Forum menu
I think it's more about 'training' people rather than helping them become 'educated'. The monetisation of education, begun under John Major with the introduction of student loans, then continued with the introduction of tuition fees under Blair, has had the (intended) effect of pushing people much more towards course that have a more defined 'value' in terms of 'careers' and future earning potential. Important, but not the be all and end all. People can have higher degrees in vers specific areas, yet still not be very well 'educated' in a broader sense. So much more about creating efficient drones that benefit capitalism, than actually creating a well educated society.
So much more about creating efficient drones that benefit capitalism, than actually creating a well educated society.
Fair point. If this is a well educated society then there seems to be a massive amount of Stockholm Syndrome going on
The Brexit vote was broadly polarised by education levels. I'd say the last election was the same. Surely both these things proved the level of ignorance about important issues is absolutely staggering. No society that is broadly well educated would have voted for Brexit.
But given the huge increase in education budgets under Blair I don't think you can really lay much of the blame there, surely?
If this is a well educated society
It isn't. That's my point. Many people may be well 'trained', but not necessarily well 'educated'. That's an important distinction.
I know this is going to come as a shock to you but I'm agreeing with you.
I think that people are being 'conditioned' into beliefs around certain issues that little little basis in reality. The EU being a prime example. All myths and lies, easily sold.
Michael Goves changes to the education system sought to completely eradicate any form of creativity and creative thinking in favour of parrot-like 'learning' to pass set exams, with curriculum's set in stone.
A population more predisposed to creative and abstract thought wouldn't be as easily gaslighted as large sections of our society have been by this lot
You'd be an absolute idiot not to.
I’ve never called you anti-Semitic, I just questioned your use of an anti-Semitic trope. And would do so again.
Yep, that is exactly what you did. Turned out the phrase was made in complete ignorance but I don't think anything was learned from that as defence mode was immediately applied.
A population more predisposed to creative and abstract thought wouldn’t be as easily gaslighted as large sections of our society have been by this lot
While the country seems to have got more stupid/gullible I don't think social media has helped at all and is the root cause behind many things.
Yep, that is exactly what you did. Turned out the phrase was made in complete ignorance but I don’t think anything was learned from that as defence mode was immediately applied.
Sorry; is this aimed at me, or Kelvin?
While the country seems to have got more stupid/gullible I don’t think social media has helped at all and is the root cause behind many things.
The fact that it's an unregulated space has been seized on by the Putins and Dominic Cummings of the world to peddle misinformation and lies. If you've not watched the Cambridge Analytica documentary it makes for pretty terrifying viewing.
But at the end of the day we have to ask why people are unquestioningly buying into this shit when its manifestly against their best interests to do so. I think education levels are a massive element of this. Gove knew exactly what he was doing with his 'return to the 1950's' changes to the education system. Its all part of the ongoing culture war. They don't want a questioning populace asking about awkward stuff, they want drones.
Thats the reason they have absolutely no intention of properly funding whats needed for the more disadvantaged kids to make up for the education they missed during Covid. The middle classes maintained their position, while the privately educated further entrenched their already huge advantage over everyone else
Would anyone be remotely surprised if the next stage of Project Brexit will be to say to the unemployed that they won’t be entitled to any benefits while theres fruit that needs picking or Boris’s mate Tim needs barstaff?
I quote verbatim from the cabinet's Brexit handbook Brittania Unchained:
Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world.
We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.
Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more
interested in football and pop music.
and...
Addison Lee’s drivers work on a freelance basis. They can net £600
per week in take-home pay. But they have to work for it – around
60 hours per week.
In other words, work harder, bitches.
And they got the drones to vote for their new penury and sold it to them as liberation
So it seems it’s absolutely fine for one ‘side’ in this to hurl abuse, insults and extremely offensive insinuations around, yet the moment others point out their hypocrisy, narrow mindedness and bullshit, get all pissy. Kind of sums up neoliberals really.
The ironing....
