What now for Labour? (Part 2)

by Penderyn Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Phil Hornby wrote:I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

In which case, why should we pay some phoney twicer to be something else?

by Redflag Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:09 am

The new leader of the Lib-Dems is no change from Clegg OW, he would jump back into bed with the Tories if given the chance

by Penderyn Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:39 pm

ghost whistler wrote:voting perpetuates a system that exploits you. the labour party are simply on the left of capital. propagating their politics will achieve nothing.

On it's own, no - only a far more united working class would achieve serious change. Purism, however, is good for sects and holies: the fight is daily and everywhere. Marx helped organised Soho waiters, I believe. 'What a naïve waste of time', they said!

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:14 pm

serious change requires the removal of capitalism.

by **Phil Hornby** Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:31 pm

To be successful, serious change also requires something to which it is worth changing ...

by ghost whistler Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:47 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:To be successful, serious change also requires something to which it is worth changing ...

That's fallacious. If something doesn't work and is actively harmful, as capitalism is, you don't persist with it.

If you want to discuss what happens afterward that's a discussion we can have.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:33 pm

A "rhetorical question" is one that doesn't expect, nor require, an answer.

e.g. Would you like to be the next Lottery Millionaire?

or, perhaps, "For how long do you think you would remain in control after fomenting a Revolution?"

by **Ivan** Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:43 am

ghost whistler wrote:-
If you want to discuss what happens afterward that's a discussion we can have.

“Revolutions in the traditional mould are doomed to fail because even a completely new group of people in power will always be constrained by external entities of control like powerful nation states, the IMF and the World Bank. If a nation is in debt, the new rulers will remain subordinate to the global financial system at the expense of the welfare of their own citizens.” (Simon Wood)

As this thread is about the Labour Party, which believes in democratic socialism, can we please discuss the interesting topic of revolution on the thread below, where a number of comments on the subject have already been posted? Thanks.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t955-you-say-you-want-a-revolution

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:51 am

oftenwrong wrote:A "rhetorical question" is one that doesn't expect, nor require, an answer.

e.g. Would you like to be the next Lottery Millionaire?

or, perhaps, "For how long do you think you would remain in control after fomenting a Revolution?"

I don't seek to be in control. I personally advocate anarchism not authoritarianism. Capitalism is authoritarian, I would not want to that. The Labour party are authoritarian, I don't want them in charge either

by Redflag Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:52 am

What is the Labour party going to do IF the (C)hunt enforces the contract on the Junior doctors, because if the people of the UK do not act soon there will be NO NHS left and we all know what that means to the people that cannot afford private health Insurance and they will many of them because this Tory gov't has made sure of that. With wages and people on zero hour contracts & part time because that is all there is available for all the boasts of the Tory party, which will only leave the people of the UK with one option general strike then and only then will Davy boy and his OINKS will listen to the people of the UK.

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:53 am

Ivan wrote:
As this thread is about the Labour Party, which believes in democratic socialism, can we please discuss the interesting topic of revolution on the thread below, where a number of comments on the subject have already been posted? Thanks.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t955-you-say-you-want-a-revolution

Please define democratic socialism. Since Labour have shown no interest in reforming the political system to any extent where either of those decriptions would apply I'm not sure I grant you that.

by Redflag Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:01 am

ghost whistler wrote:I don't seek to be in control. I personally advocate anarchism not authoritarianism. Capitalism is authoritarian, I would not want to that. The Labour party are authoritarian, I don't want them in charge either

But the Tories want to be in control of the UK, with bringing in the Trade Union Bill and if anyone seen the channel 4 news Monday & Tuesday of this week of how the Tory party works in there By-Election and general elections regarding money they spent and what the Electoral Commision say they shouldspend are two very different things according to the Tory party.

