Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Well one has successfully pulled billions of people out of poverty, and the other always ends up in murderous totalitarian regimes when people try to put it into practice.

So I think that's why.


The best thing socialism did was highlight that a bargain needs to be struck between the well off and the rest.

Between the '40s and the '80s Europe sees huge wealth increases AND a shrinking of the wealth gap.

Social welfare was basically funded by capitalism and was there to fend off the totalitarian threat of communism.

Arguably, after the failure of communism, the urgent need for that bargain to be struck has been lost, and so we're reverting back to more of a Victorian model, where the poor are demonised (see benefits street etc) and the poor rely increasingly on charity over state support (see food banks).

But arguing for pure socialism is just stupid, and you need to ask yourself what is it about pure socialism that when people try to put it into place it always becomes an impoverished totalitarian state?

FocusZing

meursault wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Socialism will probably always be a cyclical thing. Every time there is the inevitable capitalist global financial meltdown. Peoples wealth is protect by government policy and consequential austerity reigns, hitting the poor proportionally more.

According to Marx, it's more of a spiral than a cycle. First mode of production was primitive communism, then slavery, then feudalism now capitalism. Socialism will probably be the next one, then others after that as humans progress. It's all just human development. This idea, that the mode we have now, is the be all and end all is bizarre to me. It goes against all we know about human imagination, and curiosity, and our potential for abstract thought.

As a Buddhist-Marxist (I realise that's not a thing) I'm down with it. Que sera and all that shoot.

Thats a good point about political/population control development. It's interesting that some billionaires turn to philanthropy.

It's funny now that some companies are truly global and wealthier than many countries combined. They hold so much power they can dictate tax, policy, location, employment...How can that be controlled properly?

rjsterry

meursault wrote:

bompington wrote:

Has it ever, just a teeny little bit, occurred to you that Marx might just possibly have been wrong?

Of course. Yet no other philosophy since Marx, has improved on it. The last major philosopher. I'm always keen to read new ideas.

Have you considered capitalism may be out of date?

I don't think anybody is suggesting that it is perfect or without negative consequences; they are just unconvinced that pure socialism provides solutions to those consequences without generating its own (arguably bigger) problems.

meursault

Jez mon

meursault wrote:

And the best answer to this is based on a philosophy that's over 100years old and has been tried and failed numerous times already?

For the record, I think some aspects of modern day capitalism are disastrous. Possibly in time something else will take over as the dominant way of thinking, in all likelihood, the rise of automation and ai may drive this. I just don't think it will be pure socialism

kingstongraham

Rise of the machines.

And I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

tangled_metal

It was busy in town Saturday. Turns out Labour had bussed in a load of activists and were doing a photoshoot in the city square.

There were balloons for the kids with slogans, activist waving printed banners, etc. Slickly done. I just think it looks better if the activists coach was moved out of shot.

bendertherobot

Tangled Metal wrote:

It was busy in town Saturday. Turns out Labour had bussed in a load of activists and were doing a photoshoot in the city square.

There were balloons for the kids with slogans, activist waving printed banners, etc. Slickly done. I just think it looks better if the activists coach was moved out of shot.

Does it look better if they repaint the bus but leave the number plate the same? Or better if you narrow angle a bus in a field and try to make it look like a thousand people?

tangled_metal

It made me wonder what such an event would look like with only local, constituents present. It'll be the same for all parties of course.

Personally I'd like to see only local candidates, local activists and an idea that parties/candidates had a connection with their constituencies.

bendertherobot

Tangled Metal wrote:

It made me wonder what such an event would look like with only local, constituents present. It'll be the same for all parties of course.

Personally I'd like to see only local candidates, local activists and an idea that parties/candidates had a connection with their constituencies.

Well, you can't. Vote for President May. Strong and stable

kingstongraham

Surely with the policies that have been announced so far for the May party, they won't have a mandate for anything they are actually going to do.

Stevo_666

bendertherobot wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It made me wonder what such an event would look like with only local, constituents present. It'll be the same for all parties of course.

Personally I'd like to see only local candidates, local activists and an idea that parties/candidates had a connection with their constituencies.

Well, you can't. Vote for President May. Strong and stable

And the viable alternative is what?

rick_chasey

Lib Dems innit.

shortfall

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

I think he said viable.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

My vote is there for the taking, but they keep doing everything they can to disuade me. Still, I live in a safe seat, so I'm probably not worth the effort.

tangled_metal

Was driving around Tim Farron's constituency. Past elections there's been a sprinkling of Tory placards in farmers fields and front gardens with mostly LibDem placards. This time round it's at least 50:50 split or even more in favour of tyre Tories. I wonder if the Tories feel they can win that seat? Bear in mind Farron took it from a Tory and it was a Tory seat for some time before that I believe. Interesting I think.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Was driving around Tim Farron's constituency. Past elections there's been a sprinkling of Tory placards in farmers fields and front gardens with mostly LibDem placards. This time round it's at least 50:50 split or even more in favour of tyre Tories. I wonder if the Tories feel they can win that seat? Bear in mind Farron took it from a Tory and it was a Tory seat for some time before that I believe. Interesting I think.

When the tories were trying to unseat Ed Balls they called it the castration strategy. I wonder what the word is for removing a knob?

tangled_metal

Actually Farron is a really nice guy. Family members know him as a former colleague. Very capable administrator at a local university IIRC. Definitely not a knob IMHO. Certainly less so than the two main party leaders.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

verylonglegs

Unpaid leave to look after someone? How is this being championed as a benefit to workers? It's just transfering the cost of care from the state to relatives and their employers.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

The party of business have figured out that business has nobody else to vote for so has dropped them like a lead balloon.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

The party of business have figured out that business has nobody else to vote for so has dropped them like a lead balloon.

I'm not sure that the fringe protest parties such as Labour, Lib Dems and SNP are particularly business friendly are they

Time to join the winning team?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Sounds like a pitch to Labour voters.

Not sure how much will come through but the workers on boards idea is populist crap as I've always said. Although the alternatives from Labour of turning us into a Labour French wannabe are hardly appealing.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Be ironic to claim an overwhelming mandate with 48%.

Jez mon

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Its cost free and would hurt smaller companies more than larger ones. I guess it's a nice bit of spin...

I'm interested to know how many people are in a position where they are able to take a year off unpaid and are also certain that this full time care period will last a year, but no longer...

How about a statutory right to a three month sabbatical doing a ski season?

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

Be ironic to claim an overwhelming mandate with 48%.

Its all we need. Same rules apply to all parties.

How much of a mandate does your party have currently?

rick_chasey

What is this, some kind of tautological campaigning basee on glory seeking?