So What's Neoliberalism?

[andyofborg 11]

8 hours ago, Mister M said:

The opposition Conservative Party were very effective in blaming the Labour Government as being the cause of the banking crash, and many of the public were convinced so voted accordingly.

their effectiveness was enhanced because the post government labour party were led by people from the left of the party and it suited them to trash the record of the Blair-Brown government, which for all its faults did achieve quite a bit,  

 

[Mister M 1,625]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

their effectiveness was enhanced because the post government labour party were led by people from the left of the party and it suited them to trash the record of the Blair-Brown government, which for all its faults did achieve quite a bit,  

 

I agree with you that the Blair-Brown governments did some good things. Although Ed Milliband policies weren't nearly as left wing as they were portrayed in the press. The policies were Social Democratic in the European tradition. 

Ed Milliband's problem was that he was pictured 'awkwardly' eating a bacon sandwich. The press then complained that he 'stole' the leadership from his brother, and according to the Daily Mail having a Marxist academic as his father who 'hated Britain'.

Rather than the stability they would've got with a Miliband government, they chose chaos with David Cameron.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Mister M

[Delbow 700]

20 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I agree with you that the Blair-Brown governments did some good things. Although Ed Milliband policies weren't nearly as left wing as they were portrayed in the press. The policies were Social Democratic in the European tradition. 

Ed Milliband's problem was that he was pictured 'awkwardly' eating a bacon sandwich. The press then complained that he 'stole' the leadership from his brother, and according to the Daily Mail having a Marxist academic as his father who 'hated Britain'.

Rather than the stability they would've got with a Miliband government, they chose chaos with David Cameron.

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's surely that neoliberalism isn't fascism?

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to quote your post, not sure how to undo that

Edited February 10, 2021 by Delbow

[Arnold_Lane 0]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

The powerful elite with a vested interest in keeping the gravy train on the rails will see this happens to anyone of whatever party who doesn't tow the Neoliberal line.

So we are subject to a covert regime most people don't even know about, didn't vote for, doesn't do us any favours, and can't be got rid of via the ballot box.  

And that's called fascism. And fascism can only end in tears.... 

 

 

Is it fascism or neoliberalism? 

 

If the neoliberals are all powerful (because they are the oligarchs and bankers and according to you they control the media) and, if you are correct in your claim, are the reason Corbyn didn't win, what makes you think that "they" will let a fascist win?

 

If Trump isn't a neoliberal, how come "they" allowed him to win? 

 

You are going to run out of isms soon.

 

 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

44 minutes ago, Delbow said:

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's surely that neoliberalism isn't fascism?

In a thread where net wealth has been repeatedly confused with bank balance, classical liberalism and laissez faire economic policy have been described as the same as neoliberalism, the Bilderberg Group and Davos have been discussed as a shadowy elite and the media have been blamed again for Corbyn not winning two elections, it's not surprising is it?

[Delbow 700]

8 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

In a thread where net wealth has been repeatedly confused with bank balance, classical liberalism and laissez faire economic policy have been described as the same as neoliberalism, the Bilderberg Group and Davos have been discussed as a shadowy elite and the media have been blamed again for Corbyn not winning two elections, it's not surprising is it?

Well I'm not going to agree with you that those with money and power don't strive to ensure that those who would share it out a bit never get into power, not in a country that blacklists union members and arrests journalists for covering protests.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 minute ago, Delbow said:

Well I'm not going to agree with you that those with money and power don't strive to ensure that those who would share it out a bit never get into power, not in a country that blacklists union members and arrests journalists for covering protests.

So every teacher, doctor, train driver, police officer, airline pilot, fire fighter etc etc etc who is professionally represented by a union is black listed?  How many journalists were arrested covering anti-lockdown or BLM protests that took place last year?

 

I think there are other countries that Anna would not refer to as neoliberal that do worse.  

 

 

[Delbow 700]

1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

So every teacher, doctor, train driver, police officer, airline pilot, fire fighter etc etc etc who is professionally represented by a union is black listed?  How many journalists were arrested covering anti-lockdown or BLM protests that took place last year?

