Forum menu
There seems to be a bit of naivete going on here assuming that capitalism might be voted in or out. Parliamentary systems evolved to incapacitate change. When crises occur change happens outside of the institutional context eg BLM, workers striking, GFA. The parliamentary parties have nothing to do with it as any striker or demonstrator knows.
Some truth to that. But, ultimately, the voters want to keep capitalism. Many may want us to change it, and for us to be less beholden to it, but that is not the same thing as getting rid of it. That people won’t vote away capitalism is not a conspiracy, people want to keep it, while also acknowledging that we should not just be slaves to it.
The trouble is that so far, when people instigate an economic system at a national level that isn’t capitalism, it invariably ends up with people queueing for a loaf of bread that costs four times more than it did a week ago
There are many forms of capitalism, and the present form of crony monopoly corporatism we have in this country is probably the worst, bar America
We unfortunately just decoupled ourselves from an economic block with many far superior examples
We unfortunately just decoupled ourselves from an economic block with many far superior examples
You think crony corporatism doesn't exist in Europe? What are these examples? As far as I can see there's almost no difference between capitalism in the EU than in the UK.
I don't think capitalism as an economic theory is necessarily the worst, if your goal is to create wealth for as many people as possible, and of course you can make an argument about whether that's an acceptable goal. What I think (personally) the issue for us in the early 21st C is that as both government regulations and subsidies increase, (for obviously mostly reasonable political goals; employment in a region and so on) the profitability and even the survival of large corporations becomes less dependent on satisfying the preferences of consumers and more on capturing the government benefits system that (perversely) undermine true capitalism.
We have a system that is spiraling out of control, as governments strain to both regulate and control big business, those business react by trying to capture the process. There are two options, fewer and less powerful organisations/ corporations or fewer and less intrusive regulation or state intervention. I think the political fight of the times is which side of that are you on?
You think crony corporatism doesn’t exist in Europe?
That isn’t what I said, is it?
As far as I can see there’s almost no difference between capitalism in the EU than in the UK.
You’re not looking very hard then. Take your pick.
As one example, Take ‘levelling up’. Since reunification Germany has massively invested in the East to do precisely that, at the same time as London has sucked up pretty much all investment in this country and casually watched regional economies collapse.
There are many many more examples.
As far as I can see there’s almost no difference between capitalism in the EU than in the UK.
You’re not looking very hard then.
Really? The UK operates a very different form of capitalism to the rest of the EU? How did that work when the UK was part of the EU? What was the point of EU directives?
The EU sets minimum standards. That's a floor, not a ceiling.
We're about to find that out in no uncertain terms as this lot demolish the floor. Heres the MO of our next PM
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1473986391625318403?s=20
She's openly saying thats the plan. But you're still maintaining that a Starmer administration would be no different? Really?
And if you really think that the same economic model is used throughout the entire of the EU then you're absolutely off your napper
But you’re still maintaining that a Starmer administration would be no different? Really?
I certainly haven't said that. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a Starmer led government would be like, nor can you possibly know. Although I think it is fair to assume that it is unlikely to be very left wing.
And if you really think that the same economic model is used throughout the entire of the EU then you’re absolutely off your napper
Thank you for the kind words binners, but what you claim are different economic models is based on perceived policy differences.
Every time there is a change in government policies it doesn't automatically equate with a change in the economic model.
The UK's economic model is fundamentally the same as the EU. Dazh's claim that "there’s almost no difference between capitalism in the EU than in the UK" is a fair and reasonable one.
Edit : Btw it is you who has persistently claimed that there is no difference between Boris Johnson's policies and Thatcher's, in fact you have ridiculed me for suggesting that.
But now you are posting stuff to emphasise how Liz Truss wants to take the Tory Party back to Thatcherism.
The only thing that is consistent with you is your inconsistency.
And if you really think that the same economic model is used throughout the entire of the EU then you’re absolutely off your napper
There are certainly local differences.
But essentially the EU is an economic model.
Mostly they share the same ECB with an inflation target of 2% - identical to our Bank of England's target.
But then not all EU countries are part of the the ECB.(non Euro countries).
So it’s not just Tory MPs who make arses of themselves in the media..
https://twitter.com/aaronbastani/status/1475793238682447880?s=21
Okay so David Lammy now regrets nominating Jeremy Corbyn and making that speech, I wouldn't go as far as saying that I regret supporting Corbyn 2015-17 but I am certainly staggered what an unbelievably inapt and weak leader so easily pushed around he turned out to be.
