Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on August 09, 2015, 04:04:42 PM
-
Jeremy Corbyn has apparently called for renationalisation of certain areas of industries - the old Clause 4.
Do you agree? If so, which areas would you like to see re-nationalised?
-
Thank goodness - an actual socialist seems set to be at the helm of the Labour party again.
-
For a start I think it's scandalous that water and electricity are run by private companies for profit. The same goes in my country too. They should be state owned. It also means you can spread the costs so that everyone pays the same price per unit regardless of where you live.
-
For a start I think it's scandalous that water and electricity are run by private companies for profit. The same goes in my country too. They should be state owned.
I can understand electricity; it has to be produced (it doesn't exist naturally) so its production should have soime degree of market-based control. Water, on the other hand, is natural, and although it may need to be treated those costs can't easily be changed (though water some parts of the UK needs more treatment than elsewhere).
-
The thing I didn't realise until one of my kids went on a school trip to a water treatment plant was the levels of security needed now. Renationalising water will require funding for that, as well as maintaining and replacing the infrastructure - sewer and supply pipes as well as laying it on for new developments. If the state can afford to a) fund all of this adequately and b) buy out the current private owners then I'm amazed.
-
If the state can fund wars and sundry vanity projects, why not that?
-
For a start I think it's scandalous that water and electricity are run by private companies for profit. The same goes in my country too. They should be state owned. It also means you can spread the costs so that everyone pays the same price per unit regardless of where you live.
I agree. All services that can't be implemented into a market place with the appropriate competition is ideologically wrong.
When these services were in public hands the rich paid more for them, via their taxes, than the less well off did. Now we are all paying the same price (basically a poll tax) and some of that is going to shareholders and foreign pension pots - it's a crime.
-
The thing I didn't realise until one of my kids went on a school trip to a water treatment plant was the levels of security needed now. Renationalising water will require funding for that, as well as maintaining and replacing the infrastructure - sewer and supply pipes as well as laying it on for new developments. If the state can afford to a) fund all of this adequately and b) buy out the current private owners then I'm amazed.
The bankers have been given £375 billion in QE. We aren't short of money it is just the governing elite don't want to both with our wellbeing. If we buy it off them we set the price!!!
-
Many of our utilities are privately owned by the public utilities of France and Germany. So much for doctrinal opposition to public ownership.
Two labour leaders before the election, one to change the narrative away from Osborne's more extreme assumptions and then one to steal whatever Blairite clothing that leaves George with.
-
Thank goodness - an actual socialist seems set to be at the helm of the Labour party again.
A socialist who, when asked five times in a recent interview, refused to condemn the IRA bombings and killings. Nice guy. He ought to be ashamed of himself!
-
Dear Hope,
As has been mentioned, the basics for life, heating, water but I would also think about transport, it should not cost a fortune for workers to travel to and from work.
Also housing, a roof over your head is another basic.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Hope,
As has been mentioned, the basics for life, heating, water but I would also think about transport, it should not cost a fortune for workers to travel to and from work.
Also housing, a roof over your head is another basic.
Gonnagle.
I agree with your point about transport. Make that cheaper and see the economy take off.
Of course the strategy is not to do that but to keep it under par until a slight improvement in the last two years of the government just to reinforce the idea that the party is indispensable for the future.
-
I agree with your point about transport. Make that cheaper and see the economy take off.
Of course the strategy is not to do that but to keep it under par until a slight improvement in the last two years of the government just to reinforce the idea that the party is indispensable for the future.
Unfortunately, Vlad, with devolution the central UK Goverment doesn't have quite that level of control. It will be interesting to see how the public will regard how well the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, especially, have dealt with those aspects of policy that they are responsible for when elections for these two bodies take place next year.
-
I agree with your point about transport. Make that cheaper and see the economy take off.
Of course the strategy is not to do that but to keep it under par until a slight improvement in the last two years of the government just to reinforce the idea that the party is indispensable for the future.
Unfortunately, Vlad, with devolution the central UK Goverment doesn't have quite that level of control. It will be interesting to see how the public will regard how well the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, especially, have dealt with those aspects of policy that they are responsible for when elections for these two bodies take place next year.
But if they suck up to the banks and BoE they will do it for them. The only way Labour came to power was by getting into bed with the bankers and their cronies.
-
But if they suck up to the banks and BoE they will do it for them. The only way Labour came to power was by getting into bed with the bankers and their cronies.
How did that work? Do bankers' votes outnumber those of the rest of us?
-
I agree with your point about transport. Make that cheaper and see the economy take off.
Of course the strategy is not to do that but to keep it under par until a slight improvement in the last two years of the government just to reinforce the idea that the party is indispensable for the future.
Unfortunately, Vlad, with devolution the central UK Goverment doesn't have quite that level of control. It will be interesting to see how the public will regard how well the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, especially, have dealt with those aspects of policy that they are responsible for when elections for these two bodies take place next year.
But if they suck up to the banks and BoE they will do it for them. The only way Labour came to power was by getting into bed with the bankers and their cronies.
?? Vlad, how do you get from 'deep-sea diving' to 'women wearing kinky boots'?
-
But if they suck up to the banks and BoE they will do it for them. The only way Labour came to power was by getting into bed with the bankers and their cronies.
How did that work? Do bankers' votes outnumber those of the rest of us?
Money talks and money is power!!!
-
I agree with your point about transport. Make that cheaper and see the economy take off.
Of course the strategy is not to do that but to keep it under par until a slight improvement in the last two years of the government just to reinforce the idea that the party is indispensable for the future.
Unfortunately, Vlad, with devolution the central UK Goverment doesn't have quite that level of control. It will be interesting to see how the public will regard how well the devolved governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, especially, have dealt with those aspects of policy that they are responsible for when elections for these two bodies take place next year.
But if they suck up to the banks and BoE they will do it for them. The only way Labour came to power was by getting into bed with the bankers and their cronies.
?? Vlad, how do you get from 'deep-sea diving' to 'women wearing kinky boots'?
Hope, it's Jack here, what ever you're taking ease up you're seeing things!!! ;D
-
The state is not good a running businesses, even when they had a monopoly most nationalised industries managed to make a loss. If Corbyn was ever in a position to implement his lunatic scheme it would bankrupt the country. Fortunately, most people realise this so he is unlikely to ever be in a position to command anything other than a Left-wing fringe group (though this could well be the Labour party)
-
Thank goodness - an actual socialist seems set to be at the helm of the Labour party again.
Yes, the Labour Party has lost its way for a while.
The reason that Labour 'lost it's way' was because it finally realised that a Left Wing government was never going to be elected in this country.
I find it unbelievable that so many Labour supporters seem to have forgotten that today.
-
Dear Lapsed,
A question for you, or any poster, are the people of Scotland so different from the people of England?
Gonnagle.
-
The state is not good a running businesses, even when they had a monopoly most nationalised industries managed to make a loss. If Corbyn was ever in a position to implement his lunatic scheme it would bankrupt the country. Fortunately, most people realise this so he is unlikely to ever be in a position to command anything other than a Left-wing fringe group (though this could well be the Labour party)
It's time we realised that the state isn't in the business of running a business. Each element does not have to break even, it should provide for the people.
Those industries where genuine competition isn't possible should be nationalised. Currently that means the railways - which are not in competition, they're in multiple parallel monopolies - the telecommunications industry (the nations internet and phone infrastructure are still a monopoly) and water (again, parallel monopolies).
The gas industry needs renationalising, but electricity perhaps not: the current situation where the distribution network is nationalised but the generation is open to competition works reasonably well, the issue that needs addressing is the preposterous 5-year blocks that permits are issued in precludes long-term investment which favours the existing dirty technologies.
Overall we need to keep spending under control, but that requires a populace that gives up on the 'low tax, small government' model that only serves those who aren't worried about taxation in the first place.
If I could convince Mrs O. that snow wasn't that bad I'd be emigrating to Scandinavia pretty much as soon as I could.
O.
-
I think the last Labour government that could be described as truly 'Left Wing' was elected in 1945 - but things have changed a bit since then.
Blair became unpopular because of the war - and the circumstances surrounding it. Ed Miliband was unpopular because he was perceived as being utterly useless and in the pocket of the unions - a gift to the right-wing press - his brother would have stood a good chance of leading a centre-left government.
-
I think the last Labour government that could be described as truly 'Left Wing' was elected in 1945 - but things have changed a bit since then.
