On politics...
Discussion
I don't usually visit here because frankly life is too short, but I wanted to share a snippet from a phone conversation with a friend today. It may explain why Britons can't elect anyone who can fix the country. While the intellectuals here will be busy bickering at a high level, this is what it's like for the rest.
Friend: 'I don't want Farage to be the next Prime Minister, I prefer the other one, erm, er...'
Me: 'Andy Burnham'.
Friend: 'That's the one'.
Me: 'But he's more left wing than Starmer, he's a socialist'.
Friend: 'What's a socialist?'
In short, many people vote for the person they like the look of best. It's not a great recipe for fixing the country is it. If proof were needed, look at the kick and rush mentality that got Labour elected with a landslide (yet the fewest votes) - and now the ones that voted for Starmer want somebody else. Tony Blair spoke an infinite deal of sense on R4 this morning. Look at the world. Work out what needs to be done to compete. Get costs down. Get the best people. It's not about left vs right.
And so, the fate of the nation rides on Makerfield, a small place near Wigan that nobody had heard of until this month. It's going to get nasty I fear.
I won't be following this thread but just needed to 'decompress'
Friend: 'I don't want Farage to be the next Prime Minister, I prefer the other one, erm, er...'
Me: 'Andy Burnham'.
Friend: 'That's the one'.
Me: 'But he's more left wing than Starmer, he's a socialist'.
Friend: 'What's a socialist?'
In short, many people vote for the person they like the look of best. It's not a great recipe for fixing the country is it. If proof were needed, look at the kick and rush mentality that got Labour elected with a landslide (yet the fewest votes) - and now the ones that voted for Starmer want somebody else. Tony Blair spoke an infinite deal of sense on R4 this morning. Look at the world. Work out what needs to be done to compete. Get costs down. Get the best people. It's not about left vs right.
And so, the fate of the nation rides on Makerfield, a small place near Wigan that nobody had heard of until this month. It's going to get nasty I fear.
I won't be following this thread but just needed to 'decompress'
Simpo Two said:
While the intellectuals here
You really don't visit here often! To quote Doc Brown in Back to the Future; "no wonder your president's an actor; he has to look good on TV".
We are indeed in an age of identity and tribal politics. Most people prefer a politician to tell them what they want to hear more than to tell them the truth. Ideologically driven policy seems to be replaced with idealistic ones that are seldom deliverable but are more appealing to those that lack the ability of critical thought. That's not a criticism by the way - more an observation that many politicians recognise the lack of critical thought and rather than accommodate this, capitalise upon it to shift the narrative in a direction that gives them the power they crave.
It's always been like this. Churchill said that the best argument against Democracy was a give minute chat with the average voter. It's got worse with social media.
If you can convince someone to vote against a socialist or conservative party because of a hurr-durr meme then why bother with explaining your policies, let alone your political philosophy.
Elections just descend into a battle of memes and ragebaiting. And if you're rich enough, or own the social media, then you can decide what spreads and what doesn't.
Political and historical education is the only defence, and look at the state of our education.
If you can convince someone to vote against a socialist or conservative party because of a hurr-durr meme then why bother with explaining your policies, let alone your political philosophy.
Elections just descend into a battle of memes and ragebaiting. And if you're rich enough, or own the social media, then you can decide what spreads and what doesn't.
Political and historical education is the only defence, and look at the state of our education.
glazbagun said:
It's always been like this. Churchill said that the best argument against Democracy was a give minute chat with the average voter. It's got worse with social media.
The quote, attributed to Churchill incorrectly, was wrong. The best argument against democracy is a brief chat with the average MP.The comment was, however, typical of Churchill in that it showed conceit and he had a great deal of contempt for the electorate. They were the hoi polloi to him, of little consequence, to be managed, while he got on doing what was good for him and his ilk. What shocked him was to find that they, the electorate, had a memory, and the land fit for heroes after WWI was more of the same old.
Before the second Reform Act, there was little in the way of an electorate, and most of that was controlled. Even then, the upper chamber, the house of lords, was more powerful than the commons - the clue's in the name - and then it wasn't until Vicky died that heredity rule was finally eased. We weren't a democracy until 1928 so to Churchill, it was something new.
