Forum menu
Name name a book or article outlining "centrism"... why? All politicians are proposing different versions of a mixed economy. Starmer is proposing one that is "left wing", he is not a centrist, or if he is, so are all the other modern day politicians.
If you're keen on categories... social democratic... but don't start using such terms if you want to carry the "anti-political thinking" voters with you... and there are a hell of a lot of them these days. Sticking your flag in a political dogma, even a highly flexible one such as that, doesn't look like the path to government these days. Great for the political anoraks, but those people need to let go a bit, and realise it's not all about them.
Binners, do try your best to make clear statements that can be examined and evaluated. Just name name one book or article.
If you're looking for sensible, real-world economic arguments than I personally find Will Hutton has been the most sensible voice on the issue for decades now.
I absolutely agree with Kelvin that the days of political ideologies are dead. Note how the Torys from David Cameron onwards were more than happy to nick labour policies, wholesale, and re-badge them as their own
I know that it's apparently the sin that dare not speak its name but 'being a nicer version of the Tories' is spat out with contempt, but you could also argue (but never do) that the tories are just a nastier version of labour.
because they don’t want Labour to be for all
Are you seriously suggesting Starmer's 'mission' is to create a labour 'for all'? All he's doing is creating a labour he thinks will put him in power, and failing miserably at it. What's amusing is that you're all getting very animated about labour v tory and Starmer v Johnson when there's almost no difference between them. It really is all a load of bollox. Here's some Crass as an antedote 🙂
when there’s almost no difference between them
> sigh <
> sigh <
Even binners agrees. He appears to be catching on..
"I know that it’s apparently the sin that dare not speak its name but ‘being a nicer version of the Tories’ is spat out with contempt, but you could also argue (but never do) that the tories are just a nastier version of labour."
If you’re looking for sensible, real-world economic arguments than I personally find Will Hutton has been the most sensible voice on the issue for decades now.
Have you actually read any Hutton books? They're the most self-indulgent academic dross imaginable. I tried a couple of times and never got past the first chapters. Also I seem to remember he's a huge supporter of Heathrow expansion, completely ignoring the 'real world' problem of climate crisis, and the very opposite of 'sensible'.
So its the most self-indulgent academic dross imaginable, you've gathered from the half a chapter that you bothered reading?
Have you actually read any Hutton books?
Yes. Hence my comment. Maybe you should try again?
Maybe you should try again?
I note he hasn't really written anything on economics post-2008, which makes him somewhat irrelevant as there's been something of a revolution since then in how it all works. I'm more interested in more current, forward looking material than his outdated third way bollox.
He writes in the Observer every Sunday.
Is last Sunday not current enough?
And its interesting you dismiss it as 'outdated third way bollox' when by your own admission you've not actually read any of it.
Just to recap: your economic theory of choice involves re-educating the countries population as to the existence of money trees?
If you’re looking for sensible, real-world economic arguments than I personally find Will Hutton has been the most sensible voice on the issue for decades now.
"Sensible" in what way?
sensible
/ˈsɛnsɪb(ə)l/
adjective
1. done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.
"I cannot believe that it is sensible to spend so much"
I read his observer articles. He's still firmly rooted in the 1990s. FFS, he thinks we should expand airport capacity, that tells you all you need to know.
your economic theory of choice involves re-educating the countries population as to the existence of money trees?
Money trees exist and they work, they're called central banks. Since 2008 the banking system works differently to how it did before. Boris has recognised this and is taking full advantage. Biden has recognised this and is taking full advantage. Starmer and labour, as duly advised by Hutton and other Keynesians are still stuck in the 20th century, and hopelessly out of date.
sensible
/ˈsɛnsɪb(ə)l/adjective
1. done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.“I cannot believe that it is sensible to spend so much”
It'd be helpful if you could set out why you believe him to be sensible.
It’d be helpful if you could set out why you believe him to be sensible.
Indeed. Applying 80 year old political and economic theories to a system which has undergone radical change in the last decade (let alone the preceding 40 years) doesn't seem very sensible to me.
