[BrutusTheBear]

the usual no hopers

Practice what you preach TD..

They are human beings with strengths and weaknesses. I'm really sorry if that sounds all bloody worthy but they are just people after all, not a different species

Also.. I am mystic Meg.!

Labour are in with a shout in the upcoming by election, they should win but mustn't attempt to parachute in an out of towner..

Positive but very close win for the LP, I am sure they appreciate the help from Matt Hancock and the lack Tory presence on the ground in Batley n Spen.  I notice that the MSM is trying to equate the nastiness surrounding George Galloway's campaign with the 'Corbynist' wing  of the party this is terrible and dishonest journalism the 'left' have no time for GG.

[tommytwotone]

The only viable option open here would be to persuade Jo Cox's sister to run, but I think even that may come across as cynical, and people have short memories as it is.

Not as much of a Mystic Meg as I am Brutus!

[BrutusTheBear]

The only viable option open here would be to persuade Jo Cox's sister to run, but I think even that may come across as cynical, and people have short memories as it is.

Not as much of a Mystic Meg as I am Brutus!

  Fair play.  Between us, we had it pinned weeks ago.  If only I were a gambling man.
Very pleased to see GG making crap excuses and saying he will mount a legal challenge today though. (First he votes Conservative now he wants to legally challenge on their behalf ).

[TobyD]

the usual no hopers

Practice what you preach TD..

They are human beings with strengths and weaknesses. I'm really sorry if that sounds all bloody worthy but they are just people after all, not a different species

I didn't say I was referring to political figures when I said no hopers did I? They are after all elected by their constituents,  even the ones I disagree with or dislike.  I was more referring to columnists or commentators on Twitter etc.
On the subject of politicians I don't like,  I feel that Hancock will be swiftly unelected by his constituency if he stands again.

I'm very happy that I was wrong about the B&S byelection result,  perhaps I can influence events by predicting results the other way; Trump will definitely not be successfully prosecuted for fraud and imprisoned and instead be reelected in 2024?

[TobyD]

The only viable option open here would be to persuade Jo Cox's sister to run, but I think even that may come across as cynical, and people have short memories as it is.

Not as much of a Mystic Meg as I am Brutus!

  Fair play.  Between us, we had it pinned weeks ago.  If only I were a gambling man.
Very pleased to see GG making crap excuses and saying he will mount a legal challenge today though. (First he votes Conservative now he wants to legally challenge on their behalf ).

Quite agree re Galloway,  hes trying to behave like some sort of small town low rent Trump tribute act.

[colin8ll]

I feel that Hancock will be swiftly unelected by his constituency if he stands again.

Do you think he would stand again though, even if recent events hadn't come to light? It would be a bit like the inside man continuing to work at the bank after the robbery.

[teestub]

Fair play.  Between us, we had it pinned weeks ago.  If only I were a gambling man.
Very pleased to see GG making crap excuses and saying he will mount a legal challenge today though. (First he votes Conservative now he wants to legally challenge on their behalf ).

Didn’t realise how big a vote share GG had taken, wonder how many of these might have been conservative voters had he not been present?

[BrutusTheBear]

I didn't say I was referring to political figures when I said no hopers did I?

Just so I have this straight TD, in order to not upset you... It's not OK to refer to a politician, that was upto his shoulders in an illegal war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, as the Dark Lord. However, it is OK to refer to a whole swave of people that I politically disagree with in a generalised statement as a bunch of 'No hopers'.
If that is the case.. I would like to say that people still thinking Starmer is a good leader and still supporting him/ his team are a bunch of no hopers.

[BrutusTheBear]

Fair play.  Between us, we had it pinned weeks ago.  If only I were a gambling man.
Very pleased to see GG making crap excuses and saying he will mount a legal challenge today though. (First he votes Conservative now he wants to legally challenge on their behalf ).

Didn’t realise how big a vote share GG had taken, wonder how many of these might have been conservative voters had he not been present?

Well some of the rhetoric coming from G G's campaign particularly around gender/sexuality would certainly be attractive to a certain Conservative voting demographic.

[TobyD]

I didn't say I was referring to political figures when I said no hopers did I?

Just so I have this straight TD, in order to not upset you... It's not OK to refer to a politician, that was upto his shoulders in an illegal war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, as the Dark Lord. However, it is OK to refer to a whole swave of people that I politically disagree with in a generalised statement as a bunch of 'No hopers'.
If that is the case.. I would like to say that people still thinking Starmer is a good leader and still supporting him/ his team are a bunch of no hopers.

Sigh.
Labour has never been elected with an explicitly left wing / socialist agenda. The only times that they have been elected have been a very centrist one. This is why there is no hope in offering the British people socialism, if they do then they will not be elected, ever.

