Keir Starmer's time is up

[kabbes]

The Man Who(se policies) Wasn’t There

 

[Wilf]

Aside from a diplomatic illness, Labour have no way out of no way out of starmer leading them. He's not going to go of his own accord and they would need at least a couple of rounds of awful local elections before the whispering starts. The tory lead amongst working class voters is shocking. The class and age profile of the vote is still something like it was in 2017, but with Labour's share shoved right down (though to be fair I couldn't imagine a Glastonbury crown chanting 'oh Keir Staaarmer - thank fuck).

 

[chilango]

Aside from a diplomatic illness, Labour have no way out of no way out of starmer leading them. He's not going to go of his own accord and they would need at least a couple of rounds of awful local elections before the whispering starts. The tory lead amongst working class voters is shocking. The class and age profile of the vote is still something like it was in 2017, but with Labour's share shoved right down (though to be fair I couldn't imagine a Glastonbury crown chanting 'oh Keir Staaarmer - thank fuck).

Let's see how the locals go. Losing heavily in Wales and the North might force their hand.

Perhaps they're being really clever though and lulling everyone into a false sense of mediocrity before unleashing some Corbynite wunderkind just before the next GE and catching the media sleeping? Right?

Nah. You're right. They're just shit.

 

[vanya]

Why Keir Starmer and his strategy are spectacularly useless

The Myth of the Vaccine Bounce

If you haven't seen the latest YouGov poll, it makes for grim reading. 45% for the Tories versus 32% for Labour doesn't look too clever. ...

averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com

If you haven't seen the latest YouGov poll, it makes for grim reading. 45% for the Tories versus 32% for Labour doesn't look too clever. For information, going back to the Jeremy Corbyn era YouGov didn't post a polling deficit of 13 points or more until mid-October 2016. In other words, for Labour to perform this badly it had to go through a bruising civil war, a failed coup and leadership contest, and another round of civil war. Events we have not witnessed in the 11 months since Keir Starmer ascended to the party's leadership.

Thanks to the NHS's success with the vaccine roll out, pollsters and pundits have talked up the possibility of a Tory bounce for about a fortnight. And consulting recent surveys, the prediction has come to fruition. The Tories are up again and accelerating away from Labour, so this much is true. But when we come to the myth of the vaccine bounce, we're talking about the very political uses to which this trope is being put by Keir Starmer's supporters.

That Jeremy Corbyn was unpopular among most is not contentious. What is is whether this proved fatal for Labour's chances, or whether the trust issues masses of voters have now in "the brand" lie elsewhere. Helpfully, we can answer that question using polling evidence. The Corbyn-led Labour Party between June 2017 and April 2019 had the main parties taking turns posting modest leads. If he was the unique electoral bromide some suppose he was, then why wasn't Labour lagging? The ratings started tumbling as the EU elections approached - the Tories were eviscerated by the Brexit Party while Labour got a pummelling from them, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the SNP. However, while the Tories were able to recover their numbers Labour had, disastrously, lost a good chunk of its vote to the remain ultra parties and, crucially, hundreds of thousands of Labour leave voters to the Tories. Admittedly, by this point "constructive ambiguity" on Brexit was no longer an option and the party had to choose between a bad defeat or losing vast swathes of its core vote. The result was the preservation of the party's new constituency, but a legacy of distrust outside of it. Particularly among former voters who went Tory because of Brexit. Given that Labour leavers, in the main, accepted Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in 2017 and didn't in 2019 might owe something to the big difference between the two contests: how in the first it accepted the referendum result, and in the second went into the election determined to overturn Brexit. Keir Starmer was instrumental in changing this position, and plenty of Labour leavers know this to be the case. Hence any account for Labour's performance this last year neglecting the entirety of recent history and its consequences just isn't a credible argument.

