Keir Starmer

[Mr Kobayashi]

I do think there is a slow realisation that the party is dying and it needs to be put out of its misery. There are too many contradictions in the party and it cant be two things at once in my view. If Clive Lewis feels he cannot even discuss something because of fear of expulsion then what is the point of the party at all. I know Starmer wants to purge the left in the manner Kinnock did but the left is much stronger now than it was in the days of militant. Starmer has the impossible job, but he wanted that job and he has to do much better than he has the last couple of days because his actions, his u-turns and his inactions have caused further splits rather than bring about the unity he campaigned on. I don't think it will bother him though as he will get the party he wants and he will hope that losing the left of the party will be made up by bringing the right of the party back on board.

Now as for the process, i am not certain. It is within Starmer's remit to not allow him into parliament as a Labour MP by withdrawing the whip, but it shouldnt be in his remit to decide if he stays in the party because that is what Corbyn himself was accused of doing. It is a clusterfuck of epic proportions and the only winners short term are the Tories who can tory to their hearts content. Labour i think has to split now, its beyond repair. Labour as is under Starmer will probably become the party of rejoin the EU and be socially liberal and carry on with all the stuff that alienated the red wall. The left can do there own thing and argue about the finer points of Leninism or whatever other ideological point is the hot topic and the tories just tory along doing tory stuff, in the background you can hear the sniggering of the capitalists as the champagne corks are popped and the threat of Socialism diminishes once again.

An absolutely pointless exercise mate. Lenin's "socialism" is are not the foundations of a vibrant society. This is the same Lenin who was in charge of Soviet Russia when they crushed the independent Azeri Republic in 1920.

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

Among the important accomplishments of the Parliament was the extension of suffrage to women, making Azerbaijan one of the first countries in the world, and the very first majority-Muslim nation, to grant women equal political rights with men

The statist approach to socialism isn't really something that deserves to call itself socialism. Cooperatives and localised democracy is the model on which social democracy and a socialist-like society can form. Governments can assist by setting up localised investment banks and encouraging publicly owned infrastructure and utility companies. But they should not be state owned. In my view we learn better ideas from looking at the world around us and learning about real life examples in the modern world (Mondragon Corporation or Co-ops in the developing world) and not from reading the writings of a zealot like Lenin who died almost 100 years ago.

 

[mat]

Job done for Starmer. Tories in at the next election.

He's managed to knock Tory corruption off the main news story.

A true establishment man.

 

[Fame Monster]

Would you like a safe space from socialists?

Perhaps the Reclaim and Reform UK parties are more suitable for you?

I'd much prefer a Labour Party without the student union politics.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I'm glad the next election is a while off as the party i have always voted for doesn't give two fucks about the working class and would rather pander to capitalism.

You really think those people within the union’s and the party give an actual fuck about anybody but themselves?

Interesting.

 

[joe123]

I'm glad the next election is a while off as the party i have always voted for doesn't give two fucks about the working class and would rather pander to capitalism.

If they gave a fuck they’d want to be electable so they can make a difference!

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I'd much prefer a Labour Party without the student union politics.

I have searched your previous posts for that phrase and feel I have good idea of what you mean by it and what you dislike.

There is an alternative viewpoint that may be made about the "socialism" of Corbyn, which is that Corbyn and McDonnell's policies weren't really socialism at all. As LOTO and Shadow Chancellor they were de facto Continental/Nordic style social democrats, borrowing things like publicly owned infrastructure like Rail, utilities and Internet and regional investment banks from countries as "left-wing" as Sweden, Germany and South Korea. The problem is that they didn't spend the time making the case for these policies and educating the public about the manifesto and building up the narrative about what it actually was they were going to do. It's much easier for people to point to British Leyland and British Rail and discard it if there isn't awareness about Arriva etc. And of course social democracies cost more, increased taxation is a hard argument to make even if it is in return for higher quality universal services.

Although considering the party spent the last 5 years weighed down by internal party politics and sabotage, not to mention Brexit was the unflushed floater in British society, there is no surprise there wasn't enough bandwidth to make a better case for the policies.

What would you like the Labour Party to be? What areas are important to you? What policies would you like them to adopt?

 

[Fame Monster]

I have searched your previous posts for that phrase and feel I have good idea of what you mean by it and what you dislike.

