Forum menu
From both parties standpoint PR (or it’s variants) would be a disaster
I can see the drawbacks for labour but struggling to see the downside for the lib dems as a minority party, especially as they'd almost certainly be the king makers in a non-overall majority situation. The major risk of PR for anyone coming from on anti-tory standpoint is the inexcusable habit the lib dems have of allying themselves with the tories rather than labour. For me though the greatest benefit of PR would be greater influence for the greens and potential for parties like them to better represent the interests of the younger generation.
But if Labour had mounted a stronger/any kind of campaign, chances are the Tories would have taken the seat.
Labour did put resources into the campaign. If they'd run a paper candidate, or no candidate at all, I could've understood it. As it is, they've spent money they don't have to fall even further behind than Corbyn managed at what was supposedly their nadir.
I don't disagree @dazh, if the current Tory regime doesn't shows the voters that our present system is totally unfit for purpose, then we may as well all just give up now. I can't see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
You can exclude me from that.
I do like binners whining about those nasty lefties. He really does regurgitate the hard rights attack lines with faultless precision.
I can’t see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
So don't give them the choice (in a referendum that is). Instead slice away at FPTP with more minor, incremental electoral reforms. Start with local authorities, then the lords. Then when everyone's used to PR in those areas reform the commons to introduce a quota of MPs elected via party vote share, then reduce the number of constituency MPs to the point where it's 50-50. Then either stop there or move to full PR. There are loads of ways to erode FPTP, all it needs is labour, the lib dems and SNP cooperating to shut the tories out.
all it needs is labour, the lib dems and SNP cooperating
So don’t give them the choice (in a referendum that is). Instead slice away at FPTP with more minor, incremental electoral reforms. Start with local authorities, then the lords.
If we're talking about England, it already is, in a limited way. Mayoral elections are the supplementary vote system.
I can’t see the public having a different response to another offer of PR any more than they did last time, can you?
We have never had a offer of PR for westminster elections.
AV was a miserable compromise which is deeply flawed and so was difficult to rally support around.
A campaign for proper PR is more likely to meet with success although would have difficulty getting through the hard right media barons. However there is opportunity to target those on the right as well since many of those who think the tories are now a bit commie will have noticed how little their votes for farage and co counts.
Would it succeed. Maybe, maybe not but there would be opportunity.
But if Labour had mounted a stronger/any kind of campaign, chances are the Tories would have taken the seat.
Labour did put resources into the campaign. If they’d run a paper candidate, or no candidate at all, I could’ve understood it. As it is, they’ve spent money they don’t have to fall even further behind than Corbyn managed at what was supposedly their nadir.
I was happy with the result as I want to see tories out of power and am not interested in second places.
If labour had not fallen further behind (perhaps because of some mass campaign of corbynite volunteers bussed in from all over the country to knock on doors - not ideal timing, pandemic related but whatever) then the tories would have taken the seat. As it is they lost it, for now, and we can see just the faint, faint hope of a way to get them out at the next general election. This has Labour winning where it can, and lib dems, scot nats, greens winning where it can't. And then decide how to form a govt which would be a million miles from the current corrupt, antidemocratic, incompetent mess.
A campaign for proper PR is more likely to meet with success although would have difficulty getting through the hard right media barons.
Not to mention the Unions, who squashed any idea of their support for it at the last Labour conference.
If labour had not fallen further behind
What exactly do you mean by "further behind"? In the last couple of elections they were comfortably ahead of the libdems in North Shropshire.
So why exactly they brought into this myth of the libdems being the all conquering champions is unclear and not backed by the voting records prior to the election.
What johnx2 said
Once this Government finish their dodgy gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries, voter ID and whatever other anti democratic nonsense they cook up between now and the next election, the only conceivable way we’ll end up with a non-Tory government with a working majority is with some kind of party cooperation if not a full on coalition
I think the last by-election showed that the voters are ahead of the parties on this one and voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the Tory
What exactly do you mean by “further behind”?
The Tories, remember them?
The Tories, remember them?
Yes but that is irrelavant to the claim of the libdems being the best placed competition given the voting record of the constituency. To be equally patronising I am sure you have noticed 12,495 is larger than 5,643?
Admittedly given the appalling performance of Starmers forensic approach in old bexley it might be best for them to give up and go home it is still a bit early no?
binners Full Member
What johnx2 said
So as an alleged individual member of the Labour Party you are happy to see Labour come third in a seat that just 2 years ago they came second. No wonder the Labour Party is up electoral shit creek without a paddle**
And this is from someone who bangs on endless that the only thing that matters is "winning". Coming second is never acceptable. Even robbing the Tories of a majority isn't enough for you.