Although David Lammy has a history of making some pretty idiotic comments so even by the low standards of politicians I'm not sure exactly how typical he is.
I am certainly staggered what an unbelievably inapt and weak leader so easily pushed around he turned out to be.
And what attributes did you think an anonymous, time-serving 'career' on the backbenches, not even considered for even the most junior bag-carriers position, voting against his own party most of the time, would bring to the table as far as leadership was concerned?
I'm just surprised that anyone was surprised at his comedic incompetence.
I'm also surprised the Tories haven't offered him some form of official recognition for his tireless commitment to their cause. He's almost Thatcher-esque in his services to the Tory party
And what attributes did you think an anonymous, time-serving ‘career’ on the backbenches, not even considered for even the most junior bag-carriers position, voting against his own party most of the time, would bring to the table as far as leadership was concerned?
And yet binners you were quite enthusiastic about Corbyn when he was in the running to become Party leader, this is what you said :
binners Full Member
I think it’d be a novelty to actually have a party leader who doesn’t just blindly accept the neo-liberal consensus, like its been passed down from god on tablets of stone, and actually offers an alternative. I’m so frigging bored with them all unquestioningly offering more of the same, with a different coloured tie. It’d just be nice to hear someone voice an alternative.
For your edit :
I’m also surprised the Tories haven’t offered him some form of official recognition for his tireless commitment to their cause. He’s almost Thatcher-esque in his services to the Tory party
Corbyn's 2017 Labour manifesto actually shifted the Tory Party to the left, buried any chances of austerity being resurrected, and payed the way for Johnson and his anti-Thatcherite agenda. You think Thatcher would be grateful?
Okay so David Lammy now regrets nominating Jeremy Corbyn
Fun fact: while Lammy was doing his Q&A on this years Limmud, my missus was giving a lecture on Penis' in the 18thC at the same time. She only got 160 attendees, rather than the 300 David Lammy got, but y'know...
Fun fact:
I don't know if it's brain fog caused by covid but your fun fact is lost on me.
Edit : Why is your missus an expert on 18th century penises?
I’m just surprised that anyone was surprised at his comedic incompetence.
Yet he managed to beat your favoured nominees. Twice.
Says a lot about them.
And before you start, no, he didn't win because of entryists.
Why is your missus an expert on 18th century penises?
Not really just penis' per se, but she's a Dr of Literature @ Manchester Uni where she studies (amongst other things) engravings like Hogarth's "A Harlot's Progress". In one of the engravings (it's a series) The Harlot has taken on a lover, who turns out to be Jewish. This is interesting for a number of reasons pertaining to the cultural position of Jewish men at the time. Her Limmud lecture was about it. The "Fun Fact" was that her lecture was scheduled at the same time as David Lammy who was also giving a lecture on Limmud 2021 when he said his piece about Jeremy.
caused by covid
Eurgh, sympathies. Hope you're not feeling too bad?
Well yes Nick I agree that your missus's lecture at the same time as David Lammy's lecture is indeed a fun fact.
What I don't fully understand however is why 160 people should have sat in a room listening to your wife talking about some 18th century geezer's knob, and whether it was kosher or not.
Not that it requires explaining of course......everyone is entitled to their own niche interest.
And thanks for your Covid concerns, I'm mostly over it now, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine and triple jabbing. Today is the sixth day since the start of symptoms which, bar loss of sense of smell and taste, were gone by yesterday. So very pleased apart from the loss of sense of smell and taste..... it's a sad day when a man can't smell his own farts 😕
Tutu must have made Lammy curl up with embarrassment.
Today is the sixth day since the start of symptoms
Almost exactly the same time as Binners came down with it. I’m beginning to think we’ve all been had.
What exactly has Lammy done wrong here? I mean, I understand that defending Corbyn’s response to the EHRC report might be what many want from a current Labour front bencher who previously supported Corbyn as leader. Others will be pleased that he has shifted away from supporting the ex-leader (and now independent MP), and is even prepared, with the benefit of hindsight, to express regret for his own role in helping him become leader.
Then why was he supporting him as late as March 2020?
Why has he changed his mind very recently? Lammy was praising Corbyn as late as March 2020 from what I've seen.
It's all typical centrist switching and shuffling about exactly like change UK did.
Labour is full of these shifting and twisting hypocrites that can't stand by any sort of definable value.
Then why was he supporting him as late as March 2020?
