Tony Blair in running for fa

[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 .

[monty_rhodes]

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.

This seems odd, or slightly odd. It would interest me to know which aspects of the Stalinist system roly would ditch. And which "Marxist principles" are we to incorporate in roly's economic model. Capitalism in all its forms as the root of all evil is a bit hackneyed and hyperbolic. If we give "ordinary folks" a "powerful voice" might they not vote for socially regressive policies, the death penalty, nationalism, an end to immigration, an end to overseas aid, or whatever. The point here is that roly's socialist brotherhood will need a means of ensuring that "the masses" are on message for the Socialist Utopia. historically this has usually (always?) lead to repression, a police state and the gulags.
I am also interested in roly's mechanisms for ensuring "EVERYBODY" has an equal chance. But humans are not equal and some are bestowed with abilities and talents that others are not. Presumably he means we all start off with the same amount of money and identical education? But that won't achieve his aim. In fact I suspect what roly and the gang are really about is a hatred of the wealthy and an unwillingness to accept that wealth is many cases is not based on privilege but on talent, hard work and luck. And as Jesus said above: "Talent, hardwork and luck are always with you..."

[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.

[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]

@ animal,

I think you ask the wrong questions, which is why you get to the wrong answers. For example, there is plenty wrong with the railways today (inevitably given Grayling's involvement), so the right question is ‘how can they be improved?’ From my experience with British Rail in the past and the services I use now, I conclude that the right answer is not nationalisation. There was no ‘probably’ in whether BR didn’t perform well. And if you think Europe shows the way, try travelling on SNCF in France; I’ve used it three times in the last two years and have had my journey disrupted by strike action on two of them. Macron is currently fighting to bring it into the 20th Century. I imagine that he will then take a breather before pushing on to the 21st

You miss the point when you talk about your views of the economy. I could probably make a longer list of issues with it than you and I am constantly disappointed by governments of every hue (that’s what you can do if you don’t belong to any particular political tribe), but the right question is ‘who could do it better?’ I look at McDonnell with his ‘wanting to overthrow capitalism and for the UK to become a socialist society’ and have no doubt that it isn’t him.

Another right question you could ask would be ‘who could deliver an improved system of industrial relations in this country?’ I look at McCluskey bankrolling Labour and whipping in its supporters and immediately conclude, not the current version of Labour.

Finally, I think you fall into the trap of assuming that your views of what Labour should be about actually count for something. I have no doubt that the average Labour member doesn't want to do a Venezuela or ‘overthrow capitalism' as per McDonnell, but it isn’t going to be the average Labour Party member who is running the country if a Labour government was returned. It’s going to be Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, McCluskey, Serwotka et al.

P.s. I note you comment about Trump and Brexit, which you attribute, as I understand it, to neo-liberalism. You voted for Brexit - what are you saying, that you abandoned reason and simply did do out of protest?

[animallittle3]

@ animal,

I think you ask the wrong questions, which is why you get to the wrong answers. For example, there is plenty wrong with the railways today (inevitably given Grayling's involvement), so the right question is ‘how can they be improved?’ From my experience with British Rail in the past and the services I use now, I conclude that the right answer is not nationalisation. There was no ‘probably’ in whether BR didn’t perform well. And if you think Europe shows the way, try travelling on SNCF in France; I’ve used it three times in the last two years and have had my journey disrupted by strike action on two of them. Macron is currently fighting to bring it into the 20th Century. I imagine that he will then take a breather before pushing on to the 21st

You miss the point when you talk about your views of the economy. I could probably make a longer list of issues with it than you and I am constantly disappointed by governments of every hue (that’s what you can do if you don’t belong to any particular political tribe), but the right question is ‘who could do it better?’ I look at McDonnell with his ‘wanting to overthrow capitalism and for the UK to become a socialist society’ and have no doubt that it isn’t him.

Another right question you could ask would be ‘who could deliver an improved system of industrial relations in this country?’ I look at McCluskey bankrolling Labour and whipping in its supporters and immediately conclude, not the current version of Labour.

Finally, I think you fall into the trap of assuming that your views of what Labour should be about actually count for something. I have no doubt that the average Labour member doesn't want to do a Venezuela or ‘overthrow capitalism' as per McDonnell, but it isn’t going to be the average Labour Party member who is running the country if a Labour government was returned. It’s going to be Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, McCluskey, Serwotka et al.

P.s. I note you comment about Trump and Brexit, which you attribute, as I understand it, to neo-liberalism. You voted for Brexit - what are you saying, that you abandoned reason and simply did do out of protest?

If you want my opinion , the current hierarchy at the Labour Party even in government won't have the majority or a long enough tenure to act out on many of their proposals , they'd need 3 terms consecutively and huge majorities , won't happen .

In fact I can see the party splitting post brexit and a new party formed by the centre ground , possibly with the Lib Dems .


I can see the tory party still tearing itself in two also with the end result that nobody in British politics will be able to earn a majority in parliament .

All three of the parties will either have to work together or we will implode .

I've stated why I voted leave as you well know , because I don't want to be ruled from Brussels as part of a European super state which is the way they want to go in my opinion it had nothing to do with neoliberalism , it's effects on myself and my partner at our time of life luckily don't hit us too much , I use the word luckily rather than anything else you might note .

[animallittle3]

My old nan bless her loved the tories , not sure whether she voted for them .

Lovely man Mr Heath I can still hear her say , all miners were nasty , greedy and lazy because they were always on strike , she didn't like Harold Wilson , a ruffian with no manners .

She worked about 4 cleaning jobs 6 days a week , brought 7 kids up on her own after my granddad was killed in the war , 3 of them she took in off the street because of a family who had both tragedy and problems .

Without the welfare state she'd probably would have struggled to leave the mission she and her kids lived in after my granddads death .

Her council house at Wilthorpe was a palace , huge back garden , incredibly nice area .

Worshipped the royal family too , some members of the royal family had significant links to the Nazi party who in effect ended her husbands life

Perceptions are my point and how people view the world .

Loved my gran with all my heart but it's a funny world at times .

[Ericsladkilnhurst]

Edward Heath put us miners on a cost of living rise, so every week got a nice bonus, but soon
has Labour got back in, they stopped it.

[BigLadonOS]

You can say whatever you want about him to be honest and I bet you couldn't come anywhere near close to what MT did to this country.