advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Tend to agree with this bit:
sideshowbob said:
but people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical ones, and elect vile Tory governments instead.
Click to expand...

In fact this was a much more common argument against Blairism on the left than the orthodox one you mention, and I’d say it’s been vindicated by events wouldn’t you. What I don’t really understand is why *this* time a disappointing Labour government will result in the Tories being out of office for decades.

Unless you’re suggesting that this “centrist coalition” will make it literally impossible to vote against the Tories without voting for Labour? I can see some problems with that.
 
sideshowbob said:
The problem with the idea that people need to experience the Labour Party failing in government in order to draw appropriate radical conclusions is that it's the line that Marxists of many hues have been promulgating since the Labour Party's formation, and it's consistently proved to be completely wrong in practice. I have no doubt that a Labour government will be hugely disappointing to anyone who expects radical change from any parliamentary outfit, whether it's run by Corbynites or Starmerites, but people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical ones, and elect vile Tory governments instead. Disappointment has nowhere in history been a radicalising energy, I suspect.

At this precise historical juncture, the idea that anybody will win an election in England offering a radical manifesto seems like head in the clouds stuff to me. In 2019 the electorate had a choice between a vaguely radical sounding social democracy and a full on English nationalist authoritarian populism, and it chose the latter, not primarily because the latter was hugely popular outside a minority of bigots and halfwits, but because large swathes of formerly Labour voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for the former, and decided to vote for the party promising to end years of Brexit dither.

I am quite sure there is now an electoral majority for a centrist coalition between Labour and the LDs and SNP that could keep the Tories out of power for decades. I'll take that, as I want a government that's not actively treating people like something unpleasant stuck on the sole of their shoe, and that isn't trying to destroy what little is left of the social safety net. But I left behind the fantasy that electoralism is a road to fundamental social change about 40 years ago, and I saw nothing in Bennism, or Footism, or Corbynism, to change my mind about that.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a big dollop of that in left-wing circles today though the narrative has been updated from Marxism to radical change, activism and content from Twitter. It also coincidentally underpins MMT which is clearly more of an ideology/political movement than an economic cure-all that the macroeconomic shock jocks claim. It's actually slightly disturbing to see the left worshiping at the alter of economics/money. This has long been the preserve of the right. They too have a utopian vision - supply side economics. Anyway, radical change will always be akin to pushing water up a hill in this country. Can't say that it won't ever happen or that we might not witness a one-off but ultimately most voters rather reform than refound. In terms of centrism, hopefully the next GE will produce a version of the German traffic light coalition so the Greens can get more of a say in government. It's concerning that last night's 'debate' focussed on earrings and suits rather than the country's flora and fauna.
 
I think you'll find that Attlee was nowhere near radical enough for some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee#Workers'_rights

'Attlee's record for settling internal differences in the Labour Party fell in April 1951, when there was a damaging split over an austerity Budget brought in by the Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, to pay for the cost of Britain's participation in the Korean War. Aneurin Bevan resigned to protest against the new charges for "teeth and spectacles" in the National Health Service introduced by that Budget, and was joined in this action by several senior ministers, including the future Prime Minister Harold Wilson, then the President of the Board of Trade. Thus escalated a battle between the left and right wings of the Party that continues today.[206]'
 
ks.234 said:
Which Labour governments have been radical?
Click to expand...

Don't misquote me and then expect me to defend a position that isn't mine.

"people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical ones" means "people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical conclusions". It's not a claim about the radicalism of any Labour government, it's a historical proposition that the failure of Labour has never led to mass radicalisation of the populace, in fact, quite the opposite.

As you were, back on ignore. I just wanted to see why Atlee had cropped up.
 
Kirk said:
Yes, there is a big dollop of that in left-wing circles today though the narrative has been updated from Marxism to radical change, activism and content from Twitter. It also coincidentally underpins MMT which is clearly more of an ideology/political movement than an economic cure-all that the macroeconomic shock jocks claim. It's actually slightly disturbing to see the left worshiping at the alter of economics/money. This has long been the preserve of the right. They too have a utopian vision - supply side economics. Anyway, radical change will always be akin to pushing water up a hill in this country. Can't say that it won't ever happen or that we might not witness a one-off but ultimately most voters rather reform than refound. In terms of centrism, hopefully the next GE will produce a version of the German traffic light coalition so the Greens can get more of a say in government. It's concerning that last night's 'debate' focussed on earrings and suits rather than the country's flora and fauna.
Click to expand...
None of that is true. Worse, it shows a perverse kind of ignorance. To give just one example, the supply side economics you dismiss as 'utopian' are precisely the economic model adopted by the Labour Party and centrist governments in Germany and elsewhere. Supply side economics is monetarism. MMT is the only school that actually challenges your utopian ideology. MMT is not itself an ideology because it only says one thing, and that is a description of how money is created in the here and now.

What MMT says is that tax does not fund public spending. What is it you find so difficult about that concept?

If you have any genuine thought about challenging utopian ideology and supply side economics, then the simple premise that tax does not fund our government spending will help you challenge it.
 
sideshowbob said:
Don't misquote me and then expect me to defend a position that isn't mine.