On Keir is labouring under the burden of media disinterest, or he's doing the best he can, or he's hemmed in by limited options, or because objective circumstances. Some of this is obviously true. The reason why Jeremy Corbyn never got a 20 point lead had more to do with the character of the polarisation that still coheres British politics, itself a workthrough of the polarisation of the country's political economy. It's interesting how Keir's defenders never pay mind to the fact Labour wins among the under 55s, i.e. the working class, and the Tories are the party of the old and propertied. What was true of politics during Jeremy's time is true of now, also. Even if Keir Starmer's Labour were doing well, there is a relatively low ceiling stopping the party from climbing too high, and it will persist as long as the Tories look after their coalition at the expense of everyone else. The only way a 20-point lead is possible is if the Tory coalition is split and broken, and that is beyond Keir's power, even if he had made all the right strategic calls in his first year. It therefore follows reassembling Labour's coalition is the only way it stands a chance and this requires understanding the political map of Britain. I.e. the sorts of people the party had in its camp on 2019, looking at how it can win back those lost from two years earlier, and seeing what can be done to chip away at the Tories in a war of attrition, a war which does not play to their strengths in the long run. Putting aside any cynicism I have about Starmerist politics, the obvious difficulty here is Keir and the people he listens to do not have the right analysis.

In the first place, they persist with the idea the voters lost in the so-called Red Wall are Labour's core voters. They are not. Those lost in 2019 tended to be older or retired, and tended to own property - specifically their home. They might have voted Labour all their lives previously, but this drift to the Tories among the people fitting this demographic has become a pronounced trend since around 2005. It's not that the class basis of politics has disappeared. It is, instead, changing and changed - an argument expounded here many times, both after 2017 and after 2019's debacle. What passes for Keir's analysis barely recognises this. The new base is consistently (some might say purposely) mischaracterised as big city-dwelling graduates and young people, and are treated like an optional extra. The path back to power demands rewinning Labour leavers, now codified as patriotic proles with no time for immigrants or equalities issues, while the actual mainstay of the party's coalition are treated as if they have nowhere to go. This is a very serious mistake. In 2019 Labour lost around 300,000 voters to the Tories which, combined with the Brexit Party also drawing in Labour leave voters, helped pave way for the cataclysm. The very people Keir's leadership is now (unsuccessfully) chasing. Yet no one discusses the 1.6m votes Labour bled to the LibDems and the Greens, nor the 600,000 or so who didn't turn out. This serves to remind us that because the new natural base is, well, new its support for Labour is much softer, more conditional, at least for the moment. While some of these have undoubtedly been won back from the LibDems, the Greens are enjoying something of a bump in support. Again, it might be worth reflecting on how attempting to outflank the Tories from the right on corporation tax, or waving flags, or not supporting key parts of the Labour coalition even when backed by public opinion, and a host of other missteps could be and is alienating the people Labour needs to support it to win. True, as Tom says, people might not be paying politics much mind. But it's certainly the case people drawn to Labour because of Corbyn's stand are watching proceedings, and a lot of them are not appreciating what they see.

If this argument is a load of rubbish, then why is it Keir's approach to opposition steadily rebuilt Labour's standing in the polls between his election to around level pegging with the Tories. That is until the turn toward flag waving and adopting George Osborne's position on corporation tax? Again, if one is being honest the timings suggest a relationship exists between party ratings and the chosen strategy, and might start drawing some political conclusions from the evidence dancing in front of their eyes.

And this brings us back to the vaccine bounce. That the Tories are benefiting from a feel good uplift is undeniable. The myth however is that this is responsible for Keir Starmer's difficulties. The polling this year suggests that while the Tory coalition is hardening, Labour's is softening and dispersing - not to the Tories, in the vast majority of cases, but to the Greens, the nationalist parties and in some polls, the LibDems again. The problem is Keir's difficulty holding the existing Labour bloc together, and these are thanks to the politics he's pushing. The party's travails aren't because the Tories are doing well, it's because the Labour leader is doing badly.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

as ever, i wonder what the (unreported) polling is for don't know / won't vote / bollocks to the lot of them / spunking cock / any combination of these?

i can imagine a higher than usual percentage for SC at the moment and hard to imagine i'm the only one contemplating that as the only credible option for the local elections - i've only spoiled ballot once and that was for the ludicrous police commissioner thing

 

[ska invita]

Who and how much?

and do you support a nurses strike?

he thinks hes on sure ground here, but i bet he can fuck it up yet

 

[redsquirrel]

Why Keir Starmer and his strategy are spectacularly useless

In 2019 Labour lost around 300,000 voters to the Tories which, combined with the Brexit Party also drawing in Labour leave voters, helped pave way for the cataclysm. The very people Keir's leadership is now (unsuccessfully) chasing. Yet no one discusses the 1.6m votes Labour bled to the LibDems and the Greens, nor the 600,000 or so who didn't turn out

This bit come dangerously close to Mason's reading. It ignores the fact that there is only a single Lab-LD marginal, Sheffield Hallam (and that remained Labour in 2019) and no LD-Lab marginals.