It’d be helpful if you could set out why you believe him to be sensible.
Are you sure you need that kind of help? Can't you finish the argument over whether nasty is better than nice? (If you don't think nice is better then you're either a baddie or very sophisticated and up to date indeed in your thinking.)
Are you sure you need that kind of help? Can’t you finish the argument over whether nasty is better than nice? (If you don’t think nice is better then you’re either a baddie or very sophisticated and up to date indeed in your thinking.)
It's surprising to me that the answer to your first question isn't obvious. Anyway.
Would I like to know why someone believes that a particular set of economic theories are sensible? Yes.
It’s surprising to me that the answer to your first question isn’t obvious.
Just to recap: your economic theory of choice involves re-educating the countries population as to the existence of money trees?
Give over.
There is a better frame work for creating more employment, and a fairer society with mechanisms already in place - with evidence to back it up - and that's your best line of attack? .
Tell me what the economic miracle of Centrists' diluted neolibralism is going to provide? Apart from a failed trickle-down market crapo model that is falling apart in front of our very eyes - which you effectively support by not grasping it's right wing roots.
Centrism is doomed because it's based on neolibralism. It has no ideas of its own.
Centrism is doomed because it’s based on neolibralism.
If neoliberal economics is this supposedly disastrous system, which is inherently wrong, can you fill me in on why people of this country have consistently voted for it for 4 decades, and continue to do so? By a bigger majority than ever?
Seems not many people agree with you. They were offered an alternative at the last election and it was blown a pretty whole-hearted raspberry by the electorate, who opted to stick with the neoliberal model by a massive majority.
So outside your left-wing fantasy la-la-land, where everyone rejects it because you don't like it, we have to work with the uncomfortable reality that to get yourself elected you're going to have to offer an economic model that the electorate regards as palatable.
So thats going to be some form of neoliberalism, of which there are many. Whether you like that or not.
The Tory's offer a completely unregulated, red-in-tooth-and-claw model, where the winner takes all. Labour must accept that neoliberalism is the only game in town now and offer a more progressive and more equitable version of it.
Otherwise it might as well just make placards and sign petitions in opposition for ever.
I know you lot hate the idea, but thats the reality. You've all been railing against the prevailing economic model for decades yet there it still is. I bet if we revisit this thread in another 3 decades, you lot wil still be gnashing your teeth about it, yet there it will still be in some form or another.
Best deal with the world as it is, rather than as you'd like it to be
can you fill me in on why people of this country have consistently voted for it for 4 decades, and continue to do so? By a bigger majority than ever?
That will be primarily because 80% of the voters couldn't even spell economics combined with the fact they have been told for their whole life that managing a countries economy is the same sort of thing as their own bank balance so you can only spend what you have or get a nasty loan.
So shall we berate them all for it then? The ignorant bastards!
Or force them into re-education camps where comrade commandant Daz can inform them about money trees and why their perceptions of economics are all wrong?
Sounds like a definite election-winning manifesto, this
If neoliberal economics is this supposedly disastrous system, which is inherently wrong
And there we have it. Binners suppors neoliberal economics. The system that has resulted in an entire generation being locked out of the housing market, billionaire plutocrats, corporate monopolies, and wholesale homelessness and reliance on food banks. And yet he's a member of the labour party. I rest my case. 😉
On a point of order, people have never voted 'for' neoliberalism, as they've never been given a choice. It's been forced on them by forces beyond the control of political parties, and despite your paranoid fantasies about lefty trots in 2019, they have never been offered an alternaitve. Until now that is, because following 2008 and now covid it's finally beginning to change. But you seem to want to keep it the same, which is very bizarre.
And there we have it. Binners suppors neoliberal economics.
I've not expressed an opinion one way or another. I've just acknowledged reality
You should try it instead of inhabiting some weird alternative reality where the population are crying out for radical economic alternatives. They're not.
