Jump to content


So What's Neoliberalism?

Recommended Posts

1945-79 was a period of egalitarianism in  Western Europe, although for the first 5 or 10 years of the period you are so keen on, the UK was knee deep in austerity. You could do what ever job you wanted and get promoted, as long as you weren't a woman. Or black.

 

 Wasnt a whole load of it in eastern Europe and China, there was gulags, a brief Google worked out 250k russians died in them between 1946 and 1956 alone. At least they were working. To death.  Our former colonies were turning themselves inside out. There was mobility in India too (15m uprooted in 1948)  another 2m dead. Oh, China even in the 80s weren't big on any kind liberalism - just ask the students at Tiananmen square. Is it me or is the past looking less rosy? 

 

I was going to do a list of car manufacturers that had gone bust pre 1979 but it was a bit of a faff, but there are 2.7m employed in the car industry in the UK as of 2017  - more than in the 70s. Some of those will be down to Thatcher encouraging Japanese manufacturers opening up new, shiney factories.

 

People are better off now. It's not ideal, most countries have a level of corruption, and that goes up and down.  As it stands we are fairly high on the scale. That will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Any chance of a reply to post #12, @Anna B?

Sorry, I thought I'd answered this in my original post and in post 27 (last paragraph.) 

You ask me to define what I mean by 'True democracy.' 

Well, we supposedly have a two party system; Labour, which roughly speaking represents the working man's interests, and the Conservatives, who are the party of business, and again roughly speaking the better off. I know this is a big generalization, but go with it for now. So the electorate can choose from two opposing ideologies, and vote for the party of their choice in a general election.

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

f both main parties are following the same Neoliberal agenda, (they are) favouring big business over the needs of the people, elections become irrelevant. 'It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in...' and one government is pretty much the same as the other. Neither party represents the interests of the people, they represent the lobbyists, the doners, the bankers, the big corporations, the elite, the rich and the powerful. These will continue to suck up all the wealth of the country, while everyone else survives on the crumbs. And with our 'first past the post' system the other parties are irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Sorry, I thought I'd answered this in my original post and in post 27 (last paragraph.) 

You ask me to define what I mean by 'True democracy.' 

Well, we supposedly have a two party system; Labour, which roughly speaking represents the working man's interests, and the Conservatives, who are the party of business, and again roughly speaking the better off. I know this is a big generalization, but go with it for now. So the electorate can choose from two opposing ideologies, and vote for the party of their choice in a general election.

 

We don't have a two party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

1945-79 was a period of egalitarianism in  Western Europe, although for the first 5 or 10 years of the period you are so keen on, the UK was knee deep in austerity. You could do what ever job you wanted and get promoted, as long as you weren't a woman. Or black.

 

 Wasnt a whole load of it in eastern Europe and China, there was gulags, a brief Google worked out 250k russians died in them between 1946 and 1956 alone. At least they were working. To death.  Our former colonies were turning themselves inside out. There was mobility in India too (15m uprooted in 1948)  another 2m dead. Oh, China even in the 80s weren't big on any kind liberalism - just ask the students at Tiananmen square. Is it me or is the past looking less rosy? 

 

I was going to do a list of car manufacturers that had gone bust pre 1979 but it was a bit of a faff, but there are 2.7m employed in the car industry in the UK as of 2017  - more than in the 70s. Some of those will be down to Thatcher encouraging Japanese manufacturers opening up new, shiney factories.

 

People are better off now. It's not ideal, most countries have a level of corruption, and that goes up and down.  As it stands we are fairly high on the scale. That will change.

I was talking about the UK. Post war was pre globalization, so meant different things in different countries. In spite of post war austerity the mood was optimistic and forward looking. 

 

There might be car manufacturing here providing jobs in the UK, but all the profits go to the other countries. And there would be more jobs wouldn't there, as there are more people and more growth. There has to be at least something to take the place of all those lost jobs in manufacturing, mining, and industry. 

 

Certainly wages have risen but I'm not sure people are that much better off. The cost of living is also higher. House prices /rents, are up, debt is up, job and general insecurity is up, savings and welfare are down etc. Of course some are better off, but the gap between them and the rest is growing.   