The simply fact is that it is the Lab-Con vote that decides elections in the UK. Now if you are going to argue that it is worth giving up seats for votes fine then why are you focusing on Labours electoral performance?

 

[belboid]

This bit come dangerously close to Mason's reading. It ignores the fact that there is only a single Lab-LD marginal, Sheffield Hallam (and that remained Labour in 2019) and no LD-Lab marginals.

The simply fact is that it is the Lab-Con vote that decides elections in the UK. Now if you are going to argue that it is worth giving up seats for votes fine then why are you focusing on Labours electoral performance?

It’s not just about liblab marginals tho, if the scum take 3000 votes per seat that is plenty enough to tip a few dozen seats

 

[chilango]

It’s not just about liblab marginals tho, if the scum take 3000 votes per seat that is plenty enough to tip a few dozen seats

When you say "the scum" it's be helpful if you specified which variety you mean...

 

[redsquirrel]

It’s not just about liblab marginals tho, if the scum take 3000 votes per seat that is plenty enough to tip a few dozen seats

But that was not responsible for the major loses of Labour. The big swings to LDs were in seats that didn't matter - either because they are safe Labour or safe Con. OK there are a few that LD votes might count but where is the evidence that those LD voters would ever back a left-wing LP? The LD strategy has been, and continues to be, to target socially liberal Tories.

 

[agricola]

This bit come dangerously close to Mason's reading. It ignores the fact that there is only a single Lab-LD marginal, Sheffield Hallam (and that remained Labour in 2019) and no LD-Lab marginals.

The simply fact is that it is the Lab-Con vote that decides elections in the UK. Now if you are going to argue that it is worth giving up seats for votes fine then why are you focusing on Labours electoral performance?

TBF is that what they are saying there? I read it as there are 2.2 million votes that Labour lost in 2019 that should be looked at, rather than just the 300,000 Lab-Tory ones (as they accuse Starmer of focusing on).

 

[redsquirrel]

Here's the top 10 Labour targets
Bury North - ok if all LD votes went Lab they would have kept it, but it was the 4000 votes they lost to non-voters (most likely leave voters) that cost them the seat not the 600 odd to the LDs
Kensington - OK this one probably was decided by the yellow filth
Bury South - same situation as Bury North
Bolton NE - Again collapse in Lab vote with only a very minor increase in LD
High Peak - barely any increase in the LD vote at all
Gedling - another constituency where the Con vote didn't change much, the LD vote had a minor increase and the Lab vote collapsed
Heywood and Middleton - Brexit Party finishing ahead of piss yellows
Blyth Vally - as above and with the LDs showing a whole +0.68% increase in their vote!
Stoke-on_trent Central - BP coming ahead of LDs
Chipping Barnet - another one where the LD vote could be a factor, but it goes back to what I said about that socially liberal conservative vote, this seat has been Tory for decades

so 2 out of 10 where LD votes were a factor.

EDIT If you do the next 10, then you only add Chingford and Woodford Green for 3 from 20.

 

[Shechemite]

Bury south could have been somewhere that was actually swung by Labour antisemtism - was only 400 odd votes iirc

 

[Puddy_Tat]

When you say "the scum" it's be helpful if you specified which variety you mean...

the scum, not to be confused with the vermin

 

[Knotted]

This bit come dangerously close to Mason's reading. It ignores the fact that there is only a single Lab-LD marginal, Sheffield Hallam (and that remained Labour in 2019) and no LD-Lab marginals.

The simply fact is that it is the Lab-Con vote that decides elections in the UK. Now if you are going to argue that it is worth giving up seats for votes fine then why are you focusing on Labours electoral performance?

Huh? You can lose a seat to the Tories by having your vote bleed to the Lib Dems (or Greens or nats).

 

[andysays]

When you say "the scum" it's be helpful if you specified which variety you mean...

In the context of this thread, my first thought was he was talking about Labour, and my next was it's unlikely to see them getting that many new votes anywhere currently...