Blair became unpopular because of the war - and the circumstances surrounding it. Ed Miliband was unpopular because he was perceived as being utterly useless and in the pocket of the unions - a gift to the right-wing press - his brother would have stood a good chance of leading a centre-left government.
I'm sorry but for the right wing press it's a right wing conservative government or nothing.
The press were properly schmoozed by Blair but will not make that mistake again.
They are the in house magazine for elite global capital.
-
Dear Lapsed,
A question for you, or any poster, are the people of Scotland so different from the people of England?
Gonnagle.
No, nor do I think they are that different from the people of Norway or France
-
I think the last Labour government that could be described as truly 'Left Wing' was elected in 1945 - but things have changed a bit since then.
Blair became unpopular because of the war - and the circumstances surrounding it. Ed Miliband was unpopular because he was perceived as being utterly useless and in the pocket of the unions - a gift to the right-wing press - his brother would have stood a good chance of leading a centre-left government.
I'm sorry but for the right wing press it's a right wing conservative government or nothing.
The press were properly schmoozed by Blair but will not make that mistake again.
They are the in house magazine for elite global capital.
Blair said all the right things and Gordon promised to be 'Prudent' and everything appeared to go along fine - but then there was IRAQ and 'chickens came home to roost' for the economy.
-
Dear Lapsed,
A question for you, or any poster, are the people of Scotland so different from the people of England?
Gonnagle.
I think it is fairly well established that England (and particularly the South East) tends to vote Centre-Right - generally Conservative but New Labour managed to make an impression.
Scotland clearly does not - so yes, Scots are different.
-
I'm sorry but for the right wing press it's a right wing conservative government or nothing.
The press were properly schmoozed by Blair but will not make that mistake again.
They are the in house magazine for elite global capital.
Oddly enough Vlad, most right wing media want a fairly right of centre government (as opposed to a 'right wing' government) - in the same way that most of the left-wing media want a left of centre government.
-
Dear Politically Invigorated,
Sane says NO, our Lapsed says YES, I think I agree with Sane, I am no different from most Scots, I voted SNP because I was sick and tired of the same old same old.
Labour party, Tory party, no vision, no compassion.
I think it will not be long before the English voters wake up, Compassion can be a political word.
Gonnagle.
-
I think it will not be long before the English voters wake up, Compassion can be a political word.
Gonnagle.
Why should the 'same old same old' that is the SNP (as well as the Tories and Labour) suddenly change the pattern, Gonners?
-
I think it will not be long before the English voters wake up, Compassion can be a political word.
Gonnagle.
Why should the 'same old same old' that is the SNP (as well as the Tories and Labour) suddenly change the pattern, Gonners?
Because in the move to support them and being in power or opposition in WM, they aren't yet.
-
Because in the move to support them and being in power or opposition in WM, they aren't yet.
but they are no different because they are no different to the other parties in their short-term approach to most things.
-
Because in the move to support them and being in power or opposition in WM, they aren't yet.
but they are no different because they are no different to the other parties in their short-term approach to most things.
mmm - they certainly aren't going to be something outside the system but then that is trivially true
-
mmm - they certainly aren't going to be something outside the system but then that is trivially true
and how was this relevant to my post, NS?
Will Corbyn go anyway to reclaiming the monies paid to inefficient bankers - or perhaps even look at ensuring that grass roots bank staff get proper basic pay, rather than relying on bonuses.
-
mmm - they certainly aren't going to be something outside the system but then that is trivially true
and how was this relevant to my post, NS?
Will Corbyn go anyway to reclaiming the monies paid to inefficient bankers - or perhaps even look at ensuring that grass roots bank staff get proper basic pay, rather than relying on bonuses.
Because the whole question is what is difference here. They are restricted in how that works.
the amount paid to grass roots bank staff is irrelevant to claiming money back from banks.
-
... the amount paid to grass roots bank staff is irrelevant to claiming money back from banks.
I am aware of that; perhaps I ought to have used 2 sentences, not a hyphen.
-
... the amount paid to grass roots bank staff is irrelevant to claiming money back from banks.
I am aware of that; perhaps I ought to have used 2 sentences, not a hyphen.
Fair enough.
-
Dear Politically Invigorated,
Sane says NO, our Lapsed says YES, I think I agree with Sane, I am no different from most Scots, I voted SNP because I was sick and tired of the same old same old.
Labour party, Tory party, no vision, no compassion.
I think it will not be long before the English voters wake up, Compassion can be a political word.
Gonnagle.
I think it is quite possible that a Corbyn led Labour party could do quite well in Scotland, but would be wiped-out in England.
-
Dear Politically Invigorated,
Sane says NO, our Lapsed says YES, I think I agree with Sane, I am no different from most Scots, I voted SNP because I was sick and tired of the same old same old.
Labour party, Tory party, no vision, no compassion.
I think it will not be long before the English voters wake up, Compassion can be a political word.
Gonnagle.
I think it is quite possible that a Corbyn led Labour party could do quite well in Scotland, but would be wiped-out in England.
The problem for them being that led by anyone else they will continue to part of the fewer than pandas brigade in Scotland. I would think Corbyn on current demographics might win them 10 - 12 seats in Scotland.
Given the boundaries and reduction in MP numbers that will be introduced 2020 is going to be a loss for Laboutmr even if they were led by the other JC. (Obviously I am referring to the comic messiah)
-
10 - 12 seats gain would be useful, but not at the cost of all the English seats that would be lost.
-
...even if they were led by the other JC. (Obviously I am referring to the comic messiah)
Jasper Carrott?
O.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs, I think ( sometimes it hurts ) not if but when the English voters see through the Tory smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs, I think ( sometimes it hurts ) not if but when the English voters see through the Tory smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
And how does one know that is what it us? Social surveys show that there is little difference in what policy Scotland or England thinks is right but the different circs each are in ends up in a different answer. The Tories think this is the best thing to do. Their compromises that they are forced to make are different.
Purity in politics is even less desirable than it is possible.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs . . .
Gonnagle.
Of course it does - they will be largely judged on the economy - but even if they do quite badly - a Corbyinite Labour party will struggle to make headway.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs . . .
Gonnagle.
Of course it does - they will be largely judged on the economy - but even if they do quite badly - a Corbyinite Labour party will struggle to make headway.
From a certain perspective Labour is never going to get in next time....so what's more unsightly...a labour party constantly bowing it's head at shame when George calls for repentance over the economic crisis or one that's going to say well actually George we don't agree with what your peddling.
I'm afraid there are whole wadges of society that Osborne and Cameron depended on being quiescent who are showing a bit of political spark....e.g. Yoof.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs . . .
Gonnagle.
Of course it does - they will be largely judged on the economy - but even if they do quite badly - a Corbyinite Labour party will struggle to make headway.
From a certain perspective Labour is never going to get in next time....so what's more unsightly...a labour party constantly bowing it's head at shame when George calls for repentance over the economic crisis or one that's going to say well actually George we don't agree with what your peddling.
I'm afraid there are whole wadges of society that Osborne and Cameron depended on being quiescent who are showing a bit of political spark....e.g. Yoof.
If the Tories deliver on their stated objectives they would be very difficult to beat but there are a number of possible scenarios that might give Labour a victory - BUT - they need to offer a credible alternative.
With Corbyn they don't stand a hope in Hell
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs . . .
Gonnagle.
Of course it does - they will be largely judged on the economy - but even if they do quite badly - a Corbyinite Labour party will struggle to make headway.
From a certain perspective Labour is never going to get in next time....so what's more unsightly...a labour party constantly bowing it's head at shame when George calls for repentance over the economic crisis or one that's going to say well actually George we don't agree with what your peddling.
I'm afraid there are whole wadges of society that Osborne and Cameron depended on being quiescent who are showing a bit of political spark....e.g. Yoof.
If the Tories deliver on their stated objectives they would be very difficult to beat but there are a number of possible scenarios that might give Labour a victory - BUT - they need to offer a credible alternative.
With Corbyn they don't stand a hope in Hell
Your not getting it. The tories have not had their three goes yet.
So no one can get Labour in until 2025. Do labour want to be sport for the tories or do they want, not to play ball and not be sport for the tories?
-
Your not getting it. The tories have not had their three goes yet.
So no one can get Labour in until 2025. Do labour want to be sport for the tories or do they want, not to play ball and not be sport for the tories?
So you prefer 'Heroic defeat' to victory?
I suspect that you might get your wish.