9 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

We don't have a two party system.

A vote for anything other than the two main parties is a wasted vote. No other party will get into power. We don't have proportional representation so generally they have very little influence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna B said:

I was talking about the UK. Post war was pre globalization, so meant different things in different countries. In spite of post war austerity the mood was optimistic and forward looking. 

 

There might be car manufacturing here providing jobs in the UK, but all the profits go to the other countries. And there would be more jobs wouldn't there, as there are more people and more growth. There has to be at least something to take the place of all those lost jobs in manufacturing, mining, and industry. 

 

Certainly wages have risen but I'm not sure people are that much better off. The cost of living is also higher. House prices /rents, are up, debt is up, job and general insecurity is up, savings and welfare are down etc. Of course some are better off, but the gap between them and the rest is growing.   

A vote for anything other than the two main parties is a wasted vote. No other party will get into power. We don't have proportional representation so generally they have very little influence. 

ukip managed to achieve a tremendous amount with a few MEPs. 

 

But globalisation has clearly improved the lot of billions. Do you want the gap between us and the developing to remain as large as it was in the 50s and 60s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a chance to change the voting system in 2011 when we had a coalition government.  The people rejected it.   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hauxwell said:

We had a chance to change the voting system in 2011 when we had a coalition government.  The people rejected it.   
 

The Lib Dems (and most of the public) were expecting to vote for PR (Proportional Representation.)

Nick Clegg sold his soul to the devil to get this, and in exchange agreed to support David Cameron's wish to raise  University tuition fees, which went against Lib Dem's  manifesto promise.

 

At the last minute David Cameron moved the goal posts and changed it to a vote for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood and nobody wanted. A typical bit of Tory slight of hand.  

 

The vote failed, Cameron got his wish to raise University fees (to £9,000 p.a.) with the support of the Lib Dems.

Nick Clegg got the blame and lost his seat (Sheffield Hallam.) The Lib Dems share of the vote dropped like a stone to the lowest level ever. It's never recovered, and we will probably never get another chance to change the voting system to PR.

 

The moral of the story is never trust a Tory. 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The Lib Dems (and most of the public) were expecting to vote for PR (Proportional Representation.)

Nick Clegg sold his soul to the devil to get this, and in exchange agreed to support David Cameron's wish to raise  University tuition fees, which went against Lib Dem's  manifesto promise.

 

At the last minute David Cameron moved the goal posts and changed it to a vote for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood and nobody wanted. A typical bit of Tory slight of hand.  

 

The vote failed, Cameron got his wish to raise University fees (to £9,000 p.a.) with the support of the Lib Dems.

Nick Clegg got the blame and lost his seat (Sheffield Hallam.) The Lib Dems share of the vote dropped like a stone to the lowest level ever. It's never recovered, and we will probably never get another chance to change the voting system to PR.

 

The moral of the story is never trust a Tory. 

I thought the vote was for PR, but I’m clearly  wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The Lib Dems (and most of the public) were expecting to vote for PR (Proportional Representation.)

Nick Clegg sold his soul to the devil to get this, and in exchange agreed to support David Cameron's wish to raise  University tuition fees, which went against Lib Dem's  manifesto promise.

 

At the last minute David Cameron moved the goal posts and changed it to a vote for AV (Alternative Vote) which nobody understood and nobody wanted. A typical bit of Tory slight of hand.  

 

The vote failed, Cameron got his wish to raise University fees (to £9,000 p.a.) with the support of the Lib Dems.

Nick Clegg got the blame and lost his seat (Sheffield Hallam.) The Lib Dems share of the vote dropped like a stone to the lowest level ever. It's never recovered, and we will probably never get another chance to change the voting system to PR.

 

The moral of the story is never trust a Tory. 

Actually, Anna, the moral of the story is 'never trust a politician'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Actually, Anna, the moral of the story is 'never trust a politician'.

Unless said politician is named Jeremy Corbyn or Diane Abbott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Delayed said:

Unless said politician is named Jeremy Corbyn or Diane Abbott

🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neoliberalism and postmodernism, an unholy alliance, great read this.

 

9b5f480793b741700d404e6d4d7bb325.pdf?149

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.