What the Backroom is good for, and what it is not

[Pannonian]

Let's complete discussing what you advanced. You said your key differentiating criterion in politics is based on a Yes/No answer to the question "Do you believe society should help the vulnerable?" This is not a useful differentiating criterion because everyone short of a Randian, will tell you "Yes." Fascists and communists alike agree on this within the limit of the parameters of the question. I shouldn't have to corroborate the fact to any educated person. That everyone agrees is what makes it a useless question to differentiate against! Even Margaret Thatcher said:



More famously Thatcher said



but this thinking wasn't limited to Thatcher. As you know very well, Tony Blair said:



This just goes to my point that the relevant questions in the context of "helping the vulnerable" are How and Who. How do we go about it and with what tradeoffs; Who matters, who is "deserving."

Meanwhile you said that Corbyn's Labour would answer "No" to your question. Here is Corbyn speaking when he assumed leadership of the party:

Actually, I didn't say that. I said far left groups. Not Corbyn himself, but groups that he associates with. You quote Orwell later on in the post. Read his accounts of numerous far left groups who are indeed too obsessed with doing down the establishment to answer Yes to my question. By the time I was reading the literature of these groups as current decades later, the obsessions hadn't changed much from Orwell's time.

I see myself as a socialist in the mould of Orwell; what he would call a patriotic socialist, or someone who sees values in traditional English/British culture that are fundamentally compatible with the ideals of socialism. And I share Orwell's dislike of the far left that's too embedded in its own backside to do anything good (his parable novels are famous, but his accounts and essays are more direct critiques of the English far left). Corbyn's friends are said far left. As I said, read up on his close group.

[Pannonian]

BTW, you quote "There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.", as if it were a bad thing. That's the Tory argument. And Wellington applied it to the privileged ruling class, whose slacking scions he despised. The corollary Tory argument that I alluded to earlier is that, if you are born into a life of privilege, you are obliged to justify that life by doing your best for the community.

[Montmorency]

Actually, I didn't say that. I said far left groups. Not Corbyn himself, but groups that he associates with. You quote Orwell later on in the post. Read his accounts of numerous far left groups who are indeed too obsessed with doing down the establishment to answer Yes to my question. By the time I was reading the literature of these groups as current decades later, the obsessions hadn't changed much from Orwell's time.

I see myself as a socialist in the mould of Orwell; what he would call a patriotic socialist, or someone who sees values in traditional English/British culture that are fundamentally compatible with the ideals of socialism. And I share Orwell's dislike of the far left that's too embedded in its own backside to do anything good (his parable novels are famous, but his accounts and essays are more direct critiques of the English far left). Corbyn's friends are said far left. As I said, read up on his close group.

OK. I don't want to chew over appraisals of what obscure British characters are good, bad, or in between. The point I'm making is that inevitably, if you held a gun to my head, I could dig up some statements from such individuals that would amount to an affirmative answer to your question. If you then protest they're not living up to the rhetoric, that would be exactly the lens I intend for you accept! Everyone will claim to be good for the vulnerable, so a pat answer to such an abstract question can't be probative.

BTW, you quote "There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.", as if it were a bad thing. That's the Tory argument. And Wellington applied it to the privileged ruling class, whose slacking scions he despised. The corollary Tory argument that I alluded to earlier is that, if you are born into a life of privilege, you are obliged to justify that life by doing your best for the community.

Well, OK, so you agree with Thatcher there. I don't see noblesse oblige as a favorable principle to have to rely on; ni dieu ni maitre sounds better.

[Pannonian]

OK. I don't want to chew over appraisals of what obscure British characters are good, bad, or in between. The point I'm making is that inevitably, if you held a gun to my head, I could dig up some statements from such individuals that would amount to an affirmative answer to your question. If you then protest they're not living up to the rhetoric, that would be exactly the lens I intend for you accept! Everyone will claim to be good for the vulnerable, so a pat answer to such an abstract question can't be probative.

Well, OK, so you agree with Thatcher there. I don't see noblesse oblige as a favorable principle to have to rely on; ni dieu ni maitre sounds better.

