| New Labour leader 10:40 - Apr 4 with 13503 views | supahoopsa |
Who's your money on?
Sir Kier is the only credible candidate IMHO |  |
| Blue & White hooped blood runs through the family |
| |  |
| New Labour leader on 16:25 - Apr 5 with 1966 views | Gloucs_R |
Lazy Fan... You're a bit of a patronising prick
Zzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| New Labour leader on 17:00 - Apr 5 with 1893 views | Hunterhoop |
Militant Moderates. Such utter myopic nonsense.
Labour have won an election with a socialist manifesto. They got hammered at the last election with one. What evidence exists in the history of British politics says that’s the way for a Labour Party to gain power. You are spouting drivel.
I completely respect your view to hate Capitalism. You’re entitled to your political opinion. I think Capitalism has many flaws. I think ideologies do. But you are putting forward a dreadful case that slab should continue a socialist agenda to gain power. There is no evidence this is true. The last Labour election wins were with a moderate in charge. He lost the plot with Iraq and his own self importance and was rightly vilified, but in 1997, with a moderate agenda he won over the nation. When has socialist agenda done that?
Hate Capitalism? Fine. Try to improve it, which you need power for. Want a fully socialist state? Leave the country and go live in one, because there’s little evidence you’ll achieve one in Britain.
Me, i’d prefer my political parties to get into power and attempt to change Capitalism for the better, rather than push a Socialist agenda and never hold power...a view evidence suggests is also held by the electorate.
Or continue to tell the electorate their wrong. That’s also been successful at the polls. |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 17:26 - Apr 5 with 1845 views | plasmahoop |
| New Labour leader on 15:53 - Apr 5 by johncharles |
The Tories have borrowed more money and build up.a bigger dept in the last 10 years then Labour did in all the time they've been in power
Facts eh ? Who needs em. |
Technically true, but it's an unfair criticism. The defecit for labour's last year was 178 billion. The next year the tories cut it to about 120 billion, and they are simultaneously criticised for being heartless bastards, cutting too much too fast, but also adding to the debt. Labour can't have it both ways |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 17:32 - Apr 5 with 1836 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Solidarity LazyFan.
Wether people agree with you or not you haven’t said anything that deserves to be rudely labelled ‘myopic nonsense’ or to be called a ‘patronising prick’.
Appreciate it’s a bit pot/kettle me saying that but I court abuse. Don’t think LazyFan ever has. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 17:47]
|  | | |
| New Labour leader on 17:37 - Apr 5 with 1818 views | Hunterhoop |
| New Labour leader on 17:32 - Apr 5 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Solidarity LazyFan.
Wether people agree with you or not you haven’t said anything that deserves to be rudely labelled ‘myopic nonsense’ or to be called a ‘patronising prick’.
Appreciate it’s a bit pot/kettle me saying that but I court abuse. Don’t think LazyFan ever has. [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 17:47]
|
C’mon. I’m saying his argument about a socialist agenda being the way to get in power is is that...which I’ve explained quite clearly why I think that. I’ve not called him any names. There’s a big difference. | | | |
| New Labour leader on 17:41 - Apr 5 with 1809 views | Jigsore |
Soberly and Sensibly agreeing to share the blame for the Government's sluggish initial reaction and continuing reticence to actually force greedy companies to stop exposing non-essential staff to health risks in the first hour? excellent instincts. Forensically dropping Rachel Reeves into the shadow cabinet while kicking out the pro-Leave voices from the last one? Marvellous. Grown-Uply providing Real Opposition to the Consevatives latest attempt to blame a few joggers for the ever-rising death toll by meekly accepting any decision they care to make this morning on Marr? Stupendous. Have I missed any Westminster-hack stock phrases?
