[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Is it PotG?]

I think that question depends on a variety of factors - this will be a long answer.

First of all, how do you define hard left? The Socialist Campaign Group? Momentum? Or what?
It's a very fluid definition. I've seen Lloyd Russell Moyle, one of our local MPs, described as far left. He's a member of the Open Labour group, which certainly wouldn't be seen as far left by the likes of Momentum but would be seen as raging Marxists by many Tory members. In fact, if you read the Telegraph, Starmer himself is well on the far left.

Then there are changes over time. The Tribune group in Labour was always seen as the far left of the party but Starmer is a member, so the idea that it's any sort of far left group is for the birds.

And do you include groups like Socialist Appeal, which used to be in the Labour Party but have been expelled for anti-semitism. Do they still have an influence?

It's also idealistic to think that these groups work together. Once upon a time, I was an elected union official and the grief I got from different left wing factions acting against each other far exceeded anything I got from employers. The Monty Python Judean Popular Front sketch has it bang on.

What do you mean by "keeping their powder dry"? These groups are always agitating on various issues. Sometimes they'll have success but only if it's been picked up by a mainstream group. I don't see how they've disappeared: these groups have always been here but never really influential. There was a lot of talk about Momentum but even at their peak, they accounted for about 9 to 10% of the Labour Party. The two groups that have had some influence were the aforementioned Tribune and the Militant faction - now expelled.

As for unions. They're often (but not always) seen as on the right of the party. It's fanciful to think of unions as being in the vanguard of revolution - they're looking after the members and that's always at the forefront of union leaders' minds. If they can effect political change: great, but members' pay and conditions come first. Starmer knows that. And the Labour Party is certainly not going to get heavy with its paymasters.

And to go back to the idea that they can cause grief to a government with a low majority. I'm not convinced that they can - they wont' always have the same view and, even if they do, they may not consider it the same way. Some people may think it's worthwhile voting against policy x, some may think it's not worth getting heavy about it and abstain; some may agree with the policy and vote for it.

Consider this: the second Major government had a wafer thin majority but lost only six votes in five years (the last two, when it had lost its majority). The four votes it lost as a majority party were all on Europe. Starmer is keen to neutralise Europe as a bone of contention, if he does that, I can't see where a Labour government will lose a vote - what other issue is going to unite the Tories and the likes of Burgon and Abbott?

An appreciated comprehensive response.

I think if anything the last 5 years have been unpredictable, and I would wager the next 5 will be similarly challenging to guage and evaluate.
I think Starmer will face issues from within and without, and eventually when he does start to play his cards then the action will start for real.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think that question depends on a variety of factors - this will be a long answer.

First of all, how do you define hard left? The Socialist Campaign Group? Momentum? Or what?
It's a very fluid definition. I've seen Lloyd Russell Moyle, one of our local MPs, described as far left. He's a member of the Open Labour group, which certainly wouldn't be seen as far left by the likes of Momentum but would be seen as raging Marxists by many Tory members. In fact, if you read the Telegraph, Starmer himself is well on the far left.

Then there are changes over time. The Tribune group in Labour was always seen as the far left of the party but Starmer is a member, so the idea that it's any sort of far left group is for the birds.

And do you include groups like Socialist Appeal, which used to be in the Labour Party but have been expelled for anti-semitism. Do they still have an influence?

It's also idealistic to think that these groups work together. Once upon a time, I was an elected union official and the grief I got from different left wing factions acting against each other far exceeded anything I got from employers. The Monty Python Judean Popular Front sketch has it bang on.

What do you mean by "keeping their powder dry"? These groups are always agitating on various issues. Sometimes they'll have success but only if it's been picked up by a mainstream group. I don't see how they've disappeared: these groups have always been here but never really influential. There was a lot of talk about Momentum but even at their peak, they accounted for about 9 to 10% of the Labour Party. The two groups that have had some influence were the aforementioned Tribune and the Militant faction - now expelled.

