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to minority or private interests, and has the ability to change to respond to problems rather than being stuck in outdated practices or ideology.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.

So she needs sacking due to being a poor media performer?

Absolutely. I would say moved rather than sacked though. The public are never going to look at her and imagine her in the second most important role in government, but she has plenty to add as part of a shadow treasury team.

So whats your stance on Starmer again?

That Labour should replace him before we get to a general election, because he doesn’t have the charisma or connection with the public that is needed to win a general election.

It’s because she is a poor media performer,

It’s very much not this. Her media performances don’t help, but she needs replacing because she dsplays all the worst traits of a politician I outlined above. As nickc says she may recognise that we’re entering a period of government activism and public spending, but she either doesn’t recognise or refuses to be honest about the changes to the economic system which will enable this spending. There is nothing to be gained by persisting with the lie about how money and government finances work, and if she’s not willing to be honest and make that case then she should step aside for someone who will.

Blair (never voted for him) didn’t drag the UK to the right

He really did. The ‘War on Terror’, with it’s systematic demonisation of Islam/Muslims, simply fuelled the flames of xenophobia, and made millions of British people the target of right-wing fear and hatred. You can apologise for/ignore Blair’s failings all you like, but the society we live in today, with its divisions and injustices, is the product of the kind of politics started by Thatcher, and continued by Blair.

That Labour should replace him before we get to a general election, because he doesn’t have the charisma or connection with the public that is needed to win a general election.

Who would you replace him with?

Well, the tories have currently been responsible for less deaths, worldwide, than Blair, but I suspect you’ll be ignoring that fact.

Yep, as I said I will be ignoring it because it is nonsense. Thanks for playing.

He really did.

‘Iraq!’

It is one of the things that kept me away from voting Labour ‘till Corbyn became leader. I have never ignored it, or defended it, or accepted it. You can choose to ignore everything that Labour did in government that the Conservatives would not have, if you wish.

Who would you replace him with?

Me? Lammy. But it won’t happen anyway, Labour aren’t ruthless enough, and will be trying to avoid anything that focuses ‘inwards’ on party politics… there is no chance of a run off before the general election loss (which I obviously wish wasn’t coming… but is hard to ignore coming down the tracks like a runway freight train).

Realistically we’re looking at strengthening the ‘alternative cabinet’ before an election, and running on having a team ready for government, with Starmer being dull but fair and ‘for all’, and other shadow ministers needed to energise different groups of workers. I can’t see it working for Labour… unless the constant stream of obvious self interest and what we’d call ‘corruption’ in other countries damages the government members enough over the coming years.

is the product of the kind of politics started by Thatcher, and continued by Blair.

And we’re back to neoliberalism. Blair was an unashamed cheerleader of the neo-liberal project, the crowning glory of which is brexit. What it didn’t contend with though is a global pandemic. Now that everyone has seen that the rules we’ve been told are sacrosanct for the past 40 years are not rules at all, and are instead arbitrary policies which can be changed or reshaped as necessary to combat the pandemic and other problems we face, things will start to change (they already are). Starmer has a simple choice, he can pretend the old rules still exist, or he can put himself and his party forward as the best people to create the new political and economic environment which will govern the next 40 years. He has a golden opportunity to be a radical reformer, but he looks like he’s not interested. It’s tragic.

Yep, as I said I will be ignoring it because it is nonsense

So, fact = ‘nonsense’ now. Fake news, eh?

Thanks for playing

Don’t mention it. Shame you didn’t turn up though. 😉

Blair (never voted for him) didn’t drag the UK to the right.

Yes he did. He normalised the tories hard right policies as standard in the UK and in several cases put in the building blocks for them to push further from.
The NHS is a perfect example. In his ideological extremism he pushed the PFI approach way beyond what the tories thought was sensible and so has created a debt burden which will be carried for years to come. So one point for the increased funding but minus far more in how it was channelled via the private sector with him following the tory position of public is bad and inefficient.

Blair was an unashamed cheerleader of the neo-liberal project, the crowning glory of which is brexit.

Is there any point engaging with this? Which politicians were/are really proposing an end to the “neo-liberal” project, and which meaning of that term are you referring to? It’s easy to make the case for Brexit being either a revolution against new-liberalism, or an extension of it… “neo-liberal” is a junk term used to describe mutually contradictory political and economic ideas.

PFI funding was a mess. Not all increased health spending was channeled though it though. Imagine if there had been no break in Conservative rule between Thatcher and now… are you really arguing that would have resulted in the UK being less “to the right”? Really?!? Cloud cuckoo land. Have you not been watching what has happened since the Tories got their majority in 2015?

So, fact = ‘nonsense’ now.

Nope. You can judge how successful a government has been for UK society on the number of deaths via war but to me that is nonsense and has no bearing on the choice between a future Labour or Tory government.
Would Labour have got involved in the Falklands war?
Would the Tories have been involved in Iraq?