-
Your not getting it. The tories have not had their three goes yet.
So no one can get Labour in until 2025. Do labour want to be sport for the tories or do they want, not to play ball and not be sport for the tories?
So you prefer 'Heroic defeat' to victory?
I suspect that you might get your wish.
You think there is a chance of victory?
How so?
-
Your not getting it. The tories have not had their three goes yet.
So no one can get Labour in until 2025. Do labour want to be sport for the tories or do they want, not to play ball and not be sport for the tories?
So you prefer 'Heroic defeat' to victory?
I suspect that you might get your wish.
You think there is a chance of victory?
How so?
It's not too difficult to work that one out!
The Labour party comes out of 'Self Destruct' mode and finds a credible leader - i.e. one who is capable of rebuilding a party capable of dealing with the problems we face today and able to win an election.
i.e. A person about as different from Corbyn as they come!
-
Your not getting it. The tories have not had their three goes yet.
So no one can get Labour in until 2025. Do labour want to be sport for the tories or do they want, not to play ball and not be sport for the tories?
So you prefer 'Heroic defeat' to victory?
I suspect that you might get your wish.
You think there is a chance of victory?
How so?
It's not too difficult to work that one out!
The Labour party comes out of 'Self Destruct' mode and finds a credible leader - i.e. one who is capable of rebuilding a party capable of dealing with the problems we face today and able to win an election.
i.e. A person about as different from Corbyn as they come!
That's all rhetoric.
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Easily dismissed by anybody who wants to do that...... unelectable. Corbyn, potential to be a real pain in the hole........ unelectable.
The choice is clear.
-
So shite or shiteier
-
So shite or shiteier
' Fraid so, but for the time being it doesn't help being a loser on account of the political cycle AND apologising for being the root cause of any Government failure subsequently.
-
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Whereas Corbyn himself was cryogenically frozen sometime in the 1970's in order to preserve the purity of the party :)
-
So shite or shiteier
' Fraid so, but for the time being it doesn't help being a loser on account of the political cycle AND apologising for being the root cause of any Government failure subsequently.
And boundary changes
-
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Whereas Corbyn himself was cryogenically frozen sometime in the 1970's in order to preserve the purity of the party :)
Davros Corbyn
-
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Whereas Corbyn himself was cryogenically frozen sometime in the 1970's in order to preserve the purity of the party :)
Yes but that's not the great bogey it used to be because so many were not around or not politically conscious in the 70's.......In any case why are you so afraid of the 70's...Do you fear Corbyn will reintroduce corduroy trousers or something?
-
What is Labour for?
-
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Whereas Corbyn himself was cryogenically frozen sometime in the 1970's in order to preserve the purity of the party :)
Yes but that's not the great bogey it used to be because so many were not around or not politically conscious in the 70's.......In any case why are you so afraid of the 70's...Do you fear Corbyn will reintroduce corduroy trousers or something?
I'll bet the Tories are in hysterics when they look at what Labour is doing to itself.
-
I'm afraid the present non Corbyn candidates are yesterday's men and women.
Whereas Corbyn himself was cryogenically frozen sometime in the 1970's in order to preserve the purity of the party :)
Yes but that's not the great bogey it used to be because so many were not around or not politically conscious in the 70's.......In any case why are you so afraid of the 70's...Do you fear Corbyn will reintroduce corduroy trousers or something?
I'll bet the Tories are in hysterics when they look at what Labour is doing to itself.
They're on holiday aren't they?
-
Undoubtedly they are, but then they sort of earned it by having done the same.
Labour's only hope is the referendum leading to a split - which is perfectly possible. That they did not take the chance to defeat the govt over the purdah approach is shocking.
-
Undoubtedly they are, but then they sort of earned it by having done the same.
Labour's only hope is the referendum leading to a split - which is perfectly possible. That they did not take the chance to defeat the govt over the purdah approach is shocking.
Do you not think Cameron will not suspend the referendum if that looks likely?
-
He can't afford to do that. That definitely would produce a split.
-
He can't afford to do that. That definitely would produce a split.
That might be one of the fault lines that Labour might be able to exploit if they aren't too busy arguing about what to nationalise.
-
Do you not think Cameron will not suspend the referendum if that looks likely?
Did you mean to include a double negative, Big V? I suspect that suspending the referendum will cause more of a electoral split than any party splits.
-
Do you not think Cameron will not suspend the referendum if that looks likely?
Did you mean to include a double negative, Big V? I suspect that suspending the referendum will cause more of a electoral split than any party splits.
But if the hundreds of thousands of new members of labour are actually hundreds of thousands of tories THAT motivated to maliciously annihilate labour then I think he can do what he likes and since leaving Erp is a shit idea for globalists the referendum will be schmoozed away.
-
Dear Big V, ( I like Big V )
Post 49, boy you are in the zone, careful when you touch yourself, third degree burns can be painful.
Yes I don't think Mr Corbyn wants to play the Tory smoke and mirror games, he may actually think that politics is important and not a game.
The SNP are to busy learning the game instead of focusing on the fact that it is not a game, real lives are involved.
Gonnagle.
-
Corbyn promises to take the party faithful deep into the political wilderness where they can contemplate their Socialist fantasy world. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will move on and the Labour party risks becoming history.
-
It is interesting that the Electoral Reform Society have now joined the calls for the vote to be delayed so that additional checks can be carried out on the 'swarm' (my choice of word) of new members. It is therefore no longer merely party insiders who could be seen as afraid that Corbyn will win. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-remove-infiltrators-votes-after-6240207 and reports on BBC Breakfast).
-
The problem with that is that those doing the 'vetting' will be rejecting votes based on their judgements of the political affiliations of the voters which certainly sounds deeply undemocratic.
-
I can see another SDP moment coming.
-
Dear Lapsed,
I think it all depends on how your party performs . . .
Gonnagle.
Of course it does - they will be largely judged on the economy - but even if they do quite badly - a Corbyinite Labour party will struggle to make headway.
From a certain perspective Labour is never going to get in next time....so what's more unsightly...a labour party constantly bowing it's head at shame when George calls for repentance over the economic crisis or one that's going to say well actually George we don't agree with what your peddling.
I'm afraid there are whole wadges of society that Osborne and Cameron depended on being quiescent who are showing a bit of political spark....e.g. Yoof.
If the Tories deliver on their stated objectives they would be very difficult to beat but there are a number of possible scenarios that might give Labour a victory - BUT - they need to offer a credible alternative.
With Corbyn they don't stand a hope in Hell
The other candidates, though, don't offer a credible alternative to the Tories, though, they just offer Tory in red.
O.
-
Corbyn promises to take the party faithful deep into the political wilderness where they can contemplate their Socialist fantasy world. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will move on and the Labour party risks becoming history.
It is in the middle of the political cycle and any labour party of any complexion would be in the wilderness....look at the tories in the 2000's.
While a labour party seeks to make itself more tory, why should people vote for them if they have the real thing. The preferred situation is no real opposition...and the opposition to have a process of falling into line.
That is not the kind of opposition life that is needed since intellectual assent of Eternal low wages for the many is particularly unacceptable.
If there are hundreds of thousands of English people politically motivated enough to destroy labour through malicious voting in the labour ballot then a real opposition has no power to win nor nothing to lose.
If it turns out that in the end an opposition of the forgotten and silent appears as an unintended consequence of the Tory Surge then that will be just, given the vehemence of those that wanted these people to ''stay down''.
-
While a labour party seeks to make itself more tory, why should people vote for them if they have the real thing. The preferred situation is no real opposition...and the opposition to have a process of falling into line.
People would vote for them because the voters politics are more in the centre ground. If the Labour party goes left they will not get the votes and the UK will see either coalitions with Cons/LibDems or purely Cons governments.
If want to see a left of centre government the reality is the supporters of the Labour party and going to have to give ground to the right.
Actually I can the LibDems resurgence if JC gets in and as a LibDem I'm really hoping he does!
As Blair put it:-
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re on the left, right or centre of the party, whether you used to support me or hate me,” he wrote. “But please understand the danger we are in. The party is walking eyes shut, arms outstretched over the cliff’s edge to the jagged rocks below.
He's not wrong!
-
When has he been right about anything before?
-
The other candidates, though, don't offer a credible alternative to the Tories, though, they just offer Tory in red.
So I guess the party is finished then.
-
Dear Outrider,
Credible! Good word, Corbyn sounds credible, the other candidates are bland.
