Tony Blair in running for fa

[John2]

I suspect by anti capitalist you mean anti crony-capitalism, but you've actually undermined my point there, maybe there is a generational or social gap with how the word socialist is interpreted.

[mygiddypant]

Hmmm, wouldn't they vote Conservative?

Funny how no-one admits voting for him now

I did! Best post-war prime minister. Fact!

[Godsend.F.C.]

I suspect by anti capitalist you mean anti crony-capitalism, but you've actually undermined my point there, maybe there is a generational or social gap with how the word socialist is interpreted.

Old style Socialism doesn't exist.

You can't compare Nordic countries with Venezuela, Nicaragua or Cuba.
The Nordic route is based on a strong economy aligned to high taxes.
Unless it's changed they don't have a Minimum Wage, workers are paid what they're worth and Unions do participate over there.
Schooling is organised through a voucher system or at least it used to be.
It works fine for the Nordic countries, not so sure how it would work for Labour or Tories.

Tony Blair is 4/1 to replace Scudamore as Chairman of the Premier League although BT Chief Gavin Patterson and Sky Sports boss Barney Francis are also in the mix.

[welovebooth]

Pop up to the walking centre at the RDGH & ask all those who are waiting to be seen if they have paid into the system & you will get a shock,too many free loaders& not enough paying in that’s one big reason it’s skint.

wasmt there a mass of people wrongly claiming disability allowance aswell under Blair.

I can't remember much Isis or suicide bombers going on before Iraq got invaded.

[great_fire]

I did! Best post-war prime minister. Fact!

It's not a fact is it though, it's your opinion.

Won three elections so second most successful post war PM, but will be chiefly remembered as Bush's lackey I would think.

[KerrAvon]

I'd be more interested in quotes of Labour politicians aspiring for a takeover of the means of production than a few dated references to Venezuela.

I completely accept that you and many other Labour supporters are not looking to emulate Venezuela (who would beyond the totally bonkers end of the party), but I don’t see how it is desirable or possible to take the previously expressed views of the party leadership on that country and try to airbrush them out of history simply on the grounds that they are inconvenient. They thought that the policies followed by Chavez and Maduro were good ideas. Even, when faced with the reality of what those polices have achieved, McDonnell has been unable to accept that the issue is with the policies themselves and, instead, seeks out excuses: I think in Venezuela they took a wrong turn, a not particularly effective path, not a socialist path. Corbyn has been strangely silent on the subject.

Speaking of excuses, if I were a supporter of the current Labour leadership, I think I would be a little worried about how much time that seems to involve in providing explanations and interpretations of their saying and deeds. In the past few months, this site has seen explanations that when Corbyn has gone back slapping with pIRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, he was, in fact, engaged in some sort of private peace initiatives, which seemed to involve meeting with only one side of the conflicts in which those organisations are involved. We’ve also been told that ‘historically he has argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed’, which does not seem to have extended to those people who sit in the path of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel by his ‘friends’ in Hamas.

Criticising Diane Abbott (who said of pIRA that ‘every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us’) inevitably draws the explanation that there is no real support for her in the party and that she wouldn’t feature in a future Labour government, without an explanation as to why, if that is the case, Corbyn has appointed her as Shadow Home Secretary and kept her there.

And then, of course, there is the antisemitic mural incident, where I think we had three excuses from the man himself, with the final iteration being that he hadn’t looked at it properly before commenting. That must indicate either dishonesty in giving that explanation or a carelessness bordering on stupidity when commenting, unless someone can offer another excuse.

Even on this thread, you have twice had to offer a helping hand to a fellow Labour supporter by interpreting his posts to make sure that they are on message and in line with the cosy view of Corbyn and Co. that we are asked to accept.

Setting aside whether the excuses for Venezuela expressed by McDonnell in January of this year are dated and accepting for a moment that you are more interested in quotes of Labour politicians aspiring for a takeover of the means of production, I wonder how you feel about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...ism-is-his-job

Perhaps he is confused about the meanings of the words ‘Socialist Society’ and meant the Nordic model? He's the bloke who Corbyn intends to appoint to run the economy.

I think you are right to read the Labour Party manifesto, but to take that alone as a guide to what a Corbyn led government might mean for the UK defies all reason. Why would you choose to ignore other information about the people who wrote it? It would be like buying a car from someone who had been convicted of selling unroadworthy cars, but having no worries, because the banner on the windscreen said ‘very good condition’.

[great_fire]

Correct John. I am not talking about the Stalinist version of Socialism as Kerr seems to think. Certainly some Marxist principles should be employed and anti capitalist (which is the root/ route of all evil as far as I'm concerned) but democratic socialism in terms of giving ordinary folks a powerful voice in how society is conducted.The most important thing to me is the level playing field where EVERYBODY has an equal chance not just a privileged few who are born into privilege. This for me has got to be a global system as well. The wealthy might have to go without a few yachts, flash cars, holidays, bling etc. but tough luck. I'm not asking them to starve to death or be homeless like many do/ are under capitalism.

That sounds pretty Stalinist to me.

You're talking about destroying enterprise and aspiration and turning everywhere into Communist Russia/ Eastern Europe.