There is an alternative viewpoint that may be made about the "socialism" of Corbyn, which is that Corbyn and McDonnell's policies weren't really socialism at all. As LOTO and Shadow Chancellor they de facto Continental/Nordic style social democrats borrowing things like publicly owned infrastructure like Rail, utilities and Internet and regional investment banks from countries as "left-wing" as Sweden, Germany and South Korea. The problem is that they didn't spend the time making the case for these policies and educating the public about the manifesto and building up the narrative about what it actually was they were going to do. It's much easier for people to point to British Leyland and British Rail and discard it if there isn't awareness about Arriva etc. And of course social democracies cost more, increased taxation is a hard argument to make even if it is in return for higher quality universal services.

Although considering the party spent the last 5 years weighed down by internal party politics and sabotage, not to mention Brexit was the unflushed floater in British society, there is no surprise there wasn't enough bandwidth to make a better case for the policies.

What would you like the Labour Party to be? What areas are important to you? What policies would you like them to adopt?

Corbyn and McDonnell's policies weren't socialism, you're right. And public ownership of utilities/rail can be done successfully. That's not my gripe with them and I'm not against public ownership of certain industries but socialism in a Marxist sense normally refers to the state ownership of all industries and that would be hugely problematic for many different reasons, especially in a globalised economy. That's why the idea of socialism is normally left behind at the student union - like it was with me.

Also, if you look at the theoretical amount that could be saved or reinvested with public ownership of certain utilities/rail, it's peanuts: a few billion a year - maybe 1% of the annual national income. That's also if you buy into the argument that the state is as efficient as the private sector in terms of the service it delivers and pays as low as them. Otherwise, any potential saving is wiped out immediately. The likely outcome is that the theoretical profits go into paying the workers who work for the industries higher and higher wages, which is better than it going to the Chief Exec/Shareholders but the reality is, public ownership of these utilities isn't going to make a difference to 99% of people's lives or the overall finances of the state so it's not something that makes me/stops me from voting for Labour even if I'd probably prefer many essential industries to be public owned.

What would make a difference to me in terms of economics is the way that Labour propose to deal with the housing crisis. For me, that's the biggest issue that faces this country and I see the two biggest causal factors are landlordism and immigration (or in other words, too much demand for the available supply). There's other factors too (right to buy) but unless Labour become the party of reducing landlordism and reducing immigration (not just controlling it, like Rascal said) then homelessness, poverty, social housing waiting lists will continue to spiral out of control.

In terms of social policy, Labour need to come out and defend freedom of debate/speech/thought rather than becoming the enemy of them. They're important things for me too and would influence the way that I vote.

There's obviously more but many of the MPs on the above list have completely opposing views to me on those issues and they are influential within the Labour Party so I can't see me voting for them any time soon.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Corbyn and McDonnell's policies weren't socialism, you're right. And public ownership of utilities/rail can be done successfully. That's not my gripe with them and I'm not against public ownership of certain industries but socialism in a Marxist sense normally refers to the state ownership of all industries and that would be hugely problematic for many different reasons, especially in a globalised economy. That's why the idea of socialism is normally left behind at the student union - like it was with me.

Also, if you look at the theoretical amount that could be saved or reinvested with public ownership of certain utilities/rail, it's peanuts: a few billion a year - maybe 1% of the annual national income. That's also if you buy into the argument that the state is as efficient as the private sector in terms of the service it delivers and pays as low as them. Otherwise, any potential saving is wiped out immediately. The likely outcome is that the theoretical profits go into paying the workers who work for the industries higher and higher wages, which is better than it going to the Chief Exec/Shareholders but the reality is, public ownership of these utilities isn't going to make a difference to 99% of people's lives or the overall finances of the state so it's not something that makes me/stops me from voting for Labour even if I'd probably prefer many essential industries to be public owned.

What would make a difference to me in terms of economics is the way that Labour propose to deal with the housing crisis. For me, that's the biggest issue that faces this country and I see the two biggest causal factors are landlordism and immigration (or in other words, too much demand for the available supply). There's other factors too (right to buy) but unless Labour become the party of reducing landlordism and reducing immigration (not just controlling it, like Rascal said) then homelessness, poverty, social housing waiting lists will continue to spiral out of control.

In terms of social policy, Labour need to come out and defend freedom of debate/speech/thought rather than becoming the enemy of them. They're important things for me too and would influence the way that I vote.