I will confess that I am a fickle voter, I voted SNP because Sturgeon sounded credible, or as one commentator said, more statesman like.
Searching for a hero. ???
Gonnagle.
-
]
So I guess the party is finished then.
The same might have been said about the Tories in 2003, or Labour in 1992.
-
]
So I guess the party is finished then.
The same might have been said about the Tories in 2003, or Labour in 1992.
Or the Lib Dems in 2015... :(
O.
-
Or the Lib Dems in 2015... :(
O.
Strangely, have fallen quite so far, they probably have a better chance of surviving - they aren't really big enough any more to have political wings. The danger for Labour is splitting, Lib Dems couldn't split if they wanted to.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Labour party dragging out Blair, finger nails on the edge of the cliff stuff, Corbyn really has them worried.
Gonnagle.
-
When has he been right about anything before?
Maybe 1997, 2001 and 2005?
-
Labour party dragging out Blair, finger nails on the edge of the cliff stuff, Corbyn really has them worried.
As usual Gonzo your seeing the picture blurry, its the right words just in the wrong order. Blair is worried for the Labour party because Corbyn has been dragged out.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Could be, but I would keep a war mongerer ( allegedly ) in the cupboard until after the inquiry.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Labour party dragging out Blair, finger nails on the edge of the cliff stuff, Corbyn really has them worried.
Gonnagle.
I suspect that very few people actually wanted Blair to speak out for their cause, but of course, that doesn't mean that he is wrong on this issue.
-
When has he been right about anything before?
Maybe 1997, 2001 and 2005?
Well, for a start I asked when he had ever been right about anything, not the electorate. But seeing as you mention it: is that your yardstick of rightness - the election of somebody like Blair? It's not mine.
-
Credible! Good word, Corbyn sounds credible, the other candidates are bland.
What is credible in this sense? I'd say that:
A/ they need to be able to unite their party.
B/ they need to be able to convince the electorate that they can lead the country.
I'd say that Corbyn fails miserably on both counts.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Credible as in honest, yes I know! Honest politician, get real Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
-
Credible! Good word, Corbyn sounds credible, the other candidates are bland.
What is credible in this sense? I'd say that:
A/ they need to be able to unite their party.
B/ they need to be able to convince the electorate that they can lead the country.
I'd say that Corbyn fails miserably on both counts.
I meant credible as an alternative to the Tories - none of the others offer that.
O.
-
Credible! Good word, Corbyn sounds credible, the other candidates are bland.
What is credible in this sense? I'd say that:
A/ they need to be able to unite their party.
B/ they need to be able to convince the electorate that they can lead the country.
I'd say that Corbyn fails miserably on both counts.
I meant credible as an alternative to the Tories - none of the others offer that.
O.
I have yet to see anybody address Corbyn's ugly refusal to condemn the IRA murders, as well as other terror groups. We don't need anybody like him with influence, at a dangerous time like this.
Also, it might be noted that in a career in politics, he has never attained any high office. I wonder why?
-
I have yet to see anybody address Corbyn's ugly refusal to condemn the IRA murders, as well as other terror groups. We don't need anybody like him with influence, at a dangerous time like this.
I've not heard his reasoning - it could be that he wants to keep the Sinn Fein MPs on-side in an attempt to bring them back into the parliamentary fold, it may be that he sees no benefit in raking over old coals at a time when many in the region are attempting to move beyond the history.
Also, it might be noted that in a career in politics, he has never attained any high office. I wonder why?
Possibly because he's been to the economic left of the majority of the party, and now the party's electorate are having a change of heart. You'd be as well asking why the people who have achieved high-office in the party in recent years are doing so badly in the polling.
Perhaps it's just that the winds are changing in the party support.
O.
-
Dear Bashers,
Wot Outrider just said, me, I am still confused about the whole issue of free speech.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Credible as in honest, yes I know! Honest politician, get real Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Definition of credibility in English:
noun
[MASS NOUN]
1The quality of being trusted and believed in:"
It's more than just honesty, you also need to be able to convince others to trust you - and that's where Corbyn is going to have problems.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Credible as in honest, yes I know! Honest politician, get real Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Definition of credibility in English:
noun
[MASS NOUN]
1The quality of being trusted and believed in:"
It's more than just honesty, you also need to be able to convince others to trust you - and that's where Corbyn is going to have problems.
Based on the fact that, at the moment, he appears to be having more success at that than the other people in the race?
Presumably you mean amongst people who currently don't vote Labour come a general election. Given that the left-wing vote is fragmented amongst the Liberals, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the various minor socialist movements, a candidate that unites that vote could stand a better change than one that tries to leech a few extra votes from Liberals who defected to the Tory party and the Kippers.
That's the option being put in front of the Labour electorate here, and so far the indications are that they are fairly clear on what they want.
O.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Well I have just listened to one of his rivals on the telly, Evette Cooper, the lady is offering an alternative, sorry she is offering new/old Labour, watered down Conservatism.
Past Governments have allowed Capitalism to run this Country, the fast buck, the evidence has proved them wrong, I am not against capitalism but it does breed greed, and that is the real enemy.
Gonnagle.
-
Based on the fact that, at the moment, he appears to be having more success at that than the other people in the race?
Presumably you mean amongst people who currently don't vote Labour come a general election. Given that the left-wing vote is fragmented amongst the Liberals, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the various minor socialist movements, a candidate that unites that vote could stand a better change than one that tries to leech a few extra votes from Liberals who defected to the Tory party and the Kippers.
That's the option being put in front of the Labour electorate here, and so far the indications are that they are fairly clear on what they want.
I think at the moment his support is coming from Labour activists and the far Left - probably plus some Tories attempting a wrecking manoeuvre.
The bulk of Labour voters are not party members and are probably quite bemused by what is going on - but more importantly, Labour will never win unless they start to appeal to people who didn't vote Labour last time! - and the return of the Loony Left is not going to attract them.
-
I think at the moment his support is coming from Labour activists and the far Left - probably plus some Tories attempting a wrecking manoeuvre.
The bulk of Labour voters are not party members and are probably quite bemused by what is going on - but more importantly, Labour will never win unless they start to appeal to people who didn't vote Labour last time! - and the return of the Loony Left is not going to attract them.
People that didn't vote Labour last time, that otherwise might - Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru... people to the right of Labour's previous position are already voting Tory or UKIP and aren't likely to change, and there really isn't very much centre-ground.
The left wing vote is fragmented, but it's more than enough to beat the Tories.
Strategically I agree with you, they need to capture people that didn't vote Labour in the last election. Tactically I think they'll have more success regrouping the left into a cohesive unit than trying to shave slivers off the right-wing.
O.
-
When has he been right about anything before?
Maybe 1997, 2001 and 2005?
Well, for a start I asked when he had ever been right about anything, not the electorate. But seeing as you mention it: is that your yardstick of rightness - the election of somebody like Blair? It's not mine.
He had a strategy / policies which he thought would get him elected and he was right.
-
People that didn't vote Labour last time, that otherwise might - Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru... people to the right of Labour's previous position are already voting Tory or UKIP and aren't likely to change, and there really isn't very much centre-ground.
The left wing vote is fragmented, but it's more than enough to beat the Tories.
A left wing Labour party would presumably win some seats from the SNP and maybe Plaid, but I think it would lose seats in England, particularly the South East.
The only way they could get in would be if the Tories split over Europe.
-
The left wing vote is fragmented, but it's more than enough to beat the Tories.
Care to offer any data to back up that claim?
Strategically I agree with you, they need to capture people that didn't vote Labour in the last election. Tactically I think they'll have more success regrouping the left into a cohesive unit than trying to shave slivers off the right-wing.
I disagree but I hope that most voters in the leadership election agree with you!
-
Tories have a slim parliamentary majority, with a number of slim wins in marginal seats. With only a few other right of Labour seats (UKIP, DUP...?), that makes the rest of the house already 'left of Tory'. Unite that, regaining some of the marginals because those individual votes were split... I think that's more likely than regaining enough of the split-vote to make up the difference without recapturing votes and seats from the like of the SNP and the Greens.
I disagree but I hope that most voters in the leadership election agree with you!
I don't know that I'd vote for a Corbyn Labour any more than Miliband Labour - I'm waiting to see what Fallon does. This is just how I see the things from a Labour perspective.
O.
-
And I will ask again, what is Labour for? Anyone got any ideas?
-
When has he been right about anything before?
Maybe 1997, 2001 and 2005?