 

[mauvais]

Bury south could have been somewhere that was actually swung by Labour antisemtism - was only 400 odd votes iirc

Correct on both counts.

 

[redsquirrel]

Huh? You can lose a seat to the Tories by having your vote bleed to the Lib Dems (or Greens or nats).

You can but how many seats did this cost Labour? Kensington is one example but it is a rare case. The loss of votes to LDs and Greens was not the reason the LP lost 60 seats in 2019. As much as 'progressives' try to pretend otherwise the result of the 2019 was the loss of Labour seats in areas where there had been a significant leave vote. And likewise the result of the next GE election will come down to Labour-Tory marginals, where typically the LD vote is largely irrelevant.

 

[Knotted]

You can but how many seats did this cost Labour? Kensington is one example but it is a rare case. The loss of votes to LDs and Greens was not the reason the LP lost 60 seats in 2019. As much as 'progressives' try to pretend otherwise the result of the 2019 was the loss of Labour seats in areas where there had been a significant leave vote. And likewise the result of the next GE election will come down to Labour-Tory marginals, where typically the LD vote is largely irrelevant.

It's not obvious how the breakdown works even in individual constituencies where Labour votes might be going to the Lib Dems while Lib Dem votes go to the Tories instead of votes going straight to the Tories. You can't tell just be looking at the raw results. What you are doing is guess work. The same goes for those who think Labour needed to hold onto it's progressive/remain voters at the expense of it's more socially conservative/economically radical voters. It's an exercise in making the data fit your assumptions/political orientation.

There isn't a reason why Labour lost 60 seats in 2019. There are lots of reasons. It's plural not singular. They lost leave inclined voters and they lost remain inclined voters. They needed to keep both and expand on the support they had, not pick a side and work out what section of their support was expendable. They shouldn't have backed a second referendum because doing so was unprincipled and undemocratic, I couldn't care a less whether it lost them votes or gained them votes. The LP has to believe in itself to win anything - the same goes for the broader left.

What really disappoints me about all this is that we are still discussing the 2019 election as if it is still in any way relevant. There is nothing going on with Labour now in 2021, there is now nothing to fix. Any socialist revival in whatever form will be built on a coalition of forces with similar social routes to that of Labour's in 2017 except it won't be shaped by the contours of the first past the post system because if it means business, it won't be purely electoral. The working class is now not just diverse but actively politically polarised with Brexit as the main wedge used to divide us. The task is to overcome that polarisation not to find your favourite working class subgroup and pretend that it's the be all and end all. The endless discussion about Brexit and the endless stream of suggestions for quick fixes to Labour's electoral wows are symptoms of working class fragmentation as reflected in the left.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not obvious how the breakdown works even in individual constituencies where Labour votes might be going to the Lib Dems while Lib Dem votes go to the Tories instead of votes going straight to the Tories. You can't tell just be looking at the raw results. What you are doing is guess work. The same goes for those who think Labour needed to hold onto it's progressive/remain voters at the expense of it's more socially conservative/economically radical voters. It's an exercise in making the data fit your assumptions/political orientation.

There isn't a reason why Labour lost 60 seats in 2019. There are lots of reasons. It's plural not singular. They lost leave inclined voters and they lost remain inclined voters. They needed to keep both and expand on the support they had, not pick a side and work out what section of their support was expendable. They shouldn't have backed a second referendum because doing so was unprincipled and undemocratic, I couldn't care a less whether it lost them votes or gained them votes. The LP has to believe in itself to win anything - the same goes for the broader left.

What really disappoints me about all this is that we are still discussing the 2019 election as if it is still in any way relevant. There is nothing going on with Labour now in 2021, there is now nothing to fix. Any socialist revival in whatever form will be built on a coalition of forces with similar social routes to that of Labour's in 2017 except it won't be shaped by the contours of the first past the post system because if it means business, it won't be purely electoral. The working class is now not just diverse but actively politically polarised with Brexit as the main wedge used to divide us. The task is to overcome that polarisation not to find your favourite working class subgroup and pretend that it's the be all and end all. The endless discussion about Brexit and the endless stream of suggestions for quick fixes to Labour's electoral wows are symptoms of working class fragmentation as reflected in the left.

the only thing the labour party believes in is itself.