As for unions. They're often (but not always) seen as on the right of the party. It's fanciful to think of unions as being in the vanguard of revolution - they're looking after the members and that's always at the forefront of union leaders' minds. If they can effect political change: great, but members' pay and conditions come first. Starmer knows that. And the Labour Party is certainly not going to get heavy with its paymasters.

And to go back to the idea that they can cause grief to a government with a low majority. I'm not convinced that they can - they wont' always have the same view and, even if they do, they may not consider it the same way. Some people may think it's worthwhile voting against policy x, some may think it's not worth getting heavy about it and abstain; some may agree with the policy and vote for it.

Consider this: the second Major government had a wafer thin majority but lost only six votes in five years (the last two, when it had lost its majority). The four votes it lost as a majority party were all on Europe. Starmer is keen to neutralise Europe as a bone of contention, if he does that, I can't see where a Labour government will lose a vote - what other issue is going to unite the Tories and the likes of Burgon and Abbott?

That is probably the most optimistic post I have ever seen on NSC.

The chances of the poster you have quoted engaging in discussing any of the points you have raised are somewhat less than Dolly Parton sleeping on her front. You may get a couple of sentences as a reply (obviously with no facts or evidence on the points you raised - Just a bit of I think or I believe whilst avoiding every single point you've raised) or an ironic thumbs up at best.

I genuinely admire your patience, as I tend to fold far earlier and call a **** a ****

 

[Is it PotG?]

That is probably the most optimistic post I have ever seen on NSC.

The chances of the poster you have quoted engaging in discussing pm any of the points you have raised are somewhat less than Dolly Parton sleeping on her front. You may get a couple of sentences as a reply (obviously with no facts or evidence - lots of I think or I believe) or an ironic thumbs up at best.

I genuinely admire your patience, as I tend to fold far earlier and call a **** a ****

I think you'll enjoy your life a little more if you take the subject matter as it is, rather than concern yourself with how the object might respond.

A wonderful, erudite (if not too concise) reply may be tarnished by your over thinking.

Just trying to be help.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think you'll enjoy your life a little more if you take the subject matter as it is, rather than concern yourself with how the object might respond.

A wonderful, erudite (if not too concise) reply may be tarnished by your over thinking.

Just trying to be help.

Maybe put the glass down.

I am really genuinely trying 'to be help'

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That is probably the most optimistic post I have ever seen on NSC.

The chances of the poster you have quoted engaging in discussing any of the points you have raised are somewhat less than Dolly Parton sleeping on her front. You may get a couple of sentences as a reply (obviously with no facts or evidence on the points you raised - Just a bit of I think or I believe whilst avoiding every single point you've raised) or an ironic thumbs up at best.

I genuinely admire your patience, as I tend to fold far earlier and call a **** a ****

You got the ironic thumbs up. What a pillock. It's this level trolling:

 

[Gwylan]

An appreciated comprehensive response.

I think if anything the last 5 years have been unpredictable, and I would wager the next 5 will be similarly challenging to guage and evaluate.
I think Starmer will face issues from within and without, and eventually when he does start to play his cards then the action will start for real.

Absolutely. Who could have predicted Covid? Although the problems from Brexit and the Ukraine issue were easier to foresee.

I was looking back at the defeats suffered by the Callaghan government (34 in three years). That was a minority government, so he did well in keeping it going for that long. But the vast majority of defeats were related to Scotland or Wales (the devolution referenda bills will going through). There's a massively contentious issue that has vanished for the moment - it may reemerge in the future.

For what it's worth, I think Starmer's bigger problem would be a massive majority. It's far harder to control these. And it's not anti-EU far left who could cause an issue but a pro-EU grouping who want faster change and a reversal of the Brexit policy. He wants to make changes to our relationship with Europe but not open up that particular can of worms.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Absolutely. Who could have predicted Covid? Although the problems from Brexit and the Ukraine issue were easier to foresee.