The HoC has had its moments. Making slavery illegal was a positive, with a majority in the HoC in support but the lords were a barrier for many years. The same with universal suffrage, allowing the poor and females the vote. From the later 19thC, the was a majority for it in the HoC but, again, the lords blocked it and it took the forcing of a constitutional crisis in the new century before it got its way, Even then, 1918, only partially. Removing ani-homosexual laws, equal opportunities and more. We haven't done badly in this country, but we've had a run of poor PMs since 2010, of which Starmer was nowhere near the worst. Now there's an anti-democratic thought for the day.
Derek Smith said:
The HoC has had its moments. Making slavery illegal was a positive, with a majority in the HoC in support but the lords were a barrier for many years. The same with universal suffrage, allowing the poor and females the vote. From the later 19thC, the was a majority for it in the HoC but, again, the lords blocked it and it took the forcing of a constitutional crisis in the new century before it got its way, Even then, 1918, only partially. Removing ani-homosexual laws, equal opportunities and more. We haven't done badly in this country, but we've had a run of poor PMs since 2010, of which Starmer was nowhere near the worst. Now there's an anti-democratic thought for the day.
This is a good point. We only judge the process of government and those who govern on what's happening now. The natural pace of change is almost always too slow to enable recognition of positive change as it is in the processing of happening - only when it's happened - but we tend not to look back at these things and attribute political influence to their being.For all the bun-fighting over HS2. I am certain that future generations will marvel at it and consider it to have been an example of good forward thinking.
mac96 said:
I thought 'What's a socialist?' was a good question, seeing as it seems to mean completely different things to different people, including some who seem to have no definition and just use it as a term of abuse.
I think you need to have two definitions:(1) Socialist
(2) Champagne Socialist
99.99% of the people who say they are Socialists are actually (2).
It would be a good game to name anyone in group (1) - may I suggest Dennis Skinner?
mac96 said:
I thought 'What's a socialist?' was a good question, seeing as it seems to mean completely different things to different people, including some who seem to have no definition and just use it as a term of abuse.
I think it's an interesting situation that being a socialist is considered an unexpected or undesirable characteristic in a Labour Member of Parliament or Prime Minister. If someone says "but they're a socialist..." as a negative, and the person they're speaking to asks "what's a socialist?", then I'd think it quite unlikely that the second person is unaware of what a socialist is, and far more likely that they think the first person using it as a pejorative is a very strong indicator that they don't know what one is, and/or have some very strange ideas on the subject.
mac96 said:
I thought 'What's a socialist?' was a good question, seeing as it seems to mean completely different things to different people, including some who seem to have no definition and just use it as a term of abuse.
Fair enough observation, but I get the sense from the OP’s account of the conversation that the question wasn’t directed at that level of nuance. And FWIW, I share the view that we have moved towards an electorate that votes for the PM more and more. The first real post war personality cult started with Thatcher (with a dose of anti-Foot thrown in). Then probably Blair, Boris definitely (and at the same time anti-Corbyn). Farage is currently riding that same wave.
Again, FWIW, I think Thatcher’s support came from a combination of personality plus clear articulation of a vision for the country. Blair likewise, but less so. Boris was much more about personality - although he had his Brexit means Brexit platform, there wasn’t much detail below the veneer there. Farage is mostly personality with some undeliverable popularism thrown in.
It’s what suits the current voting generation, which has a soundbite attention span nurtured by SM.
Socialist/ism is rather vague. We had the nazi use of the term despite Hitler being rabidly anti-communist, and about as right of centre as it is possible to get.
I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
I know the OP won't read this, but for the group:
Aside from radical centrist being a hilarious tautology, it's typical Blair in typical Messianic denial that most of the UK's problems have been caused by the neoliberalism he champions and more specifically the Third Way agenda that he shackled the Labour Party to and implemented so thoroughly when he was in Downing Street.
It's amazing that anyone can survey the UK (and the West more generally) in the context of the past 25 years and prescribe "keep doing the same, but even more. And with AI and those ID cards that I keep banging on about!" As if that'll solve it.
Neoliberalism and 'radical centrism' (always makes me chuckle) can't solve problems caused by neoliberalism and radical centrism (fnarr).