I'm not nor have ever been a Labour party member, but it is a party I'd like to vote for, if it was a serious party of government, which it is on its way to being, having been a protest organisation for a few years under its previous leader.

[BrutusTheBear]

Sigh indeed. The point I am making is that you have berated me for calling a politician a name. Then you go on to call a whole group of people, that you happen to disagree with, 'no hopers'. There is a word for when we judge a group of people and use derogatory words about them.  It's prejudice.  You are being a hypocrite.  That is my point.

I know what you think about the LP and I know your views on electability/ what British people think about socialism.  Your views are valid, I don't agree with you, that probably really annoys you. Doesn't make me or anyone else a no hoper though does it?

[Duma]

Toby you're coming across as patronising, and increasingly tedious.

[TobyD]

Toby you're coming across as patronising, and increasingly tedious.

I apologise, disjointed online forum discussions are usually not the best place for an argument/ debate

[TobyD]

Sigh indeed. The point I am making is that you have berated me for calling a politician a name. Then you go on to call a whole group of people, that you happen to disagree with, 'no hopers'. There is a word for when we judge a group of people and use derogatory words about them.  It's prejudice.  You are being a hypocrite.  That is my point.

I know what you think about the LP and I know your views on electability/ what British people think about socialism.  Your views are valid, I don't agree with you, that probably really annoys you. Doesn't make me or anyone else a no hoper though does it?

It was because I believe that it's a path which does not have any hope of them forming a government,  rather than name calling; but anyway I may be entirely wrong.  I also happen to believe that Starmer is politically naive,  whilst hes clearly extremely intelligent and probably a nice person,  i don't think he'll ever be a prime minister, but he might be a decent transition to someone who can be. 

[andy popp]

Labour has never been elected with an explicitly left wing / socialist agenda. The only times that they have been elected have been a very centrist one.

Um, 1945.

Not saying that is (or isn't) a guide for strategy today.

[TobyD]

Labour has never been elected with an explicitly left wing / socialist agenda. The only times that they have been elected have been a very centrist one.

Um, 1945.

Not saying that is (or isn't) a guide for strategy today.

I did think about that, I just listened to a history podcast recently which convincingly argued that their agenda was economically close to the government at the moment, and socially quite conservative (small c)

[andy popp]

In 1945 Labour campaigned and won on a manifesto promising a) the creation of welfare state and b) sweeping nationalization of industry, both of which were enacted during a single term (worth noting that though Labour lost the 1951 election they did win the popular vote). The Attlee government was probably the most profoundly transformative of the C20th, though, obviously, there is an argument to be made for the Thatcher administrations of the 1980s.

[TobyD]

In 1945 Labour campaigned and won on a manifesto promising a) the creation of welfare state and b) sweeping nationalization of industry, both of which were enacted during a single term

Isn't that more or less what the government is doing at the moment? I understand your point,  and I don't know if I agree or disagree; but they've just  basically nationalized the railways and are increasingly centralizing control of services. They've been paying half of the country's wages for the last year or so. Obviously I know that there are profound differences,  the generosity of welfare is somewhat different for a start; getting anything on universal credit is incredibly difficult etc.

[BrutusTheBear]

In 1945 there were similar tensions in the LP and similar treatment from the press to pre Starmer times to nowbut nonetheless they ran and won on a very 'socialist' agenda.

If you take socialist policies and present them to people individually they poll very well the world over. The ideas are popular but there are other forces at play in our (so called) democracies so us people don't get to choose what we want (that choice is largely never presented), we get to choose who we want based on a very limited/filtered window of information that avoids discussion of truths and/or things that would positively impact on our lives.

[Nigel]

Labour has never been elected with an explicitly left wing / socialist agenda. The only times that they have been elected have been a very centrist one.

Um, 1945.

Glad someone said it!

Toby are you arguing that the post-war establishment of the NHS and welfare state, plus nationalisation of large swathes of industry, was not at least somewhat rooted in socialism? You're dancing on the head of a pin if so imho, but I'll happily hear your argument.

In 1945 Labour campaigned and won on a manifesto promising a) the creation of welfare state and b) sweeping nationalization of industry, both of which were enacted during a single term

Isn't that more or less what the government is doing at the moment? I understand your point,  and I don't know if I agree or disagree; but they've just  basically nationalized the railways and are increasingly centralizing control of services.

No, it isn't what they are doing. They haven't nationalised the railways at all despite what they say, they have changed the franchising arrangement, unified the planning and fares, and rebadged it. But the rolling stock is still operated by private providers, who now have their income largely guaranteed. Centralising services (not sure what you refer to here) is not nationalisation if they are still outsourced, which by and large most things are. If they've nationalised anything else I must have missed it...