I would say Yes – probably, to both of those. Nobody actually knows.

He really did. The ‘War on Terror’, with it’s systematic demonisation of Islam/Muslims, simply fuelled the flames of xenophobia, and made millions of British people the target of right-wing fear and hatred.

Can I raise a point of order?

Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?

and which meaning of that term are you referring to?

You really should watch that Graeber video I posted above. What I’m talking about is the system which has existed since the 70s where the postwar settlement was replaced with liberal political rights and a withdrawal of economic benefits/protections in favour of cheap credit. This system enabled the rise of the plutocrats and oliigarchs and the monopolism we now live with which is destroying the planet and threatening the futures of billions. Just like after WWII and the 1970s we’re at another transition point, caused by the banking crisis and the pandemic. As I’ve said before, a smart politician would see this and take advantage. Biden has clearly seen the opportunity, Boris too for entirely different motivations. And Starmer? Care to tell me what his great idea is because I haven’t the foggiest.

Right… so Blair (never voted for him) withdrew which economic benefits/protections from who? Was introducing the minimum wage a withdrawal of “economic benefits/protections”? Were tax credits a withdrawal of “economic benefits/protections”?

And, as it happens, I find all your attempts to unify Biden and Johnson as having similar political/economical approaches, while attacking Starmer as “centrist” and a “neoliberal” stuck in the past as laughable.

I’ll ask again… why is Starmer a “centrist”, yet Biden is not?

are you really arguing that would have resulted in the UK being less “to the right”? Really? Cloud cuckoo land

Could you explain how exactly how you made this leap of logic. Are you incapable of thinking that, just maybe, Blair didnt have to push the policies that he did?

However since you brought it up oddly enough it is a tad more complex than your simplistic “cloud cuckoo” land and comes back to where the perceived middle ground is.
That this shifts really isnt controversial and that is the problem with the triangulation politics.
How exactly it would have ended up under the tories would be highly unpredictable and would depend which wing had power. You only need to read some rightwing blogs and forums to see the complaining about the tories having to move leftwards on some issues to try and get votes, I mean even Binners has spotted this, whereas with the chase them rightwards approach they have no choice but to move further right.

Blair (never voted for him) withdrew which economic benefits/protections from who?

They were already removed, it happened in the 80s under you know who. Blair didn’t bring them back, unless I missed something. He made it a little more tolerable for a few years with his tax credits and minimum wage, and made some things worse with PFI etc but did little to roll back thatcher’s revolution. In the end once labour were gone we were still left with what thatcher created, and that lead to where we now find ourselves. Watch that video.

Can I raise a point of order?

Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?

No of course not – but then are you unwilling to accept the West’s general meddling before and after this as part of the problem?

Terrorism didn’t start with 911. You know, America and its allies have a history.

And further to that how was what Blair did any sort of solution?

Would Labour have got involved in the Falklands war?
Would the Tories have been involved in Iraq?

The answer to the second is definitely judging from their voting pattern although without Labour support they would have struggled.
The answer to the first is far more interesting.
The actual question should be would they have needed to?
It is something which should have been a lesson for Starmer and co around covid which is that poor performance during a crisis can be hidden by a semi ok outcome.
The Falklands happened since the tories far from being the defenders of the military had cut the funding so far the Argentinians thought they had a chance and, if they had waited a year, they would have walked it.
There is a report that under the previous Labour government the Argentinians were sabre rattling but it was handled by simply letting it slip that one of the nuclear attack subs had been dispatched to the general area. Which made the Argentinians pause on the grounds that they still fancied having a fleet.

Oh and for those who think a inquiry into Covid would be damaging to the tories they should look up the one into the Falklands.

Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?

The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So was bin Laden. Guess which country is our ally?

For a whole host of reasons the UK has has a Tory government for over 40 years, right now I’d really welcome a red Tory to get rid of the purple Tory government.

Maybe once we have a red Tory government we could convince people to go for a blue Labour government then a red Labour one.

What I don’t want is a red Labour or green government right now because as we saw with the blue / yellow government, people want unrealistic levels of change at the same time as not wanting change at all and that’ll be the end of you.

You really should watch that Graeber video I posted above.

I went and looked for something short written by him in support of the History of Debt book (I’m not inclined to watch an 80 minute video by an anarchist, it’s unlikely to get to the point), and was sad to see he’s died. Maybe I’ll find time to watch it later.

What I don’t want is a red Labour or green government right now

The mistake you’re making here is thinking too much about different flavours of government when really there’s almost no difference. Government is government no matter where the politicians come from, and the politicians largely come from the same background, play by the same rules and have the same career ambitions.  That’s why we get so many politicians in the wrong party, and why party divisions are almost meaningless. The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we’re in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China. It’s all very stupid really.

The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we’re in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China.