 

I think there are other countries that Anna would not refer to as neoliberal that do worse.  

 

 

As you should know, it is not necessary for every union member in every industry to be blacklisted in order to conclude that a) blacklisting has happened, and b) it is oppressive and authoritarian. The purpose of any blacklisting or anti-trade union activity is to avoid as far as possible sharing wealth and influence with workers. Particularly in the area of health and safety, unions can force employers to invest in safe workplaces, which some employers clearly do not want to do. It's just another check/balance that the more neoliberal capitalists would rather do without. 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

12 minutes ago, Delbow said:

As you should know, it is not necessary for every union member in every industry to be blacklisted in order to conclude that a) blacklisting has happened, and b) it is oppressive and authoritarian. The purpose of any blacklisting or anti-trade union activity is to avoid as far as possible sharing wealth and influence with workers. Particularly in the area of health and safety, unions can force employers to invest in safe workplaces, which some employers clearly do not want to do. It's just another check/balance that the more neoliberal capitalists would rather do without. 

Maybe - but that's not exclusive to neoliberals.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[apelike 10]

8 hours ago, Mister M said:

I don't know about care workers who work in nursing homes, but some of the many domiciliary care staff who have been working their butts off during the pandemic, have rung into shows on LBC complaining that they don't get paid  for time spent travelling between people’s houses, despite the staff having to get from one home to the next to complete their job. This means that such workers will be earning well below the minimum wage.

 

According to Unison: https://www.unison.org.uk/care-workers-your-rights/#:~:text=Yes.,the work that they do.&text=This means that time spent,included in the pay calculation.

 

"All homecare workers are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage or national living wage for the work that they do. This includes care workers on zero hours contracts.

This means that time spent caring for clients, travelling to appointments and waiting to start the appointment should be included in the pay calculation."

 

They also go on to say the guidance is clear, its against the law and people not getting the correct pay should claim or get in touch with them.

 

 

Anna stated in her post of #208

 

"....Carer was not allowed to do certain things alone like lift her up the bed, she was told she needed to employ an extra carer for that, doubling the cost."

 

That is a result of Health and Safety laws that guide Carers. Some of the big expenditures on the NHS over the past few decades has also been because of Health and Safety laws designed to protect workers.

Edited February 10, 2021 by apelike

[apelike 10]

5 hours ago, Mister M said:

I agree with you that the Blair-Brown governments did some good things. Although Ed Milliband policies weren't nearly as left wing as they were portrayed in the press. The policies were Social Democratic in the European tradition. 

The problem with that however is that European tradition is now also one of Neoliberalism and far stronger than in the UK.

 

5 hours ago, Mister M said:

Ed Milliband's problem was that he was pictured 'awkwardly' eating a bacon sandwich...

Without going off topic too much, Miliband's problem was he was just like Hague in that he was bland and not charismatic enough to be a leader of government.

 

[Anna B 1,414]

51 minutes ago, apelike said:

The problem with that however is that European tradition is now also one of Neoliberalism and far stronger than in the UK.

 

Without going off topic too much, Miliband's problem was he was just like Hague in that he was bland and not charismatic enough to be a leader of government.

 

The issue with Milliband in this context is the treatment he got in the press, again personal attacks on him, rather than his policies, for 'eating a bacon sandwich,' pinching the leadership off his brother, and having a 'Britain hating father;' very similar to the personal smearing of Corbyn, and hardly qualifying as first rate journalism, but they stick in the mind of the Red Top Labour voters and do the damage. Michael Foot got the same treatment.

 

Anything considered 'left wing' gets systematically trashed. Unions for example are constantly portrayed as evil and damaging to Britain. No wonder Union membership has dropped, when we actually need it more than ever. Everything is skewed in favour of keeping the right in power.

The power of the media, which is in the hands of only a few oligarchs, cannot be underestimated.

It is a very well known way of controlling the masses.  

Edited February 10, 2021 by Anna B