"people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical ones" means "people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical conclusions". It's not a claim about the radicalism of any Labour government, it's a historical proposition that the failure of Labour has never led to mass radicalisation of the populace, in fact, quite the opposite.

As you were, back on ignore. I just wanted to see why Atlee had cropped up.
Click to expand...

that you edited your post to add in the word 'conclusions' after the event and then claim you have been misquoted points to a certain lack of integrity.
 
sideshowbob said:
The problem with the idea that people need to experience the Labour Party failing in government in order to draw appropriate radical conclusions is that it's the line that Marxists of many hues have been promulgating since the Labour Party's formation, and it's consistently proved to be completely wrong in practice. I have no doubt that a Labour government will be hugely disappointing to anyone who expects radical change from any parliamentary outfit, whether it's run by Corbynites or Starmerites, but people tend to draw reactionary conclusions from the experience of failed Labour governments, not radical ones, and elect vile Tory governments instead. Disappointment has nowhere in history been a radicalising energy, I suspect.
Click to expand...
truth
 
ks.234 said:
that you edited your post to add in the word 'conclusions' after the event and then claim you have been misquoted points to a certain lack of integrity.
Click to expand...

No, my original post is exactly as it was, I did not add the word "conclusions" to it. I added the word "conclusions" to my clarification in a follow up post, not the original post, because you are clearly a bit slow to understand the meaning of my original words, despite those words being all about how Labour has never been radical. This is the last time I will ever reply to you, you're trolling and it's obvious. Have a nice life in whatever weird Marx resurrection LARP sect you're a member of.
 
sideshowbob said:
No, my original post is exactly as it was, I did not add the word "conclusions" to it. I added the word "conclusions" to my clarification in a follow up post, not the original post, because you are clearly a bit slow to understand the meaning of my original words, despite those words being all about how Labour has never been radical. This is the last time I will ever reply to you, you're trolling and it's obvious. Have a nice life in whatever weird Marx resurrection LARP sect you're a member of.
Click to expand...
I was responding to the original. You have just confirmed that you added words later. As has been demonstrated many times, sometimes a year or so after the event, I do understand words. Unfortunately, your confusion about what MMT, and now what Marxism actually means points not only to your own problem with understanding words, but that you feel the need to cover up your ignorance with ad hom and clear breeches of the AUP.

PS. I'd have thought that the Labour Government that gave us the NHS was pretty 'radical'
 
laughingboy said:
I think she is talking about so-called BEPS 2.0 (Wikipedia), which looks like coming into force in two stages in Jan 2023 and Jan 2024. Headline version: 15% minimum tax rate for big multinationals.
Click to expand...
I saw that, but her problem is she thinks or 'says' the U.S. is constrained fiscally. Money cancellation achieved by managing to close tax loopholes or manage it better is very handy for fiscal space, but her framing of this as needing 'revenue' before anything can happen is just factually wrong.

I know the devil is in the details, but I'm starting with macroeconomic principles rather than policy detail and what she says as a base principle is untrue. It is in fact ideological. It's always difficult to know whether it is being unaware (maybe), framing to protect the details of government fiscal power from becoming public knowledge (a real fear for them) or just ideological dishonesty.
 
Brian said:
Obvs, a term of Labour govt will need people to vote for Labour, however,

’I think we need a term of Labour Government failure’

...means hoping for Labour to fail in government. It means wishing for the country to fail, for another 5 years going backward and more years of struggle for many.

Interesting you support such a thing.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean that. It means watching them fail with no glee at all, because what they propose can't do other than fail due to a fundamentally flawed approach. If I see a man climbing down a ladder and one of the rungs is broken, I'm not hoping for him to fall, I'm watching in dismay as circumstances dictate the course. I can even cry out to warn him, but if he refuses the warning, I can only watch.
 
https://twitter.com/KateOsamor/status/1551881553399136256
As a Black Labour MP, the response from this Party's Leadership to the Forde report feels like a kick in the teeth. The report concluded that the Party has failed to tackle anti-Black racism and Islamophobia. The leadership of this party needs to respond to that now.
Click to expand...
Good to see one MP demanding answers from Starmer and his team.

She won't get them because the Labour Party is a fundamentally racist organisation.
 
Le Baron said:
It's always difficult to know whether it is being unaware (maybe), framing to protect the details of government fiscal power from becoming public knowledge (a real fear for them) or just ideological dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Well, we know that a) Yellen is 'not a fan' of MMT, and b) is worried that, in the extreme, it might lead to hyperinflation. I don't think it's dishonesty.
Bloomberg said:
Yellen took issue with those promoting MMT who suggest “you don’t have to worry about interest-rate payments because the central bank can buy the debt,” she said at an Asian investors’ conference hosted by Credit Suisse in Hong Kong. “That’s a very wrong-minded theory because that’s how you get hyper-inflation.”
Click to expand...
 
droodzilla said:
https://twitter.com/KateOsamor/status/1551881553399136256

Good to see one MP demanding answers from Starmer and his team.

She won't get them because the Labour Party is a fundamentally racist organisation.
Click to expand...
Just like it is/was a fundamentally anti-semitic organisation. Best get on with changing the leader, then it can all go away virtually overnight.

Not sure why you’re bothered anymore, drood, given you’ve said you don’t support Labour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top