There's obviously more but many of the MPs on the above list have completely opposing views to me on those issues and they are influential within the Labour Party so I can't see me voting for them any time soon.

We agree that housing has become an issue, that desperately needs addressing. Although I would disagree on some of the causes. Financial deregulation, rolling bank tenant friendly legislation such as security of tenure, ideology and culture encouraging people to treat houses as assets first and a place to live second. Banks lending more and more money to people at an increasing ratio to income and inflating bubbles. The neglect of council and social housing after selling off lots of stock, all contributes to this more than immigration.

We also need to use our housing stock more efficiently. Too many family size houses being occupied by 1 or 2 people or single elderly people staying in large houses.



Although the lower video is entitled Housing, but in actual fact what it talks about it is much wider. But I will post it here because it worth a watch (for anyone that can spare the time).

 

[Fame Monster]

We agree that housing has become an issue, that desperately needs addressing. Although I would disagree on some of the causes. Financial deregulation, rolling bank tenant friendly legislation such as security of tenure, ideology and culture encouraging people to treat houses as assets first and a place to live second. Banks lending more and more money to people at an increasing ratio to income and inflating bubbles. The neglect of council and social housing after selling off lots of stock, all contributes to this more than immigration.

We also need to use our housing stock more efficiently. Too many family size houses being occupied by 1 or 2 people or single elderly people staying in large houses.



Although the lower video is entitled Housing, but in actual fact what it talks about it is much wider. But I will post it here because it worth a watch (for anyone that can spare the time).

Under-supply and over-demand is a huge cause of rising house prices (that's just a law of economics and applies to every good and service), and while landlordism plays a role in that, so does net-migration if it significantly outstrips the amount of houses being built as it has done for every year since the late 90s. That's without factoring in illegal immigration too.

I just cannot see how the problem can be solved without reducing immigration so that it's linked to housebuilding levels, and I'd be seriously worried that policy is targeted at reducing the size of a house that a person/couple, elderly or otherwise, can choose to live in, before reducing immigration or reducing the number of BTL landlords. People have every right to aspire to have a big house and I strongly believe the Government should be encouraging that aspiration, not stopping it.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It's not about making policies that prevent people from owning larger houses. It's about dissuading them from doing so. We aren't talking about a couple with one child in three bedroom house but single people occupying that house principally because it's an appreciating asset. Whilst at the same time we have increasing numbers of families in overcrowded temporary accommodation. It's not a case of just swapping their places, no one will pretend it is but we have to use housing more efficiently. It's not about curbing ambition or punishing successful people but discouraging it from getting out of hand.

Some modern cities encourage people to ride bicycles and build their urban infrastructure around cycling first and cars second. Why is that? because it's space efficient and there are social ills such as heavy congestion and air pollution. Just as there is a knock on from people hoarding housing stock and contributing to the economic environment that encourages practices that harm the fabric of society.

There are some that would make the arguments about aspiration in relation to people being prevented from owning property portfolios.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Why Are House Prices So High?

 

[Rascal]

She might suffer from racism but she's also been guilty of it herself in the past so I have little sympathy for her. Also, feeling sorry for her isn't a reason to keep her in the party.

Her voting record is appalling and your claim that the left are patriotic is undermined when people like her are put into prominent positions within the Labour Party given what she's said about Britain in the past.

What do you mean about her voting record.

And what has she said about Britain's past that is wrong.

 

[Rascal]

An absolutely pointless exercise mate. Lenin's "socialism" is are not the foundations of a vibrant society. This is the same Lenin who was in charge of Soviet Russia when they crushed the independent Azeri Republic in 1920.

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



The statist approach to socialism isn't really something that deserves to call itself socialism. Cooperatives and localised democracy is the model on which social democracy and a socialist-like society can form. Governments can assist by setting up localised investment banks and encouraging publicly owned infrastructure and utility companies. But they should not be state owned. In my view we learn better ideas from looking at the world around us and learning about real life examples in the modern world (Mondragon Corporation or Co-ops in the developing world) and not from reading the writings of a zealot like Lenin who died almost 100 years ago.

The Mondragon co-op is a really interesting development, it is a shame it is not widely known of. Dr Richard Wolff is a big advocate of it and i am a fan of his work.