Well, for a start I asked when he had ever been right about anything, not the electorate. But seeing as you mention it: is that your yardstick of rightness - the election of somebody like Blair? It's not mine.
He had a strategy / policies which he thought would get him elected and he was right.
And just look how that panned out.
-
And I will ask again, what is Labour for? Anyone got any ideas?
Nope. We can rule out socialists, nationalists, liberals and capitalists.
Perhaps it's an employment scheme for former local councillors?
-
Tories have a slim parliamentary majority, with a number of slim wins in marginal seats. With only a few other right of Labour seats (UKIP, DUP...?), that makes the rest of the house already 'left of Tory'. Unite that, regaining some of the marginals because those individual votes were split... I think that's more likely than regaining enough of the split-vote to make up the difference without recapturing votes and seats from the like of the SNP and the Greens.
I suggest you have another look at the figures, UKIP got 12.7% of the vote, Greens 3.8% the SNP are not losing any seats soon. The rest of the leftist parties less than 1%.
You also have to take into account the amount of people that would not vote for a more left wing Labour party that did vote Labour this time.
Blair is right, if JC wins then I don't think we'll see a Labour Government for 10 years.
-
I find it odd that a party I was a member of for 17 years seems so lost from a purpose. The real problem with Blair is that he turned it into a party that knew how to win but after the first win where much good stuff was done, it ran out of real purpose. It became a party simply trying to win, and in the end that is always been what the Tory party is for.
Yvette Cooper's attack on Jeremy Corbyn that he offers old solutions to old problems highlights for me that it is not actually very clear what she and the rest of Labour see as the new problems.
-
Doesn't matter who wins we are not seeing a Labour govt for 10 years unless the Tories split on Europe. The reduction in seats and boundary changes will guarantee that.
-
Picking up on the discussion on whether there is enough of a left vote to win , I see that UKIP are being counted here as 'right' . I would suggest that this isn't really that true. A lot of the UKIP voters are people who used to vote Labour. Even if we take Jack Knave, our own resident Kipper, much of what he espouses is what would be regarded as left wing, particularly in regards to business. The whole left right thing is an overdone simplicity.
-
Dear Sane,
There ain't no new problems, the problem is as old as Adam, greed, my greed, world greed, big business greed.
It's not rocket science, the world economy collapsed due to greed, everyone's greed, not just bankers greed.
Gonnagle.
-
Picking up on the discussion on whether there is enough of a left vote to win , I see that UKIP are being counted here as 'right' . I would suggest that this isn't really that true. A lot of the UKIP voters are people who used to vote Labour. Even if we take Jack Knave, our own resident Kipper, much of what he espouses is what would be regarded as left wing, particularly in regards to business. The whole left right thing is an overdone simplicity.
It is, UKIP are pretty much between Labour and Tory economically, whilst Lib Dems are left of both and Greens still further left.
UKIP and Tory are fairly authoritarian, though - typically considered right-wing as they've often gone hand in hand - with Labour fairly central on that score and the Greens and Lib Dems fairly libertarian.
politicalcompass.org tracks that sort of thing quite well.
O.
-
Yep, gonzo,I pretty much agree with that. We delight in thinking that all of this is new, but there is as ever nothing new under the sun.
-
It would be better on some ways to represent political views in three dimensions as a sphere. UKIP are being moved currently to a more left wing economic view and perhaps to a more libertarianism, but I would suggest that they are also in relation to business moving left of Labour., or to phrase it another way here, there and everywhere.
-
As for UKIP votees, my guess is that about the same number of them would support nationalisation as Labour voters
-
UKIP and Tory are fairly authoritarian, though - typically considered right-wing as they've often gone hand in hand - with Labour fairly central on that score and the Greens and Lib Dems fairly libertarian.
politicalcompass.org tracks that sort of thing quite well.
O.
O, I'd put Labour firmly in the authoritarian segment, since they want the state to oversee most things. Tory would - with their free enterprise, free market approach - would seem to be less authoritarian. UKIP - I'm not sure. Farage seems to me to be very much a free-marketeer yet other things he says seem to put him firmly into the authoritarian group.
-
O, I'd put Labour firmly in the authoritarian segment, since they want the state to oversee most things. Tory would - with their free enterprise, free market approach - would seem to be less authoritarian. UKIP - I'm not sure. Farage seems to me to be very much a free-marketeer yet other things he says seem to put him firmly into the authoritarian group.
It's not about market control - that's the conventional right/left economic measurement - it's about social freedom: freedom from state security monitoring, freedom from religion in schooling, equal marriage rights, access to legal aid, clear delineation in the law between the judiciary and parliament, and between upper and lower houses, democratic election of representatives, universal suffrage...
O.
-
Doesn't matter who wins we are not seeing a Labour govt for 10 years unless the Tories split on Europe. The reduction in seats and boundary changes will guarantee that.
Potentially it could be worse than that. The only reason Labour became electable again after their last debacle was because the much hated Blair managed to 'trick' them into putting socialism on the back-burner and becoming the more pragmatic New Labour.
I suspect that the Hard Left won't fall for that again, so they might be in for a very long period in the wilderness.
-
What is the problem exactly?
People in a party discuss between themselves what their policies are and elect leaders. At election time these policies and leaders are put to the nation. If the electorate is persuaded that the set of policies are what they want they will vote the party in to power.
What use is getting into power on a mandate that doesn't include the policies that you joined the party to support?
-
What is the problem exactly?
Loath him or hate him, you've got to give Blair credit for one thing - he made Labour electable.
The Corbynites are Hell-bent on achieving the opposite.
-
What is the problem exactly?
Loath him or hate him, you've got to give Blair credit for one thing - he made Labour electable.
The Corbynites are Hell-bent on achieving the opposite.
But Blair's approach may in the long run be responsible for the problem that now exists. Having triangulated, the Tories responded by triangulating back. Labour now has no real point.
-
It is, UKIP are pretty much between Labour and Tory economically, whilst Lib Dems are left of both and Greens still further left.
UKIP and Tory are fairly authoritarian, though - typically considered right-wing as they've often gone hand in hand - with Labour fairly central on that score and the Greens and Lib Dems fairly libertarian.
politicalcompass.org tracks that sort of thing quite well.
Doesn't confirm what you have written.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015
-
What is the problem exactly?
Loath him or hate him, you've got to give Blair credit for one thing - he made Labour electable.
The Corbynites are Hell-bent on achieving the opposite.
But Blair's approach may in the long run be responsible for the problem that now exists. Having triangulated, the Tories responded by triangulating back. Labour now has no real point.
I have no wish to play-down Blair's mistakes but his over-all approach was really the only one that can work. In a democracy you can't force Socialism down peoples throats.
-
What is the problem exactly?
Loath him or hate him, you've got to give Blair credit for one thing - he made Labour electable.
The Corbynites are Hell-bent on achieving the opposite.
But Blair's approach may in the long run be responsible for the problem that now exists. Having triangulated, the Tories responded by triangulating back. Labour now has no real point.
Yes, I think some Labour members are seeing this rather starkly. Blair turned Labour into Tory-lite, which is fine if you like Tory policies.
But a separate Nu Labour Party - I can't see the point. Burnham, Cooper and so on are fine if you want someone who will not oppose benefit cuts and so on.
Blair is now writing hysterical articles in the Guardian, as he sees his 'legacy' slipping away. Of course, another legacy is Iraq - hmm, plenty of neo-liberalism going on there, Tone.
Every article like this is another nail in the Blairite coffin, I think, so they are all getting their panties in a right knot - sit back and enjoy, I think.
-
Every article like this is another nail in the Blairite coffin, I think, so they are all getting their panties in a right knot - sit back and enjoy, I think.
Unfortunately those celebrations are likely to be short-lived because Labour has no other viable option.
-
Well, as NS has said several times, there is no point to Labour. I suppose some people want the illusion of opposing the Tories, but it is pretty flimsy now.
-
Then it's R.I.P. Labour
-
Why don't they just work on a suitable set of policies, ie ones that will all add up to practical and efficient economy and public services, then choose the best salesperson - once they know what they are going for?
-
Why don't they just work on a suitable set of policies, ie ones that will all add up to practical and efficient economy and public services, then choose the best salesperson - once they know what they are going for?
Yes, but Nu Labour are hypnotized by neo-liberalism, so they cannot think outside that. Hence, 'we'd do what Osborne is doing, but we'd pay a living wage of 2p more per week, and we'd cut benefits by 0.01% less, and we'd be tougher on foreigners, and we'd keep Clacton white for ever, and we'd bomb Syria next week, not this week.' Go, go, go.