What a load of old *********. If you really think that all “politicians are the same”, why do you point to the positive changes Biden is making after taking over from his predecessor? If Labour had won either the 2017 or 2019 elections, we would have a very different government, and this country would be changing… and I would argue for the better. If you honestly think that it matters not which politicians, and which party, are in government… why are you posting in a thread about a party leader?

EDIT: apologies, I agree we have a highly flawed system that needs improving.

I’m not inclined to watch an 80 minute video by an anarchist, it’s unlikely to get to the point

The fact that he’s an anarchist is besides the point. Make the effort, he’s one of the most incisive and insightful analysts I’ve ever heard or read, and has a real talent for explaining complex issues in non-academic language. And yes it’s a tragedy that he died so young.

Interestingly his anarchist politics come from his experiences as an anthropoligist studying how societies around the world function without effective government. The stuff about dual power structures in places like Madagascar is pretty mindblowing.

why do you point to the positive changes Biden is making after taking over from his predecessor?

Trump wasn’t really a politician was he? He was an outlier, and shouldn’t really be used in any comparisons. If you compare Biden to other US presidents he’s not much different. A Corbyn government would have been marginally more different to all the others, but really he wasn’t proposing any major fundamental changes to how government and democracy works. He certainly wasn’t planning any major economic changes other than spending and taxing more.

So, both Biden and Corbyn are “centrists” then?

Both support the “neo-liberal” system?

Why is Starmer standing in the way of what you want, but neither of those were?

So, both Biden and Corbyn are “centrists” then?

It’s all relative. When I talk about centrists I mostly mean political cowards who don’t want to change anything. Centrist is the wrong word, really they’re just conservatives. Corbyn would have changed things, and to my surprise Biden is going further than I expected, but they still exist within a narrow hierarchical political culture. They may not be centrists, but they’re still politicians.

The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we’re in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China.

Mate, much as I love you, you don’t half talk some shite 🙂

Interestingly his anarchist politics come from his experiences as an anthropoligist studying how societies around the world function without effective government. The stuff about dual power structures in places like Madagascar is pretty mindblowing.

Its all explained here…

So, both Biden and Corbyn are “centrists” then?

Both support the “neo-liberal” system?

Why is Starmer standing in the way of what you want, but neither of those were?

It doesn’t answer your question but this recent article flutters with your point. Meadway is a tax and spend economist that believes in borrowing to finance stuff – so I don’t agree with him in that respect but he does know his left politics as he was key advisor to McDonnell.

https://labourlist.org/2021/04/the-real-lesson-labours-centrists-should-take-from-the-biden-administration/

“The same patterns have appeared across the developed world, as the economic failures of the decade or more since 2008 have mounted. But where centrists and the existing centre-left in Europe have self-destructively alternated between contempt, derision and terror when confronted by their own new lefts, the Biden team have deliberately sought an engagement with its representatives.”

Engagement works both ways, and arguably it was happening ‘till Corbyn refused to use that report to draw a line under an issue Labour needed to move on from. Ever since then Starmer has been treated as the enemy, rather than someone to work with. And those that have worked with him have been treated with contempt as well… the stuff that Rayner now has to put up with is pretty depressing. As I said before when Biden’s “engagement” with the left amongst the democrats was brought up, perhaps a pressing election soon after the appointment of a new leader here would have focussed minds on a joint policy platform and seeking office… but with so much time to kill, Labour returned to battling with itself, especially once Corbyn lost the whip. Labour needs to become working a coalition. It’s not happening.

Ever since then Starmer has been treated as the enemy, rather than someone to work with.

Oh come on, Starmer courted the left’s vote but turned his back soon enough. If people are treating him unfavourably then perhaps it’s because they don’t like being used.

The difference between Starmer and the part of the Labour party that dislike him is that he has a better idea of what needs to be done to win an election and doesn’t hold onto things and ideas that won’t help that.
It falls apart because he is not the right person to win an election and he probably doesn’t realise that or won’t give up the role. The same as Corbyn really who did okay at the start and got new people interested but then clung on when it was clear he should have passed it to someone else within a year as he was never going to be good from an election point of view after that.

It looks like the anti-lockdown anger and the ‘Covid is just seasonal flu’ ‘debate’ just coalesced and settled around Starmer at a pub in Bath.

Thanks to the plucky landlord, Keir Starmer and Labour have come to represent not only the Tories handling of the pandemic but also the cause of UK’s plummeting economy.

Boris must be enjoying a pint somewhere.

Mate, much as I love you, you don’t half talk some shite

But you said pretty much the same yourself when correctly raising the issue of the tories nicking labour policies. If as you say all you want is a less cut-throat type of capitalism, then what does it matter if it’s the tories or labour implementing ‘labour’ policies? It doesn’t matter because there’s no real difference between the parties.

Its all explained here…

Have a read…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsimihety_people