What Is It About The Labour Socialist Vision In Modern Times That

[loginandtonic]

in the 70s and now, its all coming apart like a cheap suit.

why don't they sit down and analyse why their policies of spend spend spend always end in this way before taking power next time, going bust once in the 1970s looks unlucky or careless, twice is looking pretty damn incompetent.

and the way things look, going to the IMF for "its health spa qualities" is no longer a far-fetched idea.

the finances do indeed look way out of control.

what are they playing at, grinning like everything's ok, like a stupid business owner putting on a front for his clients the day before the administrators get called in.

time for some honesty from all parties, but most of all, time to analyse why the Labour policies lead here now twice in a row.

[hedi]

the quote margret thatcher.

"the problem with socialist govenments is they always run out of other peoples money."

that should answer your question.

[interestrateripoff]

Because they don't understand the balance sheet.

Once you've discovered the ability to borrow from the future who cares because nothing can ever go wrong.

[loginandtonic]

the quote margret thatcher.

"the problem with socialist govenments is they always run out of other peoples money."

that should answer your question.

thats what i thought, thx

thread closed

---------------

[Bloo Loo]

spending and controlling the borrowers is good.

profit and free people is bad.

[Cogs]

It was neo-liberalism wot done it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...pse-of-the-left

The more capitalism takes the piss, as it inevitably has to as wealth becomes ever more centralised and the greedy become ever greedier, the more that has to be spent making up for it. Social democrats are the people who light satans cigarettes for him and apologise about the smell of brimstone. Thats exactly what Tony Blair and Brown are all about.

I think tax credits to make up the pay of people who aren't given a living wage might be the nadir.

Given that the wealthy don't themselves pay tax there is only so long this little game can be played for.

[Freeholder]

Because you need to be mentally impaired to go for all that socialism garbage in the first place.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

in the 70s and now, its all coming apart like a cheap suit.

why don't they sit down and analyse why their policies of spend spend spend always end in this way before taking power next time, going bust once in the 1970s looks unlucky or careless, twice is looking pretty damn incompetent.

and the way things look, going to the IMF for "its health spa qualities" is no longer a far-fetched idea.

the finances do indeed look way out of control.

what are they playing at, grinning like everything's ok, like a stupid business owner putting on a front for his clients the day before the administrators get called in.

time for some honesty from all parties, but most of all, time to analyse why the Labour policies lead here now twice in a row.

I suppose the problem is, the vast majority of labour supporters don't actually understand what socialism is.

The sheeple have the quaint notion that socialism was designed to to create a more equitable society. Socialism has been hijacked by rich cocksuckers who realized they could exploit this notion for their own ends. They have been very very good at it too. Have you noticed how many labour politicians are millionaires? Have you noticed how some of the wealthiest, most powerful people are connected to the Labour party? And of course, the Labour party courted the bankers and the big corporates with laissez faire regulation, ignored their prolific tax avoidance and the loss of billions in tax revenues.

The other thing people don't understand about socialism is that the creation of their utopian pipedream would require the undermining and destruction of all just about every institution in the land. The Fabian society was founded on this premise, that to destroy what they so despise, they would not use offensive action but rather subvertion to destroy society and public institutions from within and rebuild them within their own belief system. In NuLabour's case, this is achieved via proxies such as Common Purpose.

Fabianism is so named after the Roman emperor Fabius Maximus, who used a similar system of longterm subversion and grinding attrition to defeat the Carthaginians in the 2nd Punic Wars.

The Heraldic shield of the Fabian Society is a wolf in sheep's clothing

Sums them up nicely doesn't it?

This economic calamity was engineered. It was all planned well in advance and it serves their interests to the tee. It will end the UK's ability to function as an independent sovereign state. Our assililation into the EUSSR is now guaranteed and we'll probably end up accepting the Euro because Sterling will be toilet paper. The earlier incarnations of labour were also very effective at destroying the country, the 1970's IMF bailout being the most obvious example.

The slow grinding war being fought against our ancient freedoms and liberties ia also pure Fabianism. No wonder that British people feel so disempowered and hopeless. The war of attrition against the people is entirely deliberate. So now, our common law rights no longer exist, habeas corpus has been usurped by EU corpus juris civil law, we live in a surveillance state, we are taxed into oblivion, we are bullied and badgered constantly by officers of the state for every minor transgression from leaving the lid on our wheelie bins ajar to wanting to smoke a cigarette over a pint of beer at our local pub.

And people still think socialism is a really great idea.

No need to look to the Conservative Party of course. They are just the other side of the Fabian coin. The tax burden might be tweaked a little, maybe they will be just a smidgeon less authortarian, but really, nothing will change under a Cameron government

[Executive Sadman]

in the 70s and now, its all coming apart like a cheap suit.

why don't they sit down and analyse why their policies of spend spend spend always end in this way before taking power next time, going bust once in the 1970s looks unlucky or careless, twice is looking pretty damn incompetent.

and the way things look, going to the IMF for "its health spa qualities" is no longer a far-fetched idea.

the finances do indeed look way out of control.

what are they playing at, grinning like everything's ok, like a stupid business owner putting on a front for his clients the day before the administrators get called in.

time for some honesty from all parties, but most of all, time to analyse why the Labour policies lead here now twice in a row.

