Richard Hamblin

Of course the point is what is labelled ‘far left’ today. is nothing of the sort. Cf what was the ‘far left’ in 1970s (all the combinations of colours and months that ran urban guerrilla factions)

This is why the false equivalence of far left/far right is so dangerous. The far right is genuinely about ending democracy and the rule of law and killing people. The ‘far left’ is rather less Stalinism and more this Judean People’s Front silliness

I am southern English. And middle class. Not a single thing is the list resonated with me.

A has France so no (and modern British is actually rather good). B has a bit of Italy which probably rescues. H is the particularly crap bits of the US and Tim Hortons. But then a tiny wee bit of Spain. Tricky but probably H.

Mason. What a surprise.

Quiet? Quiet??!!

The radian rot had already set in. So that’s the thesis. Not sure how you get out of it though.

13/ what liberals are seeking to conserve therefore are said guardrails of democracy, rule of law and objective reality. The hope is to return to the 1990s in the belief that this is the post war consensus with the racism, homophobia, misogyny and snobbery removed. It wasn’t.

12/ thus the right want to burn everything down so in the chaos the current asset rich can run off with everything else that isn’t nailed down for pennies in the pound. They’re betting they will survive the anarchy that ensues. They are almost certainly wrong (and certifiably insane).

11/ The only viable option for this is ethnocentric authoritarianism hence Brexit and now straightforward racism in the UK and, bluntly, fascism in the US. This means the bringing down of the guardrails against this - democracy, rule of law and even the existence of objective truth.

And a toxic combination of the two (UK). The results made holding to the Randian free market nonsense impossible. 10/ thus the right needed another technique to stop the pissed off and exploited demanding mass redistribution )and probably a few heads on spikes)

Which follows from unregulated capitalism had literally been demonstrated in the 1920s and 30s). 9/ this came to a head with the GFC but rather than resetting back to the post war consensus of heavy taxation of the asset rich we had QE for the benefit of the very wealthy (US), austerity (EU)…

From its flattening of the tension between solidarity and liberty. 7/ from 1980 (and especially 1989/1992) the Randian’s won, in part because they stole the libertarian’s clothing. 8/ the consequence has been predictably disastrous (given the dangers of accretion of assets with a tiny minority

5/ and a libertarian left who chafed against constriction and the obvious unresolved evils of racism, homophobia, class snobbery etc. 6/ the period between 1965 and 1980 represented a battle between them to decide which would follow the post war consensus’s failure which arose …

4/ at the same time societies were very conservative (but some of this depended on one ordinary earner being able to support a family in relative comfort and security). This was assailed by two forces a Randian right of the very wealthy driven by greed

2/ hence the highest rate of income tax under the socially very conservative Eisenhower was 93%. 3/ doing this a/ prevented accretion of wealth and distorting accumulation of assets by the very wealthy and b/ allowed the creation of large middle classes who had secure housing and employment.

Very good point. Is the thesis really bound up in the destruction of the post war consensus sort of like this. 1/ faced with the very real threat of communist expansion post WW2 the centre right accepted high rates of tax on the wealthy - which they had been warmed up to by war economies.

But but but someone told me he was a Marxist who would destroy hard working entrepreneurs. It’s almost as if democratic socialism and SMEs work hand in hand hand.

Blimey. Who’dathunk? Coming next year. 16000 millionaires still in Britain. Lie. Rinse. Repeat. Don’t worry the BBC will still report you as fact/invite you on QuestionTime/not bother to point out all your previous lies

My idiosyncratic choices. BMW 2002 2 door. Peugeot 504 coupe. If budget more limited Citroen GS, Simca 1500, Alfasud.

All three statements are proveably, idiotically, laughably untrue. Christian civilisation came from Palestine. Europe has not limited free speech (but the Trump administration is). Europe has no ‘invasion’ (indeed migration is only the sixth highest concern EU citizens.

What’s quite interesting is yesterday there was outrage about Kyle’s comments. He refused to back down. And today crickets and Farage shutting up. Face down the bully.

Really good. But this. ‘Among young men Reform was supported by 14% (Labour was their top choice with 37%).’ Gives the lie to the massive gender gap amongst young people, no? Or have I misread the data

Bit harsh on Peter Capaldi

And of course he is playing a jag while doing so …

Wow. Well confirmation is nice. It was also of course extremely popular.

Genuinely think historians of the 22nd century will point to the failure to elect Ed as the great disaster and turning point which led to the downfall of the uK. A chance to be mildly socially democratic rejected I. Favour of a deranged nationalistic kleptocratic feeding frenzy

I agree. Astonishing isn’t it?

Thanks. Well that’s fascinating. I was thinking SDP. I was thinking of the 1980s splitters from the right of the then Labour Party. But yes absolutely the European comparison is really telling and helpful.

Not entirely convinced Corbyn was far left though. The 2017 manifesto was pretty similar, economically at least, to the 1983 SDP one.