The Blairite idea of creating a much larger ‘middle class’, similar to the US definition rather than drawing form traditional British concepts of ‘class’, depends on maintaining an ‘underclass’ who can still be relied upon to do all the shit jobs the ‘milieu nouveau’ don’t want to, because they are above the ‘common herd’.
Odd seeing as the underclass are the ones who don't do boring things like jobs with tax and NI. If they did they'd be working class....
Odd seeing as the underclass are the ones who don’t do boring things like jobs
This class stuff is really boring. One of the reasons I struggle with socialism (and politics in general) is its obsession with class, and the work ethic that comes with it. What matters is the opportunity for people to live the lives they want to free of constraints like who their parents are or how much money they’ve inherited, or whether they even want to work or their ability to do so. ‘Work’ should be something we do willingly because we want to, not because we have to.
Here, here.
& even we, the all knowing forum, are still going on about anti-Semitism. Talk about being conditioned.
& even we, the all knowing forum
hilarious
The vile hypocritical Hodge / Watson up to good old tricks again - calling out those within the party as undermining democracy!
You can't make it up.
These pair did so much damage, and still they don't shut up.
Don't you just love a battle with the trade unions? 'cos that makes sense at this point.
These absolute ****ing morons will never be happy. She should have been booted ages ago.
But there's no war from the right of the Labour party.
Ah yes Margaret Hodge, the favourite Labour MP of the BNP.
Cummings hands the Government its arse. Everyone quickly forgets.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1400749359172620288?s=19
50% by August.
A lot of what Cummings had to say about the handling of the pandemic will help Johnson, not damage him. Many people inclined to support him want to hear about the PM fighting against the do-gooder scientists in the weighing up of public health and personal "freedom".
K "I support the government" Starmer becoming even less relevent by the day.
Cummings hands the Government its arse. Everyone quickly forgets.
Naïve comment. But expected.
A known liar, who helped the liars in Government achieve Brexit, then gets employed by said liars to win elections and operate in Government, now calling the liars in Government, liars.
He has a particular axe to grind with the Government, which also plays into the 'not believed' category.
As for those who matter to this Government(not the actual majority who voted at the last election) a large proportion of them knew what they were getting, in much the same way as the Christian right voting for trump, as long as their aims are achieved.
They haven't forgotten, they simply don't care.
They haven’t forgotten, they simply don’t care.
One and the same in my opinion.
Naïve comment. But expected.
Cheers.
I don't think it was naive to assume a small labour uptick in the polls? And then downward for the rest of the year as per Kelvin.
I wasn't expecting an uptick at all, not even a small one, quite the opposite. It's my new level of cynicism about (half) the UK voting public. I expect worse and worse of half the voters every year. This doesn't mean that there aren't 40 million or so great people here though that can see Johnson for what he is, and not like it one bit. I'd lump nearly everyone still posting in this thread in that 40 million, and nearly everyone I know. Most of us know Johnson is a self serving liability, but many others can't see it... and worse.. many actively like it.
Had an email from Keir "We want to hear from you"
You'd think they would have their own policy ideas by now. I'm sure I heard him say during (or maybe just after) his election campaign that he would be unveiling ground breaking forward looking policies.
"Labour tell us what to do, they don't listen to what we want them to do."
(Not my opinion, but a very popular one right now.)
I know the thinking is just look more competent than the Tories and don't scare the horses. The polling tells me this won't be enough. He needs a massive attention grabbing policy or 2 to have a chance.
Scrap the Lords
Move Parliament
PR
Maybe UBI
I’m sure I heard him say during (or maybe just after) his election campaign that he would be unveiling ground breaking forward looking policies.
I think Unite have kicked that idea into the long grass
What do you mean Nick?