Might be on to something there. Socialism, and democracy that has an election under every <5 years dont mix. Maybe if we only had an election every 25 years labour might handle things better.?

Otoh given russia has almost limitless resources and still managed to phuck socialism up i personally think its the ideology thats flawed. If it cant work there it cant work anywhere.

[Executive Sadman]

the quote margret thatcher.

"the problem with socialist govenments is they always run out of other peoples money."

that should answer your question.

All she did was shifted the irresponsibility from punitive (and ineffectual) taxes to borrowing that now leaves us with the same (on a much greater scale) problem.

[Scunnered]

How many IMF bailouts have we had?

[Cogs]

Might be on to something there. Socialism, and democracy that has an election under every <5 years dont mix. Maybe if we only had an election every 25 years labour might handle things better.?

Otoh given russia has almost limitless resources and still managed to phuck socialism up i personally think its the ideology thats flawed. If it cant work there it cant work anywhere.

Russia was primarily agrarian, as an ideology socialism is supposed to succeed advanced capitalist societies, not improve the lives of peasants living under little more than feudal conditions. This is what comes of not following the instructions (purchasers of Ikea furniture take note).

[CokeSnortingTory]

ANY Fix-it-all ideology is doomed to fail and end in a sticky mess. The free marketeers are just as Utopian as the Socialists were and amongst other things it's a rush to unrestrained free markets that got us here.

Is the correct answer.

[Scunnered]

Is that a rhetorical question?

No, I actually don't know the answer and I'm too lazy to look it up. The thread title refers to "... The Labour Socialist Vision In Modern Times That, always ends in tears - a bust and IMF bailout", so I wondered how many times "always" was.

[alexw]

Might be on to something there. Socialism, and democracy that has an election under every <5 years dont mix. Maybe if we only had an election every 25 years labour might handle things better.?

Otoh given russia has almost limitless resources and still managed to phuck socialism up i personally think its the ideology thats flawed. If it cant work there it cant work anywhere.

Tbh i dont think we have had modern balanced socialism in any country in recent history. What we have had is champagne socialism, whereby any attempt to bring in some type of modern socialist government is subverted by powerful vested self-interests of one sort or another.

For modern balanced socialism where does -

Negligible border controls

20% tax rate on the lowest paid

capital gains taxes lower than those on work

negligible regulation of banks

monopolistic gas/electricity/water utilities

poor real rewards for work at the low end

etc etc

fit into it?

But then again it seems that capitalist systems are similarly subverted, you get either champagne socialists or champagne capitalists. Now go make your pick on which you prefer.

[Guest happy?]

in the 70s and now, its all coming apart like a cheap suit.

You're suffering from a false premise and selective memory.

The Conservative party was historically the dominant party in the 20th century - using your logic they are the cause of the majority of recessions - certainly many of the events of the 1970's were a direct result of policies set in train by Barber.

However, a more intelligent response would ask the question that to what extent can political parties in the UK influence economic events in the world - certainly Norman Lamont (ignominious ejection from ERM), Churchill - (return to gold standard at an ultimately unsustainable rate), Howe and Thatcher (disastrous experiment with monetarism which led to Thatcher's first u-turn) would suggest you do indeed have a selective/partisan view of events.

Wee Georgie Osborne of course is lining-up millions for a repeat performance of the early 1980's - not least because like you he has a binary-mindset.

[godless]

http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/LSEHistory/lse_influence.htm

[porca misèria]

It's just incompetence. Comes with the territory of being a socialist in our times.

Socialism was a movement that had it's place in history. When the worker's lot was as described by Marx or Tressell, socialism was a necessary correction. That correction had its time and place, and in the UK that peaked with Attlee - a man who did what was needed in his time. After Attlee it needed to take a back seat. Tie up loose ends, yes. But not drive the whole agenda - it had driven its course and nowhere constructive to go!

Those who led us in the '70s had at least some kind of excuse: their formative years were the days of some of the most brutal exploitation, conflict, and the general strike. Today's politicians have no such mitigating circumstances.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

It's just incompetence. Comes with the territory of being a socialist in our times.

Socialism was a movement that had it's place in history. When the worker's lot was as described by Marx or Tressell, socialism was a necessary correction. That correction had its time and place, and in the UK that peaked with Attlee - a man who did what was needed in his time. After Attlee it needed to take a back seat. Tie up loose ends, yes. But not drive the whole agenda - it had driven its course and nowhere constructive to go!

