The Labour Party

[metalblue]

The general secretary suspended him as a Labour member although Starmer admitted that it was done under his direction. He was readmitted by the NEC after he apologised and clarified his remarks but didn't apologise to the dictated standard of Starmers office. Starmer then withdrew the parliamentary whip in response.

Reading between the lines it sounds like locking the embarrassing relative up in the attic?

 

[metalblue]

Not my point though

Corbyn gets dragged into conversations he has fuck all to do with by the liberals and right on wingers on here because thay see it as something to bash the left with, andnhe get's brought up by some left wingers on here as a way to belittle starmer and contrast the lack of socialism.

In reality he is not important in most of the topics on here he get's referenced in anymore and I find him tiresome as a subject, that's all.


To all his fans in the wider world he is relevent, on here he really isn't as I don't recall any real committed hardline corbynites every being in here tbf.

I understand where you’re coming from. So Ignoring the man for the moment do you think Corbyns politics are irrelevant for the future direction and fortunes of the Labour Party?

Looking at the evidence whatever you think of his policies he gave a voice to a large disenfranchised group of people who had spent the last 3 decades without one. It was said by and large that Corbyn had hit his high point in the 2017 election and that was seen in 2019 however it is still a massive part of our society who wanted his kind of politics.

So Labour can try and go to the centre ground, fight the tories at their own game and fish from the same voter pond (I know @Rascal is a fan of this approach) and cast these people aside again or does Starmer try and appeal to everyone from Centre to the left and end up risking appealing to no one? How far left can Labour policies actually go if they are to win the next election? It’s actually a fascinating landscape Starmer has inherited.

 

[urban genie]

I understand where you’re coming from. So Ignoring the man for the moment do you think Corbyns politics are irrelevant for the future direction and fortunes of the Labour Party?

Looking at the evidence whatever you think of his policies he gave a voice to a large disenfranchised group of people who had spent the last 3 decades without one. It was said by and large that Corbyn had hit his high point in the 2017 election and that was seen in 2019 however it is still a massive part of our society who wanted his kind of politics.

So Labour can try and go to the centre ground, fight the tories at their own game and fish from the same voter pond (I know @Rascal is a fan of this approach) and cast these people aside again or does Starmer try and appeal to everyone from Centre to the left and end up risking appealing to no one? How far left can Labour policies actually go if they are to win the next election? It’s actually a fascinating landscape Starmer has inherited.

Labour should never abandon it's socialst ideology, what you also not do it abandon your commitment to all the people equally.

Neo-liberalism did win new labour a victory, but it also cast off many and left them disenfranchised, going back to that would be a bad idea.

Starmer can keep many of the policies of the last manifesto and sell them to the centrists, but ultimatley will have to sacrifice some.to keep the blue labour lot in check as when it comes to party unity they are the ones who act like mard cunts when they don't get their way, most of the left wing side will back labour and not cause a fuss.

Policies in the last manifesto are winnable ideqs in a GE, Corbyn though was a soft twat who didn't have the balls to stick to his convictions, and far form a hard line left winger so there is not much to rebrand from the manifesto as more centre policy.

 

[Tb1981]

Labour should never abandon it's socialst ideology, what you also not do it abandon your commitment to all the people equally.

Neo-liberalism did win new labour a victory, but it also cast off many and left them disenfranchised, going back to that would be a bad idea.

Starmer can keep many of the policies of the last manifesto and sell them to the centrists, but ultimatley will have to sacrifice some.to keep the blue labour lot in check as when it comes to party unity they are the ones who act like mard cunts when they don't get their way, most of the left wing side will back labour and not cause a fuss.

Policies in the last manifesto are winnable ideqs in a GE, Corbyn though was a soft twat who didn't have the balls to stick to his convictions, and far form a hard line left winger so there is not much to rebrand from the manifesto as more centre policy.

Without tony Blair or new labour, labour wouldn't have been in power at all for the last 40 years.
Yet so many seem so keen to cast him off or call him a Tory.
At least starmer doesn’t come across as one of the looneys (corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc) but unfortunately him and his Labour Party members are out of touch with typical working class labour voters.

 

[Tb1981]

I understand where you’re coming from. So Ignoring the man for the moment do you think Corbyns politics are irrelevant for the future direction and fortunes of the Labour Party?

Looking at the evidence whatever you think of his policies he gave a voice to a large disenfranchised group of people who had spent the last 3 decades without one. It was said by and large that Corbyn had hit his high point in the 2017 election and that was seen in 2019 however it is still a massive part of our society who wanted his kind of politics.

So Labour can try and go to the centre ground, fight the tories at their own game and fish from the same voter pond (I know @Rascal is a fan of this approach) and cast these people aside again or does Starmer try and appeal to everyone from Centre to the left and end up risking appealing to no one? How far left can Labour policies actually go if they are to win the next election? It’s actually a fascinating landscape Starmer has inherited.