if he even makes it to 2024 i'm not sure Keir Starmer, or Millionaire Sir Charmless Starmer the nonce-lover of Brussels as he'll then be known, is going to do as well as everyone here seems to think. |  |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
| |
| New Labour leader on 17:58 - Apr 5 with 1770 views | derbyhoop |
| New Labour leader on 17:37 - Apr 5 by Hunterhoop |
C’mon. I’m saying his argument about a socialist agenda being the way to get in power is is that...which I’ve explained quite clearly why I think that. I’ve not called him any names. There’s a big difference. |
I'm with you in essence, HUnter. Labour will not win a GE if they produce policies that only appeal to the (recently acquired) members. They need 10m+ voters not 600,000. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| New Labour leader on 18:08 - Apr 5 with 1742 views | Jigsore |
| New Labour leader on 17:58 - Apr 5 by derbyhoop |
I'm with you in essence, HUnter. Labour will not win a GE if they produce policies that only appeal to the (recently acquired) members. They need 10m+ voters not 600,000. |
they got nearly 13m in 2017 | |
| “The thing about football - the important thing about football - is that it is not just about football.†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New Labour leader on 18:14 - Apr 5 with 1735 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| New Labour leader on 17:58 - Apr 5 by derbyhoop |
I'm with you in essence, HUnter. Labour will not win a GE if they produce policies that only appeal to the (recently acquired) members. They need 10m+ voters not 600,000. |
Labour got more than 10m votes in both the last elections. Let’s not forget that Labour have lost four elections, not two. | | | |
| New Labour leader on 18:19 - Apr 5 with 1721 views | wood_hoop |
| New Labour leader on 15:46 - Apr 5 by LazyFan |
As previously stated because of Brexit.
But if you want more, Moderate Millitants constantly undermining the party at not one but two elections did not help. Ironically a lot of them lost their seats because of it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
Have the hard left forgotten how the LP was formed, it has always throughout its history had a wide spectrum of views, Unions were very much to the fore and myself being a union member is extremely proud of their part in coming to the fore in so many ways to improve the rights and conditions of many workers from left to right but they joined up with the Liberals to help gain more footholds, it was just as much Liberal voters moving to the LP
We had a useless party within the party approach from the Militant Tendency, same route that Momentom is following, hard left drivel that only appeals to a minority of the voting population. |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 18:36 - Apr 5 with 1684 views | LazyFan |
| New Labour leader on 16:25 - Apr 5 by Gloucs_R |
Lazy Fan... You're a bit of a patronising prick
Zzzzzzzzzzz |
How did the Liberals do with their moderate policies?
Even Kier knows he has to succumb to nationalisation policies if the LP wants to win the election. These are the policies of the left no?
If KS stays with these which I doubt, then your main hope is a Corybynista in all but name. I doubt he will as it's just a bait and switch. But then he loses the election for being worse than Boris on his views and also the Tories will say he knows socialism doesn't work.
I think the title of this topic is correct "New Labour" leader.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| New Labour leader on 18:42 - Apr 5 with 1672 views | LazyFan |
| New Labour leader on 18:19 - Apr 5 by wood_hoop |
Have the hard left forgotten how the LP was formed, it has always throughout its history had a wide spectrum of views, Unions were very much to the fore and myself being a union member is extremely proud of their part in coming to the fore in so many ways to improve the rights and conditions of many workers from left to right but they joined up with the Liberals to help gain more footholds, it was just as much Liberal voters moving to the LP
We had a useless party within the party approach from the Militant Tendency, same route that Momentom is following, hard left drivel that only appeals to a minority of the voting population. |
But a move to the centre is where the Liberals are which of course means oblivion. This is proven as per the last 3 elections.
The same oblivion that the right in the LP claim will happen if we adopt Left policies that actually KS has said he will enact. The nationalisation ones.
Are you saying you don't agree with his loony left policy of nationalisation of key industries?
Here it is
Its the same loony leftish stuff Corbyn would have done or do you doubt that? | |
| |
| New Labour leader on 18:48 - Apr 5 with 1665 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| New Labour leader on 18:19 - Apr 5 by wood_hoop |
Have the hard left forgotten how the LP was formed, it has always throughout its history had a wide spectrum of views, Unions were very much to the fore and myself being a union member is extremely proud of their part in coming to the fore in so many ways to improve the rights and conditions of many workers from left to right but they joined up with the Liberals to help gain more footholds, it was just as much Liberal voters moving to the LP
We had a useless party within the party approach from the Militant Tendency, same route that Momentom is following, hard left drivel that only appeals to a minority of the voting population. |
The Unions WERE the founders of the Labour Party by the way.
Specifically, which of these Momentum ideals do you object to and which do you consider hard left? Which of these would your Union object to?
1. The Labour Party must be transformed into a more open, democratic, member-led party that’s ready to win elections. Whether it’s local or national elections, Momentum believes ordinary people should be front-and-centre of getting Labour into power.