They love to gaslight the nation this bunch, so lets be frank. The NHS is socialist (in essence) and as near to a national religion as the British have. Its about all that's left. The Tories sold off loads of stuff - British Telecom, British Gas, British Steel etc. basically name a service, put British in front of it - it probably used to exist and belong to all of us, they sold it. If you think this government is anywhere near socialism, again, I would love to hear the argument!

[seankenny]

If you take socialist policies and present them to people individually they poll very well the world over. The ideas are popular but there are other forces at play in our (so called) democracies so us people don't get to choose what we want (that choice is largely never presented), we get to choose who we want based on a very limited/filtered window of information that avoids discussion of truths and/or things that would positively impact on our lives.

The last half dozen posts from everyone have indulged in what I view as all the faults and vices of the contemporary left. But this gem here shows the far left's two problems quite starkly. Firstly, why they are prone to anit-semitism, all that "other forces" stuff. And secondly, why they are often so bloody second rate* - it's all someone elses fault, never that they simply aren't very good at selling their amazing product. If you're not willing to be ruthlessly self-critical you're doomed to be crap.

Not picking on Brutus particularly here, this line is common on the left and it's fairly obvious. My criticisms of other posters points take more involvement on my part and a friend has just arrived; I'll post later hopefully.



* reading the Gulag Archipeligo is quite an eye-opener in this regard, but Grossman touches on it too, according to this piece by Adam Tooze (I've not read Life and Fate so going on second hand sources here):
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-21
"What Grossman describes is a victory that was far harder than it should have been. What he indicts is a regime that was wasteful and destructive of its people, their extraordinary talents and commitment."

[Oldmanmatt]

Solzhenitsyn is a hard read, emotionally.
But living in countries that survived and with the people who lived through that era, is equally eye opening. It also means that, I, personally, see the post war UK brand of “Socialism” as really nothing more extreme than that of our Scandinavian cousins (the UK being a somewhat odd Saxon/Dane/Norman/Latin/Celtic bastard child of every European culture ( and, somehow, none of them) with a whole host of “Isolated Islander Community” issues rolled in for good measure).
A very genteel socialism, nothing to cause too much of a scene. Let the socialists set up a few useful things, then go back to “normal”, until the next time we need a quick societal reset.

[colin8ll]

But this gem here shows the far left's two problems quite starkly. Firstly, why they are prone to anit-semitism

This is straight out the playbook of the right, isn't it? Wait until 'the left' raise concerns about 'powerful forces' and then claim this as evidence of hatred of the Jews and therefore any political party these people support cannot be fit to govern.

Is it not possible to be concerned about the influence of the very few people wealthy enough to make significant donations to our political parties, or to run newspaper groups, without this being some slippery slope to anti-semitism?

I would add that I think people on the left should be very careful state who they are pointing the finger at to avoid this kind of trap.

[seankenny]

But this gem here shows the far left's two problems quite starkly. Firstly, why they are prone to anit-semitism

This is straight out the playbook of the right, isn't it?

Labour Party member here. My initial reaction is to tell you - as I would tell all far left types keen to portray their fellow left wingers as conservatives - to go fuck yourself, but this is UKB and such things are frowned upon, so I'll simply point out that this kind of unthinking response gets your clique approximately nowhere, whilst causing the left in general no end of problems.

Wait until 'the left' raise concerns about 'powerful forces' and then claim this as evidence of hatred of the Jews and therefore any political party these people support cannot be fit to govern.

Staw man - I said this is what makes the far left "prone" to racism, not automatically guilty of it.

Is it not possible to be concerned about the influence of the very few people wealthy enough to make significant donations to our political parties, or to run newspaper groups, without this being some slippery slope to anti-semitism?

Recent evidence suggests this requires some self-discipline and self-awareness, my previous post suggests why this is lacking, but then I'm trying to explain something that has already happened.

[BrutusTheBear]

Not picking on Brutus particularly here, this line is common on the left and it's fairly obvious. My criticisms of other posters points take more involvement on my part and a friend has just arrived; I'll post later hopefully.

Thank god your not picking on me today.. .This statement is very patronising though...
SK your aggressive approach to me and statements made in the past and your approach to C8All today identify you as being from a particular faction within the party that would like to purge all 'far left' (anything from centre leftwards by the looks of things) elements from the party.
Your approach appears to be to bully anyone that has opinions differing from yours into submission/silence with assertions that are largely unsubstantiated.  Referring to cliques you're full of prejudice and you're in the thick of a clique yourself.
I would tell you you're r full of shit and to go fuck yourself but this is UKB.....
Keep posting Colin don't let SK shut you down.