The French elections just happened and the far left scored an absolute landslide
YES! Let's hope similar results happen in America next.
36-40, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@kittee Greens are socialists - the left is actually pretty impossible to beat on all issues, if you side with the majority. Greens are leftists.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Crazywaterspring That doesn't sound like "socialism". More like rampant capitalism!
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@kittee I'm a British socialist. If you knew how far wide of the mark that statement was you would never have said it.
The people who see Starmer as centre left are also VERY optimistic, to put it politely. Sure, it's framed as that but he's to the right of Joe Biden, at least within the context of British politics. Labour has accepted Conservative tax, spending and borrowing plans. They've also spent the last five years purging the left of their own party.
The people who see Starmer as centre left are also VERY optimistic, to put it politely. Sure, it's framed as that but he's to the right of Joe Biden, at least within the context of British politics. Labour has accepted Conservative tax, spending and borrowing plans. They've also spent the last five years purging the left of their own party.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 I was a low-level, industrial-grade, civil-servant - so hardly on stratospheric pay and "gold-plated pension" (whatever one of those is) - until sold off.
By whom? Margaret Thatcher or John Major? No: Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown! They were even more enthusiastic about destroying the country's public services, or flogging them off cheaply to the spivs in Wall Street, than the Conservatives had been.
A far cry I think, from the post-WW2 Labour government I would not have known personally, but which created the NHS and kept Britain's main industries and utilities in British ownership and control.
By whom? Margaret Thatcher or John Major? No: Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown! They were even more enthusiastic about destroying the country's public services, or flogging them off cheaply to the spivs in Wall Street, than the Conservatives had been.
A far cry I think, from the post-WW2 Labour government I would not have known personally, but which created the NHS and kept Britain's main industries and utilities in British ownership and control.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@Burnley123 Sadly being a leftist in mainstream British politics seems to be a difference of "well at least we didn't deport people to Rwanda."
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@ArishMell I don't see where you would think I disagree with that. I'm old enough to have lived through the Blair years.
It's interesting that you are such a committed centrist, yet criticise the Blair government from the left: and I agree with your analysis
The only labour leader in modern history who had any serious intention of doing what Attlee did or reversing neoliberalism was called Jeremy Corbyn. I don't understand how people can support Attlee but see Corbyn as far left
It's interesting that you are such a committed centrist, yet criticise the Blair government from the left: and I agree with your analysis
The only labour leader in modern history who had any serious intention of doing what Attlee did or reversing neoliberalism was called Jeremy Corbyn. I don't understand how people can support Attlee but see Corbyn as far left
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 Essentially I look for good and bad in both sides of the argument. I don't know what Attlee would have wanted but Corbyn seemed to want to go a lot further Left than even many committed Labour members thought wise or right.
My own views have developed over the years.
For example, at one time I would have supported privatising the railways, Post Office (which covered the telephone services as well as mail), utilities etc. I do not do so now, because I think this has proven a huge mistake whose main effect is sending the country's money irretrievably abroad under the "inward investment" myth; and undermining our own industries. Yet I believe that irrespective of which Party is in government: the Conservatives started it, Labour has followed the same policies - I do not know the Liberal-Democrats' stand on the matter.
Sorry - I don't know what is "neoliberalism"! It looks like one of those handy tags invented without real meaning or purpose. "Neo" means "new" but I am not sure if there have been any "new" ideas in politics for a very long time; and human nature has never changed.
My own views have developed over the years.
For example, at one time I would have supported privatising the railways, Post Office (which covered the telephone services as well as mail), utilities etc. I do not do so now, because I think this has proven a huge mistake whose main effect is sending the country's money irretrievably abroad under the "inward investment" myth; and undermining our own industries. Yet I believe that irrespective of which Party is in government: the Conservatives started it, Labour has followed the same policies - I do not know the Liberal-Democrats' stand on the matter.
Sorry - I don't know what is "neoliberalism"! It looks like one of those handy tags invented without real meaning or purpose. "Neo" means "new" but I am not sure if there have been any "new" ideas in politics for a very long time; and human nature has never changed.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@ArishMell I don't use terms without knowledge. Neoliberalism is the dominant ideology of our time: based on deregulation, privatisation and individualism. It's essentially what you said the Conservatives started and Blair continued. It has is origins in Hagel and Friedman originally.
Corbyn wasn't to the left of most labour members. The 2019 manifesto was a strategic miss-step.
There is a long lineage of people agreeing with leftwing policies but seeing leftwing politicians as too extreme.
Corbyn wasn't to the left of most labour members. The 2019 manifesto was a strategic miss-step.