 

[two sheds]

I usually get to this point in a ‘discussion’ and think fuckit I can’t be bothered but ...

And yet you continue to refuse to question why those conditions came about.

Aaaaaand you start again by suggesting I’m discussing dishonestly. You’ve been doing this for nearly two years now, and it’s a lie. I say a lie rather than a mistake because you’ve seen the post right at the beginning of our ‘discussions’ where I clearly considered it. Butchersapron gave me a reasoned response as to why the conditions were unique (high growth rates during the PWSC). I said I would study his post and did, and came back with a discussion backed by graph suggesting that wasn’t so.

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

He’s normally right on things like this and I was actually expecting him to reply pointing out where I was wrong, but I was certainly expecting someone to address the points I made. If you’d have actually been interested in a discussion, this is where you’d have started. Instead you picked on one sentence and then started the repeated mantra “you refuse to consider”.

There’s also at a first glance for example

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

You may not agree with what I said but to say I’ve not considered it (and why it collapsed) is a lie. Why do you keep doing this? Why can you not discuss as a fucking human being without calling people scum and treating them with contempt?

Again, I made a simple point in response to Smokeandsteam‘s “Can you give an example of where the approach you are talking about has actually worked? Or come close to working? ”. The answer to that is clearly the PWSC.

You ignore that and are now back into aggressively and repeatedly demanding I make your argument for you (a tactic of yours). That’s not how honest discussions work. If you want to talk about why the conditions came about then talk about it. I’m not stopping you and if I agree I’ll tell you and if I don’t I’ll disagree. Like I did with Butchersapron.

So, aside from the political will of an elected government to recognize the British peoples’ fight against fascism, you tell me why the conditions came about? Why aren’t they possible now when they were possible in a country that had been half destroyed by war?

As I've pointed out to you before the Keynesian model existed across countries and under both centre-right and centre-left governments. Was the situation for workers better in many ways? Of course it was, that is not a point that is being contested. But to call it socialist is not just a mistake in terminology it shows a misunderstanding of what was actually happening.

You’re again contemptuously dismissing something that I’ve not actually said. I didn’t call the PWSC socialist or even a move to socialism. I said that the elements of full employment from nationalizing the energy, water supply and communications industries (the ‘means of production’, yes?) along with free healthcare, unemployment benefits, free education and subsidized housing are “socialist results” (particularly compared to what was there before WWII and what we have now for that matter). I

Whenever I mention the PWSC you jump in and demand that the conversation move away from the PWSC itself and its benefits for working people. Fine that it was an attempt to manage capitalism rather than establish some socialist utopia. Of course it was a mixed economy and the situation in the country wasn’t perfect and there were great inequalities. And yes once the PWSC had been established it was carried forward by both labour and tory governments. That was the nature of it. So what? The point I made was that it was successful for a good 25 years. Why can’t you just accept that?

By return to PWSC-like policies I mean reinvest in the NHS (reverse privatization, reopen and invest in hospitals, improve wages for nurses etc), build council houses (properly energy efficient this time, and not on green belt), reintroduce student grants and wipe out existing student debts, introduce rent controls to greatly reduce rents, renationalize where possible the essential industries (rail, water, electricity ...) and aim for full employment again by that and by investing in new industries. Fund it by taking from those who can afford it like stopping tax evasion and unethical avoidance, and windfall tax for the coronavirus profiteers.

And note I’m not saying the result will be as successful as before, just that they are the right thing to do. I asked you before and you’ve repeatedly ignored the question: “What else should a government do other than alleviate poverty, invest in the country and workforce, and improve healthcare and travel and essential utility infrastructure? ” You really disagree with this? I’m not saying it will lead to some great socialist society, I’m saying it will be a fuck of a sight better than what we have now.

This is what you repeatedly refuse to discuss, along with what is the alternative. You snipped that from my last reply, too. You clearly don’t have a practical alternative, which is why you’re silent on it. I’m happy for people to work for a socialist revolution – but what should we do in the meantime? Your answer is to leave the tories to it. You’ve repeatedly said labour’s approach is “at least we’re not the tories”. If that’s true then your approach is “let the tories run riot”.

These PWSC-like measures seem really popular within the population. Is anyone except for the right wing against them? So why would they not have worked at the last election, and what do you mean by they won’t work? Just repeating “conditions have changed” is a bollocks argument really isn’t it.

