The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Mic09]

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

[Condimentalist]

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

 

 

Socialist/communist I agree with you - although measuring success is fraught in itself. We have a tendency to measure success financially, which is erroneous in the first place, particularly if you are a socialist. 

 

The social democracies of Scandinavia however are the most succesful states on earth by most measures. 

[meregreen]

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

All the Scandanavian countries, Germany under Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, Australia, France under Mitterand, Canada follows many Socialist principles in its State systems. the UK, I've lived long enough to have experienced both sides of the political spectrum in power, most of the worst times have been under Conservative hedgemony. I suppose it all comes down to what you consider successful.

[Awol]

One pollster did a poll last week asking supporters of other parties which Labour candidate they liked best, and amongst UKIP voters, Corbyn polled highest. There's no reason for this to be the case based on their respective policies - it suggests that there are a significant number of voters willing to vote for an 'anti-establishment' pose, more than anything else.

I'd suggest that illustrates a forgotten truth about the English working classes, that they are in the main a deeply patriotic bunch. Not in a nationalistic, 'about time we fought France again' sense, but having a subconsciously hard wired, culturally imprinted love of and for their own people. It's in the DNA, if you like.

In the past Labour knew this, it's why they instinctively opposed the European political project in the 1970's, they didn't need focus groups to tell them what the people thought because they were of the people.

Over time Labour left them and morphed into a vehicle for posturing middle class intellectuals and "progressive" thinking, effectively disowning the values of those they were actually supposed to be representing. Instead it began telling them what to think, but generally people don't like that, especially if the messenger is simultaneously sneering at who and what they are. "Don't wave that flag; you can't say THAT; no no, putting you/your family, your neighbour first is racist!"

There is an appetite for egalitarian policies and ideology but in a national context by unashamedly putting your own first. It's how Labour came about and the SNP are proving convincingly that it is just as relevant and popular today.

That's why when UKIP came along talking the language of the common man - Farage does it very well - and threatening to put their interests first, millions bit hard on the message. (As an aside many of the left wing commentariat propagated the myth that UKIP were far right. It was and is nonsense which is why they took so many Labour voters).

I'd also suggest the same cultural conditioning that promotes working class patriotism extends to a belief in a fair deal. Socialism does have a constituency in England but it needs to strip away the fads and pretentiousness of the common purpose types and start talking about "we, us and ours" - and mean it.

If for example Corbyn hadn't bowed to party pressure and stuck with his EU sceptic beliefs (or even said he favoured out) then UKIP would cease to exist by Friday. Fairness + Justice + Patriotism = keys to No 10.

This is clearly something of a dilemma for Labour and the way its thinking has evolved since the 1980's, but equally it presents an opportunity if they are truly looking to embrace the old as the new. In truth you would probably have to shatter what already exists and start again - and maybe that's where we are heading.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

All the Scandanavian countries, Germany under Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, Australia, France under Mitterand, Canada follows many Socialist principles in its State systems. the UK, I've lived long enough to have experienced both sides of the political spectrum in power, most of the worst times have been under Conservative hedgemony. I suppose it all comes down to what you consider successful.

 

Socialism is a Northern Europe way of thinking,  and a pretty natural way of thinking for anyone who isnt a sociapath and is pretty ingrained, most people like to help others and feel empathy for others suffering and have desires to help/prevent that suffering, our historical tribal/clan system is effectively socialism on a small local scale, the biggest problem of the Labour party moving to a centre right tory-lite position is it pushed the conservatives further to the right and into the more extreme policies the country is currently suffering under, whether this was a conscious or unconscious act is debatable, but i believe it was the opportunity for more extreme politicians like Dunkin dougnut smith to move into the limelight and one they grabbed and ran with.

Edited August 19, 2015 by mockingbird_franklin

[HanoiVillan]

 

One pollster did a poll last week asking supporters of other parties which Labour candidate they liked best, and amongst UKIP voters, Corbyn polled highest. There's no reason for this to be the case based on their respective policies - it suggests that there are a significant number of voters willing to vote for an 'anti-establishment' pose, more than anything else.

I'd suggest that illustrates a forgotten truth about the English working classes, that they are in the main a deeply patriotic bunch. Not in a nationalistic, 'about time we fought France again' sense, but having a subconsciously hard wired, culturally imprinted love of and for their own people. It's in the DNA, if you like.