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:07 pm

i don't support the tories. nor their claims

by ghost whistler Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:13 pm

Redflag wrote:What is the Labour party going to do IF the (C)hunt enforces the contract on the Junior doctors, because if the people of the UK do not act soon there will be NO NHS left and we all know what that means to the people that cannot afford private health Insurance and they will many of them because this Tory gov't has made sure of that. With wages and people on zero hour contracts & part time because that is all there is available for all the boasts of the Tory party, which will only leave the people of the UK with one option general strike then and only then will Davy boy and his OINKS will listen to the people of the UK.

What have they done so far? What did they do while in power? Hewitt was no less unpopular. They have nothing to offer and, in opposition, do not advocate that which will actually enforce any real change so what's teh point?

by Penderyn Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:00 pm

ghost whistler wrote:serious change requires the removal of capitalism.

No - serious change in the mass of heads brings about the removal of capitalism. It requires constant thinking and acting, and purist anarchism will never do it.

by **Ivan** Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:06 pm

ghost whistler wrote:-
Please define democratic socialism.

The Labour Party constitution defines it as follows:-

"By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

by Redflag Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:28 pm

ghost whistler wrote:What have they done so far? What did they do while in power? Hewitt was no less unpopular. They have nothing to offer and, in opposition, do not advocate that which will actually enforce any real change so what's teh point?

I just hope that you and the (C)hunt will be very happy when our junior doctors head off for Wales Scotland both first ministers have offered to accept those that want to move others will go to Austrailia or New Zealand then what will the people of the UK do when they need a doctor.

At least the Labour party did not cause a STRIKE this is the first doctors strike in 40 years but the (C)hunt managed to do that with his INCOMPETENCE which is normal for a Tory

by ghost whistler Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:41 pm

Penderyn wrote:No - serious change in the mass of heads brings about the removal of capitalism. It requires constant thinking and acting, and purist anarchism will never do it.

that's a blind assertion.

by ghost whistler Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:42 pm

Ivan wrote:The Labour Party constitution defines it as follows:-

"By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

Sophistry.

by ghost whistler Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:10 pm

Redflag wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:What have they done so far? What did they do while in power? Hewitt was no less unpopular. They have nothing to offer and, in opposition, do not advocate that which will actually enforce any real change so what's teh point?

I just hope that you and the (C)hunt will be very happy when our junior doctors head off for Wales Scotland both first ministers have offered to accept those that want to move others will go to Austrailia or New Zealand then what will the people of the UK do when they need a doctor.

At least the Labour party did not cause a STRIKE this is the first doctors strike in 40 years but the (C)hunt managed to do that with his INCOMPETENCE which is normal for a Tory

What does this have to do with anything I have said? YOu seem to be arguing with someone else. Perhaps you should do something about that.

Please try to remain civil.
boatlady

by Penderyn Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:11 pm

ghost whistler wrote:
Penderyn wrote:No - serious change in the mass of heads brings about the removal of capitalism. It requires constant thinking and acting, and purist anarchism will never do it.
that's a blind assertion.

Hardly. You never otherwise get serious social change of any kind of serious social change. Quote a negative example.

by **Ivan** Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:29 pm

ghost whistler wrote:-
I personally advocate anarchism not authoritarianism.

As I’m sure you know, our views can be classified as left or right and libertarian or authoritarian. Apparently, Thatcher was more right-wing than Hitler, but not quite as authoritarian!

What now for Labour? (Part 2) - Page 9 Politi11

What now for Labour? (Part 2) - Page 9 Politi11

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I probably need to be educated about anarchism. I understand that anarchy is the non-recognition of any authority, something akin to the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest etc - which is the logical development of crackpot Tory ideology- but I’m sure that can't represent the political philosophy of anarchism.

My limited understanding goes something along these lines: like the Tories, anarchism holds the state to be undesirable. But unlike the Tories, anarchism doesn’t want all the functions of the state handed over to democratically-unaccountable corporations, and is more likely to support mutualism and/or the abolition of private property. If I’ve got that wrong, I apologise.