2. Redistribute wealth to properly fund public services and infrastructure
3. Strive for equality
4. Roll back privatisation and make services accessible to all
The reason I ask is because this is Labour's constitution formed in 1918:
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service'
Pretty similar no? In case you feel that is outdated, this is it now and is printed on every Labour member's membership card:
'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'
Still fairly similar i'd say? Not much difference between the three? How is one deemed Hard Left, and the others not? [Post edited 5 Apr 2020 18:55]
| | | |
| New Labour leader on 19:19 - Apr 5 with 1606 views | LazyFan |
| New Labour leader on 17:00 - Apr 5 by Hunterhoop |
Militant Moderates. Such utter myopic nonsense.
Labour have won an election with a socialist manifesto. They got hammered at the last election with one. What evidence exists in the history of British politics says that’s the way for a Labour Party to gain power. You are spouting drivel.
I completely respect your view to hate Capitalism. You’re entitled to your political opinion. I think Capitalism has many flaws. I think ideologies do. But you are putting forward a dreadful case that slab should continue a socialist agenda to gain power. There is no evidence this is true. The last Labour election wins were with a moderate in charge. He lost the plot with Iraq and his own self importance and was rightly vilified, but in 1997, with a moderate agenda he won over the nation. When has socialist agenda done that?
Hate Capitalism? Fine. Try to improve it, which you need power for. Want a fully socialist state? Leave the country and go live in one, because there’s little evidence you’ll achieve one in Britain.
Me, i’d prefer my political parties to get into power and attempt to change Capitalism for the better, rather than push a Socialist agenda and never hold power...a view evidence suggests is also held by the electorate.
Or continue to tell the electorate their wrong. That’s also been successful at the polls. |
I respect your transparency on admitting you're okay with some nicer version of capitalism and this is a strong view in the party and the country. Few admit it and try and hard it behind not agreeing withing socialism. But views, when they hit the reality of it, can change as we are seeing. This is where the left must wait and support those who are in need of change.
Militant Moderates is, of course, a joke on the moderates in the Blair years who said any loony leftie was Militant even after the Militant Tendency was long long gone. What they said was needed was "reform", which was code for more capitalism. Mad Trots would never even be leader of LP let alone the country. So, one down, one to go on something that would never happen.
Now of course we on the left will use that learning in kind and return it on mass. So, Militant Moderates, Right-WHingers who are woke and snowflakes when they get upset about something (yet say lefties are over-sensitive) and of course my new favourite is that the right are the ones who now need to REFORM to the left as the centre-ground is no more, based upon the Liberals results in the last few elections. Thanks, Lisa Nandy, we shall use that one against you again and again as we do indeed take a long hard look (Lisa's words) at democratically removing the right from the LP. The right could use right-wing Union leaders to control the party as they did under the Kinnock years, but they took that power away from the Unions to attack the Labour movement internally as they believed that the membership was docile and easy to control. So, much for that failed strategy, whoopsi!
In regards to the actual polices socialism was supposed to be dead by now, un-mentionable. But here we are, its back as being acceptable (a reform) and even Boris the hardcore Thatcherite admits "society" does exist after all (another reform). The right are being dragged to the centre, which us on the left is view does not exist. This movement is actually clever tricks by Cummins but he plays with fire and the establishment know it. They want him gone as he risks for them too much. This, in turn, is a another victory for the left. Forcing the right to admit they are wrong. The victories are small by they continue one by one.
The view that you can tame the beast is false, this view has been spouted all the time by people in some vain hope that it can be tamed and controlled somehow. "Do it this way, do it that way, if only people didn't do too much capitalism and did some nice things now and again". But if the only way you can save capitalism from itself is more capitalism or reverting to socialism when it gets nasty, then the evidence shows it does not work and never has. It just a step away from the feudal model. Which means more step ways are needed.
So, on the left the viewpoint is you CANNOT improve capitalism as it is fundamentally flawed, it's our view it does not work no matter what tinkering you do to it.
The evidence is that Britain has had a vast historic socialist labour movement and continues to do so. You say I should up and go when as the UK will never change, but I see the change coming. Why leave when 600K have joined the LP and made it the largest left-wing party in Europe. That makes no sense.