I was looking back at the defeats suffered by the Callaghan government (34 in three years). That was a minority government, so he did well in keeping it going for that long. But the vast majority of defeats were related to Scotland or Wales (the devolution referenda bills will going through). There's a massively contentious issue that has vanished for the moment - it may reemerge in the future.

For what it's worth, I think Starmer's bigger problem would be a massive majority. It's far harder to control these. And it's not anti-EU far left who could cause an issue but a pro-EU grouping who want faster change and a reversal of the Brexit policy. He wants to make changes to our relationship with Europe but not open up that particular can of worms.

Thanks, again a reasoned reply.

When Labour do take over, the nation needs a period of stability in order to steady the ship.

There will be no overnight cures, and whether it's one term or more then I'm sure it will be a period where honesty and clarity need to settle a cynical nation.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

When Labour do take over, the nation needs a period of stability in order to steady the ship.

You mean if? A lot of Tory voters have just walked away from the party as its way to leftwing, contrary to what is claimed on here if you look what they have done rather than what they say. So there is a chance Reform could replace the Tories and take power. Unlikely maybe but in the age of Trump and Brexit it is pure hubris to rule it out.

As for a period of stability could you say what you mean as I just see a downward spiral.

 

[drew]

You mean if? A lot of Tory voters have just walked away from the party as its way to leftwing, contrary to what is claimed on here if you look what they have done rather than what they say. So there is a chance Reform could replace the Tories and take power. Unlikely maybe but in the age of Trump and Brexit it is pure hubris to rule it out.

As for a period of stability could you say what you mean as I just see a downward spiral.

Reform take power? A party that have no MPs and only 5 councillors across the entire country!!

As for what Labour have done, what do you mean? They've been in opposition for the last 13 years so haven't been in a position to do anything.

As for your comment that the Tory party (I assume that's what you mean by voters walking away) is too left wing where is your evidence for that? This administration is the furthest to the right in living memory (and for me that includes the Thatcher years). What voters have left are almost certainly the worst kind of racists and bigots and if they are the type to believe the garbage that Tice spews, they're also very thick.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Just to remind you that Corbyn didn't win an election, in fact he had the worst defeat in an election since Major. The left might want to blame Starmer for losing but the reality is Corbyn was inept as a leader. As I said before, to win an election you have to win the centre ground. You seem to forget also that the 2005 election was post Iraq war yet still Blair won a third term.

Had Corbyn done what you suggest and got rid of the 'blairites' the party would never see power because they'd never get the crucial vote from the middle ground.

As for Starmer and brexit, exactly what position did he take that upset Corbyn other than the fact that Starmer was for Remain whilst Corbyn just didn't really commit and everyone could see that (probably because he was at heart a Brexiteer).

Finally, the libdems only won a further 12 seats and that wasn't going to put a dent in the labour majority from 2001.

You can try and rewrite history as much as you like but this country will never, and never has, voted for a far left labour leader. It's easy to list a load of policies but not so easy to identify exactly how it will be paid for.

