advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer II

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was the purging of all the moderates from the party, the take-over by a dark-funded ERG insurgency, the widespread adoption of vile UKIP/BNP/Britain First racist scapegoating rhetoric, the utter contempt for the rule of law (illegal prorogations etc, the refusal to support judges branded ‘enemies of the people’ etc), the endless lies, the total lack of accountability, the absolute power of oligarch elites, the blatant unashamed corruption right from giving party donors multi-£million contracts they can’t possibly deliver on through to Emperor Johnson giving out peerages to his family and close friends. This can’t possibly be viewed as anything other than an extreme government. Moderate governments just don’t drive around in racist ‘GO HOME’ vans for a start. I’d describe where we are right now as a hard-right kleptocracy.

Look at the bigger picture, far from the traditional adherence to free enterprise we now have the greatest level of state spending since the War. We have more state directives governing our daily lives than imaginable 6 months ago. We are not living in a country dominated by right-wing extremism, but one where the government's role is central and directs our lives to a degree that has much more in common with left-wing dictatorships.
 
Left-wingers often call themselves radical, it's sort of a badge of honour, something they value I would suggest. You want to argue Johnson is some kind of break with trad Tory values well that's possible, but it's not radicalism. He may have by increasing state intervention (and involvement in people's day to day lives) to a level beyond the imagination of the previous Labour leader but it is more to do with political expediency than any form of radicalism. The extremism of Thatcher has been replaced indeed by moderation. "There has been less talk of tax cuts and more of tax increases; an election manifesto that promised “opportunity for all” and “social justice”; an increase in the minimum wage well above the rate of inflation; the nationalisation of Northern Rail; and the possibility of state aid for other troubled but strategically important businesses" There is plenty of evidence of moderate politics if you want to see it, the reason being it is what people want.
I was going to say we’re just using words in different ways - for me, radical right just means extreme right - but I see there’s more to it than that: it seems that moves you were happy to call hard left extremism when they were proposed by Labour you are now taking as evidence of the Conservatives’ turn to moderation.

The oddest thing about this is that it’s not odd at all. Everyone conspires to ensure that Labour can only ever occupy about 3 square feet of political ground if they want to be taken seriously. Meanwhile reality itself shifts around the Conservatives to ensure that everything they do is legitimate and moderate.

kin hell gassor.
 
When did they change from being right-wing choices to be awarded the title of radical? Brexit and the election result were down to people voting conservative with a capital c. Conservatism has the sovereignty of the UK above everything else so it was not radicalism, but a return to its core values that drove Brexit. As for the election, you have identified the Tory manifesto as being blatantly right-wing so where did the radical tag come from? Right-wingers, can, of course, be radical but this is not what gav meant, he meant radical in the sense of left-wing radicalism. And to reiterate my point there is no meaningful evidence for this in the UK at present.
Modern Conservativism = Economic Liberalism (in the service of large corporations) + Nationalism/Authoritarianism (for the plebs)

Johnson's government is radical in the sense that it's prepared to sacrifice the former, to appease the latter, even though the negative consequences for the economy are obvious. There's also lots of big talk about disrupting established ways of doing things (e.g. Cummings' wet-dream of blowing up the sivil service) - it remains to be seen how much of that comes to fruition. This might be many things, but it's far from "moderate". "Radical" is as good a word as any.Also: what TonyL and seanm said.

As for support for radical left-wing policies, most polls show an appetite for renationalising some services which might not sound so radical given it's common in other European states, but in the UK it was barely mentioned before Corbyn.
 
I was going to say we’re just using words in different ways - for me, radical right just means extreme right - but I see there’s more to it than that: it seems that moves you were happy to call hard left extremism when they were proposed by Labour you are now taking as evidence of the Conservatives’ turn to moderation.

The oddest thing about this is that it’s not odd at all. Everyone conspires to ensure that Labour can only ever occupy about 3 square feet of political ground if they want to be taken seriously. Meanwhile reality itself shifts around the Conservatives to ensure that everything they do is legitimate and moderate.

kin hell gassor.
'kinell indeed; can't believe what I'm reading. Time to turn PFM off and on again, I think.
 
I was going to say we’re just using words in different ways - for me, radical right just means extreme right - but I see there’s more to it than that: it seems that moves you were happy to call hard left extremism when they were proposed by Labour you are now taking as evidence of the Conservatives’ turn to moderation.

The oddest thing about this is that it’s not odd at all. Everyone conspires to ensure that Labour can only ever occupy about 3 square feet of political ground if they want to be taken seriously. Meanwhile reality itself shifts around the Conservatives to ensure that everything they do is legitimate and moderate.

kin hell gassor.