Those who led us in the '70s had at least some kind of excuse: their formative years were the days of some of the most brutal exploitation, conflict, and the general strike. Today's politicians have no such mitigating circumstances.

i dont think its incompitence at all, its shrewd, pursuing this debt/credit bubble to its end gave the party 3 terms in office. Had they rightly addressed it by 2003 when things were starting to get out of hand they would have lost the 05 election. They did the correct thing in the interest of the party and themselves, like all political parties. If that also sometimes happens to be in the interest of the rest of the population i would say that is luck,

[Second Time Around]

in the 70s and now, its all coming apart like a cheap suit.

why don't they sit down and analyse why their policies of spend spend spend always end in this way before taking power next time, going bust once in the 1970s looks unlucky or careless, twice is looking pretty damn incompetent.

and the way things look, going to the IMF for "its health spa qualities" is no longer a far-fetched idea.

the finances do indeed look way out of control.

what are they playing at, grinning like everything's ok, like a stupid business owner putting on a front for his clients the day before the administrators get called in.

time for some honesty from all parties, but most of all, time to analyse why the Labour policies lead here now twice in a row.

Probably the fault lies in the fact that Labour have nothing to give but insist on sharing it with everyone anyway

[jackalope]

Well I remember the Jim Callaghan one,

As well as Callaghan in '76 here was also Wilson getting money from the IMF in '65 and '67. The Labour Party practically had the IMF on speed dial in those days.

[loginandtonic]

I suppose the problem is, the vast majority of labour supporters don't actually understand what socialism is.

The sheeple have the quaint notion that socialism was designed to to create a more equitable society. Socialism has been hijacked by...

I don't think they are remotely socialist - that would be too easy. Don't forget the Tories aren't a barrel of laughs either and aren't so financially prudent themselves...

It's just incompetence. Comes with the territory of being a socialist in our times.

Socialism was a movement that had it's place in history. When the worker's lot was as described by Marx or Tressell, socialism was a necessary correction. That correction had its time and place, and in the UK that peaked with Attlee - a man who did what was needed in his time. After Attlee it needed to take a back seat. Tie up loose ends, yes. But not drive the whole agenda - it had driven its course and nowhere constructive to go!

Those who led us in the '70s had at least some kind of excuse: their formative years were the days of some of the most brutal exploitation, conflict, and the general strike. Today's politicians have no such mitigating circumstances.

triple whammy of posters above: impressive replies, thx for taking the time to post

You're suffering from a false premise and selective memory.

The Conservative party was historically the dominant party in the 20th century - using your logic they are the cause of the majority of recessions - certainly many of the events of the 1970's were a direct result of policies set in train by Barber.

However, a more intelligent response would ask the question that to what extent can political parties in the UK influence economic events in the world - certainly Norman Lamont (ignominious ejection from ERM), Churchill - (return to gold standard at an ultimately unsustainable rate), Howe and Thatcher (disastrous experiment with monetarism which led to Thatcher's first u-turn) would suggest you do indeed have a selective/partisan view of events.

Wee Georgie Osborne of course is lining-up millions for a repeat performance of the early 1980's - not least because like you he has a binary-mindset.

well now you've been able to diagnose 3 ailments the doc should be able to give me something for that + the painful shin problem that keeps me up at night, cheers

[indirectapproach]

"What Is It About The Labour Socialist Vision In Modern Times That, always ends in tears - a bust and IMF bailout?"

They prefer to faff about trying to figure out what to do with the wealth rather than engage in the grubby business of generating some.

[blankster]

The crisis is the result of folly by the capitalist banking sector. In fact capitalism had mutated into creditism and nobody seemed to have noticed.

As a leftist myself I would never describe New Labour as socialist, its basically Thatcherism cloaked with a slightly leftward themed makeover and recently degenerated into kneejerk incompetence.

[TwoWolves]

You're suffering from a false premise and selective memory.

The Conservative party was historically the dominant party in the 20th century - using your logic they are the cause of the majority of recessions - certainly many of the events of the 1970's were a direct result of policies set in train by Barber.

However, a more intelligent response would ask the question that to what extent can political parties in the UK influence economic events in the world - certainly Norman Lamont (ignominious ejection from ERM), Churchill - (return to gold standard at an ultimately unsustainable rate), Howe and Thatcher (disastrous experiment with monetarism which led to Thatcher's first u-turn) would suggest you do indeed have a selective/partisan view of events.

Wee Georgie Osborne of course is lining-up millions for a repeat performance of the early 1980's - not least because like you he has a binary-mindset.

Conversely one could argue that You're suffering from a false premise and selective memory as well, but I’ll grant you Churchill was a nutter.

It was neo-liberalism wot done it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...pse-of-the-left

The more capitalism takes the piss, as it inevitably has to as wealth becomes ever more centralised and the greedy become ever greedier, the more that has to be spent making up for it. Social democrats are the people who light satans cigarettes for him and apologise about the smell of brimstone. Thats exactly what Tony Blair and Brown are all about.

I think tax credits to make up the pay of people who aren't given a living wage might be the nadir.

Given that the wealthy don't themselves pay tax there is only so long this little game can be played for.

Because only capitalists and political conservatives can be greedy or corrupt right? You are a comic genius. You always seem to pop-up when there is a thread critical of socialism so I’m thinking “why do you post here� After all house ownership is an aspirational trait and not compatible with centralism or wealth distribution.

I’ll grant you guys are funny.