There is a long lineage of people agreeing with leftwing policies but seeing leftwing politicians as too extreme.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 I have to say yours is the first time I have seen anyone define "neoliberalsim".
Such words are so often bandied about so loosely that determining what they mean - or more accurately what the users mean - is never easy.
The problem with your last paragraph there is that it is self-contradictory and does not allow for a wide spread of ideology. I would define as "extreme", one that allows only its own dogma.
When administering a modern, democratic society the original ideas of doing so merely by Right or Left dogma are increasingly untenable, because such rigidity excludes consensus and choosing the better ideas from each.
This erosion of definite L-R dogma at least in UK politics may be why it is often hard to differentiate between Labour and Conservative now. Also perhaps why many (not all) voters are more likely to pick the party they think will prove the best / least-worst of the bunch, instead of blind loyalty and weak " my ancestors always voted that way" excuses.
In other countries the respective dogma seems developing in both L and R ways, towards more hard-line interpretations. The rise of one probably encourages a corresponding rise in the other; but it is very uneven and will be specific to country.
At least we can be grateful we live in a country that allows such a wide difference of interpretation of ideologies, including agreeing with some aspects of both (all?) "sides" rather than just accepting one and rejecting the other by blind label. In a fairly civilised way, too.
(I don't know how my parents and grand-parents voted. In old-fashioned terms we were a mix of what some might call "middle-class and "working-class" backgrounds, showing the fallibility of such ideas. I regard any "working-class employee" is that by being employed irrespective of work, rank and pay; and campaign slogans like "hard-working families" therefore largely meaningless.)
Such words are so often bandied about so loosely that determining what they mean - or more accurately what the users mean - is never easy.
The problem with your last paragraph there is that it is self-contradictory and does not allow for a wide spread of ideology. I would define as "extreme", one that allows only its own dogma.
When administering a modern, democratic society the original ideas of doing so merely by Right or Left dogma are increasingly untenable, because such rigidity excludes consensus and choosing the better ideas from each.
This erosion of definite L-R dogma at least in UK politics may be why it is often hard to differentiate between Labour and Conservative now. Also perhaps why many (not all) voters are more likely to pick the party they think will prove the best / least-worst of the bunch, instead of blind loyalty and weak " my ancestors always voted that way" excuses.
In other countries the respective dogma seems developing in both L and R ways, towards more hard-line interpretations. The rise of one probably encourages a corresponding rise in the other; but it is very uneven and will be specific to country.
At least we can be grateful we live in a country that allows such a wide difference of interpretation of ideologies, including agreeing with some aspects of both (all?) "sides" rather than just accepting one and rejecting the other by blind label. In a fairly civilised way, too.
(I don't know how my parents and grand-parents voted. In old-fashioned terms we were a mix of what some might call "middle-class and "working-class" backgrounds, showing the fallibility of such ideas. I regard any "working-class employee" is that by being employed irrespective of work, rank and pay; and campaign slogans like "hard-working families" therefore largely meaningless.)
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@ArishMell I gave you the simple definition of neoliberalism. I can give a detailed one but it would take time. It's not a catch all term for things I don't like but something with specific meaning.
I'm not interested in dogma and I think it's quite right to question people (as you have with me) to see if they can justify opinions with facts and reasoning. I certainly don't hold the views I do out of fashion but because it's logically consistent with the values I have.
I would say that centrism can have its own dogma: The belief that the truth must always lay in the middle of two equal opposites. The overton window changes and is different in different countries. Also, things such as media bias tilt the scales a certain way. It's possible that those in the middle of a given debate might have the right answers but it's certainly not inevitable
I'm not interested in dogma and I think it's quite right to question people (as you have with me) to see if they can justify opinions with facts and reasoning. I certainly don't hold the views I do out of fashion but because it's logically consistent with the values I have.
I would say that centrism can have its own dogma: The belief that the truth must always lay in the middle of two equal opposites. The overton window changes and is different in different countries. Also, things such as media bias tilt the scales a certain way. It's possible that those in the middle of a given debate might have the right answers but it's certainly not inevitable
MartinII · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 There are lots of explanations for that, but here are three. First, there was a general enthusiasm for radical change, after the war and what had gone before, which has never been repeated. Second, Attlee managed to distance himself personally from the most radical actions of his government. Third, and I think most important, Attlee was universally accepted as a patriot, having played a distinguished role in the war cabinet and having an outstanding and patriotic Foreign Secretary in Bevin. Corbyn, by contrast, was regarded by many as a traitor.