In the past Labour knew this, it's why they instinctively opposed the European political project in the 1970's, they didn't need focus groups to tell them what the people thought because they were of the people.

Over time Labour left them and morphed into a vehicle for posturing middle class intellectuals and "progressive" thinking, effectively disowning the values of those they were actually supposed to be representing. Instead it began telling them what to think, but generally people don't like that, especially if the messenger is simultaneously sneering at who and what they are. "Don't wave that flag; you can't say THAT; no no, putting you/your family, your neighbour first is racist!"

There is an appetite for egalitarian policies and ideology but in a national context by unashamedly putting your own first. It's how Labour came about and the SNP are proving convincingly that it is just as relevant and popular today.

That's why when UKIP came along talking the language of the common man - Farage does it very well - and threatening to put their interests first, millions bit hard on the message. (As an aside many of the left wing commentariat propagated the myth that UKIP were far right. It was and is nonsense which is why they took so many Labour voters).

I'd also suggest the same cultural conditioning that promotes working class patriotism extends to a belief in a fair deal. Socialism does have a constituency in England but it needs to strip away the fads and pretentiousness of the common purpose types and start talking about "we, us and ours" - and mean it.

If for example Corbyn hadn't bowed to party pressure and stuck with his EU sceptic beliefs (or even said he favoured out) then UKIP would cease to exist by Friday. Fairness + Justice + Patriotism = keys to No 10.

This is clearly something of a dilemma for Labour and the way its thinking has evolved since the 1980's, but equally it presents an opportunity if they are truly looking to embrace the old as the new. In truth you would probably have to shatter what already exists and start again - and maybe that's where we are heading.

 

 

There are strands in Labour thinking that reflect something like your ideas here - Maurice Glasman's 'Blue Labour' idea is probably closest - but I don't think it can explain Corbyn's appeal to UKIP voters very well. 

 

If you remove for a second the issue of Europe, and examine all the rest of Corbyn's platfom, you're going to find that it is, in your words, 'posturing middle class intellectualism and "progressive" thinking'. In other words, it's a left-wing platform which shares almost nothing in common with UKIP's manifestos. And as you've acknowledged, he isn't even going to be a reliable ally for UKIP voters on Europe. So I don't think policy is the key to understanding this UKIP voter appeal, I think it's attitude and the general sense that he's an 'outsider'. 

[Mic09]

 

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

All the Scandanavian countries, Germany under Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, Australia, France under Mitterand, Canada follows many Socialist principles in its State systems. the UK, I've lived long enough to have experienced both sides of the political spectrum in power, most of the worst times have been under Conservative hedgemony. I suppose it all comes down to what you consider successful.

 

Well, UK has never been a capitalist heaven since the WW2. Welfare, Government funding and high taxation are still a rule rather then a 'one off'.

When it comes to scandinavia, I will direct you to the following link; http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/

I will probably get a warning, but I really do not know how to quote articles! Have a read anyways.

As for Germany and France, I will refer to this after I come back from work as I have to run

 

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

 

 

I think the above statement should be framed as a question.

 

The question is why did capitalist countries feel the need to become command economies (the communist model) to win wars, as every country did, including America, for WW2, if it is such an inferior economic system?

 

The question which follows on from that, is why, if a command economy is the only system which can successfully deal with a crisis of World War and simultaneously cure the pre-war crisis in capitalism (1930s depression), why can't it be used successfully to solve emergencies like unemployment, poverty, disease, or a housing shortage?

 

It is not perversity or bloody-mindedness which inspire old fashioned Lefties it is these sorts of questions. 

Edited August 19, 2015 by MakemineVanilla

[Awol]

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

I think the above statement should be framed as a question.

The question is why did capitalist countries feel the need to become command economies (the communist model) to win wars, as every country did, including America, for WW2, if it is such an inferior economic system?

The question which follows on from that, is why, if a command economy is the only system which can successfully deal with a crisis of World War and simultaneously cure the pre-war crisis in capitalism (1930s depression), why can't it be used successfully to solve emergencies like unemployment, poverty, disease, or a housing shortage?

It is not perversity or bloody-mindedness which inspire old fashioned Lefties it is these sorts of questions.

Could it be that to survive long term any economy must be profitable, but at a time of national existential crisis the profit motive can be suspended 'for the duration' and massive debts accrued to enable a very focused effort on 'winning'? After all those economies revert to type after conflict, or if they don't, like in the USSR post 1945 they eventually collapse due to inefficiency.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

I think the above statement should be framed as a question.

