May is nearly out and so is May

[french frank]

!!!

Are we talking about the same party that enabled austerity in the first place? And you seriously think the 'liberals' are greener than Labour (let alone seeking equality etc.)

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Liberal Democrats are much greener than Labour. The two things that the LDs tried to do was 1) introduce a range of green initiatives - which they got passed and 2) introduce reforms to the House of Lords and the electoral system. The reforms were scuppered and the green initiatives mostly repealed once the troublesome children had been got rid of. One needs to remind people that the LDs didn't win the election - there was no way they were going to be able to wave a magic wand and achieve everything in their manifesto: the voters, in their wisdom, wouldn't let them. Just as the voters in their wisdom, kicked them out and allowed the winners to get us into the current mess into which the country has been plunged.

But cherrypicking is a popular pastime, isn't it?

[MrGongGong]

We only want what's best for him.

No future in British Steel it would seem

[Joseph K]

Last year, the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, told the Guardian a future Labour government would oversee an economic revolution to tackle the climate crisis, using the full power of the state to decarbonise the economy and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in struggling towns and cities

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/labour-members-launch-green-new-deal-inspired-by-us-activists

[Serial_Apologist]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-us-activists

Thanks for that, Joseph

[burning dog]

No future in British Steel it would seem

That makes me love you... now Im living in XTC!

[french frank]

Firstly I'm not sure what it is that makes you say that labour does not have a strong commitment to the environment, given that they have said they would support industries in the new techniology sector dealing with sustainable energy production and insulating properties - unless your are referring to their support also for the third runway at Heathrow and HS2: the two policy positons that would stick in my craw and are a big part of why I won't re-join.

I'm not saying they don't have a 'strong commitment to the environment', if asked the direct question, but other factors push it down the pecking order - whereas I think it merits a top place.

I'm not sure which bit to pick out on voting reform: you seem to be saying the current system is best for 'working class people'? An immediate point: it was the LibDems who blocked the Tories' attempts to change constituency boundaries to ensure that inner city areas which were mostly Labour should be diluted by having increased electorates taking in voters who were not Labour. There is a case, is there, for saying that disadvantaged people should be given an advantage by the voting system? It leaves it open to ask, What is democracy when one group can elect a representative on x votes, whereas another needs 10x to get a representative?

[MrGongGong]

That makes me love you... now Im living in XTC!

Swindon?

[Serial_Apologist]

Swindon?

In that case he Wilts.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not saying they don't have a 'strong commitment to the environment', if asked the direct question, but other factors push it down the pecking order - whereas I think it merits a top place.

As do I, french frank. Having agreed on that, where we would probably disagree would be over what those factors are.

I'm not sure which bit to pick out on voting reform: you seem to be saying the current system is best for 'working class people'? An immediate point: it was the LibDems who blocked the Tories' attempts to change constituency boundaries to ensure that inner city areas which were mostly Labour should be diluted by having increased electorates taking in voters who were not Labour. There is a case, is there, for saying that disadvantaged people should be given an advantage by the voting system? It leaves it open to ask, What is democracy when one group can elect a representative on x votes, whereas another needs 10x to get a representative?

No, I'm saying that while historically Labour voters were numerically and therefore politically concentrated within city areas, and the middle and upper classes were more prone to voting Conservative by dint of dispersal, today the massed organisation of working class identified with Labour has been removed, and, together with the vagaries and insecurities of consumer culture, has destroyed what previously existed of collective solidarity - what Marcuse described as "bourgeoisification", the sense of going-it-alone that motivates the ruling classes' self-empowerment, but without the power! Ironically what Marx predicted, the "proletarianisation" of the professionals as middle class teachers, doctors and so on joined trade unions, and their radicalisation through the progressive state education systems of the '60s and '70s, has long-term resulted in the middle class radicalisation we saw in Greenham Common and similar such - the alt lifestyle occupy vacant properties movements, etc. - have now filtered down to the Greta Thunberg generation, unvarnished by issues of conscience but the harsh reality of what the future presents. But it has not filtered through to those sectors of the working class who for decades were abandoned as the global neoliberal economic agenda was imposed across the westernworld post Reagan/Thatcher, through to whom any radical movement, led by Corbyn or whoever, have to penetrate if we are all to get out of the current log-jam.

Any socialist power base has to be in production, because there is where wealth is created; thus for ultimate reasons of survival it makes sense for it to be in production that is sustainable. The problem as I see it is, that that base has to be reconstructed before we can speak of distributing the privileges derived therefrom fairly, so that effectively they are no longer privileges but expectable givens, or there will be no roots from which to construct an egalitarian sustainable world.

You can't build wealth on virtuality! So the "radical left" is forced to start from somewhere - that somewhere being the return to Keynsianism and mixed economics that brought greater social peace and income/wealth equalisation that had ever existed before or since. I think this is how Corbyn and his supporters see it.

[burning dog]

That makes me love you... now Im living in XTC!

Swindon?

I live in a Garridge there.

[french frank]

As do I, french frank. Having agreed on that, where we would probably disagree would be over what those factors are.

