(Part 2) Top products from r/LabourUK

Well…

As to those with absurd views, like those about lizards, I would likely ignore them. However, to suggest that readings of New Labour as having conservative tendencies is anything like believing people in power are secretly lizards is itself the sort of claim that I would normally like to ignore... (and which you would mock).

Moving on...

Note first that you’ve yet again conflated Conservative with conservative. I’ve never maintained that New Labour was a Conservative party, only that in many respects it was conservative. Think of the following aspects: privatisation of public assets, anti-trade union reform, income tax cuts for the wealthy. All of these things indisputably occurred under Blair, and they were an extension of the kind of conservative approach to economics and politics that Thatcher introduced. It’s neoliberal ideology in practice, and neoliberalism was first advanced by right-wing think tanks and pressure groups.

Consistent with neoliberalism, big business effectively lobbied Blair’s Labour MPs, and this was really quite unprecedented for Labour. There were many well-publicised scandals about this—I didn’t mention Hewitt and Hoon for no reason in my earlier posts. Add to it Blunkett, Milburn, (David) Milliband, Byers, and others. They satisfied the demands of certain big business firms, by reducing relevant trade union power, and paving the way for privatisation “reform”; and they really benefitted, personally, from these manoeuvres. This is a matter of public record.

The relationship with right-wing press, facilitated by Blair and Campbell, was also crucial in securing and maintaining New Labour’s power. Blair became Godfather of one of Rupert Murdoch’s children. Strong relationships with media barons and other wealthy individuals were previously the preserve of conservative figures. Yet Mandelson said that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” and holidayed with a Russian Oligarch (along with a young George Osborne, no less!).

Blair consistently ignored what Trade Union groups had concluded (e.g., demands on renationalising and social housing). His ’97 election pledge included not increasing taxes on the rich; indeed, his reign saw him gradually reduce corporation tax. (Brown was very effective at slashing this.) As you’ll see from another debate in this thread, public spending did increase, which made it look less conservative. Yet, traditional left policies were abandoned here, since public services suffered when privatisation carved out more in-roads than even under Thatcher.

When I said that New Labour was essentially conservative, this is what I meant. They were, in some cases quite transparently, committed to a right-wing political-economic policy in neoliberalism. Any claim as glib and quick as "New Labour were the same as the Conservatives" (note the big 'C') is likely not to be supported by a range of intellectuals. But the subtler point I've been arguing is indeed supported by many. A cursory Google search will help you.

Here are some to get you started:

Bob Jessop

Stuart Hall

Paul Smith

Owen Jones

Of course, there are plenty more besides. And there will be plenty of neoliberals who dispute the key points. But that doesn't take away from these and other authors as presenting an intelligible, respected opinion to the effect that New Labour continued elements of Thatcherism which are right wing in nature. That's a view that you're either misrepresenting (with your big 'C'), or simply laughing at.

I find Moore very hit and miss, myself. I love "From Hell", but I really do not like super-hero stuff, and I found his "Promethea" series to be just dull, really.

I'd recommend "Maus" above all others if somebody wants to explore the genre. It won a Pulitzer Prize for good reason :)

You haven't listed (and shouldn't miss) "The Arrival", which is beautifully illustrated. It contains zero words, yet tells a beautiful story.

There's a book called "Learning Legal Rules" which I read at the start of my law studies which is a bit dense but it's a really good introduction to how the law and the judicial system in the UK works - unfortunately that kind of stuff is too dry to make really interesting haha. I'd recommend it if you read it in bits and pieces rather than trying to go through the entire thing.

You can get the penultimate edition for £2.81 on Amazon.

I can recommend a few for modern politics.

For the Tories you are probably best off reading Tim Bale's Conservative Party from Thatcher To Cameron. For New Labour, with the caveat that it's perhaps a bit too Shakespearean and focuses on personal struggles, Andrew Rawnsley's The End of the Party is a good read. David Marquand's Britain Since 1918 tries to do politics over a broader scope, though I think his analysis is a little superficial. There are other recommendations in the subs' media library.

this book is called "dangerous hero: corbyn's ruthless plot for power".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dangerous-Hero-Corbyns-Ruthless-Power/dp/0008299579

if waiting 37 years without doing anything to get power, then having power unexpectedly fall into his lap when he was pressured into running for leader was his plan all along, then you've got to be impressed. nailed it. playing the long game and 4D chess at the same time.

