Crewe and Nantwich why we need a move to the left!

Wiseman Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:56:32 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

After the disaster of last night we really need to start looking at our core voters

1) Taxing the earners over £85000 a year more
2) Taxing domiciles and big energy firms such as Shell more
3) Use the money to give more the workers earning less than £18000 a year
4) Support British manufacturing and industry more
5) Increase minimum wage
6) Stop messing up the education system, Get rid of Sats
7) Bring back the index link for pensioners and rights for temporary workers

Give people security during the credit crunch instead of pretending it is not happening!!

Lets put the facts on the table, listen or we lose the next election!!!!

John Wiseman






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Crewe and Nantwich why we need a move to the left! | 70 comments (70 topical)

Not exactly joined-up thinking (#1)

by alexanderbaker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:16 AM GMT

"Give people security during the credit crunch"

Of your eight suggestions, I count at least four which could have a negative impact on unemployment.

Not exactly the stability workers need right now...


Re: Not exactly joined-up thinking (#14)

by Just Labour on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:09:56 PM GMT

8) improve literacy in St Helens


[ Parent ]

Re: Not exactly joined-up thinking (#32)

by Wiseman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM GMT

Sorry but in St Helens we have great education!!

Just letting you know!!

We always have to get personal  This is whats wrong in the party, this professional crap instead of being honest and straighforward!

Thanks

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#2)

by Prbo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM GMT

John, I know it's easy to react strongly to results like last night, but I'd like to add a word of caution if I may.

If we've learned anything from politics in the last twenty odd years or so, it's that in the wake of rejection by the electorate for one reason for another, any attempt to retreat from the centre ground to the core vote achieves exactly the opposite of what is intended.  The Tories have found this to their cost in the last ten years or so - if Labour wants to win again, it can't afford to go left. 

This is the strategy of McDonnell etc - can you imagine a party led by someone with his views winning over 40pc in a general election in the 21st century?  It would barely manage 25pc.


Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#3)

by jljb2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:10:50 AM GMT

Well, you would want us to believe that, but it's utterly false - you're just buying into the New Labour mythology. People have not voted for the Tories here - they've voted for 'the other lot' because we've failed them: it's just a rejection of us, not an endorsement of the Tories - that's how politics works. We were winning 45% as an explicitly social democratic/democratic socialist party prior to Blair - there's absolutely no reason why we can't do so again, though it may be too late to make the transition before the next GE. Did Thatcher win on the centre ground - don't think so. No-one is advocating a 'retreat' to the core vote, just that the core aim of all Labour policy be to stand up for them. You patronise the middle classes if you think they haven't got enough morality to vote in the interests of people other than themselves.  And let's not forget that none of the McDonnellite policies would harm anyone in the middle-class bracket, and everyone benefits from a more equal society - it's happier, healthier and much safer.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#6)

by Prbo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM GMT

jljb2, I can categorically tell you I'm not buying into any new labour mythology!  When you say that Thatcher didn't win on the centre ground, you're right to an extent - the reason she won in 1979 and subsequently was that the country was crippled and needed a radical solution.  That is what she provided.  The same situations do not necessarily replicate themselves now.

I admire your optimism about human nature when you talk about the middle classes, but I really think you're being naive if you think that the majority of people vote according to what's best for the country.  People are selfish, and vote for what will be best for themselves.  I'd be absolutely delighted if Labour stood on a McDonnellite platform and tried to claim it wouldn't hurt the middle classes.  As a non-Labour supporter, nothing would please me more!  However, from your point of view, the worst thing you can do is retreat the left-wing base as John calls for in his post.  This is the quickest way to (further )electoral destruction.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#19)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM GMT

It's is promising to see Tories take this line - suggests to me that you're frightened of us doing just that.