1. Corbyn lost the election - and Starmer was to blame - the following also lost - Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
2. Corbyn was inept - he didn't do what was needed - rebuild the LP from the ground up - starting by mandatory reselection of MPs
3. The LP vote dropped from 43% in 1997 (when a donkey could have beaten the Tories) to 35% by 2005 - Blair was up against a decayed Tory party led by Michael Howard. Blair was directly responsible for the last 13 years of Tory rule.
4. The LibDems didn't do damage by winning an extra 12 seats in 2005 - they did damage by taking a significant slice of Tory voters stopping the Tories from winning a lot of extra seats from the LP. They got almost 6m votes. LP won somthing like 17 seats by less than 1,000 votes and in all bar one the Lim Dem vote was a key factor - including Hove where the LDs went up 9% - the Tory vote went down - and LP won the seat by 420 votes (less than 1% margin). Five years later the Tory vote went up 0.2% and they still won the seat by almost 2,000 votes.
5. The 'middle ground' is a myth - if it wasn't Brown and Miliband wouldn't have lost. The right-wing have been using the middle ground argument for decades - and still keep losing elections. It's real purpose is to remove socialists from the LP - like Starmer has don't to tens of thousands of members.
6. The Brexit stuff had nothing to do with Starmer being pro-EU and Corbyn being anti-EU - the policy foisted on the LP by Starmer was a mixed-up half-in half-out policy that nobody could understand, nobody could defend and satisfied nobody. It allowed the Tories to make all the running in the election and use it as a referendum on Brexit. It was leave voters who won the election for the Tories (the LP held its vote among remain voters) - and that was possible because the LP couldn't articulate a position that could attract leave voters. If Corbyn had stuck to his guns and continued to promote his position on Brexit as he had during the referendum, it would have cut the legs from under Johnson's campaign and the focus of the election would have switched to economic issues where left policies are far more popular. Instead Corbyn caved into Starmer's (and the Blairites) plan to wreck the election campaign through a combination of attacks on Corbyn and incomprehensible policy positions

Last point - so-called 'far-left' policies are very popular among the British working class - poll after poll have demonstrated this and have done so for decades. The LP has never had a 'far-left' leader - despite the depiction of Corbyn he is not 'far-left' (he was 50 years ago) - he could at best be described as a yellow leftish reformist. Furthermore - the LP has never, ever, put forward far-left policies in an election campaign. When a hint of moving policy positions to the left - the right-wing have acted to sabotage the LP's election campaigns. The Gang of Four is a prime example of this - and Michael Foot was even less of a left-winger than Corbyn. However, far-left LP candidates (when the LP hierarchy fail to prevent their nomination) have a history of success at elections - even when those campaigns were sabotaged - both at parliamentary and local level. Their success has resulted in either being expelled from the LP (e.g. Terry Fields, Dave Nellist in the early 1990s and these days the not so far-left likes of Abbott and Corbyn) or undemocratically removed from office (like the socialist council in Liverpool in the 1980s).

Of course left-wing policies can be paid for - it is basic human decency that every individual should have a roof over their head, a job, a decent income, a decent education system and a national health service free at the point of delivery. That is all that socialists attempt to achieve. The world is awash with money - and in Britain the disparity between the top 1% and the 99% is far more blatant and stark than it is in Ireland - the problem is that it is concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population - the richest 1% globally own more than half of all global wealth. Income equality would provide for all the things I outlined above - and if capitalism cannot create a society where basic human needs are met, then it has to go.

What his election as

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

As for what Labour have done, what do you mean? They've been in opposition for the last 13 years so haven't been in a position to do anything.

Any opposition party worth it's salt can 'do' stuff in opposition.

When Thatcher imposed the poll tax in 1990 Kinnock refused to do anything - it was left to activists on the ground to build a non-payment campaign 10million strong that eventually toppled Thatcher. If Kinnock (and the TUC) had openly supported that campaign they Tories would have been dead in the water and the government would have collapsed. Instead John Major won the election two years later.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

As for your comment that the Tory party (I assume that's what you mean by voters walking away) is too left wing where is your evidence for that?

Record levels of debt, taxes, mass immigration and allowing teaching of divisive leftwing philosophies in schools etc.

Dude open your eyes.

 

[drew]

Record levels of debt, taxes, mass immigration and allowing teaching of divisive leftwing philosophies in schools etc.

Dude open your eyes.

Teaching of divisive left wing philosophies, which ones are you referring to? Guessing they are going to be some sort of inclusivity or diversity type which have got your goat!! If they are, you can bet your bottom dollar that's not at the request of the government.

 

[drew]

Any opposition party worth it's salt can 'do' stuff in opposition.