Callaghan was the first monetarist PM in the UK. It was under a Labour government that In Place of Strife written. Carter proceeded Reagan in making reduction of the debt a key policy.

And look at things outside the US/UK. What measures did the Mitterand take during his period in office? Who introduced "mini-jobs" to Germany? What were the policies of the Craxi government? When did privatisations really start in Australia?

By focussing on the actions of Thatcher and Reagan (or Attlee) you are missing why there a move to neo-liberalism across north american, western europe and Aus/NZ and (again) under both centre-left and centre-right governments. Because the "wrong" parties were elected? Because of the media? Unions had had plenty of hostile rightwing press before. Was the media more pro-union during the earlier decades of the 20th century? I'll admit I've not done/seen a systematic comparison but I doubt it.

Again, you’re dismissing something that I’ve not actually said. I made a simple throw-away remark that Thatcher came in with a hammer to smash the PWSC. I was clearly referring only to the UK, and if I’d said that she on her own was responsible you’d have a point but I didn’t did I? Because that would be a stupid thing to say. And you add on a string of questions which if I don’t answer you’ll doubtless complain I’ve dishonestly refused to consider.

Of course Thatcher took a hammer to the PWSC. She and her governments set about privatizing the nationalized industries, forcing up unemployment to 3 million which forced down wages and helped to break the unions. They forced the sell-off of council houses with councils not being allowed to rebuild so helping to force up rents to the insane levels we have now. She froze grants and introduced student loans that now hang over people for years. She consistently underfunded the NHS and introduced the review that led to NHS competition. And yes both tory and labour governments took their own hammers both before and since – so what? They’ve all bought into the neoconservative model.

So why did was it possible for the state and capital to accede to labours demands in 45 that it was not in 75?

Again, you’re demanding that I make your argument for you. You tell me and I’ll let you know if I agree. And perhaps tell me why it was an elected government that led to such great improvements in conditions for the working class and not revolution?

 

[two sheds]

Incidentally, you might want to clarify your ludicrous statement during that discussion two years ago that “We currently have "full employment”. It was another of your attempts to minimize the huge PWSC achievement of an elected government achieving stable 0 to 4% unemployment for 25+ years – hugely different to any period before or after, with the figure mainly explained by unemployed people taking a break to look for another job. Think about that, and how different it is from today's situation with hundreds of people sometimes applying for one poorly paid job. (On reflection, too, I’d have thought full employment would have also contributed to high growth rates that Butchers suggested were unique to the PWSC. )

Thatcher (remember her? she took a hammer to the PWSC) moved people off unemployment onto invalidity benefit. She wanted to con people – succeeded with you, clearly – that there was full employment. That was the major factor in being able to push down pay and conditions in Britain.

I first got interested in the PWSC because of the full employment – that seems to me to be one of the main measures that show how well a political system is working. I went to the official figures and drew this graph using a statistical analysis that separates out four different periods.



I drew this graph several years ago showing true levels of unemployment and it ends in 2009 but there’s a graph from Beatty-TheRealLevelOfUnemployment2017(VoR) that shows later but similar figures.



See? Nothing like full employment. They’re not even the same quality jobs now – instead of the steady secure jobs with sick pay and pension of the PWSC we’ve got the insecure short-term contracts and casual work that keep people in fear of losing their jobs or asking for a pay rise.

With your union background I’m astounded you don’t know this.


*Patronizing tone © redsquirrel

 

[a_chap]

Incidentally, you might want to clarify your ludicrous statement during that discussion two years ago that...

I love Urban

 

[two sheds]

I love Urban

but more recent than two ten/eleven-year old posts and a six-year old post defending calling a long-term poster 'scum'

 

[redsquirrel]

By return to PWSC-like policies I mean reinvest in the NHS (reverse privatization, reopen and invest in hospitals, improve wages for nurses etc), build council houses (properly energy efficient this time, and not on green belt), reintroduce student grants and wipe out existing student debts, introduce rent controls to greatly reduce rents, renationalize where possible the essential industries (rail, water, electricity ...) and aim for full employment again by that and by investing in new industries. Fund it by taking from those who can afford it like stopping tax evasion and unethical avoidance, and windfall tax for the coronavirus profiteers.