But coming third is...... after you have very conveniently moved the goalposts.
**Labour can't win by-elections in seats that last general election they came second, despite the Tories being in crisis. They can't even win a by-election in one of their own safe seats.
So you have given up on Labour winning the 150 seats necessary to form a majority government binners, despite hysterically demanding a majority government from Corbyn.
You are as slippery and vacillating as a Tory politician mate.
To be equally patronising
Sorry, wasn't meant to be. Quick post to mean that's the focus. Sure I'd prefer if Labour had won, but the Tories lost and it happens that a strong labour campaign would have stopped that. Kick Starmer by all means or say in an alternative Corbyn universe things would've been different (Lab a strong second...?), but I'm happy with that outcome.
And in the next GE/By-election in that constituency, the LibDems will point out that they were second this time and that it's therefore a waste of time voting Labour. Are you suggesting that Labour give up any hope of ever winning seats like these? Maybe you should compile a list of all the seats not worth contesting - ever - and see if the number remaining comes anywhere near to a Westminster majority. If it doesn't then Labour might as well pack up now.
What bizarro-world have we entered where Labour supporters are happy with Labour being utterly trounced in a by-election against a government in crisis, and by a party that are closer to the Tories than they are to Labour.
I thought it was supposed to be us lefties that didn't care about winning and crowed over 'moral victories' (which this doesn't even class as).
Still, as long as the right's grip on the party is strengthened to make Labour more electable, actually winning elections doesn't matter eh.
I thought it was supposed to be us lefties that didn’t care about winning and crowed over ‘moral victories’ (which this doesn’t even class as).
Dealing with the world as it is, moral victories mean zero; Tories losing is better than Labour coming second if we want a labour (or let's face it labour-led) government. Plenty of Labour activists would disagree with this analysis and entirely honorably so, as clearly so too do some of the too-left-for-labour folks here looking for any stick to beat Starmer. Hey ho.
And this is from someone who bangs on endless that the only thing that matters is “winning”. Coming second is never acceptable. Even robbing the Tories of a majority isn’t enough for you.
Bigger picture?
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
That’s all that matters. A non-Tory government. How we get there isn’t of that much significance.
Those possessed of a zeal for idealogical purity obviously see things differently
Unfortunately for them ‘winning the argument’ means Jack shit if you just delivered the Tory’s an 80 seat majority. Has any politician ever made a more ridiculous statement? Winning the ****ing argument? Have a word with yourself FFS!
Tories losing is better than Labour coming second if we want a labour (or let’s face it labour-led) government.
So the way to achieve a Labour government is to let the LibDems win in seats where Labour came second, yeah that should work.
And I will remind you that the last time the LibDems were in a position to make a difference austerity rained down on the British people.
Btw the latest seat predictions has the LibDems on 8 seats, down from 11 at the last general election, based on LibDem support falling from 12% last general election down to 9% now.
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
So what was all the excitement about the Tories losing a seat last Thursday?
You'll do your back in mate if you keep moving the goalposts with such speed.
A couple of years ago you were screaming with rage because Labour didn't have a 20 point lead over the Tories, today you are well chuffed because Labour has about a 5 point lead.
You can lose a battle, if you ultimately win the war.
and
Winning the ****ing argument? Have a word with yourself FFS!
Someone who wasnt arguing a massive drop in voting numbers is a good thing might actually be able to spot the disconnect here but someone who snears at the 6th formers on the grounds they never reached such heady heights isnt going to be the person for the job.
About the only good thing for Labour in this byelection is it eclipses just how badly they got their arses kicked in the previous one. I guess that good right in your eyes.
Keep forensically destroying the tories.
A couple of years ago you were screaming with rage because Labour didn’t have a 20 point lead over the Tories,
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?) IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time. It was 28 points behind when he shuffled off to the allotment, having gift-wrapped Boris his huge majority, wasn’t it?
today you are well chuffed because Labour has about a 5 point lead.
Given where we were when Grandad finally, belatedly bowed out, I’ll take that now, yes. It’s all going in the right direction
I am aware how much this upsets you, comrades, but try not to be too glum. It’s Christmas 😃
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?)
Its better than moronic nicknames and pictures but somehow I suspect you wont be able to provide it.
IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time.