The question is why did capitalist countries feel the need to become command economies (the communist model) to win wars, as every country did, including America, for WW2, if it is such an inferior economic system?

The question which follows on from that, is why, if a command economy is the only system which can successfully deal with a crisis of World War and simultaneously cure the pre-war crisis in capitalism (1930s depression), why can't it be used successfully to solve emergencies like unemployment, poverty, disease, or a housing shortage?

It is not perversity or bloody-mindedness which inspire old fashioned Lefties it is these sorts of questions.

Could it be that to survive long term any economy must be profitable, but at a time of national existential crisis the profit motive can be suspended 'for the duration' and massive debts accrued to enable a very focused effort on 'winning'? After all those economies revert to type after conflict, or if they don't, like in the USSR post 1945 they eventually collapse due to inefficiency.

 

 

The problems with the communist system are many but Mic09 was asking why despite the failure of communism do Lefties persist in their belief that it is workable.

 

I would say that just like economists dream of fixing the problems of capitalism (boom and bust etc) lefties can't let go of the idea that some form communism/socialism can work.

[Awol]

 

 

 

 

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?

There has never, in the history of the human race, been a successfull socialist project. I challange anybody who believes that Labour can do ANYTHING successful (and I am not a conservative either!) to give me an example of one successful socialist state.

 

I think the above statement should be framed as a question.

The question is why did capitalist countries feel the need to become command economies (the communist model) to win wars, as every country did, including America, for WW2, if it is such an inferior economic system?

The question which follows on from that, is why, if a command economy is the only system which can successfully deal with a crisis of World War and simultaneously cure the pre-war crisis in capitalism (1930s depression), why can't it be used successfully to solve emergencies like unemployment, poverty, disease, or a housing shortage?

It is not perversity or bloody-mindedness which inspire old fashioned Lefties it is these sorts of questions.

Could it be that to survive long term any economy must be profitable, but at a time of national existential crisis the profit motive can be suspended 'for the duration' and massive debts accrued to enable a very focused effort on 'winning'? After all those economies revert to type after conflict, or if they don't, like in the USSR post 1945 they eventually collapse due to inefficiency.

 

 

The problems with the communist system are many but Mic09 was asking why despite the failure of communism do Lefties persist in their belief that it is workable.

 

I would say that just like economists dream of fixing the problems of capitalism (boom and bust etc) lefties can't let go of the idea that some form communism/socialism can work.

 

 

I don't know if it was deliberate but drawing a distinction between economists and lefties really made me

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I think we'll have to move closer to a command economy to deal with climate change. A balance should be found, though. At some point we have to realise that we can't go on producing an endless stream of shit for no other reason than profit and the illusion of freedom that capitalism gives us, at the same time we cant force people to live off two chickens a month or have two babies only or whatever.

 

Glad I ain't the one who has to figure it out.

 

Alternatively we could just pretend it'll be fine and go on doing the same shit, which is the most likely route we will take.

 

RIP Norfolk.

[Mantis]

On the subject of Corbyn and UKIP, I just can't see many UKIP supporters flocking to Labour if Corbyn wins. Yes there may be quite a few of them who are open to Corbyn's economic policies but I just can't see his views on immigration chiming well with them. Immigration is probably more important to many UKIP supporters than even the EU after all.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Mantis

[HanoiVillan]

On the subject of Corbyn and UKIP, I just can't see many UKIP supporters flocking to Labour if Corbyn wins. Yes there may be quite a few of them who are open to Corbyn's economic policies but I just can't see his views on immigration chiming well with them. Immigration is probably more important to many UKIP supporters than even the EU after all.

 

I think that's true, and I agree that such a move is unlikely myself, at least en masse. I was merely speculating as to why they might be telling pollsters they prefer Corbyn to the other candidates. 

