|
Rakosi posted:Specific, isolable events like the Iraq War, not general Blair-ness, lead to that. Illegal wars are not an intrinsic quality of Blairism/Centrism and I don't for one second buy this argument for why its not a good idea to try a proven winning formula again, when Labour has just been totally crushed running on the left. Because it's 2019 not 1997 and what worked then does not work now.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Any notion that the Labour party need to appeal to the "centre" to get elected so they can enact left wing policies is handily forgetting that outside Scotland centrist liberals ate poo poo. There is no appetite for it at all, you just need to look to the continent to see what's happened to PS in France, SPD in Germany etc when a centre-left party forgets the "left" bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:14
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Illegal wars are not an intrinsic quality of Blairism/Centrism Prove it
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Why are we letting Rakosi, noted racist and his bootlicking oval office here: Lmao this is what I was talking about, you go against the grain, you get called a "bootlicking oval office". I have no idea what echo chamber you think I'm from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
NewMars posted:If getting into downing street means mimicking the tories then what exactly is the point? The goal here is to stop people being murdered and if your way of doing that is to... promise half-assed versions of the policy that kills them, then there is, I think, a disconnect between your approach and your goals. Not to mention that triangulating towards the center (I. E. the right) did not help the Lib dems or anyone else this time and kick-started the whole decade of tory rule in the first place back with New Labour. The right have the knack of making people want their policy, but every time a leftist proposal comes up there's always this impulse to cut it down and make it "acceptable" (that is, worthless). That never works out, it just leads to a defanged implementation that is immediately undone by the next government. So I say: why can't we make people want a policy that helps them? Lots of people already want it, even if it is slightly (in relative terms) less than the opposite, so why not go for more and go for broke? it's going to be cut down for electability anyway, there's a reason the 2017 manifesto retained most of the austerity cuts, two years into Corbyn/Abbott/&c railing about how much it was killing people one is arguing over the degrees here, not the kind
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
You elect Jessflaps, you get a Tory supermajority in 2023. Simple as that. Neoliberalism is dead and going full Blair ain't bringing it back. Moreover, Blair was in the right place at the right time, and if John Smith hadn't died, we wouldn't be talking about Blairism as a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
ronya posted:it's going to be cut down for electability anyway, there's a reason the 2017 manifesto retained most of the austerity cuts, two years into Corbyn/Abbott/&c railing about how much it was killing people That's the thing: I don't think it actually would've hurt if it hadn't. Hell, might've helped a little.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
We weren't crushed by 'running on the left', we were crushed by Brexit, pure and simple. The economics weren't the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
Venomous posted:You elect Jessflaps, you get a Tory supermajority in 2023. Simple as that. Neoliberalism is dead and going full Blair ain't bringing it back. Moreover, Blair was in the right place at the right time, and if John Smith hadn't died, we wouldn't be talking about Blairism as a thing. To be fair Jessflaps also says going back to Blairism is a mistake, though I could not tell you what she wants to do instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Specific, isolable events like the Iraq War, not general Blair-ness, lead to that. Illegal wars are not an intrinsic quality of Blairism/Centrism and I don't for one second buy this argument for why its not a good idea to try a proven winning formula again, when Labour has just been totally crushed running on the left. sorry but what about the iraq war was isolable? and how aren't illegal wars an intrinsic quality of an ideology that by definition supports the US imperial machine unquestioningly? i mean i agree that people got way too invested in the idea they could vote socialism into power here, and following the conversation on the uk left more broadly has made me uneasy how inward-looking it is, but there is an undeniable appetite out there for labour's social democratic platform - at least 10 million people voted for it. there were just so many arresting factors that this result was nailed on. i don't think it matters now anyway, because the result has proven yet again that the path to the society we want is outside the electoral system tbqh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:To be fair Jessflaps also says going back to Blairism is a mistake, though I could not tell you what she wants to do instead. Ah, well, I take that back: she's going to court the Blue Labour Nazbols and win a Labour supermajority in 2023 under an explicitly English nationalist platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq9OpJYck7Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
