Author Topic: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic  (Read 24774 times)

Offline Sangria

  • In trying to be right ends up wrong without fail
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,075
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #640 on: March 20, 2017, 01:03:04 pm »
Cool - thanks everybody.

So, Labour need a competent leader who will continue with broadly the same policies as Corbyn. That seems fair.

Next question - if Corbyn is from the hard-left of the party and most of the MP's are from the right of the party, then surely they disagree with his policies? This is what I don't understand. Corbyn has said that he is anti-austerity but before he was leader, the party was pro-austerity. Have all of those MP's who wanted more austerity at the last election all gone now?

Corbyn hasn't produced any credible policymaking. See the stories of shadow cabinet ministers who've resigned because they've been undermined by the leadership despite having previously agreed positions which said leadership subsequently unilaterally gone back on. See the stories of the much vaunted economic advisers who were brought in to provide fiscal credibility, who later resigned because the leadership showed no interest in economic affairs (no meetings or discussions in 6 months, during which numerous uncosted policies had come out of Corbyn's mouth).
"i just dont think (Lucas is) that type of player that Kenny wants"
Vidocq, 20 January 2011

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=267148.msg8032258#msg8032258

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #641 on: March 20, 2017, 01:12:07 pm »
The last manifesto said cuts to public services and cuts to benefits, maybe that is the way to go again? There seemed to be no problem with affording things then.

I don't recall reading that pledge. I enclose a link to the guardian summary of the last manifesto, which contains a pdf link to the full thing. Would you care to back up you claim of further cuts?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-election-manifesto-key-points

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #642 on: March 20, 2017, 01:12:37 pm »

Austerity in UK politics is a catchall term without any precise meaning. Labour Austerity would be a very different beast to Tory Austerity. To use a crass household analogy, tightening your belts when your household receives an economic shock is prudent.

Is this the economic shock from 2007? That seems a long time ago now. It was ok because Labour admitted it was all their fault anyway.

Labour's cuts to public services would be better than the Tories cuts to public services? And Labour promised to be even tougher than the Tories when it came to benefits too. I think those who suffered under these plans would be glad that it wasn't even worse under the Tories.
More soul than a sock with a hole

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #643 on: March 20, 2017, 01:16:26 pm »
I don't recall reading that pledge. I enclose a link to the guardian summary of the last manifesto, which contains a pdf link to the full thing. Would you care to back up you claim of further cuts?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/13/labour-election-manifesto-key-points

"The first budget will promise to “cut the deficit every year” and this will be verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility."

This was so important that they put it on Page 1! Cut the deficit means further austerity. No? - that's what the Tories kept saying 'we have to have more austerity so that we can cut the deficit!!'

Nobody talks about the deficit anymore, it's sad.
More soul than a sock with a hole

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #644 on: March 20, 2017, 01:24:25 pm »
Is this the economic shock from 2007? That seems a long time ago now. It was ok because Labour admitted it was all their fault anyway.

Labour's cuts to public services would be better than the Tories cuts to public services? And Labour promised to be even tougher than the Tories when it came to benefits too. I think those who suffered under these plans would be glad that it wasn't even worse under the Tories.

Can you point out where these benefit cuts are in the manifesto? There is a pledge to limit migrants ability to claim benefits for two years, but little else that I can see.

Labour would not have made the cuts that this Tory Government has, councils would not be grossly underfunded, and much of the acute crisis now happening would never have occurred.

The lack of a defence of the Blair legacy is something that started under Miliband, but has ratcheted up under Corbyn, who cannot even mention Blair's name without a war criminal epithet. Labour need to present themselves as a credible party of government, but the Corbyn wing of the party present Blair as a red Tory and denigrate the achievements of his administration. Failing to build on the last Labour government is the equivalent of tying one hand behind your back. The crash was not Gordon Brown's fault, but Labour still have not made that case convincingly. To too many the factional fighting is more important than actually governing. 



Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,356
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #645 on: March 20, 2017, 01:26:02 pm »
Is this the economic shock from 2007? That seems a long time ago now. It was ok because Labour admitted it was all their fault anyway.