Personally, I support the concept of a benevolent big state, which plans what the country needs and sets about supplying it. I recognise that any organisation is at risk of corruption because of malevolent individuals, but with proper checks and balances and adequate and transparent scrutiny, I see it as the least worst option.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t830-big-or-small-government

So what now for Labour? I’d settle for a return to the ‘spirit of 1945’, the development of new towns where they are needed, with the provision of both homes to buy and to rent, jobs, schools and shops, in other words, everyone’s basic needs within a community. I hope that with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, rather than someone who is prepared to follow the Tories ever further to the right, such an idea might not be too far-fetched.

by Redflag Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:53 am

Good post Ivan I think you are spot on about the "spirit of 45" that at least would see homes been built for those that cannot afford a mortgage or the depost to buy a home.

Well said Ivan I would be happy if certain Labour MPs gave Jermy Corbyn there support these MPs must be able to see the difference in the Labour party membership since JC became the leader of Labour party, or are they Deaf Dumb & Blind.

by ghost whistler Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:14 am

Social democracy?
https://www.facebook.com/nick.chaffey.58/posts/10207913806657334

by ghost whistler Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:16 am

Ivan wrote:I understand that anarchy is the non-recognition of any authority, something akin to the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest etc - which is the logical development of crackpot Tory ideology- but I’m sure that can't represent the political philosophy of anarchism.

My limited understanding goes something along these lines: like the Tories, anarchism holds the state to be undesirable. But unlike the Tories, anarchism doesn’t want all the functions of the state handed over to democratically-unaccountable corporations, and is more likely to support mutualism and/or the abolition of private property. If I’ve got that wrong, I apologise.

Anarchism is not the rejection of all authority, but that of unjust unnecessary or illiegitimate authority.

A state is an unnecessary authority that perpetuates capitalism. Why not let people decide for themselves what they want and how they want things done?

by Penderyn Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:45 pm

I was an anarchist when I was thirteen, before I read up on the Spanish War. Purism loses, even in the most promising of circumstances, alas, though a very deep distrust of Power should be part of all socialism.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:12 pm

In Spain, there is rarely any reference to a Civil War. Franco's insurrection against an elected government in 1936 is described as "El alzamiento" - The Uprising.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:19 pm

Contrary to what is supposed to occur, I have steadily become more left-wing as the years have rolled by.

But as I survey what Labour is doing now, and how it behaves, I do sometimes wonder what the point has been...

by ghost whistler Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:56 pm

Penderyn wrote:I was an anarchist when I was thirteen, before I read up on the Spanish War. Purism loses, even in the most promising of circumstances, alas, though a very deep distrust of Power should be part of all socialism.

ill take socialism over capitalism, but i'd rather go fruther. I joined the Socialist Party a couple of years ago to support the struggle in a practical fashion, but i am more inclined presently to anarchy. I remain a member, should anyone ask, because of mutual support.

by Redflag Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:02 am

I do not support anarchy but when it comes to the Tories anarchy is the only answer or civil DISOBEDIRNCE may get the same result??

by **Ivan** Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:24 pm

ghost whistler wrote:-
Social democracy?
https://www.facebook.com/nick.chaffey.58/posts/10207913806657334

I don’t know much about the council in Southampton, other than that I have a namesake who happens to be a Tory councillor there and who is most definitely not a relative of mine!
afraid

http://www.southampton.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=155

However, I do know that local councils have very little power, and if they don’t do what the Tory bullies in Whitehall tell them to do, they’ll either be surcharged as individuals and bankrupted (and therefore disqualified), or the communities secretary (now Greg Clark, previously Eric Pickles) will just take over send his unelected bureaucrats in to implement Tory policies. So in effect, the Tories force local councils to implement their cuts, as they won’t let them raise more revenue by increasing the council tax. Then the local council, of whatever political persuasion, gets the blame for the cuts. Just to make the point, Cameron wrote and complained to an Oxfordshire councillor about the cuts that were being made there, and his mother and aunt have even signed a petition.