It's not a case of 'retreating to a left-wing core'; it's a case of a rediscovering our radicalism and passion and getting people enthusiastic about a Labour government again - yes, we'd piss some people off too, but you can't please all the people all the time.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#24)

by Prbo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM GMT

Just offering some friendly advice, Dunc!  The fact remains that elections are won on the centre ground - always have been and always will be.  If the Tories retreat to the Right, or Labour to the Left, they pay the price.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#26)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM GMT

It isn't always the case; there are plenty of examples of elections won on a radical programme that offended nearly as many people as it delighted (the Tories did it under Thatcher; really the '45 Labour programme could be categorised that way too).

Also, there's a lot of talk about strategy: we have a centre/triangulation strategy now.  And it doesn't appear to be working (for a whole range of psephological reasons I could bore you rigid about for paragraph after paragraph!)  The truth is we should do the right thing.  It's true, I think the right thing would also be strategically advantageous at this time.  But even if the end point of a 'let's do something socially-progressive and genuinely worthwhile for our people in the next two years' 'strategy' didn't result in a Labour victory, we should do it anyway.  Because the only reason most people in the Labour movement would buy the alternative - not doing things that are socially-progressive and worthwhile - is to win; and that approach ain't going to get us a win, whatever anybody thinks the result of a more left-wing approach would be.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#27)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:55 PM GMT

Oh I don't think it is true. Labour won on a radical left-wing manifesto in 1945. Thatcher won with a radical right-wing manifesto in 1979. Every 30 years there is a radical shift in British politics. If people are getting angrier about the unregulated stock markets, private equity, non-doms, the 10p tax rate etc. I take this as a sign that the electorate are moving towards the left.


[ Parent ]

Crewe and Nantwich why we need a move to the left! (#4)

by AnInfantileDisorder on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM GMT

Do you think that the voters in London went for Boris because Ken wasn't left wing enough?
Can you see the nonsense in that line of argument?

 The truth is: that the voters don't like Gordon. It wasn't for the absolute susbstance of the 10p tax rate so much as the botched handling of it.

A move to the left would make it easier for Cameron to get the "New" Labour vote (the number of Labour-Tory switchers in Crewe and Nantwich is significant). On the plus side it could preserve an 80s style Labour rump in parliament - I'm just not sure that's the vision we're aiming for.

 


Crewe and Nantwich why we need a move to the left! (#5)

by chrisgudgin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM GMT

Prbo, spot on. I completely agree.


Re: Crewe and Nantwich why (#7)

by Wiseman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM GMT

all good posts, just to say I spent my youth delivering food parcels to the miners.  I don't want that again, I am only telling you what the people I know think, it may be different in other parts of the country.  Just remeber this.  A more centre-left/left agenda has not been tried recently in the UK, but it is certainly working in Spain

John Wiseman




Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#8)

by David Boothroyd on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM GMT

John McDonnell's 'reaction to the byelection result' was ludicrous, because it wasn't actually a reaction to the byelection result. It was simply an opportunity for him to call for the exact same set of policies which he has been calling for since 1997.


Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we (#9)

by TonyH on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:42:30 AM GMT

Wiseman,

You're not listening and you're not paying attention.

1,2 and 3 we're already doing (and have been doing them since 1997). 2 we (and the civil service) are carrying out with such incompetence that businesses are leaving not only because the level of taxation but the cost of compliance and uncertainty of planning - several changes made then remade after consultations go unheeded.

6 is the one area we're doing well and the first part of 7 we've pencilled in for 2012 - when it's affordable.

We're getting kicked because of a lack of credibility. We have a leader who deposed the most successful leader the Party has ever had. A hardworking yet uncommunicative man who hired a platoon of PR people and, in the case of this stupid “toff” campaign, hasn’t listened to their advice and we’ve taken a deserved beating (for which I’m glad, frankly).

We’ve spent every election campaign attacking the Tories not for their inconsistency but threatening the electorate with black holes when we knew full well that there’s no such thing as an “unfunded tax cut” as demonstrated by the £2.7bn we rightly made available last week.

We’ve rested on our laurels and have achieved little since 2005. We’ve allowed our membership to diminish, our funding to become compromised and our rule making to become irrelevant. We’ve been riddled with cancerous complacency since 2005 and the effects are now showing.

