The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[unbeliever 10]

For now.

 

May, her cohorts and the current Tory political play are giving out all the warning signs/noises of a slow veer to reactionary-cum-neoliberalist policies.

 

Labour's ongoing implosion, UKIP's irrelevance and the LibDem/Greens' ongoing desert walk, are effectively surrendering the role of real opposition to factions within the Tory party.

 

Link provided in case there was any need to highlight Labours' now-averred political irrelevance.

It is?

 

When has capitalism ever paid everyone a decent wage?

 

Don't forget: capitalism is the exploitation of man by man.

 

Socialism is the exact contrary

 

I don't expect any lurching by the Conservatives. They control the centre ground, the moderate-left and the moderate-right now and are hardly being challenged for any of them. Nothing to be gained by moving anywhere.

Edited September 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[tinfoilhat 11]

Everyone on here seems to agree that capitalism is unable to pay everyone a decent wage. That's quite an indictment.

 

No I'm saying fuel costs are too high and housing costs are wayyyyy to high. Funnily enough, capitalism can sort the latter - take away housing benefit and see how quick rent drops.

[unbeliever 10]

No I'm saying fuel costs are too high and housing costs are wayyyyy to high. Funnily enough, capitalism can sort the latter - take away housing benefit and see how quick rent drops.

 

I think reducing planning restrictions is probably kinder way to achieve the same effect and without so many casualties whilst the market sorts itself out.

[tinfoilhat 11]

I think reducing planning restrictions is probably kinder way to achieve the same effect and without so many casualties whilst the market sorts itself out.

 

Planning restrictions need a light tinkering. Throwing houses up willy nilly will cause it's own problems. And no more pathfinder-type projects either.

[L00b 441]

I don't expect any lurching by the Conservatives. They control the centre ground, the moderate-left and the moderate-right now and are hardly being challenged for any of them. Nothing to be gained by moving anywhere.

I did not say anything about 'lurching'. I mentioned a 'slow veer'.

 

That's how nation state-level politics work to achieve the requisite motion/momentum with avoiding mass backlash, in case you missed it: slowly, gradually...inexorably.

 

Frog, enjoy this tepid water bath, don't look at the pan or under it.

 

The beneficiaries of reactionary-cum-neoliberalist policies are obvious as a nose on a face...after all, they've been bankrolling the 'bluer-than-blue' Tories (including the Brexiting share thereof) for long enough.

 

The short-term acid test is the UK cornering itself into a hard Brexit situation through the good cop/bad cop routine of the 3 Brexiteers (with probably non-trivial internal support from the party) and May (with probably not as much party support as we think).

[unbeliever 10]

I did not say anything about 'lurching'. I mentioned a 'slow veer'. That's how nation state-level politics work to avoid mass backlash, in case you missed it: slowly, gradually...inexorably.

 

Frog, enjoy this tepid water bath, don't look at the pan or under it.

 

The beneficiaries of reactionary-cum-neoliberalist policies are obvious as a nose on a face...after all, they've been bankrolling the 'bluer-than-blue' Tories (including the Brexiting share thereof) for long enough.

 

The short-term acid test is the UK cornering itself into a hard Brexit situation through the good cop/bad cop routine of the 3 Brexiteers (with probably non-trivial internal support from the party) and May (with probably not as much party support as we think).

 

There are a lot of suppositions in that analysis.

 

Don't I recall you telling me that the vast majority of businesses are against Brexit anyway?

[L00b 441]

There are a lot of suppositions in that analysis.

No more than in yours, my good Sir.

 

An unavoidable aspect of lay politics debate ('lay' as in, 'uninformed by clear policy/strategy statements, leaving only inference from factual and historical observation').

Edited September 27, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

No more than in yours, my good Sir.

 

I disagree. You're reading between the lines. I'm rather more taking things on face value.

[L00b 441]

I disagree. You're reading between the lines. I'm rather more taking things on face value.

See my edit

 

Absent clear statements of intent/policy/strategy, inference from these "things at face value", informed by a historical (factual) context, is all we have to understand the aims/objectives.

 

I'll not do you the injustice of understanding your post as meaning that you take politician's statements and actions at face value

[unbeliever 10]

See my edit

 

Absent clear statements of intent/policy/strategy, inference from these "things at face value", informed by a historical (factual) context, is all we have to understand the aims/objectives.

 

I'll not do you the injustice of understanding your post as meaning that you take politician's statements and actions at face value

 

¿ Are you suggesting they might mislead us? Surely not. ¿

[L00b 441]

¿ Are you suggesting they might mislead us? Surely not. ¿

"Us?"

 

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

 

¿ You don't really believe that they care enough about 'us' to even bother misleading us, do you? ¿

[unbeliever 10]

"Us?"

 

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

 

¿ You don't really believe that they care enough about 'us' to even bother misleading us, do you? ¿

 

Did you take the trouble to type the markup for that descending line of "Ha" or is there a shortcut?