Me calling Corbyn's Labour extreme hard left seems unlikely. Regarding the present state of the world COVID has changed the political landscape out of recognition and what was once regarded as unimaginable is not so any more. The degree to which the government is running the economy does not represent extremism any more than at the time of the War. If Johnson is taking state intervention to a level even Labour never anticipated then you should be applauding Comrade Johnson. The main point is that someone regarded as a radical is more than likely to be left-wing and is how I have interpreted the word. The Tories if you have not noticed as not doing so well and the legitimacy of how they are handling the virus is being challenged every day. Labour are now being taken more seriously than they ever were under Corbyn. Is that what irks you sean?
 
Modern Conservativism = Economic Liberalism (in the service of large corporations) + Nationalism/Authoritarianism (for the plebs)

Johnson's government is radical in the sense that it's prepared to sacrifice the former, to appease the latter, even though the negative consequences for the economy are obvious. There's also lots of big talk about disrupting established ways of doing things (e.g. Cummings' wet-dream of blowing up the sivil service) - it remains to be seen how much of that comes to fruition. This might be many things, but it's far from "moderate". "Radical" is as good a word as any.Also: what TonyL and seanm said.

As for support for radical left-wing policies, most polls show an appetite for renationalising some services which might not sound so radical given it's common in other European states, but in the UK it was barely mentioned before Corbyn.

Strange that the word has not been used before to describe the present government but after it was wrongly used to criticise Starmer suddenly it's de rigueur. Funny that.
 
Me calling Corbyn's Labour extreme hard left seems unlikely. Regarding the present state of the world COVID has changed the political landscape out of recognition and what was once regarded as unimaginable is not so any more. The degree to which the government is running the economy does not represent extremism any more than at the time of the War. If Johnson is taking state intervention to a level even Labour never anticipated then you should be applauding Comrade Johnson. The main point is that someone regarded as a radical is more than likely to be left-wing and is how I have interpreted the word. The Tories if you have not noticed as not doing so well and the legitimacy of how they are handling the virus is being challenged every day. Labour are now being taken more seriously than they ever were under Corbyn. Is that what irks you sean?
These exchanges have become too psychedelic for me gassor, I’m getting off the bus!
 
Some interesting points being made.

Radical right is apparently more palatable to the electorate than radical left which leaves, potentially, less room for LP to exist.

Nationalising rail is not really radical but was privatisation?
 
Semantics, really. The original 'radicals' in a UK political context were those loosely aligned with the Whig party at the end of the 18th/beginning of the 19th century, who advocated reforms such as widening the electorate. Eventually the Whig party split, with the reforming wing of the party becoming the Liberal Party, and the rest joining the Tories. The term 'radical' has thus, in a UK context at least, become associated with those supporting left-wing/reformist policies, in contrast to right-wing, conservative policies. A word has no innate meaning separate from its current usage, so if someone is called a 'radical', most will assume he/she is left-wing. If something else is meant, further explanation will probably be needed.
 
The term 'radical' applies to any group seeking fundamental change. It's been used wrt the hard right and right wing populism since the 1950s at least.
 
The term 'radical' applies to any group seeking fundamental change. It's been used wrt the hard right and right wing populism since the 1950s at least.

I don't remember either the National Front or the BNP ever being referred to as 'radical'.
 
The term 'radical' applies to any group seeking fundamental change. It's been used wrt the hard right and right wing populism since the 1950s at least.
Yup. Often used to describe Thatcher's demolition job on the post-war political consensus. And not just by left-wing commentators.

Like I said in my earlier post, Johnson's pursuit of Brexit is equally radical: it sacrifices economic prosperity and the interests of big business (Conservative Party donors) to the demands of nationalistic, socially conservative voters with the explicit aim of forging a new electoral coalition that breaks the old pattern (the concept of "the red wall"). The Conservatives have dreamt of harnessing the social conservativism of "traditional" (code for "white") working class voters for a long time, and Brexit might have given them the perfect tool for the job.

So yeah, that's plenty radical enough for me. And that's before you even get to the itensifying scapegoating of immigrants, minorities, and the endless bullshit culture wars that will need to be unleashed to distract people, as their economic conditions deteriorate.

I guess Starmer's calculation is that people will yearn for "normality" once the wrecking is over, and will flock to Labour in gratitude. I'm not entirely convinced, but it's certainly plausible. The real question, of course, is what would a Starmer government do with its power (how do you reverse the seemingly inexorable slide of the UK to the far-right?).
 
Some interesting points being made.

Radical right is apparently more palatable to the electorate than radical left which leaves, potentially, less room for LP to exist.

Nationalising rail is not really radical but was privatisation?
‘Twas ever thus. Real problems exist, and real conflicts of interest. If the left are too weak to offer real solutions the right offer imaginary ones, based on tradition, nationalism and sadism. Historically liberals have tended to prefer these kinds of solutions because they get to keep their money.
 
Some interesting points being made.

Radical right is apparently more palatable to the electorate than radical left which leaves, potentially, less room for LP to exist.

Nationalising rail is not really radical but was privatisation?