Bread queues, state surveillance and unrelenting misery.

[Timbertop]

Hasn't Blair,as a representative of the rich Establishment,got enough on his plate trying to reverse Brexit !!?

[animallittle3]

I completely accept that you and many other Labour supporters are not looking to emulate Venezuela (who would beyond the totally bonkers end of the party), but I don’t see how it is desirable or possible to take the previously expressed views of the party leadership on that country and try to airbrush them out of history simply on the grounds that they are inconvenient. They thought that the policies followed by Chavez and Maduro were good ideas. Even, when faced with the reality of what those polices have achieved, McDonnell has been unable to accept that the issue is with the policies themselves and, instead, seeks out excuses: I think in Venezuela they took a wrong turn, a not particularly effective path, not a socialist path. Corbyn has been strangely silent on the subject.

Speaking of excuses, if I were a supporter of the current Labour leadership, I think I would be a little worried about how much time that seems to involve in providing explanations and interpretations of their saying and deeds. In the past few months, this site has seen explanations that when Corbyn has gone back slapping with pIRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, he was, in fact, engaged in some sort of private peace initiatives, which seemed to involve meeting with only one side of the conflicts in which those organisations are involved. We’ve also been told that ‘historically he has argued and stood on the side of the people that he considers to be oppressed’, which does not seem to have extended to those people who sit in the path of rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel by his ‘friends’ in Hamas.

Criticising Diane Abbott (who said of pIRA that ‘every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us’) inevitably draws the explanation that there is no real support for her in the party and that she wouldn’t feature in a future Labour government, without an explanation as to why, if that is the case, Corbyn has appointed her as Shadow Home Secretary and kept her there.

And then, of course, there is the antisemitic mural incident, where I think we had three excuses from the man himself, with the final iteration being that he hadn’t looked at it properly before commenting. That must indicate either dishonesty in giving that explanation or a carelessness bordering on stupidity when commenting, unless someone can offer another excuse.

Even on this thread, you have twice had to offer a helping hand to a fellow Labour supporter by interpreting his posts to make sure that they are on message and in line with the cosy view of Corbyn and Co. that we are asked to accept.

Setting aside whether the excuses for Venezuela expressed by McDonnell in January of this year are dated and accepting for a moment that you are more interested in quotes of Labour politicians aspiring for a takeover of the means of production, I wonder how you feel about this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-pol...ism-is-his-job

Perhaps he is confused about the meanings of the words ‘Socialist Society’ and meant the Nordic model? He's the bloke who Corbyn intends to appoint to run the economy.

I think you are right to read the Labour Party manifesto, but to take that alone as a guide to what a Corbyn led government might mean for the UK defies all reason. Why would you choose to ignore other information about the people who wrote it? It would be like buying a car from someone who had been convicted of selling unroadworthy cars, but having no worries, because the banner on the windscreen said ‘very good condition’.

Kerr .

We can all concentrate on the players within each political point of view , who said what , who met who way back when .

We can each in turn link comments from both the two major parties who can fit our agendas .

For one antisemitic comment I can give you the equal amount back in islamphobia from the tories .

The truth is they both have issues within their parties and it should be handled better , neither party are at the core antisemitism or islamphobia , bad eggs within both .

Total means of production doesn't work for either side of the divide , it didn't work for communism and it doesn't work for neoliberalism either , eastern europe collapsed and we have Donald Trump and Brexit , volatility is volatility .

You can trash British Rail in the old days , it probably didn't perform well , neither does what we have now , your paying 32% more for your ticket under the tories and still don't know if the train will turn up .

You don't seem to mention the present day or recent past and the networks that have remained in the public sector delivering £2bn to the treasury or the fact that Network Rail is still state owned .

It can be done as it is in europe by government's .

Some things work , some things perhaps don't , do I want to see everything state owned , no I don't but neither do I want to see expensive services run for profit that don't deliver either , this summer was a poor advertisement for the private sector on the railways to say the least .

Not everything for profit works and neither does everything state owned obviously .

People in the workplace without a say , no seat at the negotiating table and it will kick off , not necessarily at their place of work but in other areas of life .

You can't totally own the means of production , it doesn't work and the affects are clear both in history and the political environment today .

We need wealthy people but we all need motivated workers too , our production levels tell you they aren't , only one thing in my experience motivates workers , you don't need me to tell you what that is .

Management haven't got all the answers , trust me they haven't .

In my experience the greater majority of people want to go to work and see themselves prosper and the company too , most people have the sense to see it goes hand in hand .

Nobody but nobody gets to have it all in this life and if they seek that then history tells you it won't last .

Balance is where we are at , make your money on the stock market , good luck to you but let's not forget that the share price involves people who do the work because without them you ain't got shyte and they want a slice of that too .

[KerrAvon]

That sounds pretty Stalinist to me.

You're talking about destroying enterprise and aspiration and turning everywhere into Communist Russia/ Eastern Europe.

Bread queues, state surveillance and unrelenting misery.

I particularly liked the line about Marxist principles. I had an image of John reading it and then putting his head in hands with the realisation that it would need more than a bit of ‘I suspect you mean’ to touch that over .