left behind by the same people. That half are going for the far right.

 

I mean look, I don't think all this stuff cos I'm an idealist. If we could go back to Blair winning and things being great for the middle classes i'd be all for it. But the reality is that our complacency has wrought absolute mayhem. Going back to what brought us to that just can't be the answer.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Rayvin

[Park Life 71]

Paul Mason reckons the electorate are too racist for a left wing manifesto. Not sure what that means....Is it the emergence of this new Ukip/Tory vote swapping?

[NJS 4002]

Paul Mason reckons the electorate are too racist for a left wing manifesto. Not sure what that means....Is it the emergence of this new Ukip/Tory vote swapping?

There's a lot of anti-immigration sentiment in labour areas - as I said earlier and as HMHM said, encouraged massively by the press.

[Renton 18038]

This is true, but Labour's groups are now separate. Half are Neolibs like Renton and the other half are those left behind by the same people. That half are going for the far right.

 

I mean look, I don't think all this stuff cos I'm an idealist. If we could go back to Blair winning and things being great for the middle classes i'd be all for it. But the reality is that our complacency has wrought absolute mayhem. Going back to what brought us to that just can't be the answer.

You're utterly obsessed with the term neoliberalism. It would never occur to me to classify myself as such. I'd say I'm a pragmatic social democrat if you had the pigeon hole me. Truth is I have a wide range of views on many political and economic topics though, just like most people.

[Howmanheyman 27515]

You're utterly obsessed with the term neoliberalism. It would never occur to me to classify myself as such. I'd say I'm a pragmatic social democrat if you had the pigeon hole me. Truth is I have a wide range of views on many political and economic topics though, just like most people.

First rule of neo-liberal club, never classify yourself as one. Second rule of neo-liberal club, never disturb dead birds in your chimney.

[ewerk 26793]

[Renton 18038]

First rule of neo-liberal club, never classify yourself as one. Second rule of neo-liberal club, never disturb dead birds in your chimney.

Gaan on, get a reference about a stained glass window in while you're at it, you cunt.

 

[Rayvin 4964]

You're utterly obsessed with the term neoliberalism. It would never occur to me to classify myself as such. I'd say I'm a pragmatic social democrat if you had the pigeon hole me. Truth is I have a wide range of views on many political and economic topics though, just like most people.

Because I harp on about it so much, it's now cemented in your head though. It was previously an almost nameless force that seemed to govern everything in our society.

 

But look, if it helps I'll start calling it the rationale behind the privatisation of state assets, maximization of profits, and conversion of human beings into consumers in a Darwinian style survival of the most competitive (save for those at the top of the system who survive either way).

 

I do want to make a point that might make me sound less 'delusional' though - if we could get away with sustained centre left governments without any swing to right wing populism as a consequence, I'd take it.

[Dr Gloom 20140]

There are two factions in the Tory party as there are two maybe three factions in the Labour Party. The difference is that the Tories at election time fall into line and the party machinery is just that much more polished. Of course one can't underestimate the power of having 70% of the MSM batting for you.

I blame the MSM like. And the Jews.

[Renton 18038]

Because I harp on about it so much, it's now cemented in your head though. It was previously an almost nameless force that seemed to govern everything in our society.

 

But look, if it helps I'll start calling it the rationale behind the privatisation of state assets, maximization of profits, and conversion of human beings into consumers in a Darwinian style survival of the most competitive (save for those at the top of the system who survive either way).

 

I do want to make a point that might make me sound less 'delusional' though - if we could get away with sustained centre left governments without any swing to right wing populism as a consequence, I'd take it.

So using Google this is what it says about "neoliberalism":

 

"noun: neoliberalism

a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.

"social and political issues surrounding neo-liberalism"

 

That doesn't really describe my beliefs in any case much less the Darwiniaism bollocks you've ascribed to me which is frankly offensive (as you would know if you actually knew me).

 

If you're arguing there is no place for free market capitalism in our society, I'm going to have to disagree. Because the alternative would be state sanctioned socialism, which is essentially communism. If you're arguing the state should have more control over said capitalistic ventures, then I'd probably agree. But in fact, I more or less support the system we have now, but increasing the government's power to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation.

 

Fuck knows if that makes me neoliberal or not like. In my experience, people who stick labels on people are dicks themselves.

[Park Life 71]

Because I harp on about it so much, it's now cemented in your head though. It was previously an almost nameless force that seemed to govern everything in our society.

 

But look, if it helps I'll start calling it the rationale behind the privatisation of state assets, maximization of profits, and conversion of human beings into consumers in a Darwinian style survival of the most competitive (save for those at the top of the system who survive either way).

 

I do want to make a point that might make me sound less 'delusional' though - if we could get away with sustained centre left governments without any swing to right wing populism as a consequence, I'd take it.

Capitalism only gives a bit back when it has to. Unless the state is strong enough to counter balance the excesses of private finance (its power to do so is diminishing by the decade) it will go on unchecked till the host is paralyzed in its strangle hold. In this phase it starts converting capital to assets which it moves away from the arena of the carnage till it can intervene and feed again. The host is allowed to recover just enough for the feeding to begin again...Or the host is on a drip (Quantum Easing, Bank Bailouts, Tax credits).

