Is it worth joining the Labour Party?

Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
go ahead and explain to us in your own words why you believe he is not a 'socialist'
Click to expand...
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Keir Starmer is not a socialist as he has no intention of bringing any of the monopolised utilities, national infrastructure or strategically important industries into a nationalised structure.
 
Scrote said:
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Keir Starmer is not a socialist as he has no intention of bringing any of the monopolised utilities, national infrastructure or strategically important industries into a nationalised structure.
Click to expand...
Mr Corbyn didnt either and never will, he is worth a small fortune as far a socialist go, just by sitting down for a living.
Mr Lansman is a very wealthy man, and so is his son. Mr Schneider isn't he a Tory now. There's money to be made in socialist politics.
 
Last edited:
LessoftheLip said:
Labour has promised to renationalise nearly all passenger rail services within five years if it wins the next election. Only that, granted.
Click to expand...
We will have to wait and see if the Labour party get in, there's enough cxxk picture sending supporters in this country that will still vote for the Conservative party.
Mind you, I do feel for the non homeowners/ non car owning/ non personal effects owning true socialist living from hand to mouth, idealistic buggers arent they. No wonder they don't like Starmer.
Who`s idea was clause 4 taken from, I bet they were worth a few bob too.
 
The amount of comments on the thread saying they dont actually want to vote for Labour but will anyway just to get the Tories out is ridiculous and shows the state of the political system in this country. We need a major overhaul. Voting for one clearly inept party just so the other doesnt get in makes a mockery of the whole process
 
Johnny Vincents Motorbike said:
The Labour Party ceased being a 'socialist' party when it removed 'Clause 4 from its rule book.

Labour is now a social neoliberal party.


labour will renationalise our water systems - wont they ?
Click to expand...
In an era when "the commanding heights of the economy" were largely owned by wealthy Britons, it made some sense to talk about seizing and operating them on behalf of the people. Nowadays, much of our infrastructure, our companies, our property, our banks - not to mention the debt held by the UK Government - is foreign-owned. And the ineluctable fact is that even if such a wholesale 'socialist' programme proved popular with the UK public, any chance of it nearing reality would provoke a massive run on UK holdings that would send the cost of our debt through the roof and the pound through the floor. Look at what happened with Liz Truss's uncosted budget: investors destroyed her overnight; the BoE had to spend 40 million buying back gilts to stop pension funds collapsing, and yields skyrocketed, pushing up the base rate and hence mortgages.
So you can lament the loss of Clause 4 all you wish but we're not going to be telling BMW they no longer own Cowley - it's British now! - or HSBC (or whoever) that they no longer own Canary Wharf. And talk of "barricades" ignores the fact that any barricades seen in this country over the past 100 years have been due to race or religious riots, not socialist revolution.
What can be achieved is a gradualist correction of the increasing proportion of national wealth that has gone to capital (as opposed to Labour) via policies such as taxing wealth (dividends, second homes, capital gains etc); growth-producing investment via national wealth funds with pension funds mandated to invest a proportion of their assets in UK 'unicorn' firms; strong employment laws and union involvement in company boards; and public sector investment under loosened fiscal rules for long-term renewal projects.
Doesn't get the blood running like 'Let's smash capitalism' but won't bankrupt the country either.
 
"History" used to be an important basic subject in Secondary Education, alongside English Literature, English Language, Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Politics, Economics, Urban and Physical Geography, Sociology, and Religious Education. (y)
 
equaliser said:
In an era when "the commanding heights of the economy" were largely owned by wealthy Britons, it made some sense to talk about seizing and operating them on behalf of the people. Nowadays, much of our infrastructure, our companies, our property, our banks - not to mention the debt held by the UK Government - is foreign-owned. And the ineluctable fact is that even if such a wholesale 'socialist' programme proved popular with the UK public, any chance of it nearing reality would provoke a massive run on UK holdings that would send the cost of our debt through the roof and the pound through the floor. Look at what happened with Liz Truss's uncosted budget: investors destroyed her overnight; the BoE had to spend 40 million buying back gilts to stop pension funds collapsing, and yields skyrocketed, pushing up the base rate and hence mortgages.
So you can lament the loss of Clause 4 all you wish but we're not going to be telling BMW they no longer own Cowley - it's British now! - or HSBC (or whoever) that they no longer own Canary Wharf. And talk of "barricades" ignores the fact that any barricades seen in this country over the past 100 years have been due to race or religious riots, not socialist revolution.
What can be achieved is a gradualist correction of the increasing proportion of national wealth that has gone to capital (as opposed to Labour) via policies such as taxing wealth (dividends, second homes, capital gains etc); growth-producing investment via national wealth funds with pension funds mandated to invest a proportion of their assets in UK 'unicorn' firms; strong employment laws and union involvement in company boards; and public sector investment under loosened fiscal rules for long-term renewal projects.
Doesn't get the blood running like 'Let's smash capitalism' but won't bankrupt the country either.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is just an exercise in white-flag waving. We can't do anything because the nasty rich people won't let us.