Its true, compromising on your position somewhat to get to a place where you can actually enact your policies means losing ideological purity. And that is the greatest sin. Better just never be in power and let it go to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We weren't crushed by 'running on the left', we were crushed by Brexit, pure and simple. The economics weren't the problem. Brexit, Corbyn's personal unpopularity, and the Conservatives having a succinct message vs the messy giveaways of Labour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Antinumeric posted:Its true, compromising on your position somewhat to get to a place where you can actually enact your policies means losing ideological purity. And that is the greatest sin. Better just never be in power and let it go to poo poo. Yes, we have to compromise, as compromising on your beliefs certainly has done wonders for such pragmatic political luminaries such as the Lib Dems. Why do we have to compromise, when it seems to have worked out for approximately no one else in this election and the opposite has done wonders for the Tories?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Specific, isolable events like the Iraq War, not general Blair-ness, lead to that. Illegal wars are not an intrinsic quality of Blairism/Centrism and I don't for one second buy this argument for why its not a good idea to try a proven winning formula again, when Labour has just been totally crushed running on the left. It wasn't solely the war that killed Blairism but the under investment in communities that needed in order to start privatising the NHS behind everyone's backs. Those communities feel left behind because their standard of living hasn't improved while everyone is saying how much better everything is. Also, didn't you used to post in the I/P thread a lot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Any notion that the Labour party need to appeal to the "centre" to get elected so they can enact left wing policies is handily forgetting that outside Scotland centrist liberals ate poo poo. There is no appetite for it at all, you just need to look to the continent to see what's happened to PS in France, SPD in Germany etc when a centre-left party forgets the "left" bit. You also don't really need that carve out of "beyond Scotland". Yes, the SNP are absolutely a broadly centre- left liberal group, but first that's not how they portray themselves, and secondly at the end of the day they do argue in favour of some nationalisations, something blairism wouldn't. They're left by the standard of "Blair is the centre", even if it's centre left, and most of their voters would happily vote for something further left too, if they thought there was any chance of it being implemented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
The centrists were utterly crushed into dust and the left comfortably picked up a third of the vote. "Leftism was crushed, everyone wants the centre! Also we're sensible and smart and not completely covered in poo poo!" insists giant pile of poo poo with a person buried in the centre.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:28
|
|
|
NewMars posted:If getting into downing street means mimicking the tories then what exactly is the point? The goal here is to stop people being murdered and if your way of doing that is to... promise half-assed versions of the policy that kills them, then there is, I think, a disconnect between your approach and your goals. Objectively better than not getting in and letting the Tories in, though that is a bit of a straw man; a reduction in deaths is objectively good on any measure if zero deaths is impossible because of reality. NewMars posted:Not to mention that triangulating towards the center (I. E. the right) did not help the Lib dems or anyone else this time and kick-started the whole decade of tory rule in the first place back with New Labour. The Lib Dems were torn apart by by both their and Labour's Brexit stances. Remainers who wanted to remain but knew Lib Dems were NEVER getting in voted Labour and Remainers who were turned off by Corbyn's policy went Lib Dem, imo. They split each others votes uncleanly on that issue. I see no evidence that it was because Lib Dems were center especially when we know that the British electorate is way more towards the center than it is Momentum left. NewMars posted:The right have the knack of making people want their policy, but every time a leftist proposal comes up there's always this impulse to cut it down and make it "acceptable" (that is, worthless). That never works out, it just leads to a defanged implementation that is immediately undone by the next government. As I said in a previous post, the electorate chooses you, you don't choose the electorate. British people are not socialist to the level of Corbyn and his allies. Nowhere near; so of course you have to dilute their ideas to become electable. NewMars posted:So I say: why can't we make people want a policy that helps them? Lots of people already want it, even if it is slightly (in relative terms) less than the opposite, so why not go for more and go for broke? Because if you fail this high risk gambit you get another 5 years of Tories. For