I have a bit of crush on Lenin, imho he was a visionary. I must admit though i wasn't aware of the Azeri situation.

I have no issue with local investment banks and believe that politics should be exercised on a more local level, but i also believe that a strong state has to enable it.

 

[Fame Monster]

What do you mean about her voting record.

And what has she said about Britain's past that is wrong.

"A defeat for the British state is a victory for us all", refusing to apologise for supporting the IRA, wanting to dismantle MI5 and many others. Even if you don't think she holds them views any longer, can you blame people for questioning her loyalty to her country and wondering whether she should be in a party that is supposedly patriotic?

 

[The perfect fumble]

He's managed to knock Tory corruption off the main news story.

A true establishment man.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

"A defeat for the British state is a victory for us all", refusing to apologise for supporting the IRA, wanting to dismantle MI5 and many others. Even if you don't think she holds them views any longer, can you blame people for questioning her loyalty to her country and wondering whether she should be in a party that is supposedly patriotic?

Is there an alternative take on that quote?

Perhaps that belief was motivated out of a love of her country rather than hatred. There are numerous academics that point towards the fact that Britain never faced a humiliating defeat like Germany did in WWII, as the reason for less introspection, realising that we aren't as good a country to live in anymore, and making systemic corrections to shift our decline in living standards or address inequality.

If you thought that your government was pursuing bad policies against the better interests of the country- you would hardly want them to succeed, would you?

It isn't quite the same as supporting IRA as an organisation. By that logic we could say that someone supporting a victory for unionism supports the UVF and other loyalist groups.

Was she perhaps motivated by evidence of collusion by the intelligence services with loyalist paramilitaries, when she called for the disbandment of "conspiratorial groups"?

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

For what it is worth , I don't believe calling for the disbanding of the MI5 was necessarily helpful, as it was never going to be achieved. It sounds like a young political activist taking a hard-line and a more expressive view of politics rather than an effective pragmatic view. We are always going to have an intelligence services, that doesn't mean that we have to accept operations that result in collusion with terrorists though.

Literature which your quotes come from below.

 

[Rascal]

Is there an alternative take on that quote?

Perhaps that belief was motivated out of a love of her country rather than hatred. There are numerous academics that point towards the fact that Britain never faced a humiliating defeat like Germany did in WWII, as the reason for less introspection, realising that we aren't as good a country to live in anymore, and making systemic corrections to shift our decline in living standards or address inequality.

If you thought that your government was pursuing bad policies against the better interests of the country- you would hardly want them to succeed, would you?

It isn't quite the same as supporting IRA as an organisation. By that logic we could say that someone supporting a victory for unionism supports the UVF and other loyalist groups.

Was she perhaps motivated by evidence of collusion by the intelligence services with loyalist paramilitaries, when she called for the disbandment of "conspiratorial groups"?

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

For what it is worth , I don't believe calling for the disbanding of the MI5 was necessarily helpful, as it was never going to be achieved. It sounds like a young political activist taking a hard-line and a more expressive view of politics rather than an effective pragmatic view. We are always going to have an intelligence services, that doesn't mean that we have to accept operations that result in collusion with terrorists though.

Literature which your quotes come from below.

I do get why people would call for MI5 to be dissolved, especially after there antics with the Wilson government.

Do i support that, probably not, but still it remains an issue that those on the left are more likely to be MI5 targets.

 

[Rascal]

"A defeat for the British state is a victory for us all", refusing to apologise for supporting the IRA, wanting to dismantle MI5 and many others. Even if you don't think she holds them views any longer, can you blame people for questioning her loyalty to her country and wondering whether she should be in a party that is supposedly patriotic?

I think it is quite possible to support the IRA's aims of uniting Ireland whilst condemning the tactics used to achieve it.

Funnily enough without Corbyn taking a similar view and encouraging the prisoners in the Maze to be part of/support Mowlam's initiatives the peace process may never have happened. Now the whole situation is far more complicated than i will ever understand but I don't see supporting a united Ireland as Anti British. It is possible one of the final acts of empire that a United Ireland comes to fruition. A united Ireland would certainly solve one of the major problems with brexit.

 

[Fame Monster]

Is there an alternative take on that quote?

Perhaps that belief was motivated out of a love of her country rather than hatred. There are numerous academics that point towards the fact that Britain never faced a humiliating defeat like Germany did in WWII, as the reason for less introspection, realising that we aren't as good a country to live in anymore, and making systemic corrections to shift our decline in living standards or address inequality.