This is for you:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conquest-Bread-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141396113

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Camp-14-remarkable-odyssey/dp/0330519549

A Journey. Worth reading just for his recollection of the mutual masturbation episode with Gordon Brown alone

Shiit, her mum was a college-educated woman in America who came to the UK, and her father was a jewish business-man who wanted nothing to do with the result of his affair.

If that's the only thing she ever said about the holocaust, then perhaps. She said this on Today, which sounds a lot less disgraceful.

>"every single death of every single person no matter what their race, no matter what their culture, is an awful thing. No one genocide, no one holocaust, is in my opinion worse than any other. I'm an internationalist – that's what it means to be an internationalist."

She also wrote a book about her mother's life and the institutional racism that she suffered during her childhood that seems to have been well reviewed. Really doesn't sound like the one-dimensional monster that you're trying to paint her as, and sounds way more like just a person.

You don't see the irony of going to a specific UK party sub and telling actual members of the Labour party they're not left wing?

This stopped being about the MP when someone decided to 'fact check' me with a bunch of bullshit. You're just deflecting now.

I'm sorry but no, the same regime is in power now that was 50 years ago. I note you didn't respond to my questions on what happens to political dissidents and those trying to establish independent trade unions in Cuba today?

I do not consider it significant progress that they've stopped executing people. You set a ridiculously low bar for people that have showed themselves not to respect human rights.

It's not at all controversial to not support revolutionaries, in fact if you do support revolutionaries you're going against clause 1 of the Labour party constitution and it's grounds for expulsion.

> If there were a revolution tomorrow that put in place the exact ideas you wanted for your society you wouldn't support it?

No. This is really simple stuff. As a democrat I do not believe political power should be in the hands of some sort of mob rule, a revolution, popular or not, has no legitimacy and undermines many of the institutions and rights that exist to uphold democracy and the rule of law.

> The only way to make progress is the voting booth? Ridiculous.

Ultimately yes. It's really not that ridiculous, you can protest things and get concessions but the only lasting change comes through reform. Revolutions are built and survive on violent oppression of political opponents - in every case.

What reasons are those again? I'm racist because I think Fidel Castro wass a piece of shit? Nuance? You talk to the familes of those killed about nuance, you're fucking pathetic. The fact you believe every single criticism of Castro must be weighed an measured with "But the west did X bad also" shows how fucked up your logic is. The way you speak about Castro's legacy shows your political priorities, torturing gay people doesn't matter, he was too busy 'supporting liberation' to focus on not imprisoning and killing his political opponents.

I don't know what mickey mouse outfit gave you a history degree, but I'm guessing you didn't write anything along these lines. Socialism isn't built by killing and imprisoning those that disagree with you.

The Labour party exists as the political wing of independent trade unions, the idea that we should support a country that would kill or imprison us is ridiculous.

You seem like a useful idiot to their cause more than anything and the fact you're ignoring the questions that you clearly have no answers to in my replies shows how shallow your arguments are.

You accuse me of not being left wing as if I should be ashamed that I support things that you find 'irrelevant to Castro's legacy' but I will not apologise for supporting gay rights, independent trade unions and the right to hold whatever political position I want. The irony of course is if you held the opposite view to yours now in Cuba, you would be silenced by force. But you see that as a good thing.

I'm glad you live in Canada, because I would be ashamed if you were a member of the same political party as me. Your opinions are fucking vile mate, seriously, you seem to have this idea that literally anything but anything western is superior. It's the kind of political masochism I was mentioning earlier. Idealism without ideals.

Take your vacuous poison somewhere else, or better yet, actually reflect on your own political views, read about some real fucking left wing achievements why don't you.