And point proved. I dont know if you have noticed but the tories arent exactly in a great position right now? You know what with mishandling of a crisis, hypocrisy and corruption and the self destructing infighting.
. It’s all going in the right direction
As can be seen from every byelection result.
I mean ffs. You could sort of argue North shropshire but lets look at old Bexley shall we? I know the labour leadership went for fooling the simple minded by shouting about the swing to Labour but even the dimmest should have noticed the labour vote collapsed.
To lend some context to that statement ( Context is great, isn’t it?) IIRC Corbyns Labour Party was 18-20 points behind a self-destructing Tory party in the polls at the time
No, when they had a lead over the Tories you complained that they should be further ahead and it was all Corbyn's fault. Your lack of consistency is no surprise.
when they had a lead over the Tories you complained that they should be further ahead
That is exactly as I remember it. You were ranting that Labour should be 20 points ahead because the Tory government was apparently so appalling.
You certainly weren't celebrating this :
But perhaps you think that Johnson's government isn't as bad as Theresa May's government?
Is that your reason for moving the goalposts?
That’s all that matters. A non-Tory government. How we get there isn’t of that much significance.
Those possessed of a zeal for idealogical purity obviously see things differently
A non-Tory government can still be a right wing government hell bent on not turning things around.
Ideology purity groans are the echoes of a screaming centrist not grasping the ideological direction that the Right have engulfed on this country.
For the record in the UK no main party is ideologically pure. In the UK we have political parties sitting on a spectrum between what the market can fix and what the state can fix.
I'm saying the state can be tasked to fix a hell of a lot more than the profit sneering right-wing claim it can.
You just need the political will.
That doesn't make it ideologically pure.
Put the phrase to bed.
A non-Tory government can still be a right wing government hell bent on not turning things around.
Very true, I don't however think even under STarmer that the Labour party would be considered a right wing party
Ideology purity groans are the echoes of a screaming centrist not grasping the ideological direction that the Right have engulfed on this country.
The country have voted for the right for the last 50 years with exception of the New Labour years which were a more right wing Labour party than we would like. What is your conclusion from that?
A deep seated yearning for socialism, obviously.
I don’t however think even under STarmer that the Labour party would be considered a right wing party
The Labour Party under Starmer is most certainly right wing, which is of course precisely why it meets with binners approval.
Unless perhaps you can prove me wrong and list all those leftie policies being argued by Labour?
The country have voted for the right for the last 50 years with exception of the New Labour years which were a more right wing Labour party than we would like. What is your conclusion from that?
My conclusion is that you consider the Labour governments of the 1970s which were significantly to the left of Labour under Corbyn, as indeed were Tory governments, and were denounced by Blairites as left wing, weren't left wing.
My other conclusion is that you appear to believe that during New Labour the electorate had a choice between a right wing Labour Party and a left wing Labour Party and decided to choose the right wing one. I am not aware of any Labour MPs losing their seats because they were too left wing.
Edit : To help you list the left wing policies being argued by Labour here are Starmer's 10 socialist pledges (click on "10 pledges") just give the number of the pledges that he is currently pursuing.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
A deep seated yearning for socialism, obviously.
The electorate have never been given the choice of socialism. The following Noam Chomsky quote applies equally well in the UK as it does the US:
'In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.'
Well if thats the case, how come the majority keep overwhelmingly voting for what is clearly the worst of the two options available?
The electorate have never been given the choice of socialism.
could easily be mistaken for agreeing with this guy...
Labour can win again if we make the moral case for socialism
Keir Starmer
Maybe "socialism" means different things to you than it does to Keir?
Serious question and honestly not a debating point (well maybe a bit, but I'm still interested in the answer): what country/ies in say the last 10-15 years would you have the UK take as a model that we can try in our own way to emulate? I guess let's make it medium to large and industrialised, so not Iceland basically or an island in the pacific I've not heard of. NZ would be allowed.
Labour governments of the 1970s which were significantly to the left of Labour under Corbyn
As someone who wants a left wing government … please don’t draw people’s attention to the 1970s. Thank you.
Maybe “socialism” means different things to you than it does to Keir?
Have you heard him use the S word recently?
Have you heard him use the S word recently?
If I was in his position (ha ha) I'd probably avoid using it right now as it means very different things to different people. In the US it means availability of basic healthcare. To the labour leadership electorate it means something different, to the wider electorate to whom he now has to appeal it means a bunch of different things not all positive, and to dazh I don't know what it means in practice, hence my question as to what countries we could take as a model or at least learn from.