When Thatcher imposed the poll tax in 1990 Kinnock refused to do anything - it was left to activists on the ground to build a non-payment campaign 10million strong that eventually toppled Thatcher. If Kinnock (and the TUC) had openly supported that campaign they Tories would have been dead in the water and the government would have collapsed. Instead John Major won the election two years later.

So that's not a good example about opposition 'doing' stuff!!!

 

[drew]

1. Corbyn lost the election - and Starmer was to blame - the following also lost - Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
2. Corbyn was inept - he didn't do what was needed - rebuild the LP from the ground up - starting by mandatory reselection of MPs
3. The LP vote dropped from 43% in 1997 (when a donkey could have beaten the Tories) to 35% by 2005 - Blair was up against a decayed Tory party led by Michael Howard. Blair was directly responsible for the last 13 years of Tory rule.
4. The LibDems didn't do damage by winning an extra 12 seats in 2005 - they did damage by taking a significant slice of Tory voters stopping the Tories from winning a lot of extra seats from the LP. They got almost 6m votes. LP won somthing like 17 seats by less than 1,000 votes and in all bar one the Lim Dem vote was a key factor - including Hove where the LDs went up 9% - the Tory vote went down - and LP won the seat by 420 votes (less than 1% margin). Five years later the Tory vote went up 0.2% and they still won the seat by almost 2,000 votes.
5. The 'middle ground' is a myth - if it wasn't Brown and Miliband wouldn't have lost. The right-wing have been using the middle ground argument for decades - and still keep losing elections. It's real purpose is to remove socialists from the LP - like Starmer has don't to tens of thousands of members.
6. The Brexit stuff had nothing to do with Starmer being pro-EU and Corbyn being anti-EU - the policy foisted on the LP by Starmer was a mixed-up half-in half-out policy that nobody could understand, nobody could defend and satisfied nobody. It allowed the Tories to make all the running in the election and use it as a referendum on Brexit. It was leave voters who won the election for the Tories (the LP held its vote among remain voters) - and that was possible because the LP couldn't articulate a position that could attract leave voters. If Corbyn had stuck to his guns and continued to promote his position on Brexit as he had during the referendum, it would have cut the legs from under Johnson's campaign and the focus of the election would have switched to economic issues where left policies are far more popular. Instead Corbyn caved into Starmer's (and the Blairites) plan to wreck the election campaign through a combination of attacks on Corbyn and incomprehensible policy positions

Last point - so-called 'far-left' policies are very popular among the British working class - poll after poll have demonstrated this and have done so for decades. The LP has never had a 'far-left' leader - despite the depiction of Corbyn he is not 'far-left' (he was 50 years ago) - he could at best be described as a yellow leftish reformist. Furthermore - the LP has never, ever, put forward far-left policies in an election campaign. When a hint of moving policy positions to the left - the right-wing have acted to sabotage the LP's election campaigns. The Gang of Four is a prime example of this - and Michael Foot was even less of a left-winger than Corbyn. However, far-left LP candidates (when the LP hierarchy fail to prevent their nomination) have a history of success at elections - even when those campaigns were sabotaged - both at parliamentary and local level. Their success has resulted in either being expelled from the LP (e.g. Terry Fields, Dave Nellist in the early 1990s and these days the not so far-left likes of Abbott and Corbyn) or undemocratically removed from office (like the socialist council in Liverpool in the 1980s).

Of course left-wing policies can be paid for - it is basic human decency that every individual should have a roof over their head, a job, a decent income, a decent education system and a national health service free at the point of delivery. That is all that socialists attempt to achieve. The world is awash with money - and in Britain the disparity between the top 1% and the 99% is far more blatant and stark than it is in Ireland - the problem is that it is concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population - the richest 1% globally own more than half of all global wealth. Income equality would provide for all the things I outlined above - and if capitalism cannot create a society where basic human needs are met, then it has to go.