-
I've not heard his reasoning - it could be that he wants to keep the Sinn Fein MPs on-side in an attempt to bring them back into the parliamentary fold, it may be that he sees no benefit in raking over old coals at a time when many in the region are attempting to move beyond the history.
This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush. I wonder how many people are aware of his sympathies in this regard? I wonder how many have ever bothered to find out any of his political stances, and not just his leadership hype. In an interview on Channel 4 last month he said, "I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in Parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends."
Is this the man we want to have influence over our dealings with murderous terrorists?
-
Why don't they just work on a suitable set of policies, ie ones that will all add up to practical and efficient economy and public services, then choose the best salesperson - once they know what they are going for?
Comrade, its because they have rabid leftists who label any shift to the right as neo-liberalism. :)
-
Good King Tony also talked about there having to be a sea change in the political mood of the country.
Given that the polls were wrong because a section of the electorate were serpentine about how they would vote and that section turned out to be Shy Tory one must wonder if the hundreds of thousands who have joined Labour are Tories motivated to take direct action by malicious voting in the labour leadership election.
If that is so we've not yet reached the high water level in support
for the Conservatives and the sea change isn't happening.
The Tories though I think are depending on big swathes just to slink off into the night...I don't know if they can have that as well as a fairly secret army of Shy but very active Tories.
-
Given that the polls were wrong because a section of the electorate were serpentine about how they would vote and that section turned out to be Shy Tory one must wonder if the hundreds of thousands who have joined Labour are Tories motivated to take direct action by malicious voting in the labour leadership election.
Since at least some of the problem was Labour voters choosing to support the SNP or UKIP I find this persistent 'Shy Tory' story somewhat pathetic. Perhaps it is no more about shy Tories as shy ex-Labour voters.
It is interesting that the number eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election has risen from ~200K to just over 600K since the election was announced. I wonder how many of that increase are people who would have voted Labour in the past but voted SNP/UKIP/Tory/Lib Dem or one of the other, smaller left wing parties in 2010 and/or 2015.
How many are paid-up members of one of the other parties, including but not exclusively Tory, who think that by messing the Labour Party up their party has a bigger chance of having influence, both in the current Parliament and following the 2020 General Election.
On a slightly different tack, a past Director of Communications for the Labour Party - interviewd on BBC Breakfast - said that he doesn't envisage any current Labour MPs defecting to the Lib-Dems should Corbyn win the election. However, could we see an SDP-style split such that we end up with two 'Labour Parties' on ballot papers?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024
There would be an end to austerity, higher taxes for the rich and protection for people on welfare. The Bank of England would be allowed to print money - People's Quantitative Easing - for "new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects". Mr Corbyn says this would create "a million skilled jobs and genuine apprenticeships" with knock-on boosts for the supply chain.
It's sounds idyllic its a pity that many of these policies don't work in reality.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024
There would be an end to austerity, higher taxes for the rich and protection for people on welfare. The Bank of England would be allowed to print money - People's Quantitative Easing - for "new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects". Mr Corbyn says this would create "a million skilled jobs and genuine apprenticeships" with knock-on boosts for the supply chain.
It's sounds idyllic its a pity that many of these policies don't work in reality.
I wonder how Coirbyn would defibne 'genuine apprenticeships'? Is he saying that the thousands of apprenticeships run by the likes of IBM, Rover, and other large companies aren't genuine?
-
Given that the polls were wrong because a section of the electorate were serpentine about how they would vote and that section turned out to be Shy Tory one must wonder if the hundreds of thousands who have joined Labour are Tories motivated to take direct action by malicious voting in the labour leadership election.
Since at least some of the problem was Labour voters choosing to support the SNP or UKIP I find this persistent 'Shy Tory' story somewhat pathetic. Perhaps it is no more about shy Tories as shy ex-Labour voters.
It is interesting that the number eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election has risen from ~200K to just over 600K since the election was announced. I wonder how many of that increase are people who would have voted Labour in the past but voted SNP/UKIP/Tory/Lib Dem or one of the other, smaller left wing parties in 2010 and/or 2015.
How many are paid-up members of one of the other parties, including but not exclusively Tory, who think that by messing the Labour Party up their party has a bigger chance of having influence, both in the current Parliament and following the 2020 General Election.
On a slightly different tack, a past Director of Communications for the Labour Party - interviewd on BBC Breakfast - said that he doesn't envisage any current Labour MPs defecting to the Lib-Dems should Corbyn win the election. However, could we see an SDP-style split such that we end up with two 'Labour Parties' on ballot papers?
Do you deny the serpentine behaviour of Shy Tories at the pre election polls and it's political significance?
If you are saying that Labour voters voting or abstaining like twats at the last election are suddenly becoming active labour people then that is not so good news for the tories I would have thought.
If you look at the polls now (presumably now more scientific) the tories are increasing their support. Even factoring in the suspension of tactical voting in the 2015 election that still leaves a massive block of Shy Tories prepared to use serpentine means to put the boot into labour. There is IMHO an obvious motivation for such activity....they don't want new homes built and are pulling up the ladder......just a hunch.
In terms of the creation of a third big party (Not sure about UKIP now) that's just things settling into equilibrium with the immediate reappearance of social democracy after a temporary extinguishing with the end of tactical voting in 2015.
-
Do you deny the serpentine behaviour of Shy Tories at the pre election polls and it's political significance?
Evidence that there was even such a phenomenon prior to the election in May, please?
-
In terms of the creation of a third big party (Not sure about UKIP now) that's just things settling into equilibrium with the immediate reappearance of social democracy after a temporary extinguishing with the end of tactical voting in 2015.
What makes you think that there would be two 'big parties' rather than one if Labour were to split?
-
Do you deny the serpentine behaviour of Shy Tories at the pre election polls and it's political significance?
Evidence that there was even such a phenomenon prior to the election in May, please?
The polls suggested it was neck and neck.
The conservatives won the election.
-
Do you deny the serpentine behaviour of Shy Tories at the pre election polls and it's political significance?
Evidence that there was even such a phenomenon prior to the election in May, please?
The polls suggested it was neck and neck.
The conservatives won the election.
I think there a number of factors that helped Cameron to get in:
Miliband himself - not a natural leader and only there because of the union block vote.
Nicola Sturgeon - played the part of Bogeyman (or should that be bogeyperson) perfectly when she described how she was going to dictate her agenda to a Labour government.
Liam Byrne - he left that wonderful letter (so cherished by Cameron) effectively admitting that Labour has screwed things-up.
-
Watched Yvette Cooper last night on Newsnight. Wow, she was poor. A few random ideas, and burbling on about middle-aged white men in charge of the utilities - eh? She also had the look of someone who knows they have lost.
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I notice also the Guardian slamming into Corbyn every day, sounding like the Wail, printing hysterical articles by Blair.
At least, Corbyn has put the wind up various people, and it's entertaining to watch their reactions. But Cooper, Burnham and Kendall remind me of sixth formers on an awayday, they just look immature in their politics and their reactions. Labour is well and truly bankrupt.
-
Do you deny the serpentine behaviour of Shy Tories at the pre election polls and it's political significance?
Evidence that there was even such a phenomenon prior to the election in May, please?
The polls suggested it was neck and neck.
The conservatives won the election.
I think there a number of factors that helped Cameron to get in:
Miliband himself - not a natural leader and only there because of the union block vote.
Nicola Sturgeon - played the part of Bogeyman (or should that be bogeyperson) perfectly when she described how she was going to dictate her agenda to a Labour government.
Liam Byrne - he left that wonderful letter (so cherished by Cameron) effectively admitting that Labour has screwed things-up.
Yes I pointed out they did get in. But this isn't about that this is about the behaviour of Shy Tories who gave the impression they would vote for labour and then voted tory.
There is at the present time another opportunity to look like your labour but are in fact anti labour.......and a whole swathe of the serpentine we know are prepared to do this.
I'm quite prepared to factor in a bit of English nationalism into Shy Toryism.
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
Well, I suppose some people are corrupt enough to do that.
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
Yes, serpentine behaviour would fit their profile :)
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
Well, I suppose some people are corrupt enough to do that.
Well Labour have effectively left a bit of an 'open goal' - what do they expect?
-
. . . but doesn't it tell you something that the Tories want Corbyn to lead Labour ?