It'd be very easy to gradually remove government subsidies over five years. Nothing has to be "big bang". You can give investors plenty of time to diversify. It shouldn't be a problem as they're all rich because of their excellent business sense. They'll find something else, surely?

And redistribution via wealth taxes, rent controls etc. aren't going to break the country in the same way that Truss deciding taxation was no longer required would.
 
gregorgregorovich said:
It wasn't and isn't the same Tory Government at all. It was a pre Covid administration, with all the appalling mistakes of their handling of the pandemic yet to be uncovered.

It was before the cronyism of the pandemic was laid bare.

It was before the hypocrisy and lies of Partygate.

Prior to both of those, the Tories had a comfortable lead in just about every opinion poll.

Trussonomics and the worst cost of living crisis in living memory were yet to be unleashed on us.
Click to expand...
But not before austerity killed 200k people. Or before waiting lists in the NHS had started to climb out of control, or tory borrowing was going up and up our the police and judiciary had been stripped to the bone. And not before a crippled government stopped governing and started fighting over Brexit.

A competent Labour leader in 2019 would have beat Johnson.
 
Sergio said:
The amount of comments on the thread saying they dont actually want to vote for Labour but will anyway just to get the Tories out is ridiculous and shows the state of the political system in this country. We need a major overhaul. Voting for one clearly inept party just so the other doesnt get in makes a mockery of the whole process
Click to expand...
It shows something about the board members don't confuse that with the wider electorate.

For every body saying they will hold their nose and vote Labour there are 10 board members that feel differently. Most of us can't be bothered recycling the same arguments with the same people.
 
"Most of us can't be bothered recycling the same arguments with the same people."

I agree, the game was up a long time ago.

I`m not sure how these home owning asset filled people can argue they are full blown virtuos socialists. "proper socialist"
They all seem the same as Christians, in that they don't live a Christian life in any shape form or manner, but like state they are.

Or are they a bit like me and Mr Corbyn and Mr Starmer, in that we like particular industries nationalised for the good of all the people on these isles. We all know what they are so I wont bore you with them.

I've rarely seen a particular duo on here speak up against anything regarding the Tories, yet they love Corbyn forgetting that he and is more of a capitalist than a socialist, and so it seems were some of the momentum founders.
 
r00fie1 said:
"History" used to be an important basic subject in Secondary Education, alongside English Literature, English Language, Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Politics, Economics, Urban and Physical Geography, Sociology, and Religious Education. (y)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you are making but History still is taught at secondary school. At least until age 14 when it becomes optional. But that was also the case in the 70s and 80s.
I can't remember Politics or Sociology ever being subjects at school, when was that?
When I was at school Geography was called Geography, and not split into Urban and Physical.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
"Most of us can't be bothered recycling the same arguments with the same people."

I agree, the game was up a long time ago.

I`m not sure how these home owning asset filled people can argue they are full blown virtuos socialists. "proper socialist"
They all seem the same as Christians, in that they don't live a Christian life in any shape form or manner, but like state they are.

Or are they a bit like me and Mr Corbyn and Mr Starmer, in that we like particular industries nationalised for the good of all the people on these isles. We all know what they are so I wont bore you with them.

I've rarely seen a particular duo on here speak up against anything regarding the Tories, yet they love Corbyn forgetting that he and is more of a capitalist than a socialist, and so it seems were some of the momentum founders.
Click to expand...
Rubbish
 
If you can afford it and want rid of the tories then i would say yes, they need funding to compete with the tories, relying mainly on small contributions via union contributions, whereas the tories are favoured by the russians, tax dodgers and already super ŕich business owners wanting the tories to keep them richer at the expense of the 99%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top