What his election as

Capitalism has to go to be replaced by what? Socialism? The state owning all means of production. Good luck with convincing enough people to vote for that.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Capitalism has to go to be replaced by what? Socialism? The state owning all means of production. Good luck with convincing enough people to vote for that.

Yes - socialism

1. State ownership does not equal socialism - China is a capitalist state and has widespread state ownership across the economy. Socialism equates to a democratically planned socialised economy under the control of working class people.
2. There is widespread support in Britain for state ownership - a majority of the British population support nationalisation (and/or continued public ownership) of transport, communications, energy, water, education and healthcare. No economic production can function without this infrastructure.
3. There is no parliamentary road to socialism. Bourgeois parliaments are designed and structured from day one to maintain the capitalist system. Whenever the working class vote for a radical shift to socialist policies, the bourgeois class use every means at their disposal to destroy that government - by military coup in the cases, for example, of the Spanish Republican government in the 1930s, and Allende's government in Chile in 1973 - or by economic coercion as in the case of Syriza in Greece less than a decade ago. Not all coups against elected governments are against the left - anytime the ruling elites feel threatened they dispense with parliamentary democracy - but there is a long list of left-leaning and left-populist governments being deposed.
4. Revolutions are inevitable in society - when you have 1% of the population owning and controlling a majority of the wealth, they will always have governments acting in their interests. When the working class and the poor are backed into a corner by poverty, oppression and repression, they will inevitably act in a revolutionary manner to survive. In the past couple of years there have been revolutionary upheavals in Myanmar, Iran, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, and several African countries. Despite having popular backing these revolutionary upheavals are generally brutally suppressed by state forces.
5. Societal change does not occur without revolutionary upheaval - slave society overthrown by feudalism, feudalism overthrown by capitalism, (in 1917) capitalism overthrown by socialism.

I'll finish with a quote - from an Irish socialist named James Connolly - 'Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings'.

 

[carlzeiss]

Yes - socialism

1. State ownership does not equal socialism - China is a capitalist state and has widespread state ownership across the economy. Socialism equates to a democratically planned socialised economy under the control of working class people.
2. There is widespread support in Britain for state ownership - a majority of the British population support nationalisation (and/or continued public ownership) of transport, communications, energy, water, education and healthcare. No economic production can function without this infrastructure.
3. There is no parliamentary road to socialism. Bourgeois parliaments are designed and structured from day one to maintain the capitalist system. Whenever the working class vote for a radical shift to socialist policies, the bourgeois class use every means at their disposal to destroy that government - by military coup in the cases, for example, of the Spanish Republican government in the 1930s, and Allende's government in Chile in 1973 - or by economic coercion as in the case of Syriza in Greece less than a decade ago. Not all coups against elected governments are against the left - anytime the ruling elites feel threatened they dispense with parliamentary democracy - but there is a long list of left-leaning and left-populist governments being deposed.
4. Revolutions are inevitable in society - when you have 1% of the population owning and controlling a majority of the wealth, they will always have governments acting in their interests. When the working class and the poor are backed into a corner by poverty, oppression and repression, they will inevitably act in a revolutionary manner to survive. In the past couple of years there have been revolutionary upheavals in Myanmar, Iran, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, and several African countries. Despite having popular backing these revolutionary upheavals are generally brutally suppressed by state forces.
5. Societal change does not occur without revolutionary upheaval - slave society overthrown by feudalism, feudalism overthrown by capitalism, (in 1917) capitalism overthrown by socialism.

I'll finish with a quote - from an Irish socialist named James Connolly - 'Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings'.