people so god damned terrified of Tories and how many people they are killing, you are all so unbelievable ready to roll the dice on high risk strategies in turfing them out. NewMars posted:Ideals of a world where you don't have to fear starving to death or being killed for the profit of industry did not begin with Corbyn and will not die with him. There is no need to cut away the point of your policy to make it "presentable" or "reasonable." Instead what you do is that you act as if it self-evidently is. You don't have to be ignorant to be confident in what you want to do. Self-assurance will turn a radical idea into "common sense." It has in the past, after all. Familiarity helps as well: they've been going after the NHS for years, they couldn't undo it in a day, because it's what people know. That's why we have to stick around. It doesn't take long for the new radical wave to be the established antidote to the authority in charge. Socialism has a foot in the door among the Labour party, don't let it be pushed out now or watered down. By all means stick around, but the day for Socialism to be the controlling shareholder of the Labour party is over. You had a clean shot, in todays world with all its trappings, and the lack of pragmatism and the naivety gave us Boris for 5 years. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Dec 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:28
|
|
|
The SNP are Scottish nationalists. We are in the era of neonationalism. That is why the SNP did so well and why Labour did not, because unfortunately, it wasn't sufficiently nationalist and I really loving hate that. e: Socialism was never, EVER the problem, the problem was that the Tories went full English nationalist and they won because of it. That is the problem. Mark Blyth was absolutely, undisputably right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
What's the non politics uk thread again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We weren't crushed by 'running on the left', we were crushed by Brexit, pure and simple. The economics weren't the problem. And the economics: https://twitter.com/polprofsteve/status/1205258869527760898
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We weren't crushed by 'running on the left', we were crushed by Brexit, pure and simple. The economics weren't the problem. Wasn't "Don't trust him with the economy" the leading reason for people not voting Labour? I saw that flag up in some poll somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:30
|
|
|
Antinumeric posted:Its true, compromising on your position somewhat to get to a place where you can actually enact your policies means losing ideological purity. And that is the greatest sin. Better just never be in power and let it go to poo poo. "somewhat" is doing some serious heavy lifting here What did Blair's government do to help the communities hosed by Thatcher? How do you suppose those communities feel about their decision to vote for a Labour government at the time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We weren't crushed by 'running on the left', we were crushed by Brexit, pure and simple. The economics weren't the problem. Yeeeesss but while Brexit has some unique aspects to it don't go thinking it's a unique event in political history. Next election the Tories will be once again be saying that a vote for Labour is a threat to the union and might permit Scotland to break away, and they'll spend the next 5 years constantly reminding the public of that threat and the SNP will agree with them. The same English nationalist rhetoric and instincts are going to be retained throughout this entire parliament and the only way out will be to undercut it now rather than hope there's ever another election where economics dominates (it won't so long as a left wing economic argument is being put forward).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
What about a charity organization as a political party, where being a member intrinsically means going out and doing charity work in local communities as political activism? I've always wondered what it would be like to have a rebrand of socialism into a solidarity type movement where "practice what you preach" was the core idea. Like imagine a political movement or party, let's call it "Solidarity Now" or something that was essentially political activism disguised as volunteer and charity work. Organized local work groups of ideologically and politically sympathetic people who donate a few hours every week to put on a simple red shirt and logo, go out and paint a wall, shovel a driveway, collect for charity and even larger visible works like organized charity events and park renovations, targeting local areas worst affected by tory rule. When asked "well it's not like the tories are gonna help you". Being culturally and religiously neutral, something like that would hopefully appeal to those who identify religious, those who identify socialist as well as those with a generally charitable mindset. Even the instagram and enviro-crowd would see a purpose in it (and so many likes, I mean). The main thing is that it would be local, tangible and highly visible socialism helping affected local communities. Wouldn't need to ever call it socialism though. It would appeal to those looking for inspiration and action, and carry an implicit strongly positive message. And as a political organization, members would feel like they are helping regardless of political results in elections. That said, it'd be harder to attack for sure. I don't know, something like that seems like a great thing but seems like it would take too long to get going, run into FPTP problems if it wasn't part of labour, and require big and solid organizing. It just feels like something with a strong and undeniably positive message, an alternative to just talking about things and instead inspiring people to do something worthwhile. Would be pointless in Norway though. People have too much money and the poor and suffering aren't obvious enough to make people care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