We’ve taken to divisive politicking at a time when there’s a whole country to be governed and assured.

We have Harriet Harman out there telling people they are angry with the world economy and not the government which only serves to infuriate them even more.

In preparing for government again, the first thing we’ll do when we lose the next election is to replace the leader, wipe the slate clean and start again.

We’ve got two years - why don’t we do that now?


Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we (#12)

by Wiseman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:59:58 PM GMT

I thought I was the teacher (IT).  Anyway good point, but we do need some changes at least, even a mixture of Cruddas and McDonnell policy (LRC and Compass), would be far better and we though Brown would do that.

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we (#15)

by TonyH on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM GMT

Yes, there should be changes but not an instinctive lurch to the left.

We need a Prime Minister of the UK not of one factional group. Once everyone can see and believe we have a leader doing what's right for the country in a manner that's appropriate and correct - then we have a chance.

Right now, we don't and Gordon has to change or go.

I regret that both are unlikely.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#10)

by NeilF on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM GMT

I don't think a lot of it is around 'left-right' issues. People outside of political parties tend not to think like that. I think voters want to know we totally understand their ambitions and anxieties and have the ability to actually do something positive about it. Some issues require greater involvement of the state and public sector ('left-wing') some do not ('right-wing').

I was telephone canvassing Dartford last night (majority 500ish) and the issues that were consisently coming up were remarkably similar in Northumberland where I campaigned in local elections.  I don't think it's about focusing excessively on our core vote or the marginals but about getting on top of a lot of the those issues that matter to both.

The best thing we can do is identify a broad range of fresh policies that meet the needs of people in 2008, competently implement them as well as give a real sense of what we are doing, why and for whom.  I think we've got a couple of months to get our heads round this and then go for it with everything we can muster. Let's show some real fight.


Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#11)

by richardscorer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM GMT

Wiseman is right on point 4. ie promotion of manufacturing.
The financialization of the British economy ie huge increase in overall proportion of GDP generated by the financial sector and decrease in the proportion generated by manufacturing industry, and the effect of this on politics and democracy needs more attention. Far too much of the GDP generated by the financial sector is debt related ie is simply new ways to repackage and sell debt. Jobs are created in the process but how long do they survive when the credit crunch chickens come home to roost? The financialization of the economy and job creation affects our political system in a multitude of ways-it is one reason why New Labour, despite many impressive policy achievements in other areas, is afraid to challenge the privileges of the super rich, in fact has increased them eg through tax changes benefitting private equity. A big subject, but we need to hear more about rebalancing the economy and supporting manufacturing industry


Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#13)

by Wiseman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM GMT

The list above is core Labour party values, if all the party can't see that then we all have had it.

We won't our party back!!

We want to be Labour and proud!!

John Wiseman


Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#16)

by Just Labour on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM GMT

I presume you want our party back...I am genuinely astonished that you are a teacher (IT).  

Aside from that, this is simplistic sloganising and an irrelevance to the serious debate the party needs to hold.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#29)

by Wiseman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM GMT

Yep somebody thinks I am worth it!  Seriously though we need change through policy.

Thanks

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#22)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM GMT

No, what you mean is, you want to pull the party dramatically in your direction knowing fully well that the party has no chance of winning under that strategy and you'd alienate most people who vote for Labour.

I'm sorry John but it's a selfish strategy. Some of your ideas may be good and there's nothing wrong with Labour becoming more progressive in some areas, but if the likes of McDonnell and Cruddas became in charge of the party, we'd become nothing more than a rump party, probably even beaten by the LibDems in a general election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#30)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:16:27 PM GMT

I'm not sure how true that is. No, I don't support McDonnell. But Cruddas is not a 'loony-lefty'. I think 10 years ago it would've been very unwise to shift leftwards, but (though in a more Compass-style direction) I don't think it is that case now.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#33)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:29:14 PM GMT

Well Cruddas certainly isn't 'as bad' as McDonnell from my perspective to give him credit. But I don't think this is about 'shifting left' or 'shifting right'. We should aim to be progressive social-democrats who can sensibly build a wide enough coalition to win elections and make a difference.

