Forum menu
kimbers
Full Memberill just leave this here
Mick Lynch says voters must ‘grow up’ and see Starmer is only alternative
It is probably worth also including this now:
RMT leader Mick Lynch said the union would back Mr Corbyn should he run for his seat again as an independent.
"We will support all sorts of people in this election, because we're not affiliated," Mr Lynch told the War on Want conference.
He added: "We will support Labour candidates. We will support socialist candidates.
"We will be supporting Jeremy Corbyn in the next election."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68393822
Me and Mick are like two Lynchs from the same pod 🙃
Mick Lynch says voters must ‘grow up’ and see Starmer is only alternative
I'm sure people don't agree with Mick Lynch on everything. Like his Brexit position for argument's sake.
This grown up thing is a real struggle. What's grown up about conservative and regressive polices? Sure it's not particularly grown up to take continuation failing ideals?
Yeah but Lynch imo is pretty much right about most things and his comment on Starmer is no exception - there isn't an alternative to Starmer. Which in itself does present a few issues.
What is "grown up" is to accept that after the next general election the next prime minister will be either Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer, those are the two alternatives, there is no point pretending that there are any others.
Personally I hope that it will be Starmer and that, ideally, he has a two hundred plus majority.
If you want to defeat neoliberalism then the very first thing you have to do is to make certain that the Tories are totally discredited in the eyes of the electorate.
If a Labour government fails to satisfy the electorate using fundamentally the same policies as the Tories then the case will have to be made that the problem are the policies not their implementation.
If the Tories narrowly loose the 2024 general election then they will probably win the 2029 general election.
If after this year's general election the Tories are left with a rump of about 80 MPs they are extremely unlikely to win the following general election. If the Tories are discredited and voters are not satisfied with Starmer's Labour Party then people will start looking for what other alternatives there might be.
It is the responsibility of those on the left to make certain that the answer isn't "Nigel Farage"
Yes but we've been pretty much forced to take this.
Again, it's short term thinking - I'd be more concerned about what comes 5-10 years from now.
It's a done deal - shit or moderately shit.
That's not appealing to me and call me old fashioned I still think MPs should earn your vote you shouldn't just accept better the devil know.
I will be voting Green as it aligns closest to my values. It's as simple as that.
Given we've suffered so much from the Tories - maybe if the Tories had another spell the country would be demanding a much better solution?
Brutal but there you go.
Me not voting Labour is unlikely to change the end result.
What is “grown up” is to accept that after the next general election the next prime minister will be either Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer, those are the two alternatives, there is no point pretending that there are any others
No one is pretending there are alternatives necessarily but I would say 'grown up' - if I even want to go near that phrase is understanding why things are so bad and why we need to change it - not enabling the status quo.
It’s a done deal – shit or moderately shit.
That’s not appealing to me and call me old fashioned I still think MPs should earn your vote you shouldn’t just accept better the devil know.
I will be voting Green as it aligns closest to my values. It’s as simple as that.
Exactly where I am. I refuse to endorse Starmer's cynicism.
Again, it’s short term thinking – I’d be more concerned about what comes 5-10 years from now.
Well that's the whole point, I am thinking long term - I mentioned the general election in 2029.
The reality is that you have to take one step at a time, you cannot immediately achieve your goal just because you are in a rush and impatient. Accepting this inalienable fact is the "grownup" thing to do.
So step one is the defeat of the Tories. You simply cannot go straight to step two. If the Tories win the next general election (they won't) then we will have to wait for another 5 years, which is a bit of a bugger if you are in a hurry.
I would say ‘grown up’ – if I even want to go near that phrase is understanding why things are so bad and why we need to change it – not enabling the status quo
Lynch obviously understands that, which why he isn't backing the status quo. He is simply pointing out that the next prime minister can only be Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer, but he is also backing independents as the bunch of administrative stalinists at the centre of the Labour Party who control much the selection process will not, if they can help it, tolerate socialist being selected as Labour candidates.
And why Lynch says that he will back Jeremy Corbyn should he stand as an independent. There is little doubt that it will be very important to have people like Corbyn in the House of Commons to challenge Prime Minister Starmer, rather than leaving it all to the Tories challenging Starmer from a right-wing perspective.
I missed the furore regarding “The Labour Files” when it came out so over the past few days I’ve watched it on YouTube and tried to follow along with checking out the main characters on my iPad, christ! - what a bunch of backstabbing lying ****s. Going to have to try and find the panorama program somewhere as it’s not available on iPlayer.
Some of it is on the BBCPolitics Facebook page:
https://m.facebook.com/BBCPolitics/videos/panorama-is-labour-anti-semitic/2269428149799380/
I have only seen episode 4 of the Labour Files which focuses on the corrupt practices of the Labour Party in Croydon. I find the whole issue so deeply depressing and sickening, and not least because these people have seized control, that I would rather not dwell on just how rotten the Labour Party is internally.
To add to my own personal disgust some of individuals mentioned in that episode I know personally from years ago when I was both socialising and working tirelessly in election campaigns with them.
I have no regrets helping to turn a once Tory stronghold in Labour territory but I would never have been as motivated as I was had I known the end result.
IMO after the next general election a Labour government will do nationally to the UK what Labour did locally in Croydon - betray ordinary working people. Especially as David Evans who was the lynchpin who established Labour rule in Croydon now has the ear of Keir Starmer.
Is there any good news?
I don't want to see the state taking over the means of production and dictating to everyone what they should do and demanding loyalty to the red flag, but I do want to see socialist policies like those above implemented, as do many others who would never describe themselves as socialists.
Agreed. We want the State to do the things only the state has the capacity to do well (the are many things!)