 

.Sometimes it cooks up new tricks like importing new hosts into an area where the old host has got wise and beginning to resist or on its last legs (immigration).....Immigration fulfills another function where the state supports the new victims while the rulers take the profits (state bears the costs private finance takes the profits)...If all else fails start a war. Mucho feeding...

Edited May 6, 2017 by Park Life

[adios 717]

What's the alternative?  I'm with @@Renton on mixed economy.

 

The problem isn't Capitalism, it's Corporatism/Cronyism.  

 

Extending your analogy, it's a problem of balance.  We need symbiosis.

Edited May 6, 2017 by adios

[Park Life 71]

Mixed economy. The monster has to be kept to an enclosed area for feeding. Just enough to provide income for the state without overwhelming it. This line has been crossed however and the monster has to be beaten back and it doesn't seem to want to negotiate.

[Park Life 71]

What's the alternative?  I'm with @@Renton on mixed economy.

 

The problem isn't Capitalism, it's Corporatism/Cronyism.  

 

Extending your analogy, it's a problem of balance.  We need symbiosis.

Yeah it is a mix of those very things but it has developed a new and more worrying symptom - it is holding back the means of production at a level that it already achieved 30 years ago. It's doing this because advances that it doesn't fully understand might impinge on its future feeding grounds. There are many areas where tech could already be used for the benefit of all and also reduce drudgery and repetition and create new seams of efficiency...But the monster has noticed that these developments might hurt it.

[adios 717]

Yeah, new blood innovates, old blood stagnates.

 

At the very least Banks should be in public hands, not sure what other industries should join them.  They do fuck all for the economy, it's stuff like blockchain creating the future of finance, and they have fuck all to do with it except reacting to it with fear.

 

Guys like Musk are changing power consumption, so we want an environment for them to flourish, but traditional utilities providers are just leeches that give nothing back.

 

And, unsurprisingly, I agree with @@Renton on the need for (massive) wealth redistribution.  It's not like Gates would have innovated any less if he was only to be worth $40 billion.

[Rayvin 4964]

So using Google this is what it says about "neoliberalism":

 

"noun: neoliberalism

a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.

"social and political issues surrounding neo-liberalism"

 

That doesn't really describe my beliefs in any case much less the Darwiniaism bollocks you've ascribed to me which is frankly offensive (as you would know if you actually knew me).

 

If you're arguing there is no place for free market capitalism in our society, I'm going to have to disagree. Because the alternative would be state sanctioned socialism, which is essentially communism. If you're arguing the state should have more control over said capitalistic ventures, then I'd probably agree. But in fact, I more or less support the system we have now, but increasing the government's power to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation.

 

Fuck knows if that makes me neoliberal or not like. In my experience, people who stick labels on people are dicks themselves.

 

Actually, to be honest, my thinking was that I'd set that out, and you'd conclude that you weren't Neoliberal, and we've move on with our lives in agreement that Neoliberalism is a bad thing.

 

It's not the same as free market capitalism - it was conceived as such, but no longer is. It was hijacked by big business and is perpetuated by our political system and leaders. We continuously vote for parties that endorse this basic position, and therefore undermine any hope of actually tackling the main challenges of our time, including wealth inequality and the ever increasing number of people left behind by globalisation. The moment anyone in the main centrist parties gives an honest fuck about this, is the moment they have my vote. The reality though, is that they're all short termist. They all only think in 5 year blocks. The future is the next government's problem. And unfortunately, voters behave in the same way. My position on Corbyn is based on taking a long term view. You just want the Tories out asap.

 

So again - the reason I set that out, was in the hope that you'd realise we're in broad agreement on Neoliberalism being bad/unsustainable.

 

If we move to free market capitalism that's fine with me. It's better than this.

 

EDIT - just to make it clearer, the whole thing was sold to us by Thatcher. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about it, I don't know what will.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4964]

Aside from this ongoing nonsense about an ideology that no one cares about, none of this makes any difference any more anyway. We aren't going to get either my leftwing political shift, or your centrist level headed one. We've got rightwing populism. The yanks have it too. The French are far closer to it than they should be.

 

My views aside, how does the centre left solve the populist problem?

Edited May 7, 2017 by Rayvin

[adios 717]

Anyone seen Macron's had his email hacked?

 

Can't be good and has to be the Russians at this point.

 

Where the fuck are Anonymous/Wikileaks.  Bunch of feckin' script kiddies on our side.

[Dr Gloom 20140]

The benevolent Russians intervening in western democracy again

[Rayvin 4964]

The truth appears to be a scary thing these days...

 

Media shut out on it is interesting. Will that work?

[Park Life 71]

Things are worse than people imagine. I don't think even with the will the wherewithal is there to halt Neo. Economies have been stagnating for so long and sovereign debt is at record levels. Their only solution so far has been to print vaster  and vaster sums of money and keep wages down and move around even cheaper unorganized Labour...Create low paid jobs...etc..

 

The geezer from Siemens UK was saying that rebuilding manufacturing in the UK would take 20 years.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Park Life

[ewerk 26793]

So Corbyn won't go when Labour lose the election. He really is prepared to go down with the ship.

[ewerk 26793]

Also, it's at odds with what McDonnell was saying to Marr on Sunday.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3279]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

So Corbyn won't go when Labour lose the election. He really is prepared to go down with the ship.

 

Or vice versa