[bickster]

An awful lot of kippers (not the die hards) really didn't give a shit about immigration, for them it really was a protest vote. Thats why it went a lot softer the closer to the election it got. UKIP went into the election with 2 seats, wanted 5 seats and came out with 1. Sure some of the disaffected were anti EU, others found other different bits of UKIP policy they liked. But for most it was a protest vote because really where was the opposition? Corbin can win some of those voters back, he can win some of the greens back too. But the real strong area for Corbyn to win voters back to Labour is the didn't vote. Huge chunks of the electorate haven't been voting because there has simply been no-one to vote for… those are the voters that Bliar lost in the millions

[Demitri_C]

An awful lot of kippers (not the die hards) really didn't give a shit about immigration, for them it really was a protest vote. Thats why it went a lot softer the closer to the election it got. UKIP went into the election with 2 seats, wanted 5 seats and came out with 1. Sure some of the disaffected were anti EU, others found other different bits of UKIP policy they liked. But for most it was a protest vote because really where was the opposition? Corbin can win some of those voters back, he can win some of the greens back too. But the real strong area for Corbyn to win voters back to Labour is the didn't vote. Huge chunks of the electorate haven't been voting because there has simply been no-one to vote for… those are the voters that Bliar lost in the millions

But that was all down to the voting system, UKIP would have done well if the voting system was not like it is here

[bickster]

An awful lot of kippers (not the die hards) really didn't give a shit about immigration, for them it really was a protest vote. Thats why it went a lot softer the closer to the election it got. UKIP went into the election with 2 seats, wanted 5 seats and came out with 1. Sure some of the disaffected were anti EU, others found other different bits of UKIP policy they liked. But for most it was a protest vote because really where was the opposition? Corbin can win some of those voters back, he can win some of the greens back too. But the real strong area for Corbyn to win voters back to Labour is the didn't vote. Huge chunks of the electorate haven't been voting because there has simply been no-one to vote for… those are the voters that Bliar lost in the millions

But that was all down to the voting system, UKIP would have done well if the voting system was not like it is here

Yes and No. If everyones vote had actually counted is a proportionate system. Many people might not have voted UKIP, they'd have voted for the party that best suited their opinions / needs. Under the current system there are many seats where the outcome is totally predictable, in these seats there are people who exercise a protest vote knowing it will not influence the outcome of anything. These people may well have voted differently in a different system. These are the people whom a Corbynite Labour may attract back to the party.

[Mantis]

Many UKIP votes were indeed protest votes but that still doesn't change the fact that immigration is pretty much the core issue of the party. I'm not denying that Corbyn will likely take away some of their support because he's not a typical politician but I don't expect UKIP voters to switch to Labour in their droves.

 

UKIP have already peaked IMO.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Mantis

[bickster]

Many UKIP votes were indeed protest votes but that still doesn't change the fact that immigration is pretty much the core issue of the party. I'm not denying that Corbyn will likely take away some of their support because he's not a typical politician but I don't expect UKIP voters to switch to Labour in their droves.

 

UKIP have already peaked IMO.

Immigration isn't the core issue of UKIP at all. EU membership is most definitely the core issue. Leaving the EU is most definitely THE issue that binds them all together. In fact their policy on just about everything else tends to move with Farages bowel movements. Even their immigration policy changed quite regularly. They are to all intents and purposes a single issue party with lots of xenophobes as supporters. Doesn't mean they won't vote for a Corbyn Labour Party.

Really they want to privatise the NHS but they couldn't get away with it, they completely changed their policy because most of their supporters want the NHS, their backers don't but….

[Mantis]

 

Many UKIP votes were indeed protest votes but that still doesn't change the fact that immigration is pretty much the core issue of the party. I'm not denying that Corbyn will likely take away some of their support because he's not a typical politician but I don't expect UKIP voters to switch to Labour in their droves.

 

UKIP have already peaked IMO.

Immigration isn't the core issue of UKIP at all. EU membership is most definitely the core issue. Leaving the EU is most definitely THE issue that binds them all together. In fact their policy on just about everything else tends to move with Farages bowel movements. Even their immigration policy changed quite regularly. They are to all intents and purposes a single issue party with lots of xenophobes as supporters. Doesn't mean they won't vote for a Corbyn Labour Party.

Really they want to privatise the NHS but they couldn't get away with it, they completely changed their policy because most of their supporters want the NHS, their backers don't but….

 

Immigration didn't used to be one of the core issues but it is now. It's arguably just as important to them as the EU. I agree that they do change their policies quite a lot but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of UKIP supporters would be strongly opposed to immigration policy in a Corbyn-led Labour Party.

 

As I said, I'm not saying that no UKIP voters would vote for Corbyn's Labour but I doubt there'd be many. Probably the only way that would happen is if Corbyn became staunchly anti-EU which he is far from being at the moment despite being less positive about it than most other Labour MPs.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Mantis