And as the current approach by Momentum is working for the left which it is for the left that is, by having one left leader who dragged the right to the left more, then why would the left stop? On the contrary if it's working, press ahead, full speed no stopping. Momentum did make a mistake, they thought the battle was over. Now they know it has just begun. I am not a member of them, I don't need to be, they can do it without people like me.
As for the electorate, Brexit was the issue, the facts prove this with the Liberals result. Being centre and Remain did nothing for them. They barely exist.
Also, even the SNP have had to publicly admit that they would have formed a govt with a loony left-wing LP. As they know if they do not hold a leftish position, they would lose votes back to LP. So, the left has forced the SNP nationalists to move to the left as well. I notice moderates have lost us Scotland, thanks for that. Cannot blame that one on the Left that was happening in the Blair years and it was Moderates who all got kicked out. Low trust in the highlands is due to the Blair years. You will notice I never hammer the Blairites on Iraq, its too obvious, better to look at the home policies which resolved nothing.
Centre non-socialist policies end up being the Liberals result in an election or you can go full-on Tory but there is already a party for that and they have power. I wonder if Chucka will join them soon, seeing as they have moved closer to him and him to them. The electorate voted on Brexit, I don't like it, but that is the reality. Few mention another Ref2 as now it is known that Brexit in some form has to happen as that is what the majority want, even if its a slender majority that's what they want. No Labour leader could win, Corbyn tried to fence sit it no dice, going, either way would have lost the same votes.
When the GE happens Brexit should be done, if Boris does it badly we have a chance as the Tory voters will be upset and stay home to punish them. But KS is Westminster through and through and the electorate hates that. This we also know.
If the only approach that makes a LP victory is either becoming the new Tories (aka New Labour) or going to the Left. If becoming New Labour again is the price, then we have seen that creates zero change and just more Tory power. No point voting against the right if you get another right in power anyway. The majority of the 600K joined to stop just that. This is where the change will come from and last year we only had 450K. So, more people are joining to get left-wing policies or why does KS advocate them so much.
Like this one: 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| New Labour leader on 23:02 - Apr 5 with 1515 views | joe90 |
| New Labour leader on 15:50 - Apr 5 by LazyFan |
Why should they break away when most members support the movement?
Surly the Militant Moderates should break away as they don't want socialism no?
But we know what happens when they do not have the left-wing members, the unions, the left prospering them up. They end up like Change UK or the Liberals. Thus they cannot survive on their own with the left-wing members and the unions.
So, we have this situation where the Blairites won't move out, yet don't represent the membership and democratically the membership are removing them one by one, which is slow and painful and causes them to invoke militant ways against their own party as they have lost command and control to a movement that goes into an anti-capitalist direction they don't like.
We shall see more infighting because of them and it is they who are wrecking the LP chances of winning as they have always done. |
If you're comment is sincere, all I can say is it's Labour supporters with views like yours that will keep the Conservatives in power for many, many years to come, haha! |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 23:57 - Apr 5 with 1484 views | Hunterhoop |
Lazy, if your view is that all Capitalism, in whatever guise, is some form of “Right”, then there’s little point in discussing anything with you. It is a great example of what I said original; your narrative is too simplistic, too flawed, and not accurate for the world today.
I get you’re a passionate believer in socialism. But to paint anything that isn’t socialism in its purest form (those Starmer policies, btw, are not the property of Socialism) as “right” wing, is just silly. Of course there are different degrees of capitalism. Neoliberalism and liberalism are different. Social democracy is different. There isn’t one set of policies used by all non-socialist govts the world over! Look at the different tax rates by country as a good example. Look in this countries at the introduction of minimum wage, and continued increase in income tax thresholds. Look at the difference in available healthcare systems. Look at the different levels of investments in different public services. Look at the different levels of financial regulations. Look at the different levels of legislations on personal freedoms. There is not one playbook for all non-socialist countries. It’s naive, simplistic, and lazy to make out that is the case.
The world is grey, not black and white. It is nuanced.
Besides, what’s the point of all political ideologies? What should they strive to achieve?
For me, it’s for as large a proportion of the country to have as high a standard of living as possible, and to see continued improvement in these standards of living, as measured through happiness, life expectancy, health, employment (provides purpose), freedom, and there are others.
I just don’t see that socialism actually achieves that. I can’t think of any socialist state where it has achieved the above. Whereas by most, not necessarily all, of standard measures, capitalism has. The Berlin Wall falling was met by joy from those on the East for a reason.