They could make a start by looking to the future not the past.
Appeal to the average working person and how they can improve their life. Stop telling us how the Tory’s have ruined our life and just tell me how you can improve it instead.
Maybe come up with some policies that people believe they can and will implement rather than a socialist checklist Of Nationalisations and handouts to all.
Might win people like me back quite quickly.

 

[Ban-jani]

Labour should never abandon it's socialst ideology, what you also not do it abandon your commitment to all the people equally.

Neo-liberalism did win new labour a victory, but it also cast off many and left them disenfranchised, going back to that would be a bad idea.

Starmer can keep many of the policies of the last manifesto and sell them to the centrists, but ultimatley will have to sacrifice some.to keep the blue labour lot in check as when it comes to party unity they are the ones who act like mard cunts when they don't get their way, most of the left wing side will back labour and not cause a fuss.

Policies in the last manifesto are winnable ideqs in a GE, Corbyn though was a soft twat who didn't have the balls to stick to his convictions, and far form a hard line left winger so there is not much to rebrand from the manifesto as more centre policy.

New Labour weren’t neoliberal. Neoliberals don’t highly regulate private industries to the degree New Labour did, not to mention a neoliberal society wouldn’t have the NHS or the public services Britain has even now.

The Tories under Johnson aren’t neoliberal either.

 

[urban genie]

New Labour weren’t neoliberal. Neoliberals don’t highly regulate private industries to the degree New Labour did, not to mention a neoliberal society wouldn’t have the NHS or the public services Britain has even now.

The Tories under Johnson aren’t neoliberal either.

Johnson certainly isn't and never thought he was.

New labour were though and it is an accepted opinion from most political and economical commentators, I don't know why anyone would want to deny they were, it is not a stain on their legacy to admit hey were.
I may find neo-liberalism wrong, but I don't deny it existed.

The period 79-07 was the age of neo-liberal economics as the accepted ideology by many parties here and overseas, it was never sustainable though as has come to pass.

 

[Ban-jani]

Johnson certainly isn't and never thought he was.

New labour were though and it is an accepted opinion from most political and economical commentators, I don't know why anyone would want to deny they were, it is not a stain on their legacy to admit hey were.
I may find neo-liberalism wrong, but I don't deny it existed.

The period 79-07 was the age of neo-liberal economics as the accepted ideology by many parties here and overseas, it was never sustainable though as has come to pass.

Well here I am :-)

Their public spending and regulation of industries was far too high for them to be neoliberal. Cameron and Osbourne’s austerity government makes a far better case for neoliberalism than 1997-2010 under Blair/Brown, although even then, a true neoliberal would have privatised more than they did, including the NHS.

The economy before the 2008 crash was flying and yet Blair/Brown still spent quite a lot on public services, this isn’t neoliberalism, they were ideologically against austerity measures.

I appreciate you’re not using it to attack them, I don’t happen to have a huge problem with democratic socialists or neoliberals, I completely disagree with both but the only views I won’t tolerate are extreme authoritarian views, everything else is a difference of opinion.

 

[urban genie]

Well here I am :-)

Their public spending and regulation of industries was far too high for them to be neoliberal. Cameron and Osbourne’s austerity government makes a far better case for neoliberalism than 1997-2010 under Blair/Brown, although even then, a true neoliberal would have privatised more than they did, including the NHS.

The economy before the 2008 crash was flying and yet Blair/Brown still spent quite a lot on public services, this isn’t neoliberalism, they were ideologically against austerity measures.

I appreciate you’re not using it to attack them, I don’t happen to have a huge problem with democratic socialists or neoliberals, I completely disagree with both but the only views I won’t tolerate are extreme authoritarian views, everything else is a difference of opinion.

They introduced PFIs bqsically they privatised vast swathes of the public sector by stealth.

A labputlr party that ran on a platform of denouncing the privatisation of water/energy becausenit was a popular stance was never gonna outright privatise, instead they shrank state involement and outsourced funding.

A truly neo-liberal answer to the problem of being a demcraticly socialist party

 

[Ban-jani]

They introduced PFIs bqsically they privatised vast swathes of the public sector by stealth.

A labputlr party that ran on a platform of denouncing the privatisation of water/energy becausenit was a popular stance was never gonna outright privatise, instead they shrank state involement and outsourced funding.

A truly neo-liberal answer to the problem of being a demcraticly socialist party

I’m not going to argue they seem neoliberal to a democratic socialist but as someone who’s probably to the right of centre overall, to me there’s a long way for them to go to the economic right.

Osbourne’s ideology was certainly a significant step closer to neoliberalism.

Blair’s ideology was a mixture of left and right policies and I happen to think his high levels of regulation came from his days as a Trotskyist in his younger days.