On a point of order, people have never voted ‘for’ neoliberalism, as they’ve never been given a choice.
So... again... if this system is so terrible and largely despised and there would surely be a guaranteed route to power by offering the alternative that everyone is clearly crying out for, no?
I know that you'd never countenance this thought but a lot of people are quite happy with something that closely resembles the present system. You can scream at them that they're wrong, but they'll just shrug and order something new and shiny off Amazon. You can tell them tales of environmental catastrophe and they'll tell you that its fine because they do their recycling
At the risk of being repetitive: Best deal with the world as it is, rather than as you’d like it to be
I’ve not expressed an opinion one way or another.
Indeed:
It’d be helpful if you could set out why you believe him to be sensible.
It's really simple. We're pretty much lumbered with one form of neoliberalism or another as that is what people vote for. You might not like it, but there it is.
I'd just like a better, more equal, less rapacious version of it that seeks to address the problems and injustices inherent in the current system. As has been often advocated by people like Will Hutton.
I always think that its surely not too much to ask for, but apparently it is.
The right don't want to provide it, for obvious reasons, and its just been dismissed by our resident lefties as 'outdated third way bollox'
So here I am... stuck in the middle with you
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
Note how the Torys from David Cameron onwards were more than happy to nick labour policies, wholesale, and re-badge them as their own
You might want to try thinking through the implications of that a bit more.
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
It certainly is.
It's like some horribly bleak Blue Jam sketch that just plays in an endless loop.
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
Something to agree on at last.
Nah, some people just want to jump on any problem that Mr Boring comes across, because they don’t want Labour to be for all, they want Labour to be for them. He handled it just fine, and he was right to firmly disagree with someone complaining about kids being allowed to wear masks in school during a pandemic.
Probably the most important part of understanding Labours problems set out here, the pandering to identity politics driven by grifters on their own hobby horse is creating a narrowing appeal.
Labour needs to have a broad appeal and to convince enough voters that it's going to make a better job of keeping them healthier, wealthier, and safer than anyone else. Identity politics satisfies no-one, the pressure groups are never satisfied and the rest think you've othered them.
the pandering to identity politics driven by grifters on their own hobby horse is creating a narrowing appeal.
And yet the tories are all about identity politics so it doesnt really add up.
We’re pretty much lumbered with one form of neoliberalism or another as that is what people vote for. You might not like it, but there it is.
You really think that the present government is pursuing neoliberal economics?
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
+1
The perfect example of its participants being trapped in the same political cycle, desperate to break out, but doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past (and Monty Python references) to infinity.
neoliberal economics
Another junk term, that has been used to mean many, often contradictory, ideas. Everyone is proposing current neoliberal economics to a degree (if by which you mean free trade and international movement of capital and workers connected to market needs and trends). Just as everyone is proposing regulation, market control, protectionism, subsidies, price caps, tax breaks, penalty taxes, government procurement and state ownership, to some degree. No one is really for or against any of this, just arguing about where to use these tools, how much to use them, and who to use them for.
You really think that the present government is pursuing neoliberal economics?
What sort of economics are they pursuing?
The perfect example of its participants being trapped in the same political cycle
On the contrary. I'm all for binning the existing political cycle, abolishing party politics (and politicians) and trying something new which actually attempts to solve the problems that are self-evident to anyone who cares to look. Those arguing for the staus quo are only really interested in which team wins and gets bragging rights for a few years. Tories or labour, capitalism or socialism. These are all false dichotomies. The only one that matters is power vs the powerless, and that's what needs solving.
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
..and it's only a bit of fun. There's really nothing here to get depressed about. That's what the brexit thread is for 🙂
Nobody is arguing "for" the status quo, just prepared to acknowledge that it is there and deeply embedded. If you have a plan to achieve ... "binning the existing political cycle, abolishing party politics (and politicians)" ... feel free to spell it out.
What sort of economics are they pursuing?