To achieve this, yes some policies need to be more progressive than Blair, but we also need to continue welfare reform, public service reform etc. and I don't think Cruddas would be capable of achieving this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#37)

by otware on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:24:53 PM GMT

Public service reform should involve undoing Tory damage. Not carrying on their marvelous policy of privatising everything.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#41)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:45:28 PM GMT

Privatisation isn't the problem - indeed in many cases it's a good thing - but poor structure, poor regulation and lack of subsidies (to keep open unprofitable post offices for example) is the problem.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#42)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:56:38 PM GMT

The problem is that regulated, subsidised private enterprise (alongside 'reformed' public-private partnerships) only work in the interests of shareholders.  They are schemes through which - in complete contradiction to the sales pitch - the private sector accrues any profit while the government picks up the bill for any liability.  Look at the billions ploughed into railways, in a privatised system that prevents us from being able to plan, be strategic, or claw back any revenue.  The same is evident right across the board of privatised utilities and privatised or part-privatised necessary services.  Even with Northern Rock we carefully avoided nationalising the successful parts of the business. 

It is pure ideological dogma that is behind this particular form of 'reform'.  So I'm all in favour of the reform of public services and welfare: to make it more democratic, more accountable, fairer, to ensure workers are properly paid and have proper rights. Reform that's all about securing contracts for consultancy firms to get their hands on public money for doing very little and cutting corners is a sort of reform we could cope with a lot less of.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#43)

by otware on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:08:57 PM GMT

The railways is really the classic example of privatisation at its very worst. How can anybody with an ounce of grey matter claim that the privatised system works in the interests of travellers? The railways NEED massive investment in infrastructure, rolling stock, a roll out of electrified lines and staffing of small stations. This cannot happen under privatisation!


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#46)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:19:52 PM GMT

Well yes it can happen. In fact it does happen now since private companies who take up the contracts for public services are expected to stump up cash for investment. That's not to say that more government cash isn't needed as well.

The reason why the railway privatisation failed was because the Tories split up the network into separate owners for the track, stations etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#48)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM GMT

I agree, the privatization was a ruddy mess.

 IIRC Major actually wanted a return to the old "Big Four" companies along roughly similar lines, giving them control of the track and the trains, but he was overruled by a cabinet vote, who pressed ahead with the privatization and the seperation of the track and the trains, even though it had never been tried before.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#49)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM GMT

This just isn't true - it DOES happen now, but it isn't the private companies stumping up the cash, it's US!  We subsidise to the tune of billions and get nothing back.  Fares keep going up, there's no planning or strategy and we keep paying more.  The tax-payer is stumping up considerably more than when the trains were in public ownership, while shareholders make tidy dividends.  It's a con.  Yes, splitting up the network compounded the disaster, but the whole concept was disastrous.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#50)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:17:59 PM GMT

Absolutely. Subsidies are a terrible form of government waste and corporate welfare. What is needed for the Railways is to have either co-operatives, or regional companies with strong consumer representation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#52)

by madasafish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM GMT

The railways Operating companies pay teh Government £hundreds of millions for the franchises... and someone - the travelling public - has to pay the bill.

If you like, it's a tax on train travel.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#54)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:43:33 PM GMT

This is the answer actually.  Next time those franchises come up - don't renew them.  It would actually save the government money in the long run and there'd be no initial expense if you don't actually buy them out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#53)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:39 PM GMT

You'd still have to subsidise them.  Railways need regular investment of large sums of money.  It is logical that we invest such sums in public assets rather than in shareholders back-pockets.

I'm all for their being a more co-operative approach to public ownership than we saw in the old Morrisonian model; but with infrastructure you need investment and you need planning.

Tax-payers money should never end up in shareholders pockets.  Full-stop.  It's essentially theft.  It does in the railways; it does through PFI; it does through PPPs and franchised-out education authorities, etc.  So all of that needs to stop.