Keep dreaming "Wolfie"

 

[drew]

Yes - socialism

1. State ownership does not equal socialism - China is a capitalist state and has widespread state ownership across the economy. Socialism equates to a democratically planned socialised economy under the control of working class people.
2. There is widespread support in Britain for state ownership - a majority of the British population support nationalisation (and/or continued public ownership) of transport, communications, energy, water, education and healthcare. No economic production can function without this infrastructure.
3. There is no parliamentary road to socialism. Bourgeois parliaments are designed and structured from day one to maintain the capitalist system. Whenever the working class vote for a radical shift to socialist policies, the bourgeois class use every means at their disposal to destroy that government - by military coup in the cases, for example, of the Spanish Republican government in the 1930s, and Allende's government in Chile in 1973 - or by economic coercion as in the case of Syriza in Greece less than a decade ago. Not all coups against elected governments are against the left - anytime the ruling elites feel threatened they dispense with parliamentary democracy - but there is a long list of left-leaning and left-populist governments being deposed.
4. Revolutions are inevitable in society - when you have 1% of the population owning and controlling a majority of the wealth, they will always have governments acting in their interests. When the working class and the poor are backed into a corner by poverty, oppression and repression, they will inevitably act in a revolutionary manner to survive. In the past couple of years there have been revolutionary upheavals in Myanmar, Iran, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, and several African countries. Despite having popular backing these revolutionary upheavals are generally brutally suppressed by state forces.
5. Societal change does not occur without revolutionary upheaval - slave society overthrown by feudalism, feudalism overthrown by capitalism, (in 1917) capitalism overthrown by socialism.

I'll finish with a quote - from an Irish socialist named James Connolly - 'Revolution is never practical – until the hour of the revolution strikes. THEN it alone is practical, and all the efforts of the conservatives, and compromisers become the most futile and visionary of human imaginings'.

You make it sound like there's 65,500,000 working class and 500,000 Bourgeois. As an example, in 2017 there were 14.4m households which were owned or were owned with a mortgage. That was about 63% of all households. Then take into account there are many that rent that are not your working class and you soon see that this revolutionary army you seem to think are waiting for the big day are probably a small minority. Working class in this day and age is a far cry from the working class of the 19th and first half of the 20th Century.

As for socialism, it is the state ownership of the means of production, that's the definition. Now I'm not against nationalisation of key services such as the ones you mention. However, what I want to see is the Labour party harness the capitalist system so that it benefits more in society. I would like to see a fairer distribution of wealth as well. And finally, you're talking crap about societal change only comes through revolution.

As others have said, dream on.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

You make it sound like there's 65,500,000 working class and 500,000 Bourgeois. As an example, in 2017 there were 14.4m households which were owned or were owned with a mortgage. That was about 63% of all households. Then take into account there are many that rent that are not your working class and you soon see that this revolutionary army you seem to think are waiting for the big day are probably a small minority. Working class in this day and age is a far cry from the working class of the 19th and first half of the 20th Century.

As for socialism, it is the state ownership of the means of production, that's the definition. Now I'm not against nationalisation of key services such as the ones you mention. However, what I want to see is the Labour party harness the capitalist system so that it benefits more in society. I would like to see a fairer distribution of wealth as well. And finally, you're talking crap about societal change only comes through revolution.

As others have said, dream on.

You have a weird definition of what working class is - if someone owns a house they cannot be working class - many people who rent houses cannot be working class.

The working class today is the same as two centuries ago - those who work by hand or brain for a wage. That encompasses 90% of the population in the advanced capitalist countries. Go back to the interwar period and 30-40% of the population were middle-class to some degree - small shopkeepers - professionals running a small business - farmers etc. - today the multiples have replaced the small shopkeepers, the finance houses and developers have replaced the small professional businesses and the agri-conglomerates have replaced the farmers - that 40% of the population has shrunk to less than 10% and the remainer have been forced by economic circumstances into the working class of society. They work by hand or brain for a wage.

Revolutions are not created by revolutionary armies - they arise through revolutionary movements. People aren't waiting for a revolution - most people are way too busy trying to survive and have a decent life to ever ponder a thought in that direction. But when revolutionary upheavals occur because of the scale of the crisis in a society then it becomes the only solution on the table for the working class - and its crushing is the only solution for the ruling class.