I'm not sure it has a name yet. It seems to be a mix of crony capitalism/socialism for the rich with a soliid dose of good old nanny-state largesse to keep the mob at bay. To me it looks a lot like 70s era government activism and industrial subsidisation without the crippling debt crises. Where it's heading for trouble is in the unconstrained concentration of capital and power in a few individuals and corporations. At some point that bubble is going to burst, and all hell could break loose. Or under the correct stewardship, with governments challenging and removing the power of the oligarchs, it could be the transition into something quite revolutionary with the battle against climate change as the unifying force. I don't hold out much hope for the latter, but the next 20 years is going to be very different to the last 20.
On the contrary. I’m all for binning the existing political cycle, abolishing party politics (and politicians) and trying something new which actually attempts to solve the problems that are self-evident to anyone who cares to look.
Easy does it, you do know that most people hate change don't you?
Pub landlord Rod Humphris was on GMB this morning spouting his theories on lockdown, fortunately well rebuked. About 6:50am if you want to see in catchup.
If neoliberal economics is this supposedly disastrous system, which is inherently wrong, can you fill me in on why people of this country have consistently voted for it for 4 decades, and continue to do so? By a bigger majority than ever?
Sounds like you're supporting it here binbins?
Also by your logic Brexit a good thing.
I'm not supporting it in its present form. We have a very specific form of it, that apes America. Its a rapacious corporatist/crony model of neoliberalism that only really serves the interests of those at the top. For those at the top and for large corporations it almost looks like state socialism (ie: Serco Test and Trace).
But railing against neoliberalism in all its forms while living in an advanced, western, consumer capitalist society is like throwing your shoes at the sky to protest against clouds.
And no, Brexit is an unmitigated catastrophe in any form, but true to form this lot have decided to impose the very worst type. The hardest Brexit that will benefit a narrow clique at the top while shafting everyone else. In this it mirrors their neoliberal policies
This is perhaps the most depressing thread on STW.
Indeed, but then you could always lift up your spirits by heading over to the 'Another entitled dog owner...' thread 😢
I find the current political climate extraordinarily depressing. I am genuinely fed up trying to decide on who is the best of a bad bunch none of whom do I genuinely believe will leave our nation in better state for our children or their children. What a legacy to leave.
but true to form this lot have decided to impose the very worst type.
Have they? They've spent the last year paying the wages of millions of private sector employees and dishing out grants and loans to businesses to save them from bankruptcy all paid for by 'imaginary' money from the magic money tree which you don't think exists. That doesn't look much like 'rapacious/corporatist' capitalism to me. They're also pouring billions into the renewable energy and green technology sectors which again doesn't look much like your dystopian nightmare view. And as for aping the US, well lets hope so, because right now the US looks a lot like a communist state which has just discovered an enviromentalist conscience. What sort of neo-liberalism is that?
No, neo-liberalism is not the all-pervading, unrelenting and entrenched thing you think it is. It's a particlular economic orthodoxy which has reached it's natural end and is now disappearing in favour of an entirely new economic paradigm where debt is irrelevant, interest rates are non-existent and inflation under control. And yet you, and your fellow centrist doomsayers, seem to want to keep it rather than accelerate it's demise? Madness!
Easy does it, you do know that most people hate change don’t you?
And yet people voted for change in the form of brexit and even, bizarrely, just generally for Johnson since apparently he was a change from the professional politicans somehow.
If neoliberal economics is this supposedly disastrous system, which is inherently wrong, can you fill me in on why people of this country have consistently voted for it for 4 decades, and continue to do so? By a bigger majority than ever?
Easy does it, you do know that most people hate change don’t you?
There's really not much evidence to back either of those statements.
Where is the evidence that the majority of people have knowingly voted for neoliberal economics for 4 decades?
By 1990 Thatcherism had ceased to have any significant voter appeal. As a consequence the Tory Party sacked Thatcher and repackaged itself under John Major. It worked, despite being committed more or less to the same policies as Thatcher, apart from the Poll Tax, the make-over was sufficient for the Tories to win the 1992 general election.