But the services need the money.  The mythology that these schemes bring that money in from the private sector has to now be exposed as the nonsense it always was.  At best this is state borrowing on abysmal terms; at worst a pure con.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#58)

by otware on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:43:25 AM GMT

I think this myth of privatisation and PFI scams needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The general consensus is that voters want value for money when they have a high tax burden. These crooked, sleazy Tory deals are a con for tax payers and they bloody know it. Why else do they feel ripped off? New Labour and the Tories are the same in that they treat the public like retards...it's horrible.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#70)

by Free Radical on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM GMT

"Public service reform should involve undoing Tory damage. Not carrying on their marvelous policy of privatising everything"

Absolutely right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why we need a (#60)

by ComradeNorton on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:43:35 AM GMT

You are wrong.  It is the incompetence of our ministers, not our position which is the cause of our problems.  Why is it that the Tories have had to become the "competent version of New Labour" in order to become electable?

I grew up in the 1980's on one of the most degrading council estates in Salford because of fruitcakes from the left making the party unelectable.  I'll be damned if Cameron is going to be allowed to lurch to the right because our left allows it. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#17)

by e10rifles on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:16:16 PM GMT

Interesting how many Labour 'supporters' on here agree more with the Tory than the traditional Labour point of view.

Ramsey McDonald anyone?

Nice people as they may be, we should have no political common ground with Conservatives.



Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#18)

by Prbo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM GMT

we should have no political common ground with Conservatives.

That's an extraordinary statement, rifles!  Would you care to explain?  The implication of this is that the two main political parties should not agree on anything significant, even if they both agreed it was right for the country.  I'm sure that's just me misinterpreting your thoughts though... 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#20)

by e10rifles on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:21:31 PM GMT

The Conservatives and Liberals exist to further the interests of the property- and business-owning class. The Labour Party was founded to represent the majority who are employed by them and who had no political representation until then. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the farmer.

There is no such thing overall as a 'national interest' - only the interests of the bosses and the interests of the workers. The political struggle in the UK is merely a localised branch of that global truism.

I suppose there may be common ground on some "non-political" issues (electoral reform?) but on the basics of economy and governance we should stand in stark contrast to the parties of the right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#23)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM GMT

The problem with these "stark contrasts" was it made Labour completely unelectable and left them in the wilderness for a full 13 years.

 

Not to mention the biggest Socialist experiment of them all collapsed during this time, debunking the entire concept of socialistic economics.

Every "socialist" country around the world today has capitalistic economies to one degree or another. Most of it falling instead to the Party leaders/governmental figures personally owning  factories and buisnesses to augment their governmental budgets.

The PLA in China leaps to mind, along with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and various members of the Chinese Politburo. They own large, capitalistically run, chunks of the economy to generate themselves money.

Cuba today relies on a large chunk of Tourista dollars to keep what's left of it's economy going, and Raul has made massive strides to reform the economy to a more globalised and capitalistic approach in order to benefit both the masses and a new formation of middle and upper classes. 

The fact is today the lines in the UK are blurring between classes, many folks won't admit to being "working class" or the "Underclass" they're "Lower-Middleclass." Because of that new title they are wary of people attacking the economy, which works, and various other ideals that were established under Thatcher and Major, by allowing people to own their own homes they stopped feeling quite so "working class".

I read somewhere the other day that previously the Conservatives were a brake on slowing down the creep of Socialism in the UK, then Maggie turned up and all hell broke loose. Instead it now seems that the socialistically minded party is the brake on Thatcherism. 

 

I think I agree with it. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#31)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM GMT

I personally believe that Capitalism is a great way of generating wealth, but it must be backed up with strong government.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#35)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM GMT

Here's why we shall respectively disagree, I beleive in a weak government, but a strong society. A socially concious and morally aware society can do the work of 10 strong governments.