Labour's cuts to public services would be better than the Tories cuts to public services? And Labour promised to be even tougher than the Tories when it came to benefits too. I think those who suffered under these plans would be glad that it wasn't even worse under the Tories.
Labour had problems from around 2002-2007,running a deficit is the norm not the exception and the Torys have run bigger deficits than Labour for decades.
Labour had plans to correct the economy then along came the crash in 2008, this was not Labours fault.many people seemed to think it was,they are wrong, the crash started in the USA and devastated  economy's around the world.
Everyone has their own opinion on Austerity. I dont think any Labour MPs want cuts but some believed the public wanted a responsible government to make these cuts, the argument against this was no cuts when theres a alternative. you cant oppose cuts just because you dont want them you have to prove theres a alternative.
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline SP

  • Thor ain't got shit on this dude! Alpheus. SPoogle. The Equusfluminis Of RAWK. Straight in at the deep end with a tube of Vagisil. Needs to get a half-life. Needs a damned good de-frag.
  • RAWK Staff.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,042
  • .
  • Super Title: Southern Pansy
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #646 on: March 20, 2017, 01:28:51 pm »
"The first budget will promise to “cut the deficit every year” and this will be verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility."

This was so important that they put it on Page 1! Cut the deficit means further austerity. No? - that's what the Tories kept saying 'we have to have more austerity so that we can cut the deficit!!'

Nobody talks about the deficit anymore, it's sad.

Cutting the deficit does not have to mean cuts in services. The pledge was made that any additional spending would be funded by revenue raised by other measures. As an example they promised a mansion tax on properties worth over £2m and a levy on tobacco firms to help fund the NHS; and funding 25 hours of childcare for working parents of children aged three and four by increasing the banking levy by £800m.

That was a political decision to counter the appearance of profligacy. Not a pledge to slash services.

Try again.

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic
« Reply #647 on: March 20, 2017, 06:10:00 pm »
Cheers - the point here though, and both SP and Oldfordie have touched upon it, is that the Brown government was blamed for the crash of 2007. They were blamed by the Tories and were also blamed by the right wing press. But why didn't Labour make a convincing case for not causing the crash? Well, I think that, whilst the crash did start in the US, it was inherent and fundamental flaws in the neoliberal system that caused the crash. And Labour did not even begin to make this case at all. Why did they give up so easily? To compound this, they appeared to go along with this austerity nonsense and no case was made against austerity (which, as we all know, has devastated many peoples lives) at the 2015 GE. And this is one of the main reasons why the Labour Party are simply not trusted by the electorate on the economy.

A month before the GE, Rachel Reeves said that Labour did not want to represent those who were out of work and that they were going to be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits. Two years on, Labour still can't figure out why many in the Labour 'heartlands' are now potentially looking elsewhere. When you are backing further cuts solely because you believe that this is what people want, I think it is fair to say that you have lost direction. 'Cutting the deficit every year' is an absolute nonsense and it was on Page 1

The Labour Party is a mess, the Left is a mess, the centre ground has been rejected and is no longer a suitable response to the lurch to the right that we are witnessing. My fear is that Labour would have gone further to the right after the last GE if somebody more 'moderate' had been elected. I'm not a huge fan of Corbyn and if there was somebody else to take over and continue the direction that he is going in (anti-austerity, anti-neoliberal, support for public services, increased nationalisation) then I would be happy to see that person step in. But the direction is the correct direction in my opinion. We've had almost 40 years of destructive and unchallenged neoliberal policy and it is not going to be turned around over night.

The centre ground is over and was as good as over in 2007 with the crash and there will be no return to it in the near future. Labour's vote has fallen steadily since 97 until it was finally decimated in 2015. That was as good as rejection of the centre as you can hope for. Labour then had a choice, more left, more right or more of the same. The membership chose more left and the PLP appeared to choose more of the same. And here we are now.

The reason I ask about the crash of 2007 and Labour not being able to make a case about being blamed for it by the press is that there are clear similarities here now to the current Labour Party. Labour were the standing government then with a full decade of government behind them, with friends in high places, yet the press ensured that they were slaughtered for the crash even though we all know that the crash was caused by much bigger forces. Labour were unable to make this case in 2008 onwards because they knew that they would not win the argument. What has changed since then?