Are people not allowed to change their minds after nearly two years then? Isn't part of the problem with modern politics, MPs sticking with previously stated positions because of tribalism, and fear of being branded as hypocrites by opposition parties?
Like the Guardian and the Times, Lammy couldn't bring himself to mention Tutu's opposition to apartheid in Palestine.
Are people not allowed to change their minds after nearly two years then?
Everything’s relative.
Within a few months we’ll have a PM (presently foreign Secretary) who campaigned for remain but who’s now apparently an arch Brexiteer, threatening the EU with triggering article 16 in order to woo the far right
Today is the sixth day since the start of symptoms
Almost exactly the same time as Binners came down with it. I’m beginning to think we’ve all been had.
Ernie… I think we’ve been rumbled
Lammy couldn’t bring himself to mention Tutu’s opposition to apartheid in Palestine.
David 'vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel' Lammy?
That is a surprise. Guess some kinds of apartheid are ok.
Are people not allowed to change their minds after nearly two years then?
The interesting thing is that Lammy claims to accept that he was wrong to support Tony Blair's Iraq War, yet despite that he voted against any enquiry to establish what mistakes were made and to avoid them ever been repeated. Nor has he apologised for supporting the Iraq War.
It turns out that for Lammy nominating Jeremy Corbyn, so that party members would have have a choice, deserves an apology but supporting a war which was based on lies and cost an incalculable amount of lives, all the more so because there was a complete and callous disregard for post combat planning, doesn't.
Which says a lot about Lammy, and also a lot about the difference between him and Jeremy Corbyn who of course was totally opposed, along with other brave people such as the LibDem leader Charles Kennedy, to the Iraq War.
But then Lammy was a Blairite minister so it would be wrong to expect to much from him.
Lammy couldn’t bring himself to mention Tutu’s opposition to apartheid in Palestine.
But Lammy did mention Desmond Tutu's integrity.
Although not every aspect of it :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu
Can we not change the thread title? Something that mentions both Iraq and Israel would be ideal.
I really can not see anything wrong with what Lammy has said. By all means condemn him for not being loyal to the ex-leader when speaking to a predominantly Jewish audience. And for following the lead of his current party leader. Others will expect and want exactly that from a Labour front bencher.
'Don't mention the....' To paraphrase Tutu, failing to address issues of oppression and discrimination put you on the side of the oppressor.
Within a few months we’ll have a PM (presently foreign Secretary)
Let's hope we do as in a very recent poll which incorporated the Leader, Truss did even worse than Johnson (but not as bad as Gove). The winner - Sunak
Can we not change the thread title? Something that mentions both Iraq and Israel would be ideal.
Also perhaps a reference to Nick's missus's lecture on kosher knobs, and their associations with harlots.
Basically any subject which doesn't rely Keir Starmer as a source of interesting debate. Apart from his obsession with anti-Semitism Starmer appears to have no strong views on any issue.
Which presumably is why after making that comment you then go on to not talk about Starmer.
Can we not change the thread title? Something that mentions both Iraq and Israel would be ideal.
Imagine thinking it's important that SKS and at least half of his cabinet are members of a lobby group for an apartheid regime.
Let's make sure we stay on topic though eh.
If we must discuss Israel, and Lammy’s role in LFI…
Supporting the Labor party in Israel doesn’t seem unreasonable for UK Labour politicians to me. The rise of the far right parties at the expense of Labor has made a bad situation far worse. Some of those in the new government are a step in the right direction (having a Muslim member is notable) but there is a long way to go (to put it mildly). A Labor resurgence would be welcome, and Labour politicians should be supporting of that aim.
I know you don't care kelvin but it's not just supporting the Labour party of Israel, it's a pro-Israel lobby group. That's its stated aim.
Edit: or it was in 2003 anyway, I'm not aware that there has been anything to suggest this is no longer the case
I care. Deeply.
You don't seem interested in any of this either
Kindly stop assuming what I care about.
I'm basing it on your constant attempts to downplay/divert whenever anyone criticises senior Labour politicians (inc SKS) over their support for an apartheid regime.
Don't get all huffy just because people notice.
The Cult of Corbyn is presently thwapping itself into a trance in an orgy of virtue signalling on Twitter 😂
Better than ****-signalling though isn't it...
Depends what ****-signalling is I suppose?
And what your tolerance level is for cringe-inducing piousness, sanctimony and self-righteousness is.