As for your definition of socialism - once again you are incorrect. Capitalist governments regularly nationalise large sections of the capitalist economy because it is in the interests of the capitalist class to do so. Capitalist governments socialise the debts of the capitalist class and privatise the profits of the capitalist class. After the crash in 2007 capitalist governments globally spent trillions bailing out banks, hedge funds and property developers - and they dumped the cost of the bailout onto the heads of the vast majority of the population through job losses, wage cuts, poorer working conditions and the savaging of public services. The reason why NHS doctors are looking for 35% is because doctors are now paid 35% less than they were being paid 15 years ago - it is about pay restoration - and that is the direct result of the socialisation of the debts of the banks and the speculators - 'we'll take all the profit - you carry all of the losses'.

You want to see - the Labour party harness the capitalist system so that it benefits more in society - that has been the LP mantra since its foundation - 'we can manage capitalism better than the Tories'. The problem is that capitalism is a cyclical economic system that goes through booms and busts and increasingly concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people - the monopolisation of wealth. It cannot be harnessed, it cannot be managed, because it is a chaotic, anarchic economic system that cannot escape the boom/bust cycle.

You say - I would like to see a fairer distribution of wealth as well - that is impossible under capitalism, because the capitalist class won't allow it. As I have already outlined - if you try and introduce economic reforms to redistribute wealth then the capitalist class will use all the levers of power to stop you - up to and including a military dictatorship. Allende tried to redistribute wealth and the capitalist class in Chile (assisted by US imperialism) imposed 30 years of military dictatorship. In the 1970s a guy called Gough Whitlam was elected Prime Minister of Australia. He led a LP government that attempted to introduce quite minor economic reforms - abolishing college fees, increased funding for schools, urban renewal and increased spending in infrastructure. Australian capitalism, along with using political manoeuvres, staged a strike of capital - they refused to invest in the economy, they created political scandals where none existed (think Corbyn and anti-Semitism). Whitlam was removed not by democratic means but by the British monarchy - the Queen's governor-general had the political power to remove Whitlam from office and the he was sacked, effectively by the Queen and his government undemocratically removed from office. This is what happens when you even take a step towards threatening the power and influence of capital.

Last point - societal change - all capitalist societies introduce reforms at different times. These reforms are almost always the result of the pressure of a mass movement from below, often through the trade union movement. Today we have a 40 hour week, health and safety at work, a minimum wage etc because of strikes and campaigns by trade unions. We have things like a woman's right to control her own body and marriage equality because of mass movements on the street. Maggie Thatcher wanted to return Britain to Victorian times - when people worked a 60-70 hour week (and by the way several countries around the world are trying to increase the working week back to this level) - where there was child labour - where there was no health and safety - where wages were at a minimum subsistance level and you were subjected to fines at work for minor infractions, when overseers used violence against workers. This would be a wet dream for the capitalist class - the only thing that stops this happening is the latent power of the working class and its exercise through the trade union movement.

Every time a reform that benefits the mass of the population is introduced - the capitalist class begin their offensive to reverse the reform (it might take them months, years or even decades but they will do all in their power to reverse it) - sometimes they succeed (breaking the NUM in the miners strike in the mid-1980s) - sometimes they fail (the mass movement against the poll tax) - but there is always and ongoing and unceasing conflict, mostly beneath the surface of society, between the interests of the capitalist class and the interests of the 99%.

The definition of a revolution in political terms is a fundamental and foundational change in how society functions. The only way to guarantee reforms - like operating an economy to benefit all of society or a fair distribution of wealth - is through changing the very foundations on which a society is built (the ownership and control of the means of production) - and that can only occur through a revolutionary change brought about by a revolutionary movement based on the working class.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Teaching of divisive left wing philosophies, which ones are you referring to? Guessing they are going to be some sort of inclusivity or diversity type which have got your goat!! If they are, you can bet your bottom dollar that's not at the request of the government.

Yes and that asks more questions than it answers.