And I agree, Labour are clearly not the Tories and those hit hardest by the cuts would simply not be hit as hard no matter what strain of Labour government was in charge. But Labour weren't clear enough about this and deliberately muddied the waters when it came to some of the most needy in our society. That can never be allowed to happen again. There are huge issues to face up to from the rise of the right, to automation and joblessness, the ever increasing amount of tax evasion and, the biggest of them all, climate change. And for this reason, we cannot continue sleepwalking towards a neoliberal led catastrophe - Labour has to be clear and confident about what it does and offer a real alternative.

And I didn't mention Iraq once ;)
More soul than a sock with a hole

Offline zero zero

  • Karma's a bitch. Innit.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,475
Re: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic
« Reply #648 on: March 20, 2017, 06:42:46 pm »
The centre ground is over and was as good as over in 2007 with the crash and there will be no return to it in the near future. Labour's vote has fallen steadily since 97 until it was finally decimated in 2015.
A couple of points: Your obituary for the centre ground is a tad premature. That's where the majority of voters reside and why at one election they'll vote Labour and Tory the next. Secondly, 2015 did not constitute "decimation", Labour still gained 30.4% of the vote. Wait for the next election to re-calibrate your definition.

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,356
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic
« Reply #649 on: March 20, 2017, 10:16:15 pm »
Cheers - the point here though, and both SP and Oldfordie have touched upon it, is that the Brown government was blamed for the crash of 2007. They were blamed by the Tories and were also blamed by the right wing press. But why didn't Labour make a convincing case for not causing the crash? Well, I think that, whilst the crash did start in the US, it was inherent and fundamental flaws in the neoliberal system that caused the crash. And Labour did not even begin to make this case at all. Why did they give up so easily? To compound this, they appeared to go along with this austerity nonsense and no case was made against austerity (which, as we all know, has devastated many peoples lives) at the 2015 GE. And this is one of the main reasons why the Labour Party are simply not trusted by the electorate on the economy.

A month before the GE, Rachel Reeves said that Labour did not want to represent those who were out of work and that they were going to be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits. Two years on, Labour still can't figure out why many in the Labour 'heartlands' are now potentially looking elsewhere. When you are backing further cuts solely because you believe that this is what people want, I think it is fair to say that you have lost direction. 'Cutting the deficit every year' is an absolute nonsense and it was on Page 1

The Labour Party is a mess, the Left is a mess, the centre ground has been rejected and is no longer a suitable response to the lurch to the right that we are witnessing. My fear is that Labour would have gone further to the right after the last GE if somebody more 'moderate' had been elected. I'm not a huge fan of Corbyn and if there was somebody else to take over and continue the direction that he is going in (anti-austerity, anti-neoliberal, support for public services, increased nationalisation) then I would be happy to see that person step in. But the direction is the correct direction in my opinion. We've had almost 40 years of destructive and unchallenged neoliberal policy and it is not going to be turned around over night.

The centre ground is over and was as good as over in 2007 with the crash and there will be no return to it in the near future. Labour's vote has fallen steadily since 97 until it was finally decimated in 2015. That was as good as rejection of the centre as you can hope for. Labour then had a choice, more left, more right or more of the same. The membership chose more left and the PLP appeared to choose more of the same. And here we are now.

The reason I ask about the crash of 2007 and Labour not being able to make a case about being blamed for it by the press is that there are clear similarities here now to the current Labour Party. Labour were the standing government then with a full decade of government behind them, with friends in high places, yet the press ensured that they were slaughtered for the crash even though we all know that the crash was caused by much bigger forces. Labour were unable to make this case in 2008 onwards because they knew that they would not win the argument. What has changed since then?

And I agree, Labour are clearly not the Tories and those hit hardest by the cuts would simply not be hit as hard no matter what strain of Labour government was in charge. But Labour weren't clear enough about this and deliberately muddied the waters when it came to some of the most needy in our society. That can never be allowed to happen again. There are huge issues to face up to from the rise of the right, to automation and joblessness, the ever increasing amount of tax evasion and, the biggest of them all, climate change. And for this reason, we cannot continue sleepwalking towards a neoliberal led catastrophe - Labour has to be clear and confident about what it does and offer a real alternative.