My guess is that starmer would prefer to have his level of socialism assessed by the outcomes of policies he's able to enact - are we a fairer more equal society?
So why was he proudly using it in his pledges etc at leadership election time? What's changed, other than the fact he won and doesn't need to bother pretending to be a unity candidate any more.
I've just said - different electorate, judge by actions. And which country?
All the Scandinavian countries for starters even the ones with what they consider right-wing governments are still way to the left of us.
Scandinavia apart, most other major European countries are considerably more socialist than us ie higher taxes, better public services, less inequality, better social security, etc etc
What's your point exactly?
different electorate, judge by actions
All we have to judge him on so far is what he says, which makes him look totally untrustworthy. Judging by the recent by-elction result we won't get to judge him on results. It's extremely generous of you to say we can't judge him until he's been in power for a few years.
please don’t draw people’s attention to the 1970s. Thank you.
I didn't, kerley did when referring to the last 50 years.
I'm assuming that you subscribe to the Thatcherite myth concerning how terrible things were in the 1970s, despite the fact that it is now proudly declared that we currently have the lowest unemployment rate for almost 50 years.
even the ones with what they consider right-wing governments are still way to the left of us.
The Swedish Democrats would probably want to have a chat about that.
Thatcherite myth concerning how terrible things were in the 1970s
The UK in the 70s was a mess for much of the people of Britain. You won’t find me claiming that what followed in the 80s was good for the population though. Unemployment is not the only measure of success. How people have to live in and out of work is just as important as whether they are in work. (To me anyway… insert vocal support of UBI rant here if you want).
Anyway, Labour can’t be seen to be stuck in the 1970… the electorate need to see that Labour are not swinging between old and new Labour, but are offering something else. The current leader is failing to make the case for that.
Well if thats the case, how come the majority keep overwhelmingly voting for what is clearly the worst of the two options available?
Sigh, to repeat again... (normally I have to say this to kerley)
In 2019 28% of the electorate voted for the tories. In what fantasy world can that be described as an overwhelming majority?
And that’s back to first past the post… there is a large minority of voters who will vote for a stridently left wing option (including me)… but many others need to be brought into the fold to defeat the Conservatives in England.
Unemployment is not the only measure of success.
Unemployment is probably the single greatest indicator of how well an economy is doing.
Which is precisely why the Tories made it their principal election issue in 1979 before then tripling unemployment to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Unemployment has a huge effect on the quality of life of ordinary people, including those in work whose wages and conditions are massively effected by unemployment, never mind crime, substance abuse, etc etc.
Btw I feel as if I'm talking to a Tory voter, such is your dismissive attitude to the importance of unemployment levels.
Indeed. Seems pretty obvious to me that a party which gets 28% of the vote should get 28% of the power. Is that such a crazy idea?
your dismissive attitude to the importance of unemployment levels
It’s Tory voters that often believe that work is always the answer, that the government owes you nothing, and that the unemployed should be punished. You can count me out of that.
All the Scandinavian countries for starters
fwiw I'd be happy if we were more like some of the scandi's as would KS, so what exactly are we arguing about?
(Not sure I can be arsed arguing about the 70s. For sure Thatch made everything worse, things going downhill from a since misrepresented post-war consensus. Ducking out again either way.)
Btw I feel as if I’m talking to a Tory voter, such is your dismissive attitude to the importance of unemployment levels.
What's your view on 'bullshit jobs'? The only reason employment is at currently high levels is because we've created an economy which forces people to work in jobs which are completely pointless. There's a mental health tsunami out there due in no small part to the fact that people feel like they have no purpose in life beyond slaving away in a pointless job so they can buy pointless crap and then distract themselves by getting shitfaced at the weekend. What's the leftwing socialist solution to that?
What’s the leftwing socialist solution to that?
Spoken like a true leftie.
Edit : Btw that was very much Thatcher's argument, ie that the jobs being lost under her premiership weren't "real jobs". The Thatcherite slogan was "real jobs for real people".
Spoken like a true leftie.
Care to actually answer the question? I know how you like to discuss things properly rather than resort to personal jibes.
The Thatcherite slogan was “real jobs for real people”.
That isn't what we have now though is it? You're sounding very much like one of those blue labour 'dignity of work' types. It'll all be ok as long as we're all kept busy slaving away for benefit of either private business or the state. Whether you come at it from right or left it's still bollocks.