If you thought that your government was pursuing bad policies against the better interests of the country- you would hardly want them to succeed, would you?

It isn't quite the same as supporting IRA as an organisation. By that logic we could say that someone supporting a victory for unionism supports the UVF and other loyalist groups.

Was she perhaps motivated by evidence of collusion by the intelligence services with loyalist paramilitaries, when she called for the disbandment of "conspiratorial groups"?

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

For what it is worth , I don't believe calling for the disbanding of the MI5 was necessarily helpful, as it was never going to be achieved. It sounds like a young political activist taking a hard-line and a more expressive view of politics rather than an effective pragmatic view. We are always going to have an intelligence services, that doesn't mean that we have to accept operations that result in collusion with terrorists though.

Literature which your quotes come from below.

Abbott has never denied (or apologised for!) supporting the IRA: her defence has always been that it was 30+ years ago. So I think if you're going to form that interpretation then you're probably at odds with most of the country and Abbott herself.

Likewise, I don't think the vast majority of people would interpret those words or that article as someone who loves her country: I think they'd have good reason to view Abbott as an ethno-nationalist who hates her country.

I suppose only Abbott herself knows so people are entitled to take whatever position they like in the same way you could argue that Powell didn't dislike ethnic minorities, he just didn't want to see any harm come to them or Robinson is actually sympathetic to Islam, he just wants to see the religion reformed for its own sake. But I would also say, Abbott has said a lot more than that article including making some much more recent racist remarks, that make people question her suitability to be a member of the Labour Party let alone lead the country.

From my experience, pretty much the only people who defend Abbott tend to people who have always voted Labour and always will vote Labour no matter the policy or personnel so I suspect their defence comes more from a position of bias than actually forming a neutral judgment about the words she used.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Abbott has never denied (or apologised for!) supporting the IRA: her defence has always been that it was 30+ years ago. So I think if you're going to form that interpretation then you're probably at odds with most of the country and Abbott herself.

Likewise, I don't think the vast majority of people would interpret those words or that article as someone who loves her country: I think they'd have good reason to view Abbott as an ethno-nationalist who hates her country.

I suppose only Abbott herself knows so people are entitled to take whatever position they like in the same way you could argue that Powell didn't dislike ethnic minorities, he just didn't want to see any harm come to them or Robinson is actually sympathetic to Islam, he just wants to see the religion reformed for its own sake. But I would also say, Abbott has said a lot more than that article including making some much more recent racist remarks, that make people question her suitability to be a member of the Labour Party let alone lead the country.

From my experience, pretty much the only people who defend Abbott tend to people who have always voted Labour and always will vote Labour no matter the policy or personnel so I suspect their defence comes more from a position of bias than actually forming a neutral judgment about the words she used.

As far as I recall whenever she was asked about it was in the political arena- It wouldn't serve any purpose talk about nuanced opinions from over 30 years and would only be falling in to a political trap. Talking about hairstyles is a fudge but a necessary fudge in the world in which we live. If you can produce any interviews in where Dianne Abbott goes into this in detail maybe it would be possible to form a more accurate of the interpretation the reasoning behind her views. Otherwise, without asking her ourselves we can't be sure. I am not at all bothered what the mystical majority of the country think about quotes from an interview or pamphlet that they have never read in context.

Your comparison to those two men is absurd. It's quite clear from watching their speeches exactly what they mean. They don't speak in nuanced language so it's easy to follow the reasoning behind it. The lack of nuance or sophisticated dog whistle is one of the things that the establishment found so reviling about them. Even sympathisers of a certain political class would have immediately distanced themselves from them because the rhetorical language they use exceeds even their extreme beliefs. You are picking over the lines from quoted from pamphlets and interviews 30+ years ago yet you didn't produce them, and I doubt you had even read either of those documents (in complete form) before you took the view that she hated this country.

It's quite a stretch to take the view that Dianne Abbott is an ethno-nationalist. Her politics are more rooted in class than race, but it's not unreasonable for her as an ethnic minority to push issues like diversity and representation.

I have spent most of my life in a tory/lib-dem marginal constituency, so by all likelihood I am not going to be voting labour for as long as I reside here. I have also never been a member of the labour party.