-
. . . but doesn't it tell you something that the Tories want Corbyn to lead Labour ?
It tells me what they might think, it doesn't necessarily mean they are right to think it, and I think they may be wrong.
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
But as a by product you will actually have politically motivated a section of people who have been wagged, ragged and shagged by Toryism for the past few years.
-
Dear Politically Bewildered,
Dare I ask, oh I dare! Will Mr Corbyn work with the SNP, has he been asked this question, has our Nicola voiced an opinion, does it matter.
Gonnagle.
-
Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.
-
Dear Politically Bewildered,
Dare I ask, oh I dare! Will Mr Corbyn work with the SNP, has he been asked this question, has our Nicola voiced an opinion, does it matter.
Gonnagle.
The indications from Corbyn is that he will, certainly he won't abstain to help the govt.
I think Nicola is wisely staying out of it.
-
Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.
Given what has happened to the Labour Party since Blair got his hands on it, that's precisely where it deserves to be.
-
Dear Politically Bewildered,
Dare I ask, oh I dare! Will Mr Corbyn work with the SNP, has he been asked this question, has our Nicola voiced an opinion, does it matter.
Gonnagle.
The indications from Corbyn is that he will, certainly he won't abstain to help the govt.
I think Nicola is wisely staying out of it.
But saying things like that won't help him South of the border, quite the reverse.
-
Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.
Or save it dependent on one's viewpoint. Given that none of the candiadtes will do that in my opinion, the overdramatisation of Corbyn's effect is of questionable worth. The real problem they face now is that even should another candidate win, the mutterings from MPs like Simon Danczuk have created an atmosphere that almost guarantees some form of split.
-
But saying things like that won't help him South of the border, quite the reverse.
It depends - part of the reason the Tories profited from people not wanting an SNP/Lab coalition was Labour connived at the portrayal of the SNP as bogeypeople because of what was happening in Scotland.
The supine passivity of abstaining that Labour started after the election is a guarantee that no one will end up taking them as a credible opposition.
-
Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.
Or save it dependent on one's viewpoint. Given that none of the candiadtes will do that in my opinion, the overdramatisation of Corbyn's effect is of questionable worth. The real problem they face now is that Even should another candiadte win, the mutterings from MPs like Simon Danczuk have created an atmosphere that almost guarantees some form of split.
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable and probably cause a split.
That might not finish Labour forever, but it would be a long hard recovery.
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable
And they are electable now are they?
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable
And they are electable now are they?
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable
And they are electable now are they?
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
Their electability would then surely have to depend on the Tories being voted out rather than labour voted in.
How would that happen given the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Gid and Dave?
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
I must admit none of them seem that impressive, but it's difficult to judge. Sometimes people can grow into a leadership role (though not Miliband obviously)
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
But Corbyn does seem to. Supposing that the new labour membership is not all Serpentine Shy Tory. That a few hundred thousand HAVE been motivated to become active politically. Then that would certainly spell some kind of attraction by Corbyn and some kind of charisma...again. That only holds true of course of the new labour members aren't in fact Tories.
If Corbyn is getting members the job of the next labour leader will be to hang onto and maintain the genuine membership. Who to quote Cam will be ''pumped''. After all Jeremy could quite easily only remain for a couple of years and then retire with honour leaving the leadership to someone less alarming.
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable and probably cause a split.
That might not finish Labour forever, but it would be a long hard recovery.
It isn't and never was going to win next time unless the Tories split. I disagree that it's a simple equation to say Corbyn would make it uneleable - I think it would be possible in certain conditions as I don't think the position that a left party cannot win is that clear. I think his election will cause a split, but in part due to the behaviour of some opposing him, I think the election of anyone will cause a split.
In one sense the election itself is a mere symptom of the problem and whoever is elected is a footnote in history
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable
And they are electable now are they?
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
Their electability would then surely have to depend on the Tories being voted out rather than labour voted in.
How would that happen given the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Gid and Dave?
The way British politics tends to work Vlad, is that the opposition tries to appear as a credible alternative to the Government. When a government screw-up, it is a golden opportunity for the opposition to tell everyone how they would have done things better. When it comes to an election the electorate make a judgement on who is going to govern next.
However - if the opposition consists of a disorganised rabble totally out of touch with the real world - then the government can get-away with all kinds of mistakes - and remain in power.
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable
And they are electable now are they?
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
Their electability would then surely have to depend on the Tories being voted out rather than labour voted in.
How would that happen given the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Gid and Dave?
The way British politics tends to work Vlad, is that the opposition tries to appear as a credible alternative to the Government. When a government screw-up, it is a golden opportunity for the opposition to tell everyone how they would have done things better. When it comes to an election the electorate make a judgement on who is going to govern next.
However - if the opposition consists of a disorganised rabble totally out of touch with the real world - then the government can get-away with all kinds of mistakes - and remain in power.
That ignores the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Conservative mistakes, lapsed.
I don't recall Tony Blair being voted in as much as the Tories voted out because they were cyclically past their sell by date.
Hats off to Gid that he changed the perception of the real world circa 2010 when there was a bit of a recovery going on and people were used to a fairly decent lifestyle to a real world where Darwinian factors are very much in play and the only bit of quasi assurance of work is to accept a pay cut.
Unfortunately, Yer English voter now ''knows their place.''
-
It isn't and never was going to win next time unless the Tories split. I disagree that it's a simple equation to say Corbyn would make it uneleable - I think it would be possible in certain conditions as I don't think the position that a left party cannot win is that clear.
A Tory split is always a possibility, especially with the EU referendum on the horizon, but Labour need to be ready to exploit such an opportunity. If they are fighting amongst themselves, they can't do that.
I think his election will cause a split, but in part due to the behaviour of some opposing him, I think the election of anyone will cause a split.
But those who oppose Corbyn have their own vision of where the party needs to go and have every right to pursue it - and many would say it's the only way forward for the party.
-
That only holds true of course of the new labour members aren't in fact Tories.
And we know from several sources that they aren't. Many are coming from left of Labour - and others are coming from other left of centre perspectives.
-
That ignores the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Conservative mistakes, lapsed.
And they got away with them because the opposition at the time were a disorganised bunch of idiots.
-
Some wags are saying that Labour are upset that hundreds of thousands of new members have come along, and some of them are young, energetic, and full of ideas. Well, we can't have that!
I suspect that a closer analysis might reveal that at lease a portion of these people are actually Tories :)
Yes, serpentine behaviour would fit their profile :)
This is the mindset that will destroy Labour, I have voted Tory in the past not because I'm an evil but because I thought they had better policies I've also voted Labour as well.
Labour to win has to appeal to the middle ground.
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
I quite like JC he comes across as a nice man and has charisma in his own way, his policies whilst being well intentioned I think will do a lot of harm.
-
That ignores the almost bottomless stock of forgiveness for Conservative mistakes, lapsed.
And they got away with them because the opposition at the time were a disorganised bunch of idiots.
No, it's to do with the english political cycle since errors are cumulative and can be remembered and resurrected. Let's not forget ''Dave and Sue'' have a pride mistaken for wisdom of running with something until it's turdity becomes arseclenchingly obvious.
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
I quite like JC he comes across as a nice man and has charisma in his own way, his policies whilst being well intentioned I think will do a lot of harm.
"This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush. I wonder how many people are aware of his sympathies in this regard? I wonder how many have ever bothered to find out any of his political stances, and not just his leadership hype. In an interview on Channel 4 last month he said, "I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in Parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends."
Is this the man we want to have influence over our dealings with murderous terrorist."
Not so nice, perhaps!
-
"This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush. I wonder how many people are aware of his sympathies in this regard? I wonder how many have ever bothered to find out any of his political stances, and not just his leadership hype. In an interview on Channel 4 last month he said, "I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in Parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends."
Is this the man we want to have influence over our dealings with murderous terrorist."
Not so nice, perhaps!
I've not seen him comment on the IRA situation, so anything I add will be conjecture.
His commentary on Hezbollah and Hamas is as I suspected it would be. He disagrees with their methods - openly - but rightly suggests that unless all sides are talking there will never be a peace.
Whether he thinks in a similar fashion of the IRA situation who knows, but perhaps he was merely ahead of his time. People openly stand with the likes of Gerry Adams these days, and whilst there are occasional splinter groups making problems for people, in general the peace is holding.
