vince rocker
pfm Member
She doesn't wear an expensive watch, she wears bangles.Susanna Hoffs?!
Weird festival though, some OK bands but the speakers?
She doesn't wear an expensive watch, she wears bangles.Susanna Hoffs?!
I don't think he wears one.
PS The ideal would be Labour losing Islington to the Greens or LDs.
You don't think Corbyn might win? This about forcing Corbyn and his long time friends to resign from the Party so that he could stand as an independent.
I’ve no idea of Corbyn’s seat demographics or figures. It could be interesting.
"Starmer’s detractors on the left see this as betrayal and a compromise with neoliberalism – the longstanding trope that Tawney described as “the infantile disease of left-wingism” back in the 1930s, “absurd exhibitions of self-righteous sectarianism”. His critics argue that, for all his success in offering reassurance, he lacks a big idea or an overriding intellectual framework. But the big idea is right in front of them. It is to launch a progressive revolution and recast Britain – something that Tony Blair talked about but from whose implications he ultimately shrank."
An interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...actors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country
neoliberalism wasn’t a thing in the 30’s"Starmer’s detractors on the left see this as betrayal and a compromise with neoliberalism – the longstanding trope that Tawney described as “the infantile disease of left-wingism” back in the 1930s
Tawney was denigrating 'seize control of the means of production'-type dogmatic socialism. But at the same time he was arguing for a less binary redistribution of ownership and accountability, based on the moral value of 'service':neoliberalism wasn’t a thing in the 30’s
RH Tawney said:So the organisation of society on the basis of functions, instead of on the basis of rights, implies three things. It means, first, that proprietary rights shall be maintained when they are accompanied by the performance of service and abolished when they are not. It means, second, that the producers shall stand in a direct relation to the community for whom production is carried on, so that their responsibility to it may be obvious and unmistakable, not lost, as at present, through their immediate subordination to shareholders whose interest is not service but gain. It means, in the third place, that the obligation for the maintenance of the service shall rest upon the professional organisations of those who perform it, and that, subject to the supervision and criticism of the consumer, those organisations shall exercise so much voice in the government of industry as may be needed to secure that the obligation is discharged.
This is the crucial point.I thought he had already at least implied he wouldn’t stand. To be honest he’d be daft not too, IIRC there is a £12-14k cash payout for contesting a seat previously held. I’m sure that is why a sex-pest expenses-fiddling Labour MP stood as an independent after deselection a couple of elections ago.
I’ve no idea of Corbyn’s seat demographics or figures. It could be interesting.
PS I’m obviously no Corbyn fan, but I think Starmer is 100% wrong here. This was a ridiculously pointless hill to fight and I hope it loses Labour a vast number of votes right across the country, not only in Islington. This is pure arrogance and authoritarianism to my eyes.
neoliberalism wasn’t a thing in the 30’s
Yes, but not sure that described opposition to neoliberism as “the infantile disease”. Wasn’t that Lenin talking about opposition to Bolshevism?Tawney was denigrating 'seize control of the means of production'-type dogmatic socialism. But at the same time he was arguing for a less binary redistribution of ownership and accountability, based on the moral value of 'service':
Tawney provided the Atlee government with the intellectual ammunition to support nationalisation of natural monopolies. Radical, and a million miles away from what Hutton is arguing, which is 'leave the private sector alone' or nurture it, in almost all circumstances.
While I agree with Hutton that there are things to be welcomed in Starmer's programme - an elected House of Lords (maybe), removal of charitable status for private schools, removal of non-dom status - Hutton is making an argument based on not very much evidence, and it shows. Starmer's policy platform is simply too under-developed to suggest that Starmer will 'transform the country' or 'recast Britain', and it's kind of silly at this point to claim that he will.
Liking a post by Graham Linehan is bad enough.In other news: here’s Labour MP Rosie Duffield in effect liking a Holocaust denial post on Twitter.
Interesting except Tawney didn’t describe compromise with neoliberalism as the “infantile disease….”"Starmer’s detractors on the left see this as betrayal and a compromise with neoliberalism – the longstanding trope that Tawney described as “the infantile disease of left-wingism” back in the 1930s, “absurd exhibitions of self-righteous sectarianism”. His critics argue that, for all his success in offering reassurance, he lacks a big idea or an overriding intellectual framework. But the big idea is right in front of them. It is to launch a progressive revolution and recast Britain – something that Tony Blair talked about but from whose implications he ultimately shrank."
An interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...actors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country
Hutton seems see compromise with neoliberalism in positive terms, whereas in truth Neoliberalism undermines critical Labour social values like fairness, equality of opportunity and public services