In the 1997 general election the Labour Party won by a landslide precisely because people thought they were voting for something very different (remember for example, the Labour Party had opposed every single Tory privatisation) but of course they weren't, New Labour continued with the neo-liberal project.
The consequence of that was that Labour lost its appeal to millions of voters. In the landslide of 1997 13.5 million people voted Labour, by 2010 the figure was down to 8.6 million.
Obviously if rejection of neo-liberalism was to be an issue then voting Tory was not an option. As a consequence support for the LibDems grew massively, as did support for the SNP.
The LibDems arrived to the neo-liberal party late but it has had a devastating effect on their electoral support, there's not much doubt about that.
And yet people voted for change in the form of brexit
No. Brexit (if you can assign logic to it) was more of a vote against change. Rolling back the clock, "taking back control" from people who had been making changes.
If neoliberal economics is this supposedly disastrous system, which is inherently wrong, can you fill me in on why people of this country have consistently voted for it for 4 decades, and continue to do so? By a bigger majority than ever?
So many reasons.
Main one being it serves the interest of the very wealthy and we all know they have the power to shape the way the public should vote.
Second, think of it being of its time + it offered new things in the shape of consumerism that have appeal, cheap finance, booming house prices, easy credit proliferation of cheap goods that we don't need to produce here. Etc.
We also can't extrapolate in a political party which exact package meets the needs of people the most. Look at the Lib-dems - pure neolibralism with a green cloak. Well that didn't go down well with the electorate either!
But like lots of things it assumes there is no end to the resources and doesn't examine its own consequences.
It is responsible for grave inequality, acceleration in climate change, poverty wages to supply the cheap goods.
Also the market doesn't really innovate - it packages stuff up.
Given the public are benefactors of cheap finance, low interest rates for housing - many see this is a good thing. It's clearly not. Interest rates have nowhere to go, the stock market is not a reflection of reality and we are in the midst of a pandemic where we don't know the endgame.
As for people voting for it - well it might have been a good idea at the time and alternatives are so stigmatised and lies are told over and over about the wealth creators, and our place in that.
Don't confuse popular with the best way of doing things. The Free-market as had its best days, all the indicators are there now.
It relies on the electorate believing nothing else is possible too.
Voting for a party that offers an alternative will soon become a necessity.
Dont forget neolibralism is a form of Capitalism. There is a place for a market, clearly.
DaZ is right, things are changing - because there is no choice currently
Neolibralism was never going to fix a pandemic. Sure it helped package the vaccine but it didn't create it or put money in our pockets when society was on its knees.
There’s really not much evidence to back either of those statements.
There is loads of evidence that people don't like change unless it is something they personally want. I am not just talking about political change, just change of any kind in a person life.
There is loads of evidence that people don’t like change unless it is something they personally want. I am not just talking about political change, just change of any kind in a person life
For sure. Life becomes a product of what you think you know about it. But sooner or later change comes anyway.
Also we must remember Government spending has operated the same system for years. It's just that we've been told a lie about how it works. A lie that sits at the top of neoliberal model.
So nothing's inherently changing about Government finances, we're just trying to recalibrate the compass to serve us better. Mainly that we understand that money is not a constraint but resources and labour are.
Obviously the impact could be life changing.
There is loads of evidence that people don’t like change unless it is something they personally want. I am not just talking about political change, just change of any kind in a person life.
I am talking about political change obviously as this thread is about the leader of the Labour Party.
Thatcher's win in 1979 or Labour's landslide in 1997 or the coalition government in 2010 was certainly not about continuity.
The consistent theme, not only in the UK but throughout western democracies, is people's very deep dissatisfaction with politics and national governments.
The consistent theme, not only in the UK but throughout western democracies, is people’s very deep dissatisfaction with politics and national governments.