Scrap the Lords
Move Parliament
PR
Maybe UBI
The average voter doesn't give a shit about the first three and those that have even heard of UBI wouldn't have a chance of even having a basic grasp of it and wouldn't be able to get past the "why should people be given money for not doing anything"
You are going to need something completely different to that;
- Get rid of foreigners
- Get rid of scroungers
You are going to need something completely different to that;
– Get rid of foreigners
– Get rid of scroungers
"Socialist achieves bigger swing than Tony Blair"
Do you think in 2017 Labour increased its share of the vote by more than at any other time since 1945 because of a commitment to get rid of foreigners and scroungers?
The contemptuous attitude of middle-class liberals and the vilification of ordinary working people goes to the very heart of Labour's inability to connect with its once loyal base.
Personally I don't see a solution to the problem. I only see Labour destined to become less and less relevant. Which will probably simply increase the hostility and gulf between the two sides.
Which two sides?
The working class and the woking class
“Socialist achieves bigger swing than Tony Blair”
percentages are a bit misleading without a baseline though - JC only had to improve on Gordon Brown's/Ed Milliband's numbers
JC only had to improve on Gordon Brown’s/Ed Milliband’s numbers
And how the **** did he manage to do that?!?!?!?
Do you think it was by making a commitment to "get rid of foreigners and scroungers"?
Do you think voters saw him as the new Nigel Farage?
Was he seen as more racist and intolerant than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband?
Perhaps more right-wing than Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband?
*Waits for the Ramsbottom Flouncer to answer these thorny questions*
Do you think in 2017 Labour increased its share of the vote by more than at any other time since 1945 because of a commitment to get rid of foreigners and scroungers?
As I have said a few times before, it is irrelevant to compare one period of time with another. All that matters is who wins the election not how well or badly the losers lost in comparison to some other election.
What would be your 2 or 3 snappy policies to get the voters to vote for over the tories?
Scrap the Lords has a bit of the Brexit spirit no? Plus drain the swamp worked.
Moving parliament says that Labour are serious about moving stuff out of London and spending on the rest of the country.
UBI does get rid of scroungers.
PR so people could vote for exactly who they want. Would appeal to UKIPers and Green voters alike.
All that matters is who wins the election not how well or badly the losers lost in comparison to some other election.
So you think that the Labour Party can become the party of government in just one election from now?
Achieving power doesn't come by gradual steps?
Improving significantly on a previous result is not part of the strategy to power?
LOL!
Yeah stick to the narrative that voters are stupid intolerant racists, it's simpler to understand.
“why should people be given money for not doing anything”
That’s not how you sell I though. It’s a fairly simple narrative that anyone can understand:
- secure well paying working class jobs have gone
- more will go with automation and start affecting the middle class
- future work will be in the creative professions which can’t be automated but creativity needs to be supported
and then some practical concrete things..
- the basics of life guaranteed for everyone
- an end to abject poverty and homelessness
- easier and more efficient to operate: an end to government waste.
- a true meritocratic society where those who are talented and put in the work in their chosen field are properly rewarded.
I’m with you 100% on this one Dazh. But it’s for an incumbent Labour government to demonstrate it could work, and win a second election with it as a pillar of their second term agenda. The opposition won’t make it stick with voters… promising it in a first term from the opposition benches would see them losing and the idea being binned in the UK for decades. It’ll be interesting to see what gets trialled in Wales… the seeds need planting.
For the record I don’t think it should be a policy now, but they can start talking about it and preparing the ground. A good start would be the reform of benefits to abolish sanctions and other punitive elements. Also start talking about the impact of automation, make people worried for their futures basically, and start talking about UBI as the solution. It’s a hearts and minds campaign and needs to start now.
Agreeing with you again.
So you think that the Labour Party can become the party of government in just one election from now?
Nope, they will only have a chance when the tory party do enough things that make people turn away from them which I don't see happening any time soon.
Yeah stick to the narrative that voters are stupid intolerant racists, it’s simpler to understand.
Well it's the truth, one day you will wake up to it, that is the audience you are playing to. Offering people either irrelevant (House of Lords, positioning of parliament) or complex (UBI) is not going to get you far with people who are really not interested and put a lot more importance on where they are going on holiday that how the country/society is run.