The British public is economically illiterate, we all know this because they elected Thatcher thrice in a row The fact that Labour didn't just say 'we need to do socialism BECOZ ENGLAND' is what cost them
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:"somewhat" is doing some serious heavy lifting here Wikipedia posted:The Labour Party won the 1997 general election with a landslide majority of 179; it was the largest Labour majority ever, and at the time the largest swing to a political party achieved since 1945. Over the next decade, a wide range of progressive social reforms were enacted,[68][69] with millions lifted out of poverty during Labour's time in office largely as a result of various tax and benefit reforms.[70][71][72] It's wiki poo poo 'cos I cba, but that sure as hell sounds better than Tories, but maybe I haven't read enough Marxist literature to get why its actually bad. New Labour was not, at the time, the kind of unmitigated disaster it is painted as (until the war and Brown, anyway). It just wasn't socialist so of course you hate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
NewMars posted:Yes, we have to compromise, as compromising on your beliefs certainly has done wonders for such pragmatic political luminaries such as the Lib Dems. Why do we have to compromise, when it seems to have worked out for approximately no one else in this election and the opposite has done wonders for the Tories? The Tories almost certainly are compromising - how many want to outright slay the NHS, or ban abortions etc, but they bite their tongues and vote Tory knowing they won't do all of what they want. But they'll at least do some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What about a charity organization as a political party, where being a member intrinsically means going out and doing charity work in local communities as political activism? Charities are legally restricted in the sort of political activity they can do. You want a community union which isn't about generating goodwill for a later electoral run but about empowering the working class and self educate about the capacity to improve their own lives which then challenges the idea of Better Things Aren't Possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:It's wiki poo poo 'cos I cba, but that sure as hell sounds better than Tories, but maybe I haven't read enough Marxist literature to get why its actually bad. New Labour was not, at the time, the kind of unmitigated disaster it is painted as (until the war and Brown, anyway). It just wasn't socialist so of course you hate it. How many people do you imagine to have died as a result of Tory policies over the last 9 years? And how many for New Labour? e: and loving lol at "major changes to the regulation of the banking system" in your Blair Positives post Tarnop fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Dec 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
There’s also this: Labour needs to radically rethink itself and what it does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Any notion that the Labour party need to appeal to the "centre" to get elected so they can enact left wing policies is handily forgetting that outside Scotland centrist liberals ate poo poo. There is no appetite for it at all, you just need to look to the continent to see what's happened to PS in France, SPD in Germany etc when a centre-left party forgets the "left" bit. ^ this is also true though it is the German Greens who are gaining though, not Die Linke PSOE also seems to have recovered after the Catalonian problem disenchanted voters over Podemos - albeit here Podemos is the party of the Spanish urban liberals, and PSOE has instead retained its working-class bastions the Anglospheric problem is FPTP - no way to just expel the middle-class liberals to another party and then expect to govern in coalition; intraparty struggle is unavoidable
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:43