‘Twas ever thus. Real problems exist, and real conflicts of interest. If the left are too weak to offer real solutions the right offer imaginary ones, based on tradition, nationalism and sadism. Historically liberals have tended to prefer these kinds of solutions because they get to keep their money.
I wonder if a big part of the problem is that people don’t think the radical left can pull it off. It all feels a bit too good to be true, and people don’t dare to hope. So they choose instead to go with what they’ve always known. It’s the abusive relationship trap.
 
Yup. Often used to describe Thatcher's demolition job on the post-war political consensus. And not just by left-wing commentators.

Like I said in my earlier post, Johnson's pursuit of Brexit is equally radical: it sacrifices economic prosperity and the interests of big business (Conservative Party donors) to the demands of nationalistic, socially conservative voters with the explicit aim of forging a new electoral coalition that breaks the old pattern (the concept of "the red wall"). The Conservatives have dreamt of harnessing the social conservativism of "traditional" (code for "white") working class voters for a long time, and Brexit might have given them the perfect tool for the job.

So yeah, that's plenty radical enough for me. And that's before you even get to the itensifying scapegoating of immigrants, minorities, and the endless bullshit culture wars that will need to be unleashed to distract people, as their economic conditions deteriorate.

I guess Starmer's calculation is that people will yearn for "normality" once the wrecking is over, and will flock to Labour in gratitude. I'm not entirely convinced, but it's certainly plausible. The real question, of course, is what would a Starmer government do with its power (how do you reverse the seemingly inexorable slide of the UK to the far-right?).
Just to add... you really don't have to look far to find Thatcherism being described as a radical ideology...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/fe...er-Radical-visionary-who-rescued-Britain.html
https://www.ft.com/content/550046ba-a048-11e2-88b6-00144feabdc0
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-became-the-global-norm-idUSBRE9370WM20130408
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/thatcher-breaks-consensus

And so on... There are also literally millions of words about this stuff in the academic political science literature.

The difficulty some people seem to have in accepting this perfectly illustrates seanm's point that radical ideas from the right are essentially normalised (no matter how mad, bad or dangerous they are), while radical ideas from the left are made out to be weird and an existential threat to "British values" (or whatever).
 
Last edited:
The difficulty some people seem to have in accepting this perfectly illustrates seanm's point that radical ideas from the right are essentially normalised (no matter how bonkers they are), while radical ideas from the left are made out to be weird and an existential threat to "British values" (or whatever).
Yes, as I suggested above, people have been conditioned into thinking that the left’s plans are either an unachievable pipe dream, or a stalking horse for something worse than what we have now. First you have to break that mindset. Blair managed it, but then failed to deliver, which makes it all the harder to get people to believe, this time.
 
I wonder if a big part of the problem is that people don’t think the radical left can pull it off. It all feels a bit too good to be true, and people don’t dare to hope. So they choose instead to go with what they’ve always known. It’s the abusive relationship trap.
Yes, a lot in that. People who’ve been on the hard end of things economically know there’s no such thing as a free lunch so Everybody Wins scenarios are treated as pie in the sky. At least economic sadism seems realistic, especially after 40 years of Thatcherism. Also I think people react badly to perceived patronage or beneficence and there was a sense that Labour was just going to magic things better from above, whereas Brexit felt like something they’d won for themselves. And real economic exclusion creates feelings of crushing guilt and hopelessness, so many of the people who’d have benefited most from a Corbyn government didn’t even consider voting. Finally, the left just is incredibly weak, historically speaking. So scepticism about their plans was just basic good sense.

I think most of us knew all this on some level but allowed ourselves to believe that sheer momentum and need could overcome it.

Wrong!
 
It is often quite simple policies that make the biggest difference, e.g. the minimum wage which wouldn’t have happened under the Tories. The beauty of this is that it can be increased over time.

I think Sean makes a good point about how Labour can come across as quite patronising to the working class (to be fair he used the patronage). I felt this was the case with Corbyn, always came across as very affected but I have a very low tolerance of this, a bit like poverty tourism.

Obviously the above applies equally to the Tories but I don’t really care about them.
 
The difficulty some people seem to have in accepting this perfectly illustrates seanm's point that radical ideas from the right are essentially normalised (no matter how bonkers they are), while radical ideas from the left are made out to be weird and an existential threat to "British values" (or whatever).

I agree entirely. The thing I find the most bonkers is when asked most people would support the overwhelming majority of “radical” left/liberal ideals, e.g. ending slavery, workhouses, child-labour etc, facilitating free education, workers rights, health and safety legislation, the NHS, progressive taxation, unemployment benefit, public museums, art galleries, state-funded transport infrastructure etc etc. All this has come from the left/liberal side of the map. The problem we have is as soon as anyone says “radical left” people picture some 1970s trade union pole-climber taking everyone out on strike because someone farted in the coffee room or whatever, or worse associate it with the modern Labour Party, which is just crap. Certainly nothing at all wrong with left-wing ideals, they have created pretty much everything that is worth having about the UK. We just need a far better way of selling them to the masses than a disgraced, stagnant and archaic focus group-driven career organisation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top