Remember these are the people who merrily switch from Labour to Tory based on very simple and largely misunderstood things. The people who are actually interested in politics are not the audience as they have thought about things for more than 2 minutes and someone who thinks the Tory approach is correct is not going to switch to Labour and vice versa.
There's another problem too. The senior economists of Labour are also driven by a Tory narrative dressed up in Labour sensibility as the fiscal credibilty rule.
This saddles them with the idea that GBP is finite.
I was debating with Simon Wren-Lewis and I was tackling him on the 2017 manifesto being fully costed (and the 2019 version less so) - opens up criticism that the UK can't afford it because it has to borrow/find the money.
He's not having any of it (who am I to argue with his credentials - an Oxford Professor) but economically and politically Labour would do better to abandon this and say the Government can always find the money and just can't go broke. Just like Sunak found the money the instant his corner was forced (the pandemic). Public accepted it when they found out it was in their interests.
Starmer has yet again had his forensic specs on and got himself in an unholy mess with corporation tax. Now running with the G7 21% whereas previously not opposing the Tories increase to 25%. And then going on about the extra we can afford. It's a mess.
This tax and spend mentality is simply not working. It's also bogus and yet Starmchair is stil pushing it like it's 2012.
Random thought: If Labour are guilty of anything previously it's lack of defending their position for fear of what he press might say. The press say it anyway so they should just go for broke.
You know, like 'Broadband Communism' stupidity.
Now
BBC News - Millions struggle to pay broadband bills in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57345154
(That archive picture is the really badly chosen. Getty have better options than that!)
And how the **** did he manage to do that?!?!?!?
By being somewhere for some of the post-coalition collapsed lib dem vote to go. Sadly the Tory vote also increased and labour lost.
And also having policies that pulled in voters from the Greens (and non-voters).
Is it just me, or are the Tories now just enacting Ed Millibands ‘Ed-stone’ manifesto?
It’ll be interesting to see what form it takes by the time it’s had the shit kicked out of it, but as a headline it’s once again the kind of thing you’d expect from a Labour government
Even for this Tory party, this statement takes some front
Sunak said: “These seismic tax reforms are something the UK has been pushing for and a huge prize for the British taxpayer – creating a fairer tax system fit for the 21st century.
Wasn’t it the UK & EU dragging their heals on this?
“We have capitulated under international pressure to agree to deliver something we set ourselves against.”
It’s good news that it’s happening though, and something I’ve wanted to happen for 20+ years now. The race to the bottom as regards taxes on international businesses has been damaging for all.
but as a headline it’s once again the kind of thing you’d expect from a Labour government
Not Labour currently they haven't got a clue where they stand on corp tax.
A few months ago Starmer was looking to rule out a tax rise. Even Alan Johnson agreed.
Very clear in the 2019 manifesto 26%.
That said it's all nonsense from a public fiance point of view.
Prior to the G7 UK, Ireland and Luxembourg were not in favour; Macron has been leading the major european countries in trying to force the issue.
Without Biden pushing the issue it would have another worthy proposal which made no progress.
Next step is to get the G20 and OECD on-board.
And how the **** did he manage to do that?!?!?!?
By being somewhere for some of the post-coalition collapsed lib dem vote to go. Sadly the Tory vote also increased and labour lost.
Do you not remember 2017? It was only 4 years ago.
The post-coalition collapse of the LibDem vote occurred in the 2015 general election, not in 2017
And dspite the collapse of the LibDem vote in 2015 Labour only managed to secure 30% of the vote.
Two years later that share of the vote shot up to 40%, the greatest increase for Labour since 1945. The LibDem vote only fell by a further 0.5% in 2017.
So what happened? Why did all these stupid racist people vote Labour in their millions?
You claim that Labour lost the 2017 general election but don't you remember that no party won? That's why we had a hung parliament and the Tories had to strike a deal with the Unionists - because they hadn't won the election.
