Who are you voting for?

[baboon2004]

Yes, and it's a problem that they don't appear to be trying to solve (as it would entail decentralisation).

I'm for their educational plans, broadly speaking: they're supposedly based on good practice (the much-lauded Swedish model) and the private school system as it is in the UK currently is internationally renowned. If they relinquish control of exams and hand them over to universities (academic exams) and business (vocational), then so much the better.

Well, that's no different to the benefits system encouraging the creation of babies and attendant single mothers, except the outcome is more to be desired (children are born into families with greater resources); it's an attempt to solve an obvious social problem. Accord homosexual marriages the same status and the bigotry charge disappears. Not sure where racism enters into it.

Ah, the bigotry and racism quote wasn't connected to that particular point - just saying that they have a nerve, given the last Tory election campaign.

I take huge issue with your normativity in the last paragraph - 'greater resources' means what exactly, aside from the Tory god of money? A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain??

Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it, not least . Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

 

[baboon2004]

My contention is that Labour has been gradually introducing a fundamentally ineffective and illiberal system modelled, consciously or not, on Eastern European state socialism (which often called itself 'communism').

Bear in mind that social mobility has been said to have decreased under Labour, which considering that 'fairness' might be said to be their (ostensible) raison d'etre is somewhat of an epic fail.

It may be a case of choosing between almost certain continued decline in the prospects of the comparatively poor and a speculative glimmer of hope in a reverse, pending the application of non-leftist policies (eg. the return of grammar schools?)

Hmm, maybe - I'm not defending labour in any shape or form. My point was that calling Stalinism 'communism' is like calling Nazism 'national socialism'. Or New Labour 'socialist'. It's ridiculous.

Yes, quite possibly - but are you seriously suggesting social mobility would increase under the TORY PARTY????? That kind of beggars belief. You're confusing choosing an equally disastrous electoral party with the meaningful change that might come from reform in the whole electoral/'democratic' system.

I'm opposed to any kind of privatisation in education - private companies run for profit only, nothing else, which it seems to take some people forever to realise. Education is a core state responsibility, along with health etc. Personally think private schools should be outlawed.

 

[vimothy]

What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

 

[Mr. Tea]

What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

Not wishing to speak for baboon, but I should think the bit he's objecting to is the word "socialist" in "national socialist", rather than implying that national socialism was all fine and dandy before Hitler and co. turned up and ruined it. [On the basis that while the fascist and Nazi regimes may well have had economic policies that were to some degree "collectivist" (state-controlled, at any rate) and therefore to the left of, say, Reagan and Thatcher, the ideology as a whole was pretty far removed from anything that could honestly be called "socialist" in the original Marxist or Marx-inspired sense. Summat like that anyway, this is your and Craner's milieu, innit.]

Edit: um, yeah, what crackerjack said! Well called.

 

[crackerjack]

What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

Oh god, not this shit again.

 

[paolo]

I'm voting Tory because David Cameron is the only person who can fix our broken society

 

[baboon2004]

Not wishing to speak for baboon, but I should think the bit he's objecting to is the word "socialist" in "national socialist", rather than implying that national socialism was all fine and dandy before Hitler and co. turned up and ruined it. [On the basis that while the fascist and Nazi regimes may well have had economic policies that were to some degree "collectivist" (state-controlled, at any rate) and therefore to the left of, say, Reagan and Thatcher, the ideology as a whole was pretty far removed from anything that could honestly be called "socialist" in the original Marxist or Marx-inspired sense. Summat like that anyway, this is your and Craner's milieu, innit.]

thanks Tea, spot on - spoken very well on my behalf!

 

[vimothy]

Sure--It's not easy to distinguish between performative and ostensible definitions of groups, especially (ostensibly) "political" ones. But like you say, everyone knows that.

 

[baboon2004]

I'm voting Tory because David Cameron is the only person who can fix our broken society

ha - made me laugh. How many members of his potential cabinet would come from Eton? Mighht as well move Downing Street to fucking (Royal) Berkshire.

 

[vimothy]

thanks Tea, spot on - spoken very well on my behalf!

Er, yes, I got that. I guess what I was objecting to isn't as obvious as I thought--On what basis do you know tr00 communism? Maybe, as you almost suggested yourself, tr00 Nazism is actually a lot fluffier than the one practiced by the Nazis. No?

 

[baboon2004]

Sure--It's not easy to distinguish between performative and ostensible definitions of groups, especially (ostensibly) "political" ones. But like you say, everyone knows that.

but it's very common for people to use 'communism' in a sense totally divorced from any connection with Marx. that was my original point, and what was bothering me. which then eliminates the space to talk about, well, what Marx was actually talking about.

 

[vimothy]

The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.