Unemployment is not the only measure of success. How people have to live in and out of work is just as important as whether they are in work. (To me anyway… insert vocal support of UBI rant here if you want).
UBI alone would not make a blind bit of difference to the macro-economic model we have now.
How does UBI fix lack of government spending in infrastructure and the health service for instance?
How does UBI not just become another benefit that can be used to shore up wages and leave companies paying less than decent wages?
How does UBI improve those that need more targeted benefits?
A job guarantee is a much more solid theoretical answer to the problems the private market has created.
A job guarantee with some form of UBI would perhaps be even better but without the government acting as the employer of last resort our country will carry on regressing under its own weight.
Well if thats the case, how come the majority keep overwhelmingly voting for what is clearly the worst of the two options available?
Surely you can answer your own question and draw parallels to the Brexit vote!
Short: Because we have been told that Capitalism in the form of neolibralism (or the free market) is great and socialism is evil.
It's a complete reversal of what is good for us as a population needing the get through the world as it is now.
On top of this we're in complex times where government's establish macroeconomic policy as current truth and shape society in populist ways.
Look at Sunak with his pathetic 'generous' support to the hospitality sector.
That's adding insult to injury when he knows the BoE is just a score keeper for government spending.
Anyway... Happy Non Denominational Winterfest you lot!
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51769100491_ad8cd999ab_h.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51769100491_ad8cd999ab_h.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2mSEaY8 ]Happy no denominational winterfest[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/14162682@N00/ ]bin lid[/url], on Flickr
I'm self-isolating and bored 😀
How does UBI improve those that need more targeted benefits?
UBI doesn’t mean that targeted benefits are no longer required. Just as a (real) state pension doesn’t mean that those with specific needs no longer require specific extra support.
A job guarantee is a much more solid theoretical answer to the problems the private market has created.
Guarantee of what kind of job? Smacks of communism a bit to me. Or feudalism. Be glad of a job, any job, because the alternative is destitution… we should and can aim higher than that. It also ignores the reality of in work poverty in our society currently.
that's some quality photoshopping there Binners, can't even see the joins.
Sigh, to repeat again… (normally I have to say this to kerley)
In 2019 28% of the electorate voted for the tories. In what fantasy world can that be described as an overwhelming majority?
Sigh, to repeat again (normally I have to say this to Dazh)
In the voting system is use in the UK, with the voters that bother to vote, more vote for Tory MPs in their constituency than others. I have never said the majority of people vote Tory but as we know that is not how voting works and the majority of people within each constituency is all that matters.
Short: Because we have been told that Capitalism in the form of neolibralism (or the free market) is great and socialism is evil.
So if we have all been told that why do we, on this thread, not believe that?
Is it because the voters are gullible or is it because they actually like the tory party and what it stands for?
I’m self-isolating and bored 😀
But at least not wasting your time 😁 I think though I've spotted what must be photoshop: what's with Trump's tribars? Anyway, that's fantastic and unlikely to be topped, so it's a Christmas flounce from me. Have a good one, one and all!
Because we have been told that Capitalism in the form of neolibralism (or the free market) is great
Most of “us” have no idea what “neoliberalism” means, and I include those that regularly use the term. If you decide that your brand of socialism requires the end to capitalism, you’re are not going going to be elected. Capitalism is here to stay. As is socialism. The voters want differing balances of the two. As soon as you let them think your politics is against capitalism, rather than seeking to improve the checks and balanced we need to live with it… it is game over come elections. People want to keep capitalism. They want a big change, but that big change is not the end of capitalism.
Capitalism is here to stay
Ah yes the system that's only been around for what, 400 years and is destroying the planet is definitely going to carry on forever.
Capitalism is here to stay
That's absurd. To say a system based on exponential growth will always exist is mathematically illiterate. It may not be socialism that replaces it, but capitalism is by definition time limited due to it's very nature.
Capitalism is going no where. And if your vision for a better life for all in the UK requires persuading voters that we need to replace capitalism rather than work with it, then you can forget it.
Capitalism is here to stay
Ah yes the system that’s only been around for what, 400 years and is destroying the planet is definitely going to carry on forever
Capitalism isn't going to be around forever. The worry is that it might still be here in this form until the end.
Capitalism will outlive any of us gobshites. Of course nothing is forever. I want a better life for my children, not just the people of the next century. Get your heads out of the clouds. Starmer should run a mile from anyone trying to hang the “end of capitalism” tag around his party’s neck.
Oh Christ! Are we back to the ‘end of capitalism’ thing again?
Guys… god only knows what you’re offering up as an alternative (I very much doubt you’ve the first clue either), but when you mention those words, this is the picture that automatically enters everybodies head about the bright alternative future you’re offering instead of capitalism…
And guess what?
Absolutely nobody is going to vote for it
Starmer should run a mile from anyone trying to hang the “end of capitalism” tag around his party’s neck.
Lucky literally no one is advocating the labour party should campaign on 'the end of capitalism' then isn't it. You were just called out on your silly claim, then tried to divert from that with a straw man. Go you.
Human civilisation has been around for around 10,000 years, but you think for some reason the system of the last 400 will last forever? Ok then...
And binners - grown ups are talking...
I said capitalism is here to stay. I said nothing about “forever”. Nothing last forever. I was talking politics not metaphysics.
Socialism as word scares of voters (now today) precisely its opponents successfully paint it as meaning “anti-capitalist”… Starmer, and anyone who succeeds him, needs to remind people that we already have socialism in the UK, and it’s core to many of the aspects of UK life they hold dear.
Capitalism will outlive any of us gobshites.
Do the maths. That's another doubling of current consumption, possibly a quadrupling for some of us (christ I hope I don't live that long!). We're struggling now with current levels of consumption, so the idea of quadrupling that is almost certainly not going to happen. The pertinent question is how it ends (nuclear war is my bet). The only thing we can be certain of is that it won't be the labour party and their centre left colleagues in other western states who make it happen.
So, you’re predicting the end of capitalism, in the UK, in any of our lifetimes? Forget it. Big change needs to come. Capitalism will be part of that change. Government’s need to lead though (together).
So, you’re predicting the end of capitalism, in the UK, in any of our lifetimes?
Yes I'm predicting the end of it in it's current form based on exponential growth and unaccounted use of natural resources. It's a cast-iron certainty. It's either that or economic collapse some time in the next 50 years. Even the rich aren't that stupid.
The only possible thing that will prevent it is nuclear fusion. Even then we're going to have to get a lot better at recycling and invent new ways of living which aren't based on the consequence-free consumption of material things. Assuming we avoid killing each other in a deluge of nuclear missiles, in terms of tangible consumer goods and real things we need to have a steady state, or even recessionary economy. There will still be a market in the non-tangible, digital world however.
the end of it in its current form
Exactly. Reformed not removed.
but you think for some reason the system of the last 400 will last forever?
Less than 300 years is probably more precise but more important is that the capitalism of 300 years ago was very different to the capitalism of today, as was the capitalism of a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago.
The point is that capitalism has to constantly reinvent itself due its inherent instability, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence that it represents the pinnacle of human development and that it will last forever.
The most thorny question capitalism has to deal with is how much socialism it should embrace. That debate never seems to end.
Reformed not removed.
No if you change the exponential growth aspect of it, then capitalism as it is currently defined no longer exists. Like I said if we can solve the energy problem then a digital capitalist economy will almost certainly exist, but in the real world we'll end up in some form of post-capitalist scenario. The transition is already happening in the form of social media moving to virtual reality, crypto currencies, NFTs (which are a load of bollox BTW) etc. In 50 years time people will value their digital and non-tangible assets more than their material ones.
I kinda sympathise with Starmer, he can't win, too left and he gets called a lefty/marxist/communist/socialist, (delete as appropriate) too right and he gets accused of being a tory.
He basically has an impossible task and he's trying to walk the line.
but more important is that the capitalism of 300 years ago was very different to the capitalism of today, as was the capitalism of a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago
^^^^ this
He basically has an impossible task and he’s trying to walk the line.
^^^^ also this
And trying to be all things to all people can result in meaning nothing at all… which some politicians might do well from… but not someone who is a boring character vacuum such as Starmer.
if we can solve the energy problem
^^^^ most importantly this
No issue will be bigger in the next few decades. Post fossil fuel capitalism should be on the lips of all politicians. Along with the post production/consumption society.
No issue will be bigger in the next few decades. Post fossil fuel capitalism should be on the lips of all politicians.
No issue is bigger now, not that you'd know from our politicians. The irony is that the longer they wait for unicorn solutions like fusion, the more chance there is of the whole pyramid scheme collapsing. Even if fusion generation is achieved, it won't be 'post-fossil fuel capitalism' as you cutely describe it, it will be post-fossil fuel monopolism. Whoever owns the fusion plants will have a licence to print money, and they won't use that power for the greater good.