advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

cooky1257 said:
I watchEd a tiny Asian lady reduce her to a mumbling quivering jelly that refused to answer and scurried back to her car and sped off when asked a series of very straightforward questions about Gaza last week. She must've been intimidated.
Click to expand...
Yes. Tiny Asian Ladies asking simple questions are a threat to democracy apparently
 
“A Director who sat on the board of PFI giant Carillion as it collapsed is now a Director of Key Starmer group Labour Together , in current @PrivateEyeNews - back to Blairism without a blush.”


I do feel like concerns about Tufton Street, Russian dark money etc. distract from the more fundamental corruption at the heart of British politics, which is the near total identity, in terms of interests, agenda and personnel, of our political and business elites. They don’t even see anything wrong with it, wouldn’t occur to them.
 
Seanm said:
“A Director who sat on the board of PFI giant Carillion as it collapsed is now a Director of Key Starmer group Labour Together , in current @PrivateEyeNews - back to Blairism without a blush.”


I do feel like concerns about Tufton Street, Russian dark money etc. distract from the more fundamental corruption at the heart of British politics, which is the near total identity, in terms of interests, agenda and personnel, of our political and business elites. They don’t even see anything wrong with it, wouldn’t occur to them.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Hard to tell if they actually believe the twaddle, or simply adopt it to get 'into power' (sic) but the result is the same as the Tories, either way. More of the same old failed and damaging (to most of us) policies.

We really can't have this any more, if only because it also refuses to face the changes needed on climate as well and general economy, social services, etc, etc. Fiddling whilst Rome Burns.

Hence a large part of the electorate can now see the current appoaches are failures, but can't get a clear picture of why and what to do. Media distract and peddle the same old, same old, nonsense.
 
Seanm said:
I do feel like concerns about Tufton Street, Russian dark money etc. distract from the more fundamental corruption at the heart of British politics, which is the near total identity, in terms of interests, agenda and personnel, of our political and business elites. They don’t even see anything wrong with it, wouldn’t occur to them.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is the problem with the amoral economic ideology that underpins our politics, in an amoral system, there is, de facto, nothing wrong with the total identity that includes politics, business elites, agenda setters, but does not include social or economic outcomes for people.

Moral outcomes don't occur to these people because they are not included on the balance sheet
 
Having been a Uni Walla myself I also feel the Unis and academics have some of the blame here. The places teaching PPE-like subjects tend to also grind out the same old dribble combined with BloJo-style "how to blarney your way to success" rather than actual understanding of reality.
 
Seanm said:
In related news:

“UK public trust in political parties collapses to 12%”


Again, wouldn’t occur to them to join the dots. Must be teh ethnics, or social media, or Putin.
Click to expand...
But the people who protest against political party politics are intimidatory extremists who force our poor victimised politicians to bully the Speaker and circumvent parliamentary procedure. The biggest problem with democracy for these people are the voters.
 
ks.234 said:
Yes. This is the problem with the amoral economic ideology that underpins our politics, in an amoral system, there is, de facto, nothing wrong with the total identity that includes politics, business elites, agenda setters, but does not include social or economic outcomes for people.

Moral outcomes don't occur to these people because they are not included on the balance sheet
Click to expand...
Don’t see it as a moral problem myself, I have to say. I mean you can have an amoral economy that works for more people, or different people. The problem is these guys have it all their own way. The system works very well *for them* and when I say the system I mean all parts of it -economic, political, intellectual, moral. Like, it includes very effective explanations for why something that looks very bad - interchangeable political and business leaders; the state funnelling public wealth into private hands - is actually very good and right. Increasingly a closed system, airtight. They’ve ejected from it anything or anyone that might stop it working for them.
 
Seanm said:
Don’t see it as a moral problem myself, I have to say. I mean you can have an amoral economy that works for more people, or different people. The problem is these guys have it all their own way. The system works very well *for them* and when I say the system I mean all parts of it -economic, political, intellectual, moral. Like, it includes very effective explanations for why something that looks very bad - interchangeable political and business leaders; the state funnelling public wealth into private hands - is actually very good and right. Increasingly a closed system, airtight. They’ve ejected from it anything or anyone that might stop it working for them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. I disagree. A moral system is about people. We currently have a system which only measures what is good for profits. We had a moral system in the social democracy of the post war period, a system based on providing decent employment and public services after people were battered and bruised by the Great Depression and a World War. It was replaced by an amoral system in the 70’s that said, among other things, that spending public money on public services was economically damaging and it is this ideology that has fuelled privatisation and deregulation which in turn has provided the mechanism by which public spending is diverted into private wealth (Freeports and Enterprise zones being just one current example). This is done in the name of ‘economic efficiency’ which is supposed to be the necessary precursor to benefits for the people’ at a future date, but that promised future never comes, amd when that benefit to people doesn't come, the answer is always more ‘economic efficiency’ (or tax cuts for the rich as it’s usually called)