The problem is, too many of the "strong" governments are one-party states[Cuba, China etc], or psuedo-democracies [Russia and Venezuala]. It's better to have a weaker government with a strong society behind it, the society keeps the buisnesses in check with their money, if nobody touches a buisness because of it's shoddy practises [usually found out by the media before any government intervention anyway]. Case of voting with their money should keep buisness more in check. That's how I'd see it as a conservative, the problem now is that we have a weak society and strong government that's still letting companies get away with things that people would find questionable. [Indian Sweatshops, etc]


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#36)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:02:29 PM GMT

I think capitalism is a lousy way of generating wealth, as it is only able to do so by exploiting labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#38)

by otware on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM GMT

Capitalism is a shit, nasty, evil system and it's a terrible shame that it's the accepted international system. However the fact is that capitalism is here for the long haul and we have to do our best to tame the beast, hoping for a move to socialism in the longrun.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#44)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM GMT

I think the fact that Socialism buckled and collapsed the second the Capitalistic economics so much as mildly flexed their muscles in the late 70's-late 80's says enough about Socialtistic economies. They don't work.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#47)

by doctordunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:21:15 PM GMT

I'm struggling here - are you referring to the economies of the Eastern bloc?


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#62)

by AngryVoter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:06:35 AM GMT

The Eastern Bloc, China, Vietnam, Cuba. All had socialist economies until the 1980's. The Bloc collapsed, while the other three started looking for ways out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#69)

by doctordunc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:04:27 PM GMT

Well I'm not going to get into a discussion about precisely what those states were, or what their economies were; but I think it's reasonable to suggest that those of us urging the UK to adopt socialist policies are not suggesting that they adopt the economic policies of the countries you list.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#51)

by jkitleft on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:55 PM GMT

Again, do you mean communism? Because:
 
1) Socialism and Capitalism are compatible, as seen by the Nordic model.

2) Social democracy can and often does work, so does democratic socialism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#59)

by otware on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:47:53 AM GMT

Careful here. Nordic countries are great examples of social democracies, which I think is a good preliminary step towards a better society. They are not socialist states, however.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#28)

by TonyH on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:14:13 PM GMT

There is no such thing overall as a 'national interest' - only the interests of the bosses and the interests of the workers. The political struggle in the UK is merely a localised branch of that global truism.
 
It is because there is a national interest that one is nothing without the other. Workers aren't workers with no one to work for and bosses aren't bosses without people to work with.

A party for one exclusive of the other means someone's always getting screwed over and progress is never made - that is the wrong advocacy, the wrong sentiment and utterly contemptuous of any civically responsible person trying to get the awful machinery of politics right.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#55)

by copey86 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:24:22 PM GMT

There is no overarching 'national' interest as such, regarding who controls the means and factors of production there is only class interest - the minority class lives off the labour of the majority class, whom it sells the products of its own hand back to for profit, conditioning production solely for the generation of profit. The national state exists to regulate various conditions of production - transport, legal framework and so on, in the interests of the capitalist class which is incapable of doing this consciously itself.

That you effectively say workers cannot exist without bosses and vice versa is a tautology and a fudge. Formally in terms of abstract categories this is correct, but in reality the working class has its labour appropriated by the capitalsit class - so concretly you say that 'without bosses their would be no exploitation of the worker to create the formal distinction between the two in the abscence of this expoitation'. The hollowness of your tautology is here laid bare.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#56)

by copey86 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM GMT

...there would be...etc. Pardon my spelling.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#57)

by TonyH on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:07:33 AM GMT

This post not only demonstrates that you don't understand what tautology is but that you also don't appear to appreciate small businesses, the self employed, professional services, the hospitality sector, the third sector or co-operative businesses are either.

It also reads like those parroted lines from a guy who read one book but learned it...

"The hollowness of your tautology is here laid bare"

Indeed! You idiot!


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#64)

by copey86 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM GMT

Whether or not, technically, it was or wasnt a tautology is irrelevent even if there is an error on my part - the logic of your comment is still terminally flawed.