Absolutely, Capitalism, in it’s most recent neo-liberal form born from Reagan and Thatcher, needs more of a heart, higher taxation to maintain services for a growing an ageing population, and a greater focus on the long term (not short term), but I think that can be achieved through a rebalancing of Capitalism. Again, i’d suggest many others do too.
Back to the original point I made in my first post on this thread: Momentum can choose to listen to the views of others or discard them. It’s absolutely their choice. For the sake of this country and the people in it, i’d prefer them to do the former...but based on this thread, i’ll manage my own expectations. | | | |
| New Labour leader on 00:04 - Apr 6 with 1481 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| New Labour leader on 23:57 - Apr 5 by Hunterhoop |
Lazy, if your view is that all Capitalism, in whatever guise, is some form of “Right”, then there’s little point in discussing anything with you. It is a great example of what I said original; your narrative is too simplistic, too flawed, and not accurate for the world today.
I get you’re a passionate believer in socialism. But to paint anything that isn’t socialism in its purest form (those Starmer policies, btw, are not the property of Socialism) as “right” wing, is just silly. Of course there are different degrees of capitalism. Neoliberalism and liberalism are different. Social democracy is different. There isn’t one set of policies used by all non-socialist govts the world over! Look at the different tax rates by country as a good example. Look in this countries at the introduction of minimum wage, and continued increase in income tax thresholds. Look at the difference in available healthcare systems. Look at the different levels of investments in different public services. Look at the different levels of financial regulations. Look at the different levels of legislations on personal freedoms. There is not one playbook for all non-socialist countries. It’s naive, simplistic, and lazy to make out that is the case.
The world is grey, not black and white. It is nuanced.
Besides, what’s the point of all political ideologies? What should they strive to achieve?
For me, it’s for as large a proportion of the country to have as high a standard of living as possible, and to see continued improvement in these standards of living, as measured through happiness, life expectancy, health, employment (provides purpose), freedom, and there are others.
I just don’t see that socialism actually achieves that. I can’t think of any socialist state where it has achieved the above. Whereas by most, not necessarily all, of standard measures, capitalism has. The Berlin Wall falling was met by joy from those on the East for a reason.
Absolutely, Capitalism, in it’s most recent neo-liberal form born from Reagan and Thatcher, needs more of a heart, higher taxation to maintain services for a growing an ageing population, and a greater focus on the long term (not short term), but I think that can be achieved through a rebalancing of Capitalism. Again, i’d suggest many others do too.
Back to the original point I made in my first post on this thread: Momentum can choose to listen to the views of others or discard them. It’s absolutely their choice. For the sake of this country and the people in it, i’d prefer them to do the former...but based on this thread, i’ll manage my own expectations. |
Hunter, didn’t you say you were a voter, member, and activist for the Lib Dems?
In the politest way I can think to say it, don’t you think it’s a bit of an affront to to lecture Labour (202 seats) and others about electability and not listening to the electorate? [Post edited 6 Apr 2020 0:20]
| | | |
| New Labour leader on 00:40 - Apr 6 with 1445 views | LazyFan |
| New Labour leader on 23:57 - Apr 5 by Hunterhoop |
Lazy, if your view is that all Capitalism, in whatever guise, is some form of “Right”, then there’s little point in discussing anything with you. It is a great example of what I said original; your narrative is too simplistic, too flawed, and not accurate for the world today.
I get you’re a passionate believer in socialism. But to paint anything that isn’t socialism in its purest form (those Starmer policies, btw, are not the property of Socialism) as “right” wing, is just silly. Of course there are different degrees of capitalism. Neoliberalism and liberalism are different. Social democracy is different. There isn’t one set of policies used by all non-socialist govts the world over! Look at the different tax rates by country as a good example. Look in this countries at the introduction of minimum wage, and continued increase in income tax thresholds. Look at the difference in available healthcare systems. Look at the different levels of investments in different public services. Look at the different levels of financial regulations. Look at the different levels of legislations on personal freedoms. There is not one playbook for all non-socialist countries. It’s naive, simplistic, and lazy to make out that is the case.
The world is grey, not black and white. It is nuanced.
Besides, what’s the point of all political ideologies? What should they strive to achieve?
For me, it’s for as large a proportion of the country to have as high a standard of living as possible, and to see continued improvement in these standards of living, as measured through happiness, life expectancy, health, employment (provides purpose), freedom, and there are others.