According to Kerley it doesn't matter how much you lose by all that matters is whether you win or lose. So using that criteria the Tories did as badly as Labour, ie they both lost.
And since you brought it up johnx, why do you think that the LibDems experienced a post-coalition collapse in their vote?
The Tories didn't experience a similar post-coalition collapse in their vote.
Surely going into government must have boosted the credibility of the LibDems as a serious party of government.
Or were voters unimpressed by Nick Clegg's centrist policies? Surely that can't be the case?
Nope, they will only have a chance when the tory party do enough things that make people turn away from them which I don’t see happening any time soon.
So yesterday Kerley you were claiming that for Labour to win a general election they needed to make a commitment to get rid of foreigners and scroungers.
Today you are claiming that for Labour to win a general election the Tories need to be unpopular.
There is quite a big difference between the two statements.
Although they both have one thing in common, ie, neither of them blame the Labour Party for losing a general election. One blames voters for being racist and uncaring. Whilst the other one blames the Tories for being popular.
So I guess Labour doesn't have to do anything, just hope and pray that voters will stop being racist and/or the Tories stop being popular.
What a yawn-a-thon.
And another thread disappears up it's own sphincter.
Yeah I know what you mean Kelvin.
Challenging the claim that voters are stupid racists is so boring.
On the other hand your carefully thought out response is so much more interesting.
So yesterday Kerley you were claiming that for Labour to win a general election they needed to make a commitment to get rid of foreigners and scroungers.
Clue, I wasn't being entirely serious.
So I guess Labour doesn’t have to do anything, just hope and pray that voters will stop being racist and/or the Tories stop being popular.
Sort of sums it up yes although Labour still has to do something. Even when the tories get less popular and have a crap leader (May) they still manage to win.
Labour still need to have a popular leader to appeal to those not really interested in politics. To life long tory voters Labour are irrelevant, to lifelong tory haters the tories are irrelevant. All the non aligned people are the audience and I can tell you that offering policies about house of lords or location of parliament are really not going to catch their interest.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question - what 2 or 3 headline catchy things have you got that would get people interested in Labour as a party worth voting for?
but as a headline it’s once again the kind of thing you’d expect from a Labour government
In the bizarre situation we find ourselves, I don't think Labour under SKS would have supported such a policy, they're so scared of seeming anti-corporate/tax-and-spend/'loony left'.
Clue, I wasn’t being entirely serious.
Yeah I know Kerley. I was working on the basis that you were being a little bit serious.
The theme that voters are uncaring stupid racists is one that runs in one form or another in pretty much all the political threads on stw.
I felt like challenging your comment as I have previous similar comments. Not that it makes any difference of course, it's simply the entertainment value it provides. It's vaguely amusing to see someone like Kelvin clearly wanting to comment but unable to think of anything intelligent to say.
Although obviously not quite as satisfying as winding up the Ramsbottom Flouncer.....a passion which I share with the Rose and Crown regulars!
EDIT : U OK HUN? X
As short as possible… shouldn’t really need saying… or rather has been said many times already…
“Look after our own”… is still a strong sentiment among voters, and Johnson has mined that to get to where he is (switching his tactic on this from when he was standing as London Mayor - know your voters).
“A two horse race”… not quite true, even in England, but it’s close to a Conservative vs Labour fight in many key seats now… and the popularity of your opponent matters, not just your own popularity (I can’t believe I bothered to type that).
A great article in today’s Observer by David Mitchell on why capitalism is the only real game in town, and why everyone needs to deal with it as such
Jeff Bezos is a model capitalist and we’ve failed him
This seems particularly relevant to this thread
The trouble is that, in this polarised age, the discussion seems to end there: “Oh, so we’re having capitalism then, are we!? Well, I hope it chokes you!” The principle of a system that doesn’t discourage rapacious greed, but seeks merely to channel it, is so abhorrent to elements of the left that the rest of the left is seriously hampered in its attempts to scrutinise the details
Labours present problems in a nutshell
Good article that.
