Politics

[Tom 14011]

10 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

And? She's in Parliament. It's literally modelled on a fucking common room. She's not there speaking to the electorate, she's speaking on their behalf to people who do understand this shit.

 

Let's not abandon all intellectualism in pursuit of lowest common denominator slogans and soundbites. The slogans and soundbites change nothing, they are meaningless, unless the intellectual understanding and policies that they enable are also present.

You are vastly overestimating the majority of people who fill those seats. 

Also I can’t imagine the political intelligentsia frequent the Daily Mirror, who does? Yep, the fucking electorate.  

It’s absolute bullshit to tar New Labour with the brush of Thatcherism & anyone who lived through it in the north east knows that fine well.

Also Look at the government we’re up against. They make Blair look like Chomsky.

[Rayvin 5185]

1 minute ago, Tom said:

You are vastly overestimating the majority of people who fill those seats. 

Also I can’t imagine the political intelligentsia frequent the Daily Mirror, who does? Yep, the fucking electorate.  

It’s absolute bullshit to tar New Labour with the brush of Thatcherism & anyone who lived through it in the north east knows that fine well.

Also Look at the government we’re up against. They make Blair look like Chomsky.

 

If you want to make an entirely cynical argument as an ultra pragmatic position, which should be popular on here, criticising Blair is exactly what we should be doing to win back these towns. Principally because these towns don't believe anything did improve for them under New Labour. No one in the red belt was calling for a return for Tony Blair. I watched several people interviewed from sedgefield saying such things. "Labour never did anything for us".

 

Secondly, Boris Johnson has just won an election by vilifying the previous Tory party regime and pretending that he is something different. He's retained power almost by acting as if the Tories weren't in power for the past 10 years and attacking their own record.

 

If we want to argue with the electorate about how awesome New Labour was then fine, but i was under the impression we were supposed to be kowtowing and blindly accepting whatever bullshit they come out with in order to "win them back". Or is it just socialism that we aren't allowed to argue with them about?

 

Anyway, don't worry about my opinion on any of this - consensus is that the reason I don't agree with majority opinion on here is that I'm too stupid, so it's not really worth engaging with anything I say

[ewerk 30266]

Definitely not a soundbite/slogan she's trying to push.

 

[Rayvin 5185]

I actually don't have any strong feelings about this MP, but do note that she's saying that on Twitter, meaning she's engaging with the electorate. So sound bites become necessary again, because that's how the super intelligent process ideas.

 

I've been drawn into an argument I wasn't really making tbh. I was just saying she's kind of right. But I agree that the kowtowing and general taking it up the arse is what the collective has decided is best. She's clearly a stupid person too. 

[Tom 14011]

She’s not right though is she?  

[Dr Gloom 21813]

Blair's "third way" wasn't Thatcherism. It isn't up for debate - she is clearly talking shite. 

[Rayvin 5185]

It depends. Thatcher and Reagan sat down and agreed on the doctrine of Neoliberalism and that has prevailed through the past 40 years, even under Blair. Calling it Thatcherism is needless tbh since it really is only being done for the sake of digging into Blair - but Thatcherism was a form of Neoliberalism.

 

I don't think Blair was a bad person or a Thatcherite, and have recently concluded that his drive to get as many people into education as possible is the only thing saving the UK from total oblivion.

 

But he was still Neoliberal. He had to be, sure, but I'm not going to just avoid saying it because it's politically inconvenient.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5185]

I can see her logic tbf. No one is going to recognise the word Neoliberalism as meaning anything, but plenty of people understand broadly what the consequences of Thatcherism were, if not what it actually stood for.

 

The socialists aren't going to go quietly, is what I would take from that. We may yet see the party break up after all depending on the leadership. Either way, potentially (although I hope Starmer is seen as left wing enough to get away with it).

[Tom 14011]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I can see her logic tbf. No one is going to recognise the word Neoliberalism as meaning anything, but plenty of people understand broadly what the consequences of Thatcherism were, if not what it actually stood for.

 

 

And when they tally that up against New Labour’s achievements for working people they’ll think she’s a moron who’s being deliberately offensive.

[Rayvin 5185]

Just now, Tom said:

And when they tally that up against New Labour’s achievements for working people they’ll think she’s a moron who’s being deliberately offensive.

 

Ok well, she got elected somehow despite that.

[Tom 14011]

Ask yourself who got elected and where. 

[Rayvin 5185]

I dont know what you're getting at, sorry.

 

I don't even know where she's MP for.

[Renton 21315]

29 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Thatcher and Reagan sat down and agreed on the doctrine of Neoliberalism

 

Hang on, do you literally believe this what happened? 

[NJS 4371]

Thatcherism to me is defined by low taxes targetted at the rich, deregulation, Union suppression, no investment in business, infrastructure and industry, property based wealth, privatisation and very low public spending. 

 

Apart from the last one we have had 40 years of it. 

[Rayvin 5185]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Hang on, do you literally believe this what happened? 

 

I don't believe they sat down like a pair of evil geniuses, but I do believe that global agreement was reached to all push in similar ways, in part through the increasing power of various international organisations.

[Renton 21315]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

Thatcherism to me is defined by low taxes targetted at the rich, deregulation, Union suppression, no investment in business, infrastructure and industry, property based wealth, privatisation and very low public spending. 

 

Apart from the last one we have had 40 years of it. 

 

You think Blair lowered taxes to benefit the rich, suppressed unions, deregulated the economy and the rest of it? Really? Oh well.