 

[baboon2004]

Er, yes, I got that. I guess what I was objecting to isn't as obvious as I thought--On what basis do you know tr00 communism? Maybe, as you almost suggested yourself, tr00 Nazism is actually a lot fluffier than the one practiced by the Nazis. No?

Perhaps. Both words have received an awful lot of bad press.

 

[vimothy]

To say "not undeservedly" would be to massively understate the case, IMO.

Anyway...

 

[baboon2004]

The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.

obviously, in each case you'd have to set out an argument for why this was so, and what true x is. Which, with communism, would probably start out with Lenin, er, getting rid of most of the communes.

 

[baboon2004]

To say "not undeservedly" would be to massively understate the case, IMO.

Anyway...

anyway indeed - my point was that New Labour isn't really that communist, and that voting for the Tories won't solve anything.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain?

I suppose it cuts both ways: people would be less inclined to divorce (tho' I can't imagine these tax breaks are so significant as to keep together warring couples) but also more inclined to think carefully about the suitability of their prospective spouse in the first place.

Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it. Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

Well, private schools are run for profit, but their profits depend on parents being satisfied that their children are being educated well. The parents have money on the line and so will scrutinise the product carefully and vote with their feet if they aren't satisfied. It's no wonder that private education tends to be better, compared to the monolithic state system, in which parents have little choice of school, less input once one has been accorded to them and have to suffer a gamed feedback system (the grading issue).

If a system is established whereby chains of schools are in competition with each other, parents have the wherewithal to choose between them and feedback is kept honest (parents scrutinise the product; universities/business set exams), then I would imagine that standards would rise.

I don't know much about the academy schools but I would imagine that two of the aforementioned prerequisites are absent (perhaps, wherewithal to withdraw pupils/choose a new school; 'success' determined impartially), then there are limits to the scope of possible improvement.

 

[Tentative Andy]

The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.

I can appreciate this point, but I still feel that m_b comparing the Labour administration to state communism as it was actually practised in places like East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia etc is a massive exaggeration, to say the least. Tbh it reminded me of nothing more than the claims of the American conservatives for whom any government involvement in health care whatsover equalled a sure-fire step towards Stalinism. All of which is of course not to say that I don't have massive problems with New Labour and how they've run the country.

Also, the issue of private vs public education already has its own lengthy dedicated topic and I feel as if further discussion of it (at least if it goes beyond the specific education pledges being made by each party) should be moved back there, as it's threatening to overwhelm and distract this one.


Anyway, back on topic, I'm considering voting Lib-Dem, but am not fully decided. In the past I've tended to vote SNP, but that doesn't feel like a particulary relevant way to vote this time around.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I can appreciate this point, but I still feel that m_b comparing the Labour administration to state communism as it was actually practised in places like East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia etc is a massive exaggeration, to say the least.

Well, I've listed what I feel are the parallels and I have the advantage of having experienced life under state communism in Eastern Europe. Many of the points I made come from family members pointing out policies and practices that remind them of the bad ol' days. They consider the main difference being that at least where we were, people knew the rules of the game and saw it for the charade that it was, whereas here the rules, which are changing constantly, do so insidiously, seemingly without people either being aware of the changes or of the effects that they have on society in general.

 

[scottdisco]

of course the range of independent trades unions, diverse religious organisations, range of faith schools from different monotheisms backed by the govt (w no one religion officially backed in this sense *), range of opinions able to be expressed in a range of free media, and the ability to wield a free vote (or not if you don't want to, unlike, for instance, Australia), are some differences between, say, the current UK, and Romania in the mid-80s.

(oh and abortion isn't illegal here, to pluck one other improvement from my admittedly arbitrary Romania choice, as then, to the UK, of now, out of the air.)

there are a massive range of beefs people have w how things are in the UK atm (specifically w regard to the New Labour administration since 1997), and in general, true, but i fear one can take a sort of ennui/anomie w regards to your take on political arrangements in this country (and other naturally imperfect democracies) too far... ...i also appreciate (though are lucky enough to have never experienced) that M B's experiences under a large, intrusive state (and that of M B's relatives) are going to shape opinions, to put it very mildly.

i'd have thought, that said, that out of the democracies that have a slightly larger state and, (admittedly, this is a clincher, lower levels of inequality) like Sweden for one, that the social health of that nation is better than a democracy w a smaller state (and, granted, higher levels of inequality) ** such as, er, a certain large country that gives us very good rap, jazz, house, clam chowder, pizza and a huge range of genuinely excellent microbrew beers. (ahem.)

* i don't have to like everything i include in this list

** that said, i know for eg the glass ceiling for women is higher in the States than Sweden - saw some paper on it once, can't find the ref but it wasn't that long ago