The bolded bit - this is what I call the "Question Time Fallacy", because almost every edition of QT will feature some salt of the earth audience member admonishing the panel for "playing politics" and urging them to "just sort it out!"
This is based on the spurious idea that there is one right way to do things that the politicians are just getting in the way of.
In reality, virtually all politicians want the same broad outcomes - prosperity, opportunity, health, security, sustainability, liberty.
Where they differ is in what those things look like and how to get them. That is about left and right. The left and right have fundamentally different (and incompatible) definitions of, say, liberty (positive vs. negative in this case) and opportunity (meritocracy vs equality vs equity vs justice, for instance).
Left and right will come up with very different lists of "what needs to be done to compete", what 'costs' are and how to get them down, who the 'best people' are and so on. Neither will be objectively right and wrong because they are based on differing moral, ethical, philosophical and political models seeking different outcomes and using different methods.
This is fundamentally what politics is about, and why (imo) the "just get on with it and do what needs to be done" or "left and right are irrelevant" is born either of ignorance (not introspecting and thinking that your worldview is correct and just needs to be done), hubris (that there is one correct way of doing politics - which is what Blair embodies. He's riddled with the 'end of history' dogma that liberal global capitalism creating growth to fund a small government acting through private entities in structured markets is the not just the right way but the only way that can work) or privilege (I have the luxury of not really being affected by politics or being on its winning side so I basically like the status quo).
Because it would seem there's a good chance that the person I'm speaking to is one of those people who thinks socialism is " when the government does stuff" or "high taxes".
The next step leftwards is some form of democratic socialism (demsoc, not socdem). In a UK context this is your Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner sort of vision. Much wider state ownership of business (beyond essentials and infrastructure) and a lot more direct worker representation and involvement in both workplace management and the various levels of government. Much more proactive redistribution of wealth and more direct legal controls on capital and assets.
Pure democratic socialism (as espoused by Benn) is about delegating control to ordinary people as far as possible - you have a voice in your workplace, your residence, your community, your municipality, your county and so on.
Simpo Two said:
Tony Blair spoke an infinite deal of sense on R4 this morning. Look at the world. Work out what needs to be done to compete. Get costs down. Get the best people. It's not about left vs right.
Tony Blair spoke partial sense - in identifying that Labour currently has no good ideas or direction. He talked nonsense in that his prescription was "do more Blairism. Go back to radical centrism!"Aside from radical centrist being a hilarious tautology, it's typical Blair in typical Messianic denial that most of the UK's problems have been caused by the neoliberalism he champions and more specifically the Third Way agenda that he shackled the Labour Party to and implemented so thoroughly when he was in Downing Street.
It's amazing that anyone can survey the UK (and the West more generally) in the context of the past 25 years and prescribe "keep doing the same, but even more. And with AI and those ID cards that I keep banging on about!" As if that'll solve it.
Neoliberalism and 'radical centrism' (always makes me chuckle) can't solve problems caused by neoliberalism and radical centrism (fnarr).
The bolded bit - this is what I call the "Question Time Fallacy", because almost every edition of QT will feature some salt of the earth audience member admonishing the panel for "playing politics" and urging them to "just sort it out!"
This is based on the spurious idea that there is one right way to do things that the politicians are just getting in the way of.
In reality, virtually all politicians want the same broad outcomes - prosperity, opportunity, health, security, sustainability, liberty.
Where they differ is in what those things look like and how to get them. That is about left and right. The left and right have fundamentally different (and incompatible) definitions of, say, liberty (positive vs. negative in this case) and opportunity (meritocracy vs equality vs equity vs justice, for instance).
Left and right will come up with very different lists of "what needs to be done to compete", what 'costs' are and how to get them down, who the 'best people' are and so on. Neither will be objectively right and wrong because they are based on differing moral, ethical, philosophical and political models seeking different outcomes and using different methods.
