milk's livejournal - Labour, Tories, Co-operatives and Mutualism [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | milk's site ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Labour, Tories, Co-operatives and Mutualism [Feb. 16th, 2010|05:06 am]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry

Hah, this is interesting. Not only has Labour come out in favour of mutualism, but the Tories have more recently announced their radicalism by supporting the idea of mutuals and co-ops in the public sector.

The cynic in me says that both parties are doing it to shed responsibility, but the reformist in me says that this kind of libertarian socialist-esq decentralisation is so desperately required. My problem with this though is that a) both parties have utterly horrible track records in so many areas towards fucking about with politicing the political system for their own gain, and b) that it’ll be a less than half-baked implementation from either of them which could fuck up major areas of UK society, wot like Thatcher did, again. Overall, the optimist in me thinks it sounds like a good start, and I guess it will depend on their specific plans which I’m sure will become clearer in the run up to the election…

Update: This really doesn’t make me feel secure about the mechanics assumed by the current ‘Big Society’ policy.

Crossposted from my blog.

[User Picture]From: crm
2010-02-16 07:40 am (UTC)


you didnt seriously buy that crap did you?
so they present a workable, progressive, meaningful and selfless pledge, lest we forget that they are a political party... and we are months before an election?
...and your not a TEENEY bit suspicious? give both parties track records in saying one thing and doing the exact opposite once the public are tricked into giving them contoll?


for the love of god, vote for one of the small parties, the only way to defeet the oligarchy is out-and-out revolution, and seeing as that isnt going to happen, vote for the gun which is neither loaded nor smoking.
[User Picture]From: mirukux
2010-02-16 02:55 pm (UTC)


the point i made was that it isn't entirely self-less, nor have either come close to qualifying that it's sustainably workable (i.e. comparative examples rolled out by the front benches -the nhs stuff isn't enough). i think more than half my post was based on suspicion, including wide-sweeping a) and b) points, but Cameron has been harking on about decentralisation for ages and Labour is meant to be a socialist party, so this isn't entirely out of the blue, and if both are starting to look towards this style of politics then that's good. our political system is not a non-moving plenum.

i hope to fuck this non-PR AV system that we're gonna get a vote on passes as that's the only way we're going to get even a paltry shift towards change against the two party zeitgeist in this country (well, the UK as a whole, not north of the border ;) as it currently stands. (after that i'll be voting 1: Green, 2: Pirate Party, 3: Lib Dem)
[User Picture]From: 0olong
2013-04-16 10:29 am (UTC)


I'm a little late here, but I just happened across this post and wanted to say yes! If there's any hope for Britain's political economy - and I like to think there is - it is in a shift towards co-operatives, decentralisation and democratic economic structures. While we obviously need to remain deeply cynical about anything that the big parties say or do, it is a kind of political madness that assumes they will never do anything positive or worth encouraging. They make the laws within which we all operate, and pinning all your hope on out-and-out revolution, as crm is advocating, is closely akin to giving up all hope. We might as well rely on the second law of thermodynamics to defeat the oligarchy.