You do not address this, all we get is abstract moralising about how I dont 'appreciate' small business! As Adam Smith said, it is not the through the kindness of the baker that he makes our bread - it is another function, albeit on a smaller scale of the market. The economy doesnt work on morals and 'appreciation' it works on class relations, the wages system, and expoitation.

On small business, the petit bourgeoisie, they occupy a unique place in the market, a minority place, one sandwiched between workers and capitalists, since they have access to means of production, but only on a small scale, which is constantly threatened by the larger parts of the economy, or in generalised economic disturbances. I can, of course appreciate the effort someone may have gone to to establish their own business - but the appreciation of their own expression of effort is different from accepting the broader and the determining relations throughout the whole of society which are the evil of capitalism and all the things it leads to (war, environmental degradation, exploitation, competing nationalisms, immigration concerns, poverty, artificial scarcity leading to war, poverty and so on). It is precisely because the efforts of the small businessperson are only possible within the greater evil that the whole lot will have to go if everyone is to have this opportunity to use their labour in a self fulfilling, a a community minded way. What you mistake for a lack of appreciation is actually the opposite - but my attitiude towrads capitalism as a whole is detemrined by the greater evil of that whole.

Needless to say i shan't be responding to your insults.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#66)

by TonyH on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM GMT

Guys - who is this clown?


'Appreciate' as in understand. I clearly wasn't moralising. Off the top of my head, I was listing a large constituency of people who didn't fall into the simplistic, aged dogma you parroted.

There is no response to the suggestion that you're an idiot.

You just are...or at least appear to be.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#68)

by copey86 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:45 PM GMT

Again no arguments, only appeals to the authority of others, assertions and insults. Dear me.

" Off the top of my head, I was listing a large constituency of people who didn't fall into the simplistic, aged dogma you parroted."

Not really. Workers vs capitalists is very broad and only a fool would think thats all there is to it - needless to say however that most of the groups you listed are in fact workers - but anyhow, if it came across as overly simple thats because its pretty ABC stuff that you seemed not to know: this phantom 'national interest' stuff you came out with and have roundly failed to explain. My comment on the nature of small business itself invalidates your claim that i was being simplistic, yet somehow this is contained in the comment before yours! Did we not put our glasses on?

Anyway, 'aged dogma'. Calling someting old does not invalidate it. Neither does calling it dogma for that matter.

As for 'parroting it' like I said, ABC stuff, so i presented it as simply and as unconfusingly as possible for you.

As for not 'understanding' small business, what does that even mean! Ive worked for small businesses, I understnad the class posisiton of the petit bourgeoisie. What else do I need to flippin well know!

"There is no response to the suggestion that you're an idiot"

Because only an idiot would make such a suggestion in the first place. Look, I can call names too! Am I as big and clever as you now? I hope not.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich (#61)

by ComradeNorton on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:58:47 AM GMT

Nice people as they may be, we should have no political common ground with Conservatives.

What an utter load of rubbish.

Would you care to define what a conservative so that we can then work out what we are disagreeing with?

Is it someone who believes in the freedom to do things? (Thatcher, although this is essentially a liberal position)

Or is it someone who believes in the freedom from things? (Traditional conservatives)

Someone with a lot of money? (as the designer of the Crewe and Natwich election campaign seems to think)

Thatcher turned the conservatives into the new liberal party (my freedom to do what I like) and Blair turned labour into traditional conservatives (freedom from things such as poverty). 

Cameron has gone back to a traditional conservative position so you think we need Cruddas or McDonell to become the next Michael Foot.  Top move, lets make ourselves unelectable for the next 15 years and condemn huge swathes of our population to poverty.


[ Parent ]

Why we need a move to the left! (#21)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM GMT

The move to the left will achieve this.....

After the disaster of May 4th 2010 the government will...

1) Reduce tax for the earners over £85000 a year and more
2) Reduce Tax for domiciles and big energy firms such as Shell, etc.
3) Tax more the workers earning less than £18000 a year
4) Support British manufacturing and industry by ignoring endemic sleaze
5) Scrap the minimum wage
6) Mess up the education system, by getting rid of Sats
7) Remove the fuel allowance for pensioners and remove all rights for temporary workers
8)  Give people no security during the fiscal crises by pretending it is not happening!!



Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#25)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM GMT

I'm sorry but that's tractor production phrases again.

 

The fact is you don't know what the New Conservatives stand for, they're pulling the same trick on Labour as Labour did to the Tories in the run-up to 1997. It's hard to oppose them because, aside from better taxes and a clearer sense of purpose and accountability from politicians, you don't know what they stand for. I sincerly doubt the Tories will run around taxing workers on less than £18k a year when you guys just turned around and doubled the tax threshold and lost by 50% of the vote in Crewe and Nantwich.

 

Also, has Labour supported British Industry and manufacturing? No. Did the Tories last time? Yes because, as Maggie said, she "sold the family silver back to the family". Today our family silver is owned by everyone but us.

Our energy is owned by the French and Germans.

Our biggest railway employer, EWS is owned by the Germans.

 Our postal system is being undermined by the German DHL company.

Our Steel industry is now owned by the Indians who immediately shut the South Wales plant down and moved the manufacturing abroad.

Our last car maker, MG Rover, is now owned by the Chinese, who shut the Longbridge factory down and have grudignly opened up a smaller facility to put the cars back together, rather than build them there outright. All because the government didn't hand them a resque package or try to find a British bidder first.

 Not to mention the Indian company TATA motors now owning two of the great brands that are most British: Jaguar and Land Rover.

What's left of the manufacturing industry has been utterly trampled on by Labour, a party that supposedly protects British jobs, and is now trotting out the promise of "British Jobs for British Workers". 


[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#34)

by TonyH on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM GMT

"The fact is you don't know what the New Conservatives stand for..."

I'm also struggling to understand what you stand for. You mock the Soviet language of tractor production but presumably not the planned economy that goes with it when you bemoan foreign ownership of British utilities.

It was the Conservatives who privatised British Rail, Railtrack, British Airways, British Telecom, British Gas, National Power, British Petroleum, British Aerospace, Jaguar ('84), Rolls Royce ('87), Rover ('88) and British Nuclear Energy. 

Now WE get the blame for their subsequent ownership and  YOU mock US with communist terminology.  

As they say in Russia: Poshyol ty'!



[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#45)

by AngryVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:19:26 PM GMT

I agree with a certain degree of protectionism specifically to keep British jobs for British workers, it's my own hybrid ideaology that sits somewhere to the centre-right of things.

Personally a certain degree of intervention to keep major companies, and hallmarks noless, in control of British buisnessmen, much like the French keep their companies within a certain degree of protection. They could have found preffered buyers that were British, or the government expressed an interest in keeping the companies british.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#63)

by CitizenAndreas on Sat May 24, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM GMT

I'd agree with that, protectionism is really quite unfairly demonised in these free market times. It's a real shame that none of the mainstream political parties are willing to embrace the idea.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#65)

by jkitleft on Sat May 24, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM GMT

Certain aspects constrain others into poverty though. The prime example is the CAP.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#39)

by otware on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM GMT

tell me, how would scrapping SATs 'mess up' the education system? SATs are useless, put pr


[ Parent ]

Re: Why we need a move to the left! (#40)

by otware on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:37:33 PM GMT

...put needless pressure on schools/teachers & increase the extent to which students are forced to jump through hoops - with a detrimental effect on a broad, rounded education.


[ Parent ]

Re: Crewe and Nantwich why... (#67)

by matt1986 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:44:24 PM GMT

I agree with each point except point four. If you mean we should subsidise firms to stop jobs going abroad then I completely disagree. We shouldn't try to compete against developing countries who need the work and can do it cheaper. But I'm in favour in more adult education and more money being spent on training to make sure everyone in the country is able to get a job in new sectors of the economy. We shouldn't be bothered about traditional manufacturing though.


Crewe and Nantwich why we need a move to the left! | 70 comments (70 topical)