State feeding a vibrant private sector is not controversial.
A private sector draining the state for all its worth to the detriment of most of us is not what we want.
I don't think many want that level of socialism and I have never seen a party (maybe the communist party) who is proposing to take over the means of production. To me socialism is maintaining the primary objective of ensuring everything is for the good of society first. You can have private sector but it has to be controlled and be doing whatever the government tells it to ensure it remains for the good of society and not for the good of itself only.
Yes, not technically but something that could actually be done as we can hardly go for full means of production stuff can we. Whether you own the production or just control it to the same level as if owned makes no difference to me.
That is not socialism in any way. What you are proposing is liberalism ( not neolibralism)
I'd dispute this. Liberalism endorses free market principles and free enterprise - that's at odds with delivering outcomes for the good of society as a whole with only light touch intervention.
Liberalism also doesn't recognise the state as the creator of money.
That doesn't seem to me where Kerley is going.
How about social democracy?
Absolutely lets have some of that. Not what Starmer and Reeves are offering though is it? They're offering more neo-liberal race to the bottom austerity and socialism for the rich. What we have now isn't social democracy, it's oligarchy and kleptocracy, willingly supported by both main parties. At least the tories are honest about it, Labour on the other hand pretend to be on the side of working people.
How about social democracy? Thats a mixed economy with redistribution and management of markets? better for the poor than liberalism due to the re distributive element and control of markets
Because we've gone too far in one direction with markets and their poor outcomes.
Social democracy is not going to fix the problems we currently have.
How on earth do you address problems like lack of housing or inequality without the state spending big?
Living in a dream world where we pretend that market economics just roll up and fix things is a huge issue for western democracies. (Look at the evidence!)
I think the next few years will continue to show us this appalling trajectory.
Most of the self proclaimed "lefties" on here support either liberalism or social democracy - both centrist philosophies. Not socialist
Ernie is the only real leftie on here. Good knowledge of the philosophies as well. I disagree with many of his conclusions but its clear he has real knowledge of political philosophy
Me I am a dark green - which has much to share with socialism but also some major differences often arriving at the same place for different reasons
I see myself as a realistic/practical socialist. With the outcomes of socialism but within the remits of how the world works in 2024. Anything else is just dream world stuff.
I don't care what it is technically called but Labour were closer to it (nowhere near close enough) just a few years ago than they now are under Starmer
Riiiiight!
Social democrat or liberal then
potato potaato. Social Democracy is a form of socialism and the form that I think could most realistically work given the constraints that are now firmly set.
Oh good. TJ has read a book and now he's going to bash everyone over the head with it.
I'm just having a laugh at the folk proclaiming themselves to be socialists without actually understanding what socialism is. Confusing liberalism or social democracy for socialism
Nowt wrong with being a social democrat - its the most pervasive form of political party across europe, its whats given the scandenavians such a high standard of living and such equal countries, its what has given Germany industrial co operation not strife etc etc. Its what the labour party has been for most of the last 50 years, its what the SNP are
Its as much fun as anything else on this thread 🙂
I’m just having a laugh at the folk proclaiming themselves to be socialists without
actually understanding what socialism is.agreeing with my definition of socialism.
Ftfy.
It's all gone Humpty Dumpty.
[ Ooof... looked for a nice image to remind people of the quote from Alice in Wonderland on the meaning of words... and it's really been picked up by conspiracy theory nuts, hasn't it... switch off the internet... go re-read the book.]
Ransos - its not my definition - its the definition of those who first outlined it. 🙂
The key theorists don't agree on everything.
Errmmm - do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
Errmmm – do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
was it jeremy corbyn?
Bingo! You understand the game 🙂
Errmmm – do you know who first outlined socialism? do you know how it is defined?
You do know that there are multiple strands of socialism, right? And that its origins go back to antiquity? It's nowhere near as simple as you make out.
What political philosophy should people be reading then TJ to be able to define socialism?
To clarify, are you saying that you're a dark green or a socialist? (They're very different things)
Errm - Marx and Engels defined socialism and communism as far as I am aware. Of course there were various forms of communitarian setups prior to that but as far as I am aware Marx and Engels are the creators of socialism as a political philosophy and it was a step on the way to true communism. got any references otherwise? I am allways prepared to learn
Socialism means state or community control of all means of production and a command economy. Thats why I laugh at folk saying " I'm a socialist but don't believe in nationalisation or state control of the whole economy, I believe in free enterprise"
they have just defined social democracy which is where the state controls some key parts of the economy and manages the market for the rest of the economy
Im a dark green. We reach some of the same places as socialism but from a different direction. Much of the outcomes are the same but for different reasons. One key difference is I believe in a zero growth economy
What political philosophy should people be reading then TJ to be able to define socialism?
Pretty much any basic text on political philosophies I guess. "Das kapital" is pretty hard going
Interesting.....just for a bit of clarity, I'm not a dark green but do lean towards a zero/post growth economy. I've actually written on these very clashes, and will be starting a PhD in the area in October.
I'm not going to start arguing online with you, but suffice to say, the notion of socialism has evolved a bit since Engels and Marx!
Raymond Williams wrote extensively around these issues, his writing is absolutely brilliant and very 'accessible' by academic standards. His essays around 'the new left' and 'socialism and ecology' should be of interest.
More recently Matthew Huber has written about Eco-socialism. I can never quite decide whether or not Kate Raworth and doughnut economics should be considered socialist.... probably not, but as noted by others 'socialism' especially in 2024 is an inherently contested term.
I need some reading material. Ill have a look at those authors you mention
Errm – Marx and Engels defined socialism and communism as far as I am aware.
They really didn't. Modern socialism has its origins in the enlightenment and French revolution.