The problem with leftist ideology is that it tries to perfect humanity, Its worse than religion in that respect, in that religions generally recognise that wwe're evil little shits at heart and that we have to be moderated rather than corrected.
Capitalism is what happened when we stopped raiding and stealing and started trading. Left wing ideological thinking is not the opposite of capitalism, Its not even a faux religion (see above). Commerce and religion have been around for thousands of years, socialism (in its ideological form) is a busted flush after little more than a century. It can't co-habit with reality, It's a kind of intolerant rationalism that seeks to create a heaven on earth.
And UBI is not socialism either, rather it mirrors the benevolent and humanitarian traits found in religion.
The Conservatives will sometimes join in with the moaning about all this, but their self-interest lies with placating, not regulating, the City. It would be nice if they did something, but it’s no good expecting that. So we’ll have to wait for Labour to regain its capitalist mojo and remember how to work in its own self-interest.
Privately educated multi-millionaire David Mitchell's big political plan is do nothing and wait.
Inspirational stuff.
Do nothing?! I read his column with regularity, for humour reasons not for political insight… and “keep things as they are” has never been his line. I don’t always agree with him, but there are many positions between the change I want to see, and keeping the status quo. The tendency of some on the Left to view anything but their way as the “established” way is part of the problem Labour faces.
It seems the general thrust is still that no matter how far removed "the left" is from the levers of power, it will always be the root of Labour's problems. Here's a thought: try growing a pair.
A whole article about capitalism without recognising that neolibralism is the actual problem.
Capitalism doesn't exist without the state, how do you think GBP gets into private hands? It's not born out of the financial markets!
In fact where the article goes wrong is not acknowledging capitalism assumes infinite growth and resources. That's a busted flush. So it's not really the only game in town. In fact it's on its uppers in terms of our market-led approach.
There are so many naive and ignorant vantage points these days about how the economy actually functions.
That said, neolibralism is dying.
Shortage of labour and products is going to turn everything inside out. Stock market operating completely out of synch with growth in companies. Interests rates at all time low. Etc.
There is only one way out of this and it's massive fiscal stimulus from central Governments - green, infrastructure etc.
The problem with leftist ideology is that it tries to perfect humanity, Its worse than religion in that respect, in that religions generally recognise that wwe’re evil little shits at heart and that we have to be moderated rather than corrected.
No it doesn't, it seeks to readdress the balance of labour over capital and improve inequality and welfare.
Socialism is not a busted flush - it's simply a hard sell. Socialism is wheeled out when things go wrong - such as the pandemic because the market can't offer a solution.
Socialism is actually the only game in town in times of crisis.
Suggested reading instead of relying on Cambridge educated comedians for economic commentary (See the film Margin Call for better explanation of Mitchell's out of date vantage point.) read some fairly easy to digest books on modern economics?
Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Stephanie Kelton etc.
You might see better a route out of this
Suggested reading instead of relying on Cambridge educated comedians for economic commentary…
He’s just writing a column, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting he should be anyone’s sole source of economic or political reading or understanding. Predictable patronising tone, suggesting that others don’t read widely. And what’s so wrong with being educated at Cambridge?
The problem with leftist ideology is that it tries to perfect humanity
And the prize for most ridiculous statement of the week goes to.. 🙂
Honestly this is such a load of bollocks I don't know where to start. WTF is 'leftist ideology'? All we're talking about is trying to give a bit more power and wealth to normal people who don't sit at the top of the tree. That's not ideology, it's just plain fairness. It's not the people who want more fairness and social justice who are the ideologues, it's the people with all the money and power who conspire with each other to protect their undeserved status. And you're supporting them by making such a stupid point. Have a think FFS.
Capitalism is what happened when we stopped raiding and stealing and started trading.
No it's absolutely not. What you're describing is trade and commerce, which are entirely different to capitalism. People have traded goods forever, whereas the system of capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years as a political-economic construct which bestows power on people who have money as opposed to people who 'own' land. Even within capitalism there have been many phases. What we have today is vastly different to what existed 60 years ago, and that was different to the pre-war period and 19th century, and we're currently in the early stages into the next phase which again will be very different. This monolithic 'capitalist' system is not nearly as monolithic, stable or permanent as you think.