I think we would. I'll take some time out to study what you're saying in your next paragraph, but tangentially relevant - I would say - is a Lib Dem belief (and this is some sort of a reflection of the early Labour thinking) is that great problems are best solved by people uniting and cooperating - one of the fundamental ideas underpinning support for the EU. But that seems to be an idea which only has very limited currency on the national stage (give NI £1bn and in return the DUP will support our programme). On the basis of early trade unionism, I would have thought that this would have had some traction with the Labour Party, but it hasn't. What they want is outright power to carry out their programme; and in return for that, they'll put up with being out of power with Conservatives taking control in their turn. And divisions seem to be so deep that there is no question of the two major sides ever cooperating with each other. Tribalism, 3-line Whips and emotions that end up being mutual hatred of each other.

How can any form of social improvement be sustained in that atmosphere?

[Serial_Apologist]

I think we would. I'll take some time out to study what you're saying in your next paragraph, but tangentially relevant - I would say - is a Lib Dem belief (and this is some sort of a reflection of the early Labour thinking) is that great problems are best solved by people uniting and cooperating - one of the fundamental ideas underpinning support for the EU. But that seems to be an idea which only has very limited currency on the national stage (give NI £1bn and in return the DUP will support our programme). On the basis of early trade unionism, I would have thought that this would have had some traction with the Labour Party, but it hasn't. What they want is outright power to carry out their programme; and in return for that, they'll put up with being out of power with Conservatives taking control in their turn. And divisions seem to be so deep that there is no question of the two major sides ever cooperating with each other. Tribalism, 3-line Whips and emotions that end up being mutual hatred of each other.

How can any form of social improvement be sustained in that atmosphere?

Surely any refusal of any decent party to cooperate with this lot of Tories over anything (sorry about all the any's!) is fully justified? Given that Corbyn seems reduced to waiting on total collapse of the Tories before he decides he can go to Labour's Eurosceptic members and Leave voting base and say, NOW we must have a second referendum if the government refuses to call an election, he can have no support among the electorate for approaching the Liberals. That surely must be clear? If and when it comes to a general election campaign, one (well I) would hope that Labour would go for an alliance with the Greens. For the moment, for obvious reasons including parliamentary arithmetic, there are too many imponderables in the way of escaping the Catch-22 situation he is in.

[eighthobstruction]

So what brings you here?

Indeed....in fact the question might be :"What brings you here again"....using your everso everso offensive "infantile"....saying very little but infantile....saying you are being humourous et al + infantile....AGAIN.....

[french frank]

Surely any refusal of any decent party to cooperate with this lot of Tories over anything (sorry about all the any's!) is fully justified?

A loaded question - it suggests a principle with provisos: 'just not the Tories'. But in 2010, what did 'this lot of Tories' represent? They'd been out of power for 13 years and had a new leader anyway.

The Labour party had just been defeated by a margin which suggested rejection by the electorate. Even if the numbers had added up (which, of course, they didn't), should any party prop up a party that had just been kicked by the voters? Plenty of 20/20 hindsight to say that a small party should not have propped up 'the Tories' - OBVIOUSLY. But this is like talking about PR and coalitions: absolutely fine as long as we all agree to exclude the Tories under every circumstance. NO. That is unprincipled.

Parties that hold to that view are part of the problem, not the solution. And it's easy enough to support a Labour party led by Corbyn and blame the past mistakes on Blair and Brown - who have gone. But the same generosity isn't afforded to another party with a new leader: they're still beyond the pale. The Labour government, not Tony Blair, led us into the war with Iraq. Why should we ever trust another one?

I'm not suggesting Corbyn should go the the LDs: if anything I'm suggesting his party got such a hammering under his leadership … well, it's not for me to suggest what they should do. But sins are readily forgiven according to which party commits them, apparently.

[Serial_Apologist]

A loaded question - it suggests a principle with provisos: 'just not the Tories'. But in 2010, what did 'this lot of Tories' represent? They'd been out of power for 13 years and had a new leader anyway.

The Labour party had just been defeated by a margin which suggested rejection by the electorate. Even if the numbers had added up (which, of course, they didn't), should any party prop up a party that had just been kicked by the voters? Plenty of 20/20 hindsight to say that a small party should not have propped up 'the Tories' - OBVIOUSLY. But this is like talking about PR and coalitions: absolutely fine as long as we all agree to exclude the Tories under every circumstance. NO. That is unprincipled.

Parties that hold to that view are part of the problem, not the solution. And it's easy enough to support a Labour party led by Corbyn and blame the past mistakes on Blair and Brown - who have gone. But the same generosity isn't afforded to another party with a new leader: they're still beyond the pale. The Labour government, not Tony Blair, led us into the war with Iraq. Why should we ever trust another one?

I'm not suggesting Corbyn should go the the LDs: if anything I'm suggesting his party got such a hammering under his leadership … well, it's not for me to suggest what they should do. But sins are readily forgiven according to which party commits them, apparently.

What's with all this smarting? Am I to assume that you are devil's advocating? Otherwise I would have to accuse you of deliberate concoction! I'm not asking you to explain to the Daily Fail reader that we're talking about THIS lot of Tories in THIS particular situation nine years on, or to explain that the reason for John Corbyn is Tony Blair.