If we want benefits to go to people, we need a social democratic system with benefit to people as primary objectives,

In our current system benefits to the greater number of people are theoretical secondary objectives after balancing the books, where benefits to people do not even make it onto the balance sheet.
 
ks.234 said:
Sorry, but no. I disagree. A moral system is about people. We currently have a system which only measures what is good for profits. We had a moral system in the social democracy of the post war period, a system based on providing decent employment and public services after people were battered and bruised by the Great Depression and a World War. It was replaced by an amoral system in the 70’s that said, among other things, that spending public money on public services was economically damaging and it is this ideology that has fuelled privatisation and deregulation which in turn has provided the mechanism by which public spending is diverted into private wealth (Freeports and Enterprise zones being just one current example). This is done in the name of ‘economic efficiency’ which is supposed to be the necessary precursor to benefits for the people’ at a future date, but that promised future never comes, amd when that benefit to people doesn't come, the answer is always more ‘economic efficiency’ (or tax cuts for the rich as it’s usually called)

If we want benefits to go to people, we need a social democratic system with benefit to people as primary objectives,

In our current system benefits to the greater number of people are theoretical secondary objectives after balancing the books, where benefits to people do not even make it onto the balance sheet.
Click to expand...
The difference was that workers had some economic and political power, not, IMO, that either the system or the people running it were good and moral. They plainly weren’t, did some absolutely atrocious stuff.
 
Seanm said:
Don’t see it as a moral problem myself, I have to say. I mean you can have an amoral economy that works for more people, or different people. The problem is these guys have it all their own way. The system works very well *for them* and when I say the system I mean all parts of it -economic, political, intellectual, moral. Like, it includes very effective explanations for why something that looks very bad - interchangeable political and business leaders; the state funnelling public wealth into private hands - is actually very good and right. Increasingly a closed system, airtight. They’ve ejected from it anything or anyone that might stop it working for them.
Click to expand...

I see it as an almost total lack of democracy. We live in a system of elite class rule. Increasingly an elite oligarch kleptocracy. We don’t have any choice in economics as that isn’t defined by those who own the political establishment and their client media.

The only possible path to economic reform is electoral reform. As long as the electorate only have the Tory/Labour establishment to choose nothing can possibly change.

What happened last week in Rochdale speaks volumes; as soon as the political establishment is democratically challenged the tiny lectern is pushed out of No.10 and a far-right authoritarian clampdown is announced on behalf of both main parties. This is where we are. This is what needs removal. This two-party authoritarianism and erosion of our fundamental human rights and civil liberties needs to be challenged at every possible level.
 
Seanm said:
The difference was that workers had some economic and political power, not, IMO, that either the system or the people running it were good and moral. They plainly weren’t, did some absolutely atrocious stuff.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree, about the morality of people running a system, but I think Keynes was a moral thinker who was the inspiration for a moral economic system that was substantially different to what went before. One aspect of that system was based on quality full employment which strengthened the economic and therefore the political power of workers for the (admittedly amoral purpose) of raising aggregate demand and a greater good. Keynes was opposed by Friedman who inspired a system based on deliberately diminishing workers power (and their benefits) and handing power back to Business elites in which ‘good’ was measured primarily only in terms of what promotes profits.

I believe we have had two economic ideologies that are in opposition. The first is the Free Market ideology based on the “invisible hand” which meant non intervention by government, that really was the only show in town until Keynes when decent full employment achieved by government intervention gained ascendency and largely worked before it was overthrow by a throw back to Free Market thinking with added fundamentalism.

I believe ideas are important.

Our problem today is that Labour and Tory coalesce around the same set of ideas
 
Don't underestimate the lengths the establishment will go to to protect its interests and grip on power.
In the immediate future expect to see kettling employed on future Pro Gaza marchers with a liberal smattering of agent provocateur actions to justify some heavy handed policing. The fix will then be in.
 
Seanm said:
Don’t see it as a moral problem myself, I have to say. I mean you can have an amoral economy that works for more people, or different people. The problem is these guys have it all their own way. The system works very well *for them* and when I say the system I mean all parts of it -economic, political, intellectual, moral. Like, it includes very effective explanations for why something that looks very bad - interchangeable political and business leaders; the state funnelling public wealth into private hands - is actually very good and right. Increasingly a closed system, airtight. They’ve ejected from it anything or anyone that might stop it working for them.
Click to expand...

This looks to me like exactly the same type of problem which Marx saw well over a century ago when he said that it is inevitable that those who gain from the economy will fight to retain the system. If I remember right, this is what led him to advocate revolution rather than evolution.

You've helped me understand the importance of the media as a weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top