I just don’t see that socialism actually achieves that. I can’t think of any socialist state where it has achieved the above. Whereas by most, not necessarily all, of standard measures, capitalism has. The Berlin Wall falling was met by joy from those on the East for a reason.
Absolutely, Capitalism, in it’s most recent neo-liberal form born from Reagan and Thatcher, needs more of a heart, higher taxation to maintain services for a growing an ageing population, and a greater focus on the long term (not short term), but I think that can be achieved through a rebalancing of Capitalism. Again, i’d suggest many others do too.
Back to the original point I made in my first post on this thread: Momentum can choose to listen to the views of others or discard them. It’s absolutely their choice. For the sake of this country and the people in it, i’d prefer them to do the former...but based on this thread, i’ll manage my own expectations. |
It is that simple Capitalism is flawed as it has never worked except for a few rich people and even then not really that well long term. It is a highly accurate view that it is flawed as this wonderful successful ideology of being called Capitalism keeps having to reinvent itself to survive time and again as it still fails to deliver. A repeatable mistake again and again.
It is grey in the capitalist arena for those who wish it to continue. For a lot of people, it is the haves and have nots. Where the majority have not. This is the reality for the majority of people in almost every country. Also, one cannot nip off and start their own country ask Sealand they tried it, thus this is not an option either. They will stop you doing that.
There has not been a socialist state ... yet ...
To get that there would have to be in addition to a proper democratic process, we have not yet seen Universal Basic Services installed across the board as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_services
Then, in addition, we would also need a workers democracy to avoid Stalinism like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy
If you can sign up to those in FULL, then that's what I call and many others call Socialism as that looks after the majority who fall into the Have Nots. Now it is possible even to have Capitalism underneath that, but what would then happen at this stage is people would realise that it's not needed and remove the final vestiges of it. Proper capitalists know this as they see it coming and therefore make sure that the above never come anywhere close to happening. To the extent that any movement in that direction, even if it helps them, is always destroyed. We often see this in capitalists arguing with each and then not understanding each of the other one's so-called bigger picture. See Brexit and Trade Wars as an example of this.
A lot of these so-called advances you mention were hard fought for by Unions and Labour movements like Momentum. Or defended against like the anti-poll tax movement. They were NEVER given, they were hard fought for by the left. If the left had not constantly defended the NHS we would be like the USA now where they check your CC before they pick you up in the Branded corporate ambulance. The Tories would have had that away years ago.
The idea that Blairites somehow defended it by pumping lots of money into the NHS has long been exposed as New Labour moderates ensuring by crafty design that PFI ramped up to ensure the NHS went bankrupt. Thus when it failed private health could easily be introduced.
The left who called this out time and again was called loony and living in the past and told: "there is no magic money tree and we have to provide services by using the private sector who will fill in the gaps, who cares how it's done as long as we win?". Yes, that old phrase we hear from the moderate "but we cannot change anything if we don't win". But the left knows you do not change anything if you win by moving to the right, you just continue the right-wing policies. New Labour with PFI has totally proved that. They won and then did what the Tories would have done anyway. We, also know it was a lie as soon after there was magic money for the Bankers wasn't there? So, more moderate capitalist lies but not by the Tories by New Labour, moderates.
A non-socialist approach is, of course, a capitalist one. If you want to debate what type of capitalism that's up to you, just as we debate the best approach to Socialism. But you say we should look at different types of capitalism but always socialism is rejected by these different types. Funny that it's one way again with the moderate view. I gave you one way up above where capitalism could still be around, but I also state it would not last. Somehow I think you would never allow any of the above two options of either UBS or FULL on Workers Democracy in every company. In your world capitalism has to survive regardless the of the messes it makes again and again which everyone said were fully justified at the time!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| New Labour leader on 08:00 - Apr 6 with 1365 views | easthertsr |
The nettle that Starmer needs to grasp is PR. The disenchantment with politics in this country is fuelled by the fact that parliament does not reflect accurately the views of the voters. In hundreds of seats it's not worth voting as the result is a foregone conclusion. He should invite other political parties to talks about how to bring this about. | | | |
| New Labour leader on 08:10 - Apr 6 with 1353 views | stevec |
| New Labour leader on 08:00 - Apr 6 by easthertsr |
The nettle that Starmer needs to grasp is PR. The disenchantment with politics in this country is fuelled by the fact that parliament does not reflect accurately the views of the voters. In hundreds of seats it's not worth voting as the result is a foregone conclusion. He should invite other political parties to talks about how to bring this about. |
What you’re basically saying is we can’t beat the Tories on our own.
