doctorf
left footed right winger
What’s that got to do with the comment I made?
Come on Tony, get a grip.
Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI
- Thread starter PsB
- Start date
- Status
Come on Tony, get a grip.
Seanm
pfm Member
I think he’s just coming out for corruption in general, as long as it’s levelled against the left.
doctorf
left footed right winger
I should post on this thread more often.
It’s like shots in.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
What are “shots in”?
Tony L
Administrator
I feel it is a fair question that should be asked of every Tory voter. They have taken the country to where it is right now and I’m curious if they have any remorse after seeing Johnson’s endless lying, cheating, theft of £bns, 250 MPs trying to rewrite parliamentary law to protect an obviously corrupt colleague, turning the Royal Navy on fleeing refugees etc etc etc. The list is endless.
We are where we are. Those of us who knew exactly what Johnson was and just how infatuated he was with Trump, Bannon etc have every right to question those who enabled this corruption and political extremism.
We are where we are. Those of us who knew exactly what Johnson was and just how infatuated he was with Trump, Bannon etc have every right to question those who enabled this corruption and political extremism.
doctorf
left footed right winger
I’m sure you will remember my early comments re Brexit and Johnson. It was always going to end in tears.
doctorf
left footed right winger
Did you never play shots in in the playground?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
No, I was too busy playing kiss chase.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
These tories aint my tories?
Enfield boy
pfm Member
I think it means he generally only supports it covertly.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
What are the values one holds most dear if one is a Tory?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I do wonder how many people would still be Tories if they understood that the 'household budget' model of economics is a con?
Post 200 upthread speaks volumes, to me, and I know we've also had some very interesting conversations recently about MMT and Keynsianism that broadly expose the monetarist myth for the con that it is. My feeling is that most people who believe the country is only safe in Tory hands do so because of that 'balancing the books' myth, and if you can actually peel them away from that idea, the other core values of the Tory party aren't ones many people would die in a ditch to defend. The whole 'small state' thing is about the cost of the state, not about personal freedom, and once people get that, then having a small state is no longer the thing that matters above all else. If you believe most people are basically fair and decent, given a chance, you might then hope they'll be more receptive to 'socialist' notions of community, and caring for the less fortunate/weaker member of society.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes, agree 100%.
I think the big appeal of Monetarist Toryism is it’s appeal to individualism, a sense of pride in self, and we all need a bit of self esteem to get on at anything in this world.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
It's always felt to me that the appeal was a simple 'stands ter reason' logic, not so much an appeal to self-esteem. I think people can and do get much more sense of self-worth from making a contribution, whether that's a job well done or volunteering in the community. Individualism takes us away from the community, and it is the approval of the community which creates that sense of worth.
Tony L
Administrator
I suspect you are right, but as an individualist in most respects I view it as an entirely false narrative. I’ve always believed both Tory and Labour absolutely hate small business and innovation. The former exist as asset-strippers for an elite oligarchy, the latter for a 20th century vision of lumpen proletariat and organised mass labour. Neither want anything whatsoever to do with the small business owner/entrepreneur/creative (I guess ‘petite bourgeoisie’ in Marxist terminology).
Basic logic dictates none of us want to live in a shithole. We all need functioning state infrastructure and need to fund it. Looking at more rational mechanisms to do so shouldn’t require forcing anyone into either toxic political camp.
Enfield boy
pfm Member
I think far fewer would vote Tory if they understood that the UK had greater control of it's borders before we left the EU and that tories have little or no intention of stopping a regular supply of cheap labour at least until they can manage all but their own (family/friends) into the gig economy.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
You ol’ leftie you…
laughingboy
pfm Member
Quite. I'm not an economist, but I'm not alone in thinking that, enabled by the invention of the IS-LM model by John Hicks in 1937, 'Keynesianism' was put in shackles by people like Paul Samuelson (the so-called 'neo-classical synthesis'). This was what Joan Robinson, a colleague of Keynes, called 'bastard Keynesianism' - a kind of illegitimate child of Keynesianism.
Towards the end of the last century 'bastard Keynesianism' became the 'mainstream - the economics of neo-liberalism. This makes it sound like a battle of ideas was won; so it's instructive to realise that Hicks, whose IS-LM model enabled 'bastard Keynesianism', later dismissed the model as a 'classroom gadget'. Here's a fascinating blog by Swedish economist, Lars P Syll that touches on Hicks' own doubts about the usefulness of IS-LM. Even within the broad tradition of Keynesianism, everything is contested. For example, whether all or just some of the 'New Keynesians' are neoliberal is an open debate: on the one hand, here's Syll quoting Irish economist Philip Pilkington alleging that Krugman is a 'bastard Keynesian', and on the other, here's Adam Tooze saying that Krugman became progressively less neoliberal after the 1990s, as evidenced by his 2012 book 'End This Depression Now'.
All of which is to say that anyone seeking progressive politics/economics should choose where to direct their fire. Minor quibbles with each other's economics are nothing compared to the real battle against fiscal conservatism as represented by the 'neo-classical synthesis' and 'monetarism'. For example it is hard to disagree that, even if - like me - you have misgivings about aspects of MMT, Japan's recent history shows that MMT is broadly correct (see here and here).
The central point is this: MMT - along with other Keynesian traditions - argues that the 'neo-classical synthesis' is preventing the full utilisation of our resources: 'anything we can actually do, we can afford' as Keynes put it. And if progressives can't find common cause on this, I can't see how we can respond adequately to the climate emergency.
The fact that Rachel Reeves recognises this with her £28bn pa climate investment pledge is immediately undermined by the fact that the rest of what she is saying is the same old household economics - reduce debt, restrain fiscal policy - that has delivered 40 years of increasing financialisation and rentierism.
Cav
pfm Member
My experience of the ordinary Tory voter comes from frequent visits to my Local whose clientele is about 95% Tory, Brexit supporters.
They think Boris has done a great job on Covid and Brexit; they are not bothered about Downing Street parties or sleaze and most would not know, or give a damn about, any nuance of economic theory.
They are not amenable to argument, reason, logic, evidence or facts (I do try from time to time) because they absolutely would not vote for the communist Labour or "that other little" Party.
They think Boris has done a great job on Covid and Brexit; they are not bothered about Downing Street parties or sleaze and most would not know, or give a damn about, any nuance of economic theory.
They are not amenable to argument, reason, logic, evidence or facts (I do try from time to time) because they absolutely would not vote for the communist Labour or "that other little" Party.
kensalriser
pfm Member
- Status