All of which are good things, and (as you say) are popular with many people. But that has been the case for many years, most people want greater economic democracy but we’ve had ~40 years of neoliberalism. So if one wants to see measures similar to the above come about then surely it is important to understand why there was a move to Keynesian economics in the mid-part of the century, and then why there was move away from it.

Your core of your argument was, and judging from your recent pasts continues to be, that the Labour (or centre-left) government brought about what you are calling the post-war social contract. And that the election of new Labour (or more generally social democratic) government could bring about another change in capitalism.

But there are fundamental flaws in this argument. It was not only the UK that saw a shift to Keynesian policies in 1945, and then a move to neoliberalism in the late 70s. After some initial conflicts there was political consensus established in both periods. So surely the fact that similar shifts in the nature of capital were seen across different nations, implemented by parties across the political spectrum indicate to you that the nature of the government cannot be the key factor in the changes to the capitalist system?

That is why I, and others, keep asking you to identify what factors, the material basis that, led to the change in capitalism during/after the war (or any change in capitalism for that matter). So that you review your argument and respond to the incoherencies people have pointed out in it.

If one is a socialist then the answer why the capitalist system changes is fundamentally down to one thing - class - the interaction between labour, capital and the state. And an explanation that considers the relatives strengths and actions of labour, capital and the state does explain both the two recent shifts in capital.

Post-war you have a strong labour movement, an expanded government that has become increasingly in partnership with capital (and some of the “official” organs of labour). So crucially labour can demand improved conditions, and capital can accede to them while still seeing high rates of growth.

Then a variety of factors meant that as the growth rates dropped capital began a direct assault on labour to try and maximise growth. (This is a brief summary, post here gives a fuller account and butchersapron is absolutely correct about the rates of growth - see Piketty Capital and/or Ha-Joon Chang Economics: A Users Guides just for two, both who are sympathetic to your social democratic position).

So your calls for a new post-war social contract have been criticised, not because such things would be undesirable but because the conditions of labour, capital and the state that brought the PWSC into existence are totally different today. (And in fact the conditions that resulted in the post-war period only existed for a short period of time). If social democratic politics are to return they will have to return in a different form to that they took in the post-war period.

None of this is new, various people on the boards have tried to get you to engage with it, but despite your protestation you don’t. You simply insist that criticism of your position equals some sort of criticism of the post-war social contract, or support for Tories.

 

[two sheds]

None of this is new, various people on the boards have tried to get you to engage with it, but despite your protestation you don’t. You simply insist that criticism of your position equals some sort of criticism of the post-war social contract, or support for Tories.

You were doing so well up to then, but that is bollocks, and another lie. I am very interested in the conditions which led to the PWSC, and the reasons it failed. The objections I have are to your personal insults - and lies - that I've not engaged with it.

You've actually given some reasons in that post that I'll take a look at, but this is how we do discussions. You lay out your argument and I'll respond to it. You don't aggressively demand that I make your argument for you, because that is dishonest.

 

[redsquirrel]

You were doing so well up to then, but that is bollocks, and another lie.

Your answer is to leave the tories to it. You’ve repeatedly said labour’s approach is “at least we’re not the tories”. If that’s true then your approach is “let the tories run riot”.

4 posts apart

 

[two sheds]

4 posts apart

Bollocks, you're just inventing stuff again. My statement is nothing to do with "any criticism of your position equals some sort of criticism of the post-war social contract, or support for Tories." It refers to you not voting to try to get the tories out of power and telling people it's no use trying to get the tories out of power. That's what I mean by your support for tories.

It's a trade of insults - if you insult people you're going to get insults back. The clue is in the first half of my statement "You’ve repeatedly said labour’s approach is “at least we’re not the tories”. See, nothing to do with criticism of the PWSC, nomatter how many posts apart it was.

Just started on the Piketty thread by the way. So you see I will study stuff if it's suggested rather respond to someone who aggressively demands I make their argument for them. I just don't accept things because you insist that they're true.

 

[Pickman's model]

4 posts apart

24 posts from tulsa

 

[TopCat]

I sort of get both of their viewpoints.

Just would be more pithy and easier to read if shorter and had more running dogs, lackey, lickspittle, craven apologist, gulag excuser type abuse.