A bit like us joining up with Fulham and Brentford to try and beat Chelsea. Bit sad if you ask me. |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 08:14 - Apr 6 with 1346 views | CamberleyR |
So what I'd like to know is that with the Labour Party's membership now so left wing with all these relatively new members, why have they elected a supposedly Blair Mk II with 56% of the vote?
Oh and Momentum coming out and saying they were going to hold Starmer to account. What an absolutely absurd statement to come out with, they're supposed to be on the same side FFS. Shouldn't their job be to hold the Tories and their record in government to account? |  |
| |
| New Labour leader on 08:23 - Apr 6 with 1336 views | Hunterhoop |
Lazy, that post is so rambling and waffly, I cannot begin to comment, suffice to say you’ve barely responded to any points I raised or questions asked, and keep banging on about Blairites, not what I’ve posted. All you’ve done is reinforce the supposition I began with in my last post.
If Momentum retain your view that all forms of Capitalism are “bad” and unacceptable, and not worth gaining power if you have to uphold it, then I think that’s sad for the Labour Party and sad for the country. We’ll be stuck with Tory govts forever until/unless that party splits or another party emerges and grows into a genuine opposition, which will take a long time. If that was tonbe this guise of Lab it would have happened at one of the last two elections.
It’d my opinion that if Starmer proposes a social democratic agenda, aimed at amending and adapting economic liberalism, i.e ensure it has the social conscience required in today’s world, Lab would be in power, within the next two GEs, and could start improving the lives of the “have-nots”, as you put it. Actually helping people to some degree is better than not helping at all, but talking about the need to.
I’m done now. Ironically I need to work. Have a good day, all. | | | |
| New Labour leader on 09:04 - Apr 6 with 1720 views | bakerloo8 |
What is clear regards Labour and also in this thread are their are 2 almost warring sides to the party, one a more central left party focused on winning a GE and gain power to enact their policies and a more left leaning faction that clearly believes the full socialist line they peddle and think the rest of the country will fall in line (nice theory but never ever going to gain power this way).
The people on the left of the party clearly point to 2017 (fairly so) and the almost victory against May's Tories. This was clearly shown to be a protest vote against the terrible government at the time rather that anyone seeing Corbyn or his policies as credible, again this was borne out by Labour getting absolutely walloped by serial liar Boris in the last GE.
The left of the party are not learning their lesson.
I for one completely agree with hunter on this who speaks a lot of sense on this subject.
Hopefully Starmer will take a more central stance and give the LP at least credible opposition to this Government. |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 09:05 - Apr 6 with 1710 views | Northernr |
| New Labour leader on 09:04 - Apr 6 by bakerloo8 |
What is clear regards Labour and also in this thread are their are 2 almost warring sides to the party, one a more central left party focused on winning a GE and gain power to enact their policies and a more left leaning faction that clearly believes the full socialist line they peddle and think the rest of the country will fall in line (nice theory but never ever going to gain power this way).
The people on the left of the party clearly point to 2017 (fairly so) and the almost victory against May's Tories. This was clearly shown to be a protest vote against the terrible government at the time rather that anyone seeing Corbyn or his policies as credible, again this was borne out by Labour getting absolutely walloped by serial liar Boris in the last GE.
The left of the party are not learning their lesson.
I for one completely agree with hunter on this who speaks a lot of sense on this subject.
Hopefully Starmer will take a more central stance and give the LP at least credible opposition to this Government. |
Yeh it's got a side that won elections and a side that reckons it won arguments.  |  | | |
| New Labour leader on 09:15 - Apr 6 with 1675 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| New Labour leader on 09:05 - Apr 6 by Northernr |
Yeh it's got a side that won elections and a side that reckons it won arguments. |
Labour haven’t won an election for 15 years. Which side in Labour has currently won an election? Starmer was elected in 2015 and wasn’t a Labour member until he left the CPS.
That new Shadow Cabinet does not have a single election winner in it, presuming Yvette Cooper is left out today in the second set of announcements. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