This is fundamentally what politics is about, and why (imo) the "just get on with it and do what needs to be done" or "left and right are irrelevant" is born either of ignorance (not introspecting and thinking that your worldview is correct and just needs to be done), hubris (that there is one correct way of doing politics - which is what Blair embodies. He's riddled with the 'end of history' dogma that liberal global capitalism creating growth to fund a small government acting through private entities in structured markets is the not just the right way but the only way that can work) or privilege (I have the luxury of not really being affected by politics or being on its winning side so I basically like the status quo).
InitialDave said:
If someone says "but they're a socialist..." as a negative, and the person they're speaking to asks "what's a socialist?", then I'd think it quite unlikely that the second person is unaware of what a socialist is, and far more likely that they think the first person using it as a pejorative is a very strong indicator that they don't know what one is, and/or have some very strange ideas on the subject.
Indeed. If I was in a particularly spiky mood I could see myself responding to attempts to Red Scare me about Andy Burnham (of all people!) with "what's a socialist?" Because it would seem there's a good chance that the person I'm speaking to is one of those people who thinks socialism is " when the government does stuff" or "high taxes".
Derek Smith said:
Socialist/ism is rather vague. We had the nazi use of the term despite Hitler being rabidly anti-communist, and about as right of centre as it is possible to get.
I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
What you've described there Derek is social democracy, which is a fairly mild form of socialism (if it really is - many lefties will say that it's just capitalism made to function properly!) of the kind that is very common in Europe and typically brought to a high form in Scandinavia. It still retains capitalist enterprise as the core economic engine and still upholds private economic property (shareholders, bosses and workers). But society (mostly but not always through a democratic state) has an active role in managing and regulating the economy, sharing ownership and maintaining a tripartite power balance between capital, labour and government.I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
The next step leftwards is some form of democratic socialism (demsoc, not socdem). In a UK context this is your Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner sort of vision. Much wider state ownership of business (beyond essentials and infrastructure) and a lot more direct worker representation and involvement in both workplace management and the various levels of government. Much more proactive redistribution of wealth and more direct legal controls on capital and assets.
Pure democratic socialism (as espoused by Benn) is about delegating control to ordinary people as far as possible - you have a voice in your workplace, your residence, your community, your municipality, your county and so on.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 29th May 12:15
Derek Smith said:
Socialist/ism is rather vague. We had the nazi use of the term despite Hitler being rabidly anti-communist, and about as right of centre as it is possible to get.
I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
The issue is not whether we'd like opportunities and basic needs available to all. It's whether we can best achieve that through free markets (such as in Denmark) or by governments. Incidentally government control of business is fascism, socialism is state ownership of business.I'd suggest it fits someone who wants, or thinks is desirable, businesses closely regulated by a democratically elected government; a narrow wealth gap; equal opportunity regardless of who/what you are; basic needs, like health, education, housing, are available to all, health foc at the point of need; freedom of choice - if a person is religious/a believer in diluted water, then go for it as long as you don't force it on me.
There's a range, from communism to the Danish type.
Perhaps the government being controlled by the people? That might be nice.
I don't see there's all that much to be ashamed of there.
Oddly in the past politics was based on greyness, Blair, Major, Cameron, various other leaders like Milliband,
Brown, May, Sunak, all cut from the same middle road cloth. Boring, safe, predictable, relatively safe.
Corbyn was the first to really stand out, then Johnson but he was all mouth no action, and this is post Brexit extremes coming more online with current opinion, hence Polanski, Farage, Tice, Lowe etc.
The trend is similar all over the world the populace are largely rejecting middle politics as it doesn't work for them selfishly maybe, the alternative probably won't either, this is just what our society is like now.
Brown, May, Sunak, all cut from the same middle road cloth. Boring, safe, predictable, relatively safe.
Corbyn was the first to really stand out, then Johnson but he was all mouth no action, and this is post Brexit extremes coming more online with current opinion, hence Polanski, Farage, Tice, Lowe etc.
The trend is similar all over the world the populace are largely rejecting middle politics as it doesn't work for them selfishly maybe, the alternative probably won't either, this is just what our society is like now.
mac96 said:
I thought 'What's a socialist?' was a good question, seeing as it seems to mean completely different things to different people, including some who seem to have no definition and just use it as a term of abuse.
Are socialists now called progressives so they can keep the self righteous quota topped up? Which doesn't help at all because it is bulls
t.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff