Diluted Dante wrote:Ok, but you said Corbynist isn't the way to go. So, what do you mean by that? What isn't the way to go?
Funkstain wrote:I'm not sure - I think that challenging the word at the outset could be an effective way to challenge those inaccuracies and demonstrate the power of words. It is in the lexicon but it shouldn't be, and it was put in the lexicon by powerful people with nefarious interests. One way of showing that it shouldn't exist is precisely to ask people what it means to them, and show that it means different things to different people. True political / social movements can be more uniformly defined. - Leftist policies - Antisemitism - Communism by another name - Terrorist sympathies / IRA support - Youthful Labour positivism - Entryism - etc How can all that be defined by one word which actually means something? it's a weapon used by progressivism's enemies and needs to be called out
As an example.Diluted Dante wrote:So, do less basically, when it comes to the public sector?
And this is the tabloid attack against Phillips. Her Mum did alright for herself so her daughter must be a giant fraud.Funkstain wrote:Thanks Blocks. My initial impression is that there’s a lot of image management - a lot of “I’m true working class representation compared to these London elites” when her parent was a chief exec of an NHS trust (salary: well over £150k). Of course, only important if she trades on that image, will continue to look at speeches and books. Very strong on women representation in parliament and committees so that’s good.
mistercrayon wrote:Large scale nationalisation is a dream and doesn’t actually solve problems inherently.
I think she is more likely to win an election by thinking of what real people need here and now over ambitions of controlling everything.
Also I think she has a better chance of connecting with normal people.
Diluted Dante wrote:Its interesting that you think real people dont need better housing, transport, utilities and communications.
Diluted Dante wrote:mistercrayon wrote:Large scale nationalisation is a dream and doesn’t actually solve problems inherently.
I think she is more likely to win an election by thinking of what real people need here and now over ambitions of controlling everything.
Also I think she has a better chance of connecting with normal people.
Its interesting that you think real people dont need better housing, transport, utilities and communications.
monkey wrote:And this is the tabloid attack against Phillips. Her Mum did alright for herself so her daughter must be a giant fraud.Funkstain wrote:Thanks Blocks. My initial impression is that there’s a lot of image management - a lot of “I’m true working class representation compared to these London elites” when her parent was a chief exec of an NHS trust (salary: well over £150k). Of course, only important if she trades on that image, will continue to look at speeches and books. Very strong on women representation in parliament and committees so that’s good.
mistercrayon wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:mistercrayon wrote:Large scale nationalisation is a dream and doesn’t actually solve problems inherently.
I think she is more likely to win an election by thinking of what real people need here and now over ambitions of controlling everything.
Also I think she has a better chance of connecting with normal people.
Its interesting that you think real people dont need better housing, transport, utilities and communications.
This is a wild interpretation of what I wrote!
mistercrayon wrote:Please tell me how nationalisation = better.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!