As a result of such unrest in the Tory ranks, the government found an extra £300 million as ‘rescue cash’ for councils. Labour analysis suggests 83% of that money will go to Tory councils.

Labour councillor Nick Forbes writes:-

“Conservative councils are facing the same difficult decisions many Labour councils were up against in the early years of the last parliament. In the coalition years, the historic link between council tax base and the government top-up grant was broken. That meant areas with many properties in low council tax bands and high student numbers lost out disproportionately. As a result, these mainly Labour councils have been straining every sinew to find new ways to deliver more with less. Last August, the Labour Party presented figures which showed that the 10 most deprived local authority areas have lost £782 per household, while the 10 richest areas lost just £48.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/11/300-million-tory-councils-favouritism-cuts-government-adult-social-care

by Sharon Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:43 pm

Ivan wrote:I do know that local councils have very little power, and if they don’t do what the Tory bullies in Whitehall tell them to do, they’ll either be surcharged as individuals and bankrupted (and therefore disqualified), or the communities secretary (now Greg Clark, previously Eric Pickles) will just take over send his unelected bureaucrats in to implement Tory policies. So in effect, the Tories force local councils to implement their cuts, as they won’t let them raise more revenue by increasing the council tax. Then the local council, of whatever political persuasion, gets the blame for the cuts.

Ivan is correct, however, Mr Chaffey will not recognise this, nor will any of his TUSC colleagues, and not to put too fine a point on it, it's a waste of time trying to explain to them the ramifications of not setting a balanced budget.

It is interesting that the 2 TUSC cllrs plus the indie cllr voted with the Tories.

Was the Mayor right to call the police last Wednesday? Divided opinions - generally along Party lines.

by ghost whistler Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:34 pm

Redflag wrote:I do not support anarchy but when it comes to the Tories anarchy is the only answer or civil DISOBEDIRNCE may get the same result??

anarchy is simply about replacing the existing structures with something we create, not something imposed on us. Direct action.

by Redflag Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:11 am

I agree we need direct action GW, but we also need to know WHAT we all want put in place when we get rid of the Tories, otherwise we will end up like most gov'ts have ended up they go to war but have nothing in place when the war is over.

by oftenwrong Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:20 pm

Tristram Shandy is pretty anarchic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Opinions_of_Tristram_Shandy,_Gentleman

by ghost whistler Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:54 pm

Redflag wrote:I agree we need direct action GW, but we also need to know WHAT we all want put in place when we get rid of the Tories, otherwise we will end up like most gov'ts have ended up they go to war but have nothing in place when the war is over.

We put ourselves in their place. That's the whole point: not giving our power to others.

by Redflag Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:38 am

Sorry but that would not work GW, we would need to select good decent people who would not have there heads turned by power so I would rather have something in place so there could be a smooth take over.

There would have to be rules set out before anybody took over, like how long they got to make the rules & regulations for the rest of us and one more thing the ability to remove quickly anyone who was misbehaving.

by ghost whistler Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:37 pm

Redflag wrote:Sorry but that would not work GW, we would need to select good decent people who would not have there heads turned by power so I would rather have something in place so there could be a smooth take over.

There would have to be rules set out before anybody took over, like how long they got to make the rules & regulations for the rest of us and one more thing the ability to remove quickly anyone who was misbehaving.

The only way to ensure people don't get corrupted by power is not to give it to them. OTherwise this has always been the case.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:15 pm

Hard to imagine who would have the power to withhold power from others...or am I confused...? scratch

by Penderyn Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:19 pm

We have that power, always, though Mr Murdoch and his friends can convince vast numbers of mugs to believe otherwise.

by Redflag Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:40 am

I agree Penderyn but the only way Murdoch can get the people of the UK to believe him is by telling "WHOPPER LIES" so it is up to the people of the UK to work that out and so far they have not been able to.

by ghost whistler Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:25 pm

Yet again labour disgraces itself.

18 of them can be bothered to fight for Caroline Lucas's NHS restoration bill.

What more proof do you people need?

by Sponsored content