That Starmer fella...

Israel, from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Hmm. Not too catchy. Maybe there's a more succint way to phrase it.

At times of global upheaval and destruction, the world will inevitably turn to Pendle Council for its moral clarity and leadership.

such a snide comment in the keir starmer thread of all places. I’ve never blocked anyone on here before but this poster is clearly too far gone with very little worthwhile perspective to contribute. just another person online who is a lot more right wing than they realise

Whatever you say, hurricane_twat

I prefer hurricane_cum

At times of global upheaval and destruction, the world will inevitably turn to Pendle Council for its moral clarity and leadership.

such a snide comment in the keir starmer thread of all places. I’ve never blocked anyone on here before but this poster is clearly too far gone with very little worthwhile perspective to contribute.

Indeed. I did the same off the back of that pathetic comment.

Ahhh.. the lovely warm bath that is the big tent Labour party. A party for nice people.

Friendliest thread on the forum?

Give it a rest, you’ve acted like a salty twat so don’t get surprised at getting called out, own it like a big boy.

I’m still fucking salty about Iraq. Can draw the dots though a lot of shit back to that.

getting called out

Joyous.. The landlord has called time.

So much for the tolerant sensibles!

Tolerance you say? “Sir Kid Starver”you say? Spare me the fake moral high ground.

Childish shit posts about “Keith”, “Fat Dave” and “humourless Lab drone prigs” and it shouldn’t be a surprise that it gets the hoped for response. To then bleat about tolerance is as witless as it is hypocritical.

80 years before ‘97 was 1917 — I think you’re being disingenuous here.

I wasn't clear on this so I'll take it on the chin but I meant anyone now under 80 would not have seen those kinds of reforms. Basically unless you were alive in 1946 for the Attlee NHS building, the next best thing you'd have seen was Blair in 1997 for expanding and strengthening the welfare state.

I think a lot of people - not you - use the word 'neoliberal' to mean 'things I don't like'.

😂

Why do you think Blair strengthened the welfare state? As a doleite during part of his time in office it felt like signing on got more and more complicated.

Here’s a quote from Harold Wilson in 1970 about Conservative policy:

What they are planning is a wanton, calculated and deliberate return to greater inequality. The new Tory slogan is: back to the free for all. A free for all in place of the welfare state. A free for all market in labour, in housing, in the social services. They seek to replace the compassionate society with the ruthless, pushing society. The message to the British people would be simple. And brutal. It would say: ‘You’re out on your own.’

I’m not fully aware of what he enacted in power, but his rhetoric is the kind of deep cynicism of the neoliberal order that could honestly have been written yesterday with equal importance. Blair had his ideas too, but I don’t think they’re comparable to real social democratic values like this.

Domestically, Blair managed some decent things like the minimum wage and reform to the House of Lords, but his ideology was far from welfare expansionism — like Starmer, it’s a question of how to make some relatively small legal and procedural tweaks within a capitalist framework, rather than tackling neoliberalism head on.

That, alongside his pro-market reforms (BoE independence, foundation hospitals and academies), I don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies.

I wasn't clear on this so I'll take it on the chin

And thanks, I thought you might’ve meant that, so I was being a bit silly too

I find this discussion really interesting - I'd not have thought Blair was what people mean by neoliberal (and it seems I'm not alone in that) but there are obviously lots of people who do think that's a fair description. I'd agree he doesn't reject capitalism but if he's neoliberal, how broadly is that really defined? Which countries could really be said not to be neoliberal by that definition?

North Korea

Fuck, they're the last one I'd have guessed

I mainly think he was part of a neoliberal period, so singling him out isn’t completely right in all honesty, particularly when there were clearly worse actors than him. I think his failure as a representative of the left is that he succumbed to it rather than offered a transformative project.

His more recent attempts in swaying political opinion are a continuation of that agenda though, and I can’t comfortably grant the same leeway now the political context has changed.

As for non-neoliberal ideas in the modern age, there aren’t great examples of nations, but there are great examples of specific policies: housing in Vienna (or even Singapore), worker’s rights in France, worker councils in Germany, direct democracy in Switzerland, or, hell, even the Conservative policy on employee-owned companies (notwithstanding the issues with it). I’m sure many others are kicking about too.

Otherwise you have to go back in time to the New Deal and UK welfare state.

how broadly is that really defined

It’s a relatively contested term in academia partially because of its broad nature. It’s just a weird grab bag of stuff to be honest, and even Friedman and Hayek were fairly arbitrary with their reasoning.

(The link @hurricane_run posted earlier is worth a read)

Origin Story has an episode on Neoliberalism that's worth a listen.

Spotify links rarely seem to work for me but 🤞https://open.spotify.com/episode/4KUXfHe3lbLyCi1l1LWh44?si=i_4r5MICSseiGC6kxzVvuw

... his pro-market reforms

1. BoE independence

   Doesn't reduce the size of the state, it just puts a chunk under technocratic rather than political control.

   It was popular with markets because it reduced the risk of politicians fiddling with interest rates capriciously. It wasn't abolished or privatised.

2. Foundation hospitals

   Still part of the NHS, still not reducing the size of the state. The inspiration was allegedly a hospital in Spain which is partly governed by trade unions and community groups, which sounds like the least neoliberal thing imaginable.

3. academies

   Are still state-funded, just outside local government control. Again, not reducing the size of the state. Arguably expanding it slightly.

don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies

Mostly these are examples of a turf war with local government. None of them reduced the size of the state, or privatised anything, or replaced any state activity with free markets.

They did have other pro-market policies, I just don't think these are good examples, and certainly not enough to justify calling them "neoliberal".

Why do you think Blair strengthened the welfare state? As a doleite during part of his time in office it felt like signing on got more and more complicated.

That's true (I was also a doleite when Blair got in too, though in my case it was because I was lazy, rather than that I actually needed it). But the welfare state is broader than just unemployment benefits - it encompasses all the governmental safety nets for citizens, whether it's when they're unemployed, or sick, or old, or children, or parents, or whatever it is. I won't patronise you by sharing that 'what did Labour do for us' meme but I think the creation of Sure Start, shortest waiting lists in history, tens of thousands of extra doctors, nurses, police, fire fighters, minimum wage, minimum working hours, etc etc., more than covers it.

That, alongside his pro-market reforms (BoE independence, foundation hospitals and academies), I don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies.

@slippers I think for me neoliberal is a very specific thing - it's where free market fetishisation combines with anti-welfare ideology. Having one without the other means it isn't neoliberalism. Simply being in favour of free trade is a mainstream position, and is not enough to make the whole philosophy neoliberal - if it were, you could call China neoliberal!