And what your tolerance level is for cringe-inducing piousness, sanctimony and self-righteousness is.
I have no problem with yours binners. In fact I appreciate its entertainment value.
Depends what ****-signalling is I suppose?
And what your tolerance level is for cringe-inducing piousness, sanctimony and self-righteousness is.
I think you can guess what four letter word that might represent. My point is binners, you love using the term virtue-signalling - I'd say it's one of your favourite insults alongside '6th formers'. It's normally language associated with the right if not far/'alt-right' IME.
I'd tend to associate it's use with someone like Richard Littlejohn or Laurence Fox. It's usually used by people keen to show off how 'salt of the earth' and 'no-nonsense' they are when they express zero compassion for, say dead refugees.
What it normally means is 'ew, these people have some morals/standards, that might make me look bad in comparison so I'll attack the very concept of having morals/standards'.
Grum you make good points but someone scoring zero is unlikely to understand it let alone think about it but is more likely to shout 'foil helmets!' or 'Monty Python' and that makes it game, set and match (sort of).
I see Melanie Phillips and Alan Dershovitz are already out traducing Tutu, what principled people they are.
I see Melanie Phillips and Alan Dershovitz are already out traducing Tutu
NO!
Don't mess with my Tutu ☹️
Ernie you have lovely points.
What it normally means is ‘ew, these people have some morals/standards, that might make me look bad in comparison so I’ll attack the very concept of having morals/standards’.
Really? See my previous comments re: piousness, sanctimony and self-righteousness that a lot of perfectly reasonable people roll their eyes at when it comes to the Corbyns of this world
It's perfectly normal to possess humanity and moral standards without feeling the need to inform the rest of the world about the fact every couple of minutes.
Of course you can always dismiss everyone who doesn't do so as being 'the same as Richard Littlejohn' if you like.
a lot of perfectly reasonable people roll their eyes at
Is a nice example of:
people keen to show off how ‘salt of the earth’ and ‘no-nonsense’ they are
Virtue-signalling is a favoured term of the right/far right binners. That's just a fact. Make of it what you will.
Oh well. If the far right use is it, then anyone else who does so must be a member of the far right then?
Can't fault your logic there, comrade...
I didn't say that, but you have to admit it's a bit odd for someone who claims to be left-wing (I think?) to love using it so much, especially when the word lefty is your favourite insult.
Here's some more food for thought (from its Wikipedia page).
Linguist David Shariatmadari argued in The Guardian that the very act of accusing someone of virtue signalling is an act of virtue signalling in itself.[7] The Conversation's Karen Stollznow said that the term is often used as "a sneering insult by those on the right against progressives to dismiss their statements."[3]
Oh, and the claimed inventor of the phrase was writing in the Spectator.
Well if it was in the Spectator, case closed your honour
Well, he stood as a candidate for the Brexit party and writes for the Spectator. And you love using the phrase he invented. Makes you think...
Just because you broadly disagree with somebodies views doesn't make them wrong about everything. If you look at what I was referring too, specifically... the outpouring of frankly cringy, cultish, hero-worshippy support for Corbyn yesterday (it got very, very competitive to see who could expres their love and devotion the most) then I can't think of a more apt phrase than 'virtue signalling'
It sums it up in a nutshell for people of all manner of political views
But what you're doing here is highlighting why 'The Left' so easily alienates such large swathes of the electorate by hectoring and dismissing those they deem to be insufficiently possessed of enough righteousness to be one of their hallowed and sainted number.
Add David Lammy to the list of blasphemers, comrades...
But what you’re doing here is highlighting why ‘The Left’ alienates large swathes of the electorate by hectoring those they deem to be insufficiently possessed of enough righteousness to be one of their hallowed and sainted number.
Or just pointing out when someone is very confused about their politics. 🤷♂️
If you look at what I was referring too, specifically… the outpouring of frankly cringy, cultish, hero-worshippy support for Corbyn yesterday
Why do you follow these people binners? My twitter feed isn't full of anything of the kind.
Just because you broadly disagree with somebodies views doesn’t make them wrong about everything.
That's true but in your case it's reasonable to make an exception.
the outpouring of frankly cringy, cultish, hero-worshippy support for Corbyn yesterday (it got very, very competitive to see who could expres their love and devotion the most)
Where was this, got a link? Sounds interesting.
Just put 'Jeremy Corbyn' or 'David Lammy' into Twitter
Knock yourself out....
How many times per day do you search for Jeremy Corbyn on twitter roughly binners?