And I didn't mention Iraq once ;)
It's also important not to mix up other events with the crash.as far as I remember Labour were accused of rising debt from 2002 -2008, I remember people calling events after 2008 in this country as the credit crunch back then rather than the crash.
You wont get any arguments over banks needing regulating from me, Neoliberlism is something else.
am not sure where to start with that one here. was the crash not caused by not regulating the banks and trading etc?
No excuses for Miliband and actually raises another point. people criticize Miliband for his incompetence over not defending Labours record, nobody is coming to Milibands defence arguing  Ideology to defend him. he handled the situation badly,simple as that. yet were supposed to give Corbyn a pass.
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic
« Reply #650 on: March 21, 2017, 11:12:48 am »
It's also important not to mix up other events with the crash.as far as I remember Labour were accused of rising debt from 2002 -2008, I remember people calling events after 2008 in this country as the credit crunch back then rather than the crash.
You wont get any arguments over banks needing regulating from me, Neoliberlism is something else.
am not sure where to start with that one here. was the crash not caused by not regulating the banks and trading etc?
No excuses for Miliband and actually raises another point. people criticize Miliband for his incompetence over not defending Labours record, nobody is coming to Milibands defence arguing  Ideology to defend him. he handled the situation badly,simple as that. yet were supposed to give Corbyn a pass.

Thanks for that - yes, I agree that the crash was caused by the deregulation of the banking sector but I've always seen this as one of the key elements of neoliberal policy. In this country, Thatcher, Blair and Brown all helped to dismantle banking regulation in the UK. New Labour were the archetypal neoliberal party - or the Third Way, as they called it. It could be argued that neoliberalism is now over, a failed project and an utter disaster for almost everybody except a select few - which of course is exactly what it was designed to do. But, it has now been rejected by voters and the game is as good as up. We now have the job of trying to rebuild our democracy that had been carefully taken apart by the neoliberals in the name of corporate power.
What is interesting about neoliberalism is it's closeness to fascism. They are clearly not the same in terms of their views on nationhood but there are also clear overlaps. It can be argue that the neoliberals played as big a part as any in paving the way for the fascism that we see on the rise today. The idea that the Labour Party should return to the good old neoliberal days is nothing short of abhorrent. As Chicago said, it's a hard habit to break for many though.

In terms of Miliband, the Labour Party, by design, is not simply the Leader's Party. When I say Miliband, I mean it as a failure of the entire Party. When Blair won, it was a success that reflected the entire Party. Same as now. Corbyn isn't great, Miliband wasn't great, Brown wasn't great - all pretty poor Leaders. Then again, May is a crap Leader too and Cameron wasn't much better.
More soul than a sock with a hole

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #651 on: March 21, 2017, 11:56:31 am »

Defining what the Labour Party should be is what Andy was looking for in his original post. If that's not what this thread is about, then that's fine.

And this is one of the problems - there was absolutely no vision from any of the other candidates during the original leadership election which is why they lost, there was none from Owen Owen during his failed leadership bid which is why he lost. The coup was one one of the most pitiful things I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing. There is nothing from the extreme right of the Party - no vision, no policies, no ideas, nothing apart from failed and rejected neoliberalism masquerading as moderation, modernisation and the supposed centre ground. There has been nothing from that side of the Party since the pro-privatisation of The Third Way and that was back in the 90's
More soul than a sock with a hole

Online oldfordie

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,356
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic
« Reply #652 on: March 21, 2017, 12:22:13 pm »
Thanks for that - yes, I agree that the crash was caused by the deregulation of the banking sector but I've always seen this as one of the key elements of neoliberal policy. In this country, Thatcher, Blair and Brown all helped to dismantle banking regulation in the UK. New Labour were the archetypal neoliberal party - or the Third Way, as they called it. It could be argued that neoliberalism is now over, a failed project and an utter disaster for almost everybody except a select few - which of course is exactly what it was designed to do. But, it has now been rejected by voters and the game is as good as up. We now have the job of trying to rebuild our democracy that had been carefully taken apart by the neoliberals in the name of corporate power.
What is interesting about neoliberalism is it's closeness to fascism. They are clearly not the same in terms of their views on nationhood but there are also clear overlaps. It can be argue that the neoliberals played as big a part as any in paving the way for the fascism that we see on the rise today. The idea that the Labour Party should return to the good old neoliberal days is nothing short of abhorrent. As Chicago said, it's a hard habit to break for many though.