I don't think sweeping statements like this help. Firstly it's broadly untrue, most Danish and Germans are broadly content, lots of Spanish and Greeks broadly aren't. and the dissatisfaction isn't homogeneous, some are unhappy because they don't live in a anarchist commune, some aren't content because the poor get benefits. You can only say that people are unhappy, but nothing about who those folk are, or what the things they're unhappy about are. Most folk on this thread have a pretty good idea of what their chosen society would look like, I'd bet money that that stats about overall satisfaction with governments wouldn't change at all if we got a chance of creating that society.
Just look at the row over the Coulson Statue, everybody involved seems angry about it, but for wildly different, and opposite reasons
The consistent theme, not only in the UK but throughout western democracies, is people’s very deep dissatisfaction with politics and national governments.
Well we all know the alternative systems get very high ratings as shown by the repeated re-election of the despots.....
Just look at the row over the Coulson Statue, everybody involved seems angry about it, but for wildly different, and opposite reasons
"Everybody involved" is a tiny % of the population though. Most people shrugged their shoulders.
repeated re-election of the despots…..
And our system is any better? In very recent history we've had one PM take us to war on a lie when everyone was against it, another took us out of the EU off the back of a personal spat with his public school competitor. In the US Trump took them to the brink of societal collapse and insurrection. From where I'm standing our 'democratically electeed' leaders are no better, and probably worse, than the 'despots' you point to in other countries.
I've been watching a lot of David Graeber talks recently and this video explains a lot of what's happened over the past century and what's happening now. In particular there's a bit at the end (1.04.50 -> 1.09.00) in answer to a question about whether there's too much debt which pretty much nails the current global geopolitical and economic situation. It's a long talk but I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in politics and economics. It's especially relevant to Starmer and his fanboys as it challenges the whole 'there is no other way' mindset.
Thatcher’s win in 1979 or Labour’s landslide in 1997 or the coalition government in 2010 was certainly not about continuity.
And which of those elections brought changes to how politics works (elected MPs, majority government etc,.)
In fact, which of them brought changes that most people not interested in politics would have even really noticed. A lot of people wanted Brexit, ask them if it is better now and critically what differences have they noticed and they won't be able to tell you.
“Everybody involved” is a tiny % of the population though
Oh, sure, but those folk have all got "very deep dissatisfaction with politics and national governments" but they'll give polar opposite reasons for why they're unhappy.
Most people shrugged their shoulders.
Probably a big part of the reason why we get Tory govts all the time TBH.
From where I’m standing our ‘democratically electeed’ leaders are no better, and probably worse, than the ‘despots’ you point to in other countries.
So, you’re doubling down on your claim that Starmer would be no better a PM than Johnson with the notion that our PMs have proven to be no better than despots? There is zero chance of this thread getting back on topic, is there.
It’s just that we’ve been told a lie about how it works.
It's interesting because I look at Boris and his recent behaviour and he looks like a kid who's just discovered the secret cookie jar. It's like someone at the treasury has sat him down and explained to him how money works, and now he's realised he doesn't need to be constrained by the 'how are you going to pay for it' question his predecessors had to answer. And he's going to use it to maximum political advantage. Far from another period of austerity, just like Biden the brakes will be let off and I think we'll see government activism on a scale we've not seen for decades (and the corruption that goes with it). He'll get resistance from his rightwing paymasters but he'll ignore them because this is going to make him very popular, and we all know that's pretty much the only thing he cares about. Starmer had better get with the programme, because if he doesn't he's going to be the boring adult in the room spoiling the party by telling everyone to turn the music down, and no one likes a party pooper.
Johnson is no Biden. He won’t even keep the tiny increase to Universal Credit that was introduced to try and keep people fed during the pandemic. Your Johnson praising as a way of knocking Starmer is getting boring.
abolishing party politics (and politicians)
The dictionary definition of totalitarianism.
Starmer had better get with the programme
Annalise Dodd's Mais lecture pretty much recognised this already, and started to attack the Tories , not on spending, but how it's managed and who the spending benefits.
Anyone got the skinny on the “minimum income” idea that Scottish Labour are floating about, and if any of the UK front bench (ideally Starmer) have spoken about it?
how it’s managed and who the spending benefits
This is the only line that matters amongst all the fluff on this page.