I was actually looking for the David Lammy stuff to see what it was he'd actually said, but the righteous anger of the Corbynites was , as you can imagine, somewhat unavoidable
When it comes to expressing their righteous anger, indignation and moral outrage, they're quite prolific, bless 'em
When it comes to expressing their righteous anger, indignation and moral outrage, they’re quite prolific
But are they as prolific as you?
I find the idea hard to imagine.
How many times per day do you search for Jeremy Corbyn on twitter roughly binners?
Enough times to get himself suitably frothy for one of his tedious rants here.
Add David Lammy to the list of blasphemers, comrades…
That was pretty much what I took away from the whole event (well, it’s a non-event really) on Twitter. Express any regret as regards Corbyn and you’re the enemy. Lammy is now on the wrong side [ not in my opinion, I hasten to add ].
Do you not understand that 2017, where the Great Leader led the party to defeat that wasn’t quite as bad as everyone expected, in the face of an opponent who seriously looked like they were trying to throw it, must be respectfully revered as some kind of Maoist ‘Year Zero’?
None can ever call into question the Great Leader or the magnificent defeat victory!
Mention 2019 and 80 seat Tory majorities and it’s off to the re-education camps in the Islington gulag for you, comrade
Do you not understand that 2017, where the Great Leader led the party to defeat that wasn’t quite as bad as everyone expected, in the face of an opponent who seriously looked like they were trying to throw it, must be respectfully revered as some kind of Maoist ‘Year Zero’?
None can ever call into question the Great Leader or the magnificent defeat victory!
Mention 2019 and 80 seat Tory majorities and it’s off to the re-education camps in the Islington gulag for you, comrade
I have absolutely no idea who that is aimed at binners. The person who posted before you was Kelvin but none of that appears to be directed at him.
Is this the equivalent of you standing in the middle of the road shouting abuse at car drivers as they drive past?
Merely agreeing with Kelvin’s point as to the transgression that has landed comrade Lammy on ‘the list’
Express any regret as regards Corbyn and you’re the enemy.
But then, that’s always been the case
It’s definitely not a cult, though. Clearly.
Merely agreeing with Kelvin’s point
Oh I see, you were adding to Kelvin's point because presumably you felt it was missing a protracted rant?!?!
Good ol'binners...... always willing to help out 😅
That was pretty much what I took away from the whole event (well, it’s a non-event really) on Twitter.
I'm not sure that Twitter is evidence of much. See also: stw.
Agreed Ransos.
And I enjoyed Binners’ little rant. It didn’t add anything of substance, but it made me chuckle. And god knows we need to take fun from anything and everything we can this month.
it’s off to the re-education camps in the Islington gulag for you, comrade
This sounds like something from the Museum of Communist Terror. Prizes for guessing which one of binners' heroes set that up?
No Wikipedia!
Here's a clue
the museum’s trustees include the MP and former minister Owen Patterson, the former Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, the Tory activist Tim Montgomerie, the Conservative peer Nigel Vinson and the Vote Leave digital strategist, Thomas Borwick.
it’s off to the re-education camps in the Islington gulag for you, comrade
The irony being of course that the only people acting like Stalinist authoritarians are Starmer and his 1990s centrist cult followers conducting their paranoid witch hunt against people who describe themselves as socialists or anti-zionists.
And I enjoyed Binners’ little rant
It's the only reason I come here.
There is something hugely entertaining about someone working themselves up into an incandescent frothing rage,
It has been used with great effect since the dawn of comedy.
Binners rants remind of Alf Garnett's rants, I can almost visualize the bulging veins on Warren Mitchell's neck as I read them.
Well, he doesn’t take himself too seriously, we could all learn from that.
Yet he has a bizarre ability to get incredibly wound up about stuff he doesn't actually seem to care about or take seriously at all. It's the football tribalism approach to politics.
You are funny. It’s the “football tribalism” of politics he was poking fun at. And rightly so. Lammy is now “the enemy” for expressing regret about Corbyn. And in today’s politics, he who no longer supports the past leader, and past Labour MP, is our enemy. It’s all nonsense of course, and hopefully completely ignored out in the real world, beyond the empty noise of Twitter and this forum (and no doubt many other corners of social media and the internet).
Lammy is now “the enemy”
Who has been saying that Kelvin? I know that Daz wasn't impressed by recent comments but I can't see where he has claimed that Lammy is now the enemy.
That only exists in you and binners heads as far as I can see.