A great article in today’s Observer by David Mitchell on why capitalism is the only real game in town, and why everyone needs to deal with it as such
Really? Its a piss poor piece which uses generalisations so wide you could get a bus through them.
Lets just start with "It’s no good expecting people to be nice. "
Ermmm. Who does? Aside from some rightwing ideologues who argue that we should rely on the philantrophy of the billionaires?
The disconnect between "their basic shtick is to make rules compelling people to be nice" and " Within a properly enforced and mutually understood legal " is odd. I thought having rules compelling people to be nice is bad or is it just rules compelling people to be slightly nice which is okay?
Not seeing the link between a David Mitchell column and Kier Starmer? Are they friends, is Starmer getting advice from Mitchell?
Not seeing the link between a David Mitchell column and Kier Starmer?
I think the link is that they appear to have about the same depth of thinking and ambition to change a self-evidently deadend political and economic system.
Wow there is a really spectacular level of BS being talked in this thread now, and as for that David Mitchell article, well... it sounds very much like it was written by a 6th former.
We live in a new age of robber barons essentially, and the best we think we can do is just to ask them to please be a bit nicer? Capitalism is currently leading us ever faster towards massive environmental disaster, but it's 'lefties' that are the problem (and David Mitchell has the answer, which is mostly just to accept capitalism's current form as the way things have to be).
Jeez.
Jeez
Indeed, I think we've strayed somewhat from Sir! Kier! Stamer's! sphere of possible influence.
and the best we think we can do is just to ask them to please be a bit nicer?
That wasn't the point of the article at all, quite the opposite. Yes, it was very Ed Miliband circa 2013, and so feels very much like a retread of old ground. And yes, very superficial and 'sixth form' like in its language (know your audience). But he still has a point, there are those in the Labour movement (or increasingly those that have returned to hectoring from outside it) still wanting to overturn capitalism, rather than accepting that all (real) politics is now differing meldings of capitalism and socialism, never a pure version of either (note, that is not an accusation I'd be directing at a past leader or shadow chancellor, or any past front benchers).
Well at the risk of mentioning JC yet again even what he was offering was still essentially capitalism, so the idea that there are significant numbers of people way to the left of him seems absurd, and even more absurd that they are apparently a significant problem for SKS.
What JC and JMcD were offering was a far better balance than what we have now. Far better. One of the reasons I voted for their party (having never done so before they stepped in). As for the "significant numbers" comment... I agree... it's about noise not numbers. Noise that makes it harder for Labour to appeal to many of the voters it needs to win over. They are a problem because they make "the Left" an easy target by allowing our opponents to paint all those who want a system reconfigured to work for all as anti-capitalist and against our current way of life (rather than wanting to improve on it).
still wanting to overturn capitalism
What do you mean by 'overturn'? All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don't have disproportionate power over those who have little, and that we live within our natural means as defined by a finite planet. The major bit of capitalism which requires 'overturning' is the assumption of endless economic growth and consumption. Anyone who doesn't want that is either an idiot or a psycopath.
We (sadly) need leaders who are willing to say this because most of the public don't understand or don't have the time to care. Unfortunately in leaders such as Boris and Starmer (and all the others) we have the opposite, only interested in short termism and their own irrelevant careers.
All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don’t have disproportionate power over those who have little, and that we live within our natural means as defined by a finite planet.
I agree. How? (Is where it gets fiddly.)
All I want is to see capitalism reformed so that those with lots of money don’t have disproportionate power over those who have little
That's essentially the argument that David Mitchell is making in his opinion piece.
That’s essentially the argument that David Mitchell is making in his opinion piece.
And yet according to binners I'm a 6th form utopian idealogue and David Mitchell is a sensible pragmatist? Anyone care to explain the difference?