And which of those elections brought changes to how politics works (elected MPs, majority government etc,.)
None, becaus politicians are never going to make themselves redundant. The changes that occur in societies happen despite the politicians not because of them. There are much greater forces which are beyond their control. Like everyone else, all politicians can do is ride the wave and try to harness it's energy for their own advantage. As I said above, Boris and Biden are doing that, what are Starmer and his fellow centrists going to do?
What’s a “centrist” Dazh? Why is Starmer one, but not Biden (or Corbyn for that matter)?
Annalise Dodd’s Mais lecture pretty much recognised this already
Last I heard Starmer and his mates wanted rid of her because she's 'too left' and want to replace her with neo-liberal cheerleader Rachel Reeves.
What’s a “centrist” Dazh?
You know what a centrist is. I'm not getting into one of your pedantic debates. What I will say though is that a centrist can be explained by the one trait they all display, which is political cowardice.
And our system is any better? In very recent history we’ve had one PM take us to war on a lie when everyone was against it,
Everyone? He was re-elected straight afterwards.
another took us out of the EU off the back of a personal spat with his public school competitor
Yet was then delivered a whacking great majority, specifically on the back of it
Your problem with democracy doesn't seem to be just idealogical, you seem to disagree with the very principle of it because it keeps delivering results that you don't like.
You seem to be projecting your own values onto 'everybody' and the 'majority' because you can't seem to accept the fact that the actual majority of the electorate don't agree with you at all. Far from it. A few other posters on this thread seem to share the same disconnection from reality
Last I heard Starmer and his mates wanted rid of her because she’s ‘too left’ and want to replace her with neo-liberal cheerleader Rachel Reeves.
last I heard he was resisting being bounced into making any decision to replace her, apparently according to one source close to Starmer said he's "Not a very bouncable person". I think there's probably going to be a reshuffle after the May elections regardless. I don't think Reeves is the only member of the shadow bench looking for something a bit more high profile.
Last I heard Starmer and his mates wanted rid of her because she’s ‘too left’ and want to replace her with neo-liberal cheerleader Rachel Reeves.
No. It’s because she is a poor media performer, and sadly that matters. If your read rather than watch/listen to her, she is sound… but that isn’t enough days, she needs to be moved on. Deeply unimpressed by the shadow Home Secretary as well… (who?). A reshuffle is needed, for sure.
You know what a centrist is. I’m not getting into one of your pedantic debates. What I will say though is that a centrist can be explained by the one trait they all display, which is political cowardice.
So… It’s people you don’t like, because they aren’t ‘brave’ enough to propose policies you support? Or is it a tribal thing? Would he be a centrist now if he had helped Corbyn keep the whip? Or had kept Long-Bailey in the shadow cabinet after her misstep? It’s a lazy slur you have used for years now. All our politicians propose a mixed-economy, with differing mixes of public and private ownership and regulation. What makes Starmer a “centrist”, but not Biden? Which past Labour leaders weren’t Centrists, if Starmer is? It strikes me that it is being used as a term for saying “not a genuine part of the Left movement”. Is that what you mean?
Your problem with democracy doesn’t seem to be just idealogical, you seem to disagree with the very principle of it because it keeps delivering results that you don’t like.
Exactly, which is why I keep saying we live in a Tory country and you need to base everything on that fact. I don't like it and I imagine nobody on this thread likes it but to get into power and slip in the changes for the good once in power (good IMO) you need to first acknowledge it and base your campaign on it.
The evil Tony Blair realised that but no other labour party seems to have realised it.
I now expect some comments around a Blair Labour government being no better than a Tory government but I will be ignoring that as it is nonsense.
Or is it a tribal thing?