In terms of Miliband, the Labour Party, by design, is not simply the Leader's Party. When I say Miliband, I mean it as a failure of the entire Party. When Blair won, it was a success that reflected the entire Party. Same as now. Corbyn isn't great, Miliband wasn't great, Brown wasn't great - all pretty poor Leaders. Then again, May is a crap Leader too and Cameron wasn't much better.
Nothings changed much since 2008.the USA havent brought in tough bank regulations, a crash in the USA looks on the cards again.
The problem Labour has today is if they are going to argue against neoliberlism then they should get someone in with the credibility to do it. McDonnell is the last person Labour should have as shadow chancellor, it's madness, the public will think he wants to bring down the capitalist system when he argues against neoliberlism.
It might take our producers five minutes to find 60 economists who feared Brexit and five hours to find a sole voice who espoused it.
“But by the time we went on air we simply had one of each; we presented this unequal effort to our audience as balance. It wasn’t.”
               Emily Maitlis

Offline Buenasnoches

  • Duruti Column?
  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #653 on: March 21, 2017, 02:14:00 pm »
What's the Corbyn plan? I know the utopian ideal - but what's the platform that would satisfy the left yet would make the party electable in enough seats across the country to get a majority in Parliament?

You can disparage the 'Third Way' but it at least it was based on a realistic appreciation of the country as it actually is rather than an idealised throwback to Britain's post-war industrial past. It recognised that there isn't a level playing field for the left and the right in this country. That saying that Labour will create 100% employment by borrowing for infrastructure projects is lobbing a soft ball as soft as a soft thing in Softland to the Tories. 

Is a Corbyn government going to work with 'the bosses' at all? Or is the solution to nationalise everything or place every business into the hands of its staff? Reinstate Clause 4? It's not clear to me from the policy documents but it seems clear from the rhetoric at his rallies that businesses both large and small, the self-employed and any entrepreneurs are all lumped together in order to get the cheers and adulation of his supporters. (This is just another example of the utter shit-headedness of Corbyn and his 'strategic team' - those clips of Corbyn railing at the employers will be rolled out to show Corbyn is 'the enemy of business & controlled by the unions' - a 1970s throwback - all to get a few cheers at a rally).

What's the Corbyn strategy for businesses that don't conform to traditional industrial or manufacturing types? Fast moving technological and digital businesses?  And what about  small manufacturing businesses - I've written before about the Mittelstand in Germany. 11,000 small to medium sized specialised and often family-owned businesses that support the 500 or so larger scale manufacturers but employ more people and have a larger share of German exports than the large conglomerates. That kind of manufacturing isn't mentioned in Corbyn/McDonnell thinking because they don't fit their out-dated and rigid thinking.

But anyway, I could go on and don't have the time. You're the one knocking the Third Way. You tell us how it's going to happen and where the votes will come from. Show us the demographic breakdown of the country and which policies will appeal to which voters.

And please note - the NHS is not the answer.

And there we have it - like I said, no vision, no policies, no ideas, nothing. And that is why New Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 and have lost two subsequent leadership contests. When asked about an alternative to Corbyn, the hard right have nothing at all. And that is why they are on the outside looking in. They spent years saying that their plan was that they weren't Tories and now the plan is that they aren't Corbyn. Where is the inspiration? Where are the ideas? Where is the vision?
More soul than a sock with a hole

Offline classycarra

  • The Left Disonourable Chuntering Member For Scousepool.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 30,396
Re: Re: The Labour Party (*)
« Reply #654 on: March 21, 2017, 02:18:48 pm »
And there we have it - like I said, no vision, no policies, no ideas, nothing. And that is why New Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 and have lost two subsequent leadership contests. When asked about an alternative to Corbyn, the hard right have nothing at all. And that is why they are on the outside looking in. They spent years saying that their plan was that they weren't Tories and now the plan is that they aren't Corbyn. Where is the inspiration? Where are the ideas? Where is the vision?

Hard right? I think you don't understand the left/right spectrum.

Those with ideas and vision in the PLP are marginalised currently, still waiting for Corbyn to end this vanity project. It's become obvious though that they need to do something more active now though.