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:How many people do you imagine to have died as a result of Tory policies over the last 9 years? And how many for New Labour? I have no idea the numbers but the illegal war was a one time geo-political event that Labour got badly, badly wrong. It was not an intrinsic part of the manifesto that New Labour was elected on. Another New Labour does not necessitate another illegal war. Pushing a primarily socialist agenda onto a public that clearly doesn't want it is, however, going to increase the amount of deaths at the hands of Tories, because they won't be going anywhere for a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:the British electorate is way more towards the center than it is Momentum left. the tories won by three million votes, with brexit and corbyn's unlikeability cited as the 2 main reasons - and corbyn was way more important than brexit. which indicates the electorate skew harder right and the press have a tighter grip of the public discourse than we're comfortable admitting tbh. from what i've gathered, the conversation nandy, phillips, and fanatics like freedland, cohen at the guardian, etc, want to have now is: if you care about electoralism, how much rabid nationalism should you incorporate into your politics to win an election. in other words how many minorities do you throw to the lions, what's the magic number of promised deaths or deportations that will get labour into number 10. not a conversation i have any interest in at all tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:It's wiki poo poo 'cos I cba, but that sure as hell sounds better than Tories, but maybe I haven't read enough Marxist literature to get why its actually bad. New Labour was not, at the time, the kind of unmitigated disaster it is painted as (until the war and Brown, anyway). It just wasn't socialist so of course you hate it. They ask "what did it do to help the areas hosed by Thatcher" and your answer is "they devolved powers to Scotland!!!!" because you don't understand the question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:There’s also this: Maybe but how does that determine what working class is? If it's CDE2 then that's a poo poo measure of anything. gh0stpinballa posted:the tories won by three million votes, with brexit and corbyn's unlikeability cited as the 2 main reasons - and corbyn was way more important than brexit. which indicates the electorate skew harder right and the press have a tighter grip of the public discourse than we're comfortable admitting tbh. from what i've gathered, the conversation nandy, phillips, and fanatics like freedland, cohen at the guardian, etc, want to have now is: if you care about electoralism, how much rabid nationalism should you incorporate into your politics to win an election. in other words how many minorities do you throw to the lions, what's the magic number of promised deaths or deportations that will get labour into number 10. Liberals being fine with racism is the struggle we have to win, it'll be far easier to win with an explicitly anti-racist mainstream political platform so don't just abandon Labour? namesake fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Dec 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:There’s also this: e:fb ^^ not that it changes the question of who Labour's constituency is / should be
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:46
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Pushing a primarily socialist agenda onto a public that clearly doesn't want it Citation needed. It wasn't the economic agenda that people were bitching about on the doorstep, it was a) Brexit and b) Corbyn personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
namesake posted:Charities are legally restricted in the sort of political activity they can do. Does it need to be registered as a charity org to do charity work? Particularly volunteer work? Yes, I think that's the gist of it. There's all sorts of good that can be done and that needs to be done against the effects (mass suffering) and causes (tories) of austerity. But it also would need to educate by example that better things are possible and that people could live in a better and fairer world without being an exploited underclass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Endjinneer posted:So with that we shut down debate and mark another valuable vote winning topic as forbidden? Come 2024 we can all stand on the doorstep saying "I'm sorry to hear about the junkies using your bin store as a shooting gallery, but we don't have any plan to deal with that because if we did it would be too effective". I notice the example you gave isn't of a domestic crime, or a violent crime, or even of a property crime, it's of something better handled as a public health issue, which is a textbook case of where the tough on crime (regardless of where you put the emphasis) lot keep tripping over themselves. Not everyone saying 'tough on crime' is thinking of directing cattle cars into the compounds, but by legitimizing that kind of language they cut off any solutions outside of the arena of crime and punishment. John Snow didn't need the rhetoric of criminality to deal with cholera, and no amount of coppers clomping around ever solved a VD outbreak. It's a seductive path, but it leads to the same place as adopting martial language and declaring wars on abstract concepts, and I think a lot of people are rightly suspicious of it now. OwlFancier posted:Alternatively when people hear tough on crime tough on the causes of crime actually they only hear the tough part and especially nowadays they don't believe labour is going to tackle the causes, just ban everything. OwlFancier posted:Nobody is anybody yet.  gh0stpinballa posted:sorry but what about the iraq war was isolable? and how aren't illegal wars an intrinsic quality of an ideology that by definition supports the US imperial machine unquestioningly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2019 10:50
|
|