These characters may be obscure to you, but they're not obscure to those who have an interest in the Labour party as a reality. For example, the four great offices of the land are: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary. The government cabinet has holders of these offices, and the shadow cabinet also has shadow holders of these offices. Three of these four shadow offices have been overruled by these "obscure characters" in the past, and have been largely sidelined from the leadership group. They may be obscure to you, but they're not insignificant to the Labour party.

And on the last bit: I said in an earlier post that there are different routes to the same goal. I don't care what the reasoning is, as long as the goal is achieved. You care about the route, but with Corbyn leading the way, I doubt the goal would ever be reached.

Let me show you another picture from the supposedly neoliberal Blair government that you are so critical of. Under the Blair government, the health service (that you are so keen on in the US threads) and education received more funding in real terms than under any other government in my lifetime (a critical BBC summary of his era described these increases as huge). What matters more to you? The neoliberal label that your circle describes Blair as? Or the investment in public services that he realised? Do you disregard the latter because of the former? Actually, any objective assessment would see that the latter makes the former description a false claim. You can't be a neoliberal if you direct funding into public services as a primary goal.

[Montmorency]

And on the last bit: I said in an earlier post that there are different routes to the same goal. I don't care what the reasoning is, as long as the goal is achieved.

Wait, but what is the goal? If you think all parties share the same goals with respect to social outcomes, you are mistaken.

Let me show you another picture from the supposedly neoliberal Blair government that you are so critical of. Under the Blair government, the health service (that you are so keen on in the US threads) and education received more funding in real terms than under any other government in my lifetime (a critical BBC summary of his era described these increases as huge). What matters more to you? The neoliberal label that your circle describes Blair as? Or the investment in public services that he realised? Do you disregard the latter because of the former? Actually, any objective assessment would see that the latter makes the former description a false claim. You can't be a neoliberal if you direct funding into public services as a primary goal.

What about compared to governments before Thatcher? What happened to the funding after Labour lost the government? What were long-term changes to funding or governance, and were they good or bad? In principle a neoliberal is perfectly capable of rolling out public funding in one area while restricting it in another. The destinations and conditions of funding also matter. For example, in the United States one popular neoliberal policy has been to fund "school choice" by redirecting parents from the public system to private schools and charters with subsidies and vouchers (i.e. government money for private industry).

[Pannonian]

Wait, but what is the goal? If you think all parties share the same goals with respect to social outcomes, you are mistaken.



What about compared to governments before Thatcher? What happened to the funding after Labour lost the government? What were long-term changes to funding or governance, and were they good or bad? In principle a neoliberal is perfectly capable of rolling out public funding in one area while restricting it in another. The destinations and conditions of funding also matter. For example, in the United States one popular neoliberal policy has been to fund "school choice" by redirecting parents from the public system to private schools and charters with subsidies and vouchers (i.e. government money for private industry).

You expect a post-Thatcher government to rewind the clock to pre-Thatcher days? Blair made it his personal goal to improve education standards, especially for the youngest. The main metric by which this was measured was class sizes. The fewer the children per teacher, the more focus a teacher can give each child. IIRC the BBC article, overall critical of Blair for not doing much, said education funding increased by 50% in real terms, with class sizes reducing accordingly. And what I've read from teachers from that period attest that upkeep of schools was seen to in a way that was not post-Blair. How on earth is that not good all round? Before him it was worse by all measures and accounts, and after him it was worse. But you persist in labelling him as neoliberal, which he was not (reducing public funding is one of the cornerstones of neoliberalism).

No deal Brexit is expected to reduce average wages by 9%, with Johnson's deal not far short of that. With the hit to the average wage, how do you expect to fund the projects that Corbyn talks about? With the reduction in wages comes a reduction in tax money, and an increased reliance on existing public services, even before you look at new projects. Corbyn's group supports Brexit as a Tory project that the Tories will take the can for, before the radical leftists led by Corbyn's group comes to the rescue in the wake of the post-Brexit disaster. While not as primarily responsible for Brexit as the Tories are, they are collaborators in that project.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monty, if you want to have another bun fight go start your own thread.

As it is, I'll ask a moderator to snip off everything after my last post as it's entirely outside the spirit of what I was trying to say.

Then lock the thread, please.