 

Thatcherism to me in a nutshell was relying on the market economy to an extent it was hugely damaging to society. Without a doubt I believe New Labour mitigated against the worst aspects of this and improved society. Incidentally, I believe in a mixed public private economy. Some privatisation and splitting of state monopolies was the right thing to do. Most weren't, but reversal is difficult.

[Renton 21315]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I don't believe they sat down like a pair of evil geniuses, but I do believe that global agreement was reached to all push in similar ways, in part through the increasing power of various international organisations.

 

Really? Like what? The EU? 

[Rayvin 5185]

The IMF, the WTO, the EU, international trade accords, G7, basically any and all of them.

[Renton 21315]

16 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The IMF, the WTO, the EU, international trade accords, G7, basically any and all of them.

 

IMF formed in 1944. It's basically a coop, what on Earth do you object to about it?

WTO formed in 1955. Do you think like Trump we are better without it? Really?

The EU in your opinion is a vehicle for neoliberalism? Arent the Scandinavian countries tou aspire to EU or EEA?

G7, formed in the 70s, is just a forum of western countries, not sure what your issue with it is?

 

All formed years or decades before the 80s, I think suggesting that either Thatcher or Reagan used them for nefarious means is a bit off. You are sounding a bit of a conspiracy theorist here tbh.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Renton

[ewerk 30266]

41 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I dont know what you're getting at, sorry.

 

I don't even know where she's MP for.

She took an 8,000 majority down to 401. Truly a disciple of Corbyn.

[Rayvin 5185]

7 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

IMF formed in 1944. It's basically a coop, what on Earth do you object to about it?

WTO formed in 1955. Do you think like Trump we are better without it? Really?

The EU in your opinion is a vehicle for neoliberalism? Arent the Scandinavian countries tou aspire to EU or EEA?

G7, formed is just a forum of western countries, not sure what your issue with it is?

 

All formed tears or decades before the 80s, I think suggesting that either Thatcher or Reagan used them for nefarious means is a bit off. You are sounding a bit of a conspiracy theorist here tbh.

 

Yeah so I never said any of them were formed in the 1980s. I just said they had increasing power. So thanks for the dates but sorry, irrelevant.

 

And I don't necessarily object to them. But as I keep trying to say, and which no one seems particularly interested in because apparently this is entirely a domestic problem according to the intellectual titans of this forum, this is an international war between globalism and anti-globalism.

 

Neoliberalism is a globalist ideology that has brought us many positive things (global community, reduced chance of destructive war through interdependency of markets) at the expense of a great number of other factors (domestic political stability, social mobility, the consumerisation of humankind, and climate breakdown). I do not have the specific answer for what we should do about this, but I do know that going back to full on Neoliberalism isn't the answer because the consequences have been dire. You can blame Corbyn, Cameron, Brexit, whatever - but the reality is that they are all symptoms of a wider malaise at the heart of western culture. Too few people have enough stake in the system to vote to maintain it. The chickens have come home to roost.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 5185]

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

She took an 8,000 majority down to 401. Truly a disciple of Corbyn.

 

If only she'd stuck to Change UK's more moderate policies. They really showed me. Along with Swinson in fact.

[ewerk 30266]

That's EXACTLY what I said.

[Renton 21315]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yeah so I never said any of them were formed in the 1980s. I just said they had increasing power. So thanks for the dates but sorry, irrelevant.

 

And I don't necessarily object to them. But as I keep trying to say, and which no one seems particularly interested in because apparently this is entirely a domestic problem according to the intellectual titans of this forum, this is an international war between globalism and anti-globalism.

 

Neoliberalism is a globalist ideology that has brought us many positive things (global community, reduced chance of destructive war through interdependency of markets) at the expense of a great number of other factors (domestic political stability, social mobility, the consumerisation of humankind, and climate breakdown). I do not have the specific answer for what we should do about this, but I do know that going back to full on Neoliberalism isn't the answer because the consequences have been dire. You can blame Corbyn, Cameron, Brexit, whatever - but the reality is that they are all symptoms of a wider malaise at the heart of western culture. Too few people have enough stake in the system to vote to maintain it. The chickens have come home to roost.

 

I kind of agree with much you say but find your dichotomous labelling irksome. Globalism, neoliberalism, and even socialism mean different things to me than you. There is a malaise in the west and that is caused by the rise of the right wing, seen throughout history. You might call that a symptom, whatever. Maybe we need a proper war.

 

You haven't got the answers, neither have I. But I'm sure as hell it isn't a violent swing to the far left. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Renton

[Rayvin 5185]

6 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I kind of agree with mich you say but find your dichotomous labelling irksome. Globalism, neoliberalism, and even socialism mean different things to me than you. There is a malaise in the west and that is caused by the rise of the right wing, seen throughout history. You haven't got the answers, neither have I. But I'm sure as hell it isn't a violent swing to the far left. 

 

See, I think the right wing is opportunistically making the best of it rather than causing it. Sometimes I think that the reality simply might be that cultures die - and maybe we're in our death throes.

 

I'd argue the more fundamental problem is that the system just isn't working for most people - and bizarrely that's despite the fact that on many levels, it is working for most people. I come back to vision, which you deplore but I think is vital. Whether it's a centrist vision, or left wing one, or terrifyingly a right wing one, that's what the West is crying out for. Because consumerism, it turns out, wasn't much of a substitute.

 

And I don't think we should have a violent swing to the far left either - but given the choice between that and the far right, you know where I stand. The main point of disagreement we have, I think, is that you believe the centrists could be cleaning up if only they hadn't been denied by Corbynite Labour. I think they've been wiped out harder than even the Labour left have just been.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rayvin