Certainly not. I don't care who is PM or which party is in power, as long as they do something to tackle the problems which I care about, which is primarily climate change, inequality and powerlessness. What I don't want is to hear excuses like 'we can't afford it' or 'it's not possible' or 'people won't stand for it'. These things are affordable, if something looks impossible then find a way, if people don't like something, then persuade them and make the case. That's not to much to expect is it? Yet when I look at the majority of politicians all I hear are these excuses, which leads me to conclude that they're more interested in doing what is best to keep them in their jobs rather than solving the problems they say they're interested in.
I think the real issue with Britain, is that people have become so used to be 'ruled', that the idea of taking individual responsibility is just too terrifying. So they keep voting in people who look like they will rule them, regardless of any other negative aspects. Corbyn was definitely not a ruler, and neither is Starmer. But people believe Boris fits that role, so that's why we are where we are. Waffling on about the intricacies of economic systems is mere obfuscation; we get what the elites choose of us, and that's that.
I now expect some comments around a Blair Labour government being no better than a Tory government but I will be ignoring that as it is nonsense.
Well, the tories have currently been responsible for less deaths, worldwide, than Blair, but I suspect you'll be ignoring that fact. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
So, why is Biden not a centrist?
Which past Labour leaders weren’t centrists?
Who would you replace Starmer with who isn’t a centrist?
Dropping “centrist” and “new-liberal” into conversation doesn’t really inform us about what you want, who you think can deliver it, or how you think they can deliver it.
Well, the tories have currently been responsible for less deaths, worldwide, than Blair, but I suspect you’ll be ignoring that fact.
You realise that people voted at the last election who weren't even born when Blair went into Iraq, and despite all your rose-tinted views of the protests against it, with all those terribly clever placards (BLIAR!) the electorate voted him straight back in. The majority didn't really give a monkeys about Iraq then and they care even less now. It was just the odd piece of news footage showing a cruise missile hitting some sand.
Surprisingly enough: when people are voting, who took the country into an ill-advised war 2 decades ago isn't at the top of anyones agenda. Nobody has defended the decision to go into Iraq - it was and still is an unmitigated disaster - but banging on about it won't change anyones mind about their voting intentions
Your problem with democracy doesn’t seem to be just idealogical, you seem to disagree with the very principle of it because it keeps delivering results that you don’t like.
Damn right I disagree with whatever it is we have right now. I know it's not 'democracy', which is all I want. Real democracy, where every vote and opinion is equal, which is transparent and accountable and not beholden to minority or private interests, and has the ability to change to respond to problems rather than being stuck in outdated practices or ideology. What we have now is not democracy, it's plutocracy and oligarchy, so I have no problem with saying I'm against it.
Exactly, which is why I keep saying we live in a Tory country and you need to base everything on that fact.
Apart from a cursory look at the facts shows that, well, its not a fact. If it was they would be consistently polling a majority as opposed to benefiting from FPTP.
Even Binners managed to, sort of, grasp this by noticing the tories have had to take Labour policies in order to remain in power. Now why on earth would they do that if the country was this tory dreamstate?
You are just regurgitating the hard rights propaganda.
The evil Tony Blair realised that but no other labour party seems to have realised it.
Aside from, as above, this isnt actually true.
Plus of course the thing Blair understood but most of his worshippers dont is his trick of taking the normal labour voters for granted and chasing the swing voters is it doesnt work for long. He rode the wave and as the votes vanished walked away claiming the battle victories and announcing he has nothing to do with the outcome of the war.
It is unlikely to work again and had the great result of dragging the country so far to the right many policies Thatcher thought were extreme are now considered normal.
No. It’s because she is a poor media performer,
So she needs sacking due to being a poor media performer?
So whats your stance on Starmer again?
Blair (never voted for him) didn’t drag the UK to the right. Even something now as completely uncontroversial and consensual as a minimum wage, or investing heavily in the NHS so that fewer desperate people have to pay to avoid dying in a queue for an operation, were resistant and fought against tooth and nail by the Conservatives. Without the break in Conservative rule that Blair & Brown (and their immediate predecessors) and Labour as a whole delivered, god knows where we would be as regards moving to the right by now.