Do I want someone who is willing to talk to hostile forces rather than either bombing them or sending weapons to unstable regimes so that they can bomb people for us in the hope they'll forget how to use them when it comes to bombing our allies or civilians... you know what, yes, I think that is the sort of person I'd like in control.
Is he good enough in the other areas... that's questionable.
O.
O.
-
It isn't and never was going to win next time unless the Tories split. I disagree that it's a simple equation to say Corbyn would make it uneleable - I think it would be possible in certain conditions as I don't think the position that a left party cannot win is that clear.
A Tory split is always a possibility, especially with the EU referendum on the horizon, but Labour need to be ready to exploit such an opportunity. If they are fighting amongst themselves, they can't do that.
I think his election will cause a split, but in part due to the behaviour of some opposing him, I think the election of anyone will cause a split.
But those who oppose Corbyn have their own vision of where the party needs to go and have every right to pursue it - and many would say it's the only way forward for the party.
I'm not so sure I'd call it a vision but that's not really the point here - it has been those opposing Corbyn who have been acting as if he and his supporters have no right to pursue their vision, and I think that will cause problems.
-
A Tory split is always a possibility, especially with the EU referendum on the horizon, but Labour need to be ready to exploit such an opportunity. If they are fighting amongst themselves, they can't do that.
I doubt whether there will be a Tory 'split'. There may be defections to UKIP, but I doubt that we will end up with two parties claiming to be the 'real' Tory party.
-
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
But Corbyn does seem to. Supposing that the new labour membership is not all Serpentine Shy Tory. That a few hundred thousand HAVE been motivated to become active politically. Then that would certainly spell some kind of attraction by Corbyn and some kind of charisma...again. That only holds true of course of the new labour members aren't in fact Tories.
If Corbyn is getting members the job of the next labour leader will be to hang onto and maintain the genuine membership. Who to quote Cam will be ''pumped''. After all Jeremy could quite easily only remain for a couple of years and then retire with honour leaving the leadership to someone less alarming.
They are at a cross-roads, potentially they could become electable or they could go with Corbyn.
I can't see it to be honest. None of the current crop of candidates seems to have the charisma to lead a political party.
I quite like JC he comes across as a nice man and has charisma in his own way, his policies whilst being well intentioned I think will do a lot of harm.
That's a possibility.
If he goes for a traditional doctrinaire lefty approach chasing old problems as Kendall seems to be suggesting. Yes.
If he can be the Salmond/Sturgeon of England, and convince that the real end of the Conservative Agenda is a return to the thirties, with the UK as a kind of Disneyland for international capitalists, with similar politics and motivational skill then he will be offering an alternative.
-
"This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush. I wonder how many people are aware of his sympathies in this regard? I wonder how many have ever bothered to find out any of his political stances, and not just his leadership hype. In an interview on Channel 4 last month he said, "I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in Parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends."
Is this the man we want to have influence over our dealings with murderous terrorist."
Not so nice, perhaps!
I've not seen him comment on the IRA situation, so anything I add will be conjecture.
His commentary on Hezbollah and Hamas is as I suspected it would be. He disagrees with their methods - openly - but rightly suggests that unless all sides are talking there will never be a peace.
Whether he thinks in a similar fashion of the IRA situation who knows, but perhaps he was merely ahead of his time. People openly stand with the likes of Gerry Adams these days, and whilst there are occasional splinter groups making problems for people, in general the peace is holding.
Do I want someone who is willing to talk to hostile forces rather than either bombing them or sending weapons to unstable regimes so that they can bomb people for us in the hope they'll forget how to use them when it comes to bombing our allies or civilians... you know what, yes, I think that is the sort of person I'd like in control.
Is he good enough in the other areas... that's questionable.
O.
O.
I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.
-
Dear Outrider,
Good post, an openness to talk, communication, I will remind our Bashers that he is a student of the New Testament, we have given up, eye for an eye.
Gonnagle.
-
Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable and probably cause a split.
That might not finish Labour forever, but it would be a long hard recovery.
It isn't and never was going to win next time unless the Tories split. I disagree that it's a simple equation to say Corbyn would make it uneleable - I think it would be possible in certain conditions as I don't think the position that a left party cannot win is that clear. I think his election will cause a split, but in part due to the behaviour of some opposing him, I think the election of anyone will cause a split.
In one sense the election itself is a mere symptom of the problem and whoever is elected is a footnote in history
Yes, I think Corbyn is an accidental figure, who is acting as a catalyst for the 'conversation' which is necessary for Labour. Every political party, which has been in power a long time, and then loses, has a nervous breakdown, but this can also lead to new ideas. The Blairites look about as capable of this as a tank full of goldfish, but then they are mourning their philosopher king, (sarcasm smilie). I think a lot of them will drift away.
I do think that Labour under Cooper or Burnham would be turgid and deeply tedious, because Blairism is a spent force. Whether or not Labour can become interesting and electable, and find a new synthesis of ideas - dunno. At least, Corbyn has sparked some interest, I was watching them all with my wife, and she (not left-wing at all), said 'obviously, he is the one with some cojones and a certain degree of articulate charisma'. So it goes. But I doubt he will be the leader in five years. Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter.
-
I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.
Of course we need to be careful, but ultimately what are the other options? For all that we disagree on many things, BA, you don't strike me as a 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' kind of person. If we don't talk to people then we've already failed, whether you think we've failed a god/Jesus or just ourselves.
They're hell-bent on a war of annihilation, it seems - we can either endanger everybody by accepting that or we can try to be something better.
O.
-
I think talks have gone on with the Taliban at different times. It's possible that eventually the West will talk with one faction of Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, if it might lead to a truce. In fact, it did/does happen with various Shia militias, to encourage them to join with Sunni tribes against IS. It also happens with Sunni tribes who currently support IS, to pull them away. I think the US also used to give them a lot of money. 'They are bastards but they're our bastards'.
-
I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.
Of course we need to be careful, but ultimately what are the other options? For all that we disagree on many things, BA, you don't strike me as a 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' kind of person. If we don't talk to people then we've already failed, whether you think we've failed a god/Jesus or just ourselves.
They're hell-bent on a war of annihilation, it seems - we can either endanger everybody by accepting that or we can try to be something better.
O.
We have to be realistic. Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him? You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers. Isis are something else: they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal: there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit. It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture. So, what do you talk about?
-
so let me get this straight, Lapsed.....The list of Prime ministers of Great Britain 1945-2025 is as follows.
WS Churchill
A Eden
H MacMillan
A Douglas Home
M Thatcher
J Major
D Cameron
G Osborne ( Prime Minister Emeritus )
with C.Atlee, H Wilson, E Heath, J Callaghan, A Blair also resident at No 10 in an unknown capacity during that period.
-
so let me get this straight, Lapsed.....The list of Prime ministers of Great Britain 1945-2025 is as follows.
Can't find a Lapsed post that this could possibly be in response to!!
-
We have to be realistic. Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him? You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers. Isis are something else: they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal: there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit. It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture. So, what do you talk about?
Except that, of course, they aren't committing sins, they are doing gods work, just as Hitler was. Nothing scares us so much as devoted nutters, I know. How do we defeat them?
We either get drawn into the long, protracted barbarism of wars and skirmishes that they want, which guarantees that they have generation after generation of recruits who see themselves as victims. Or we can make a show of talking to them, make a show of being the 'purveyors of peace' whilst showing them a culture that isn't barbaric, cruel, degrading, regressive, repressive and demoralising.
We won't win a shooting war against a Jihad unless we commit genocide, but if we fight with free speech, burger bars, Hollywood films, emancipation, equal rights, universal education and modern amenities then support for the nutters will remain a fringe.
There will always be idiots, responding to them with idiocy only fuels the fire, justifies their idiocy and gives them the means to recruit more ignorant people to their savagery.
Yes we have to be alert, there are lines to draw in the sand, but once they are pushed back over the line you have to put the sword down and pick up the pen or you are no better than they.
O.
-
We have to be realistic. Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him? You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers. Isis are something else: they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal: there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit. It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture. So, what do you talk about?
Except that, of course, they aren't committing sins, they are doing gods work, just as Hitler was. Nothing scares us so much as devoted nutters, I know. How do we defeat them?
We either get drawn into the long, protracted barbarism of wars and skirmishes that they want, which guarantees that they have generation after generation of recruits who see themselves as victims. Or we can make a show of talking to them, make a show of being the 'purveyors of peace' whilst showing them a culture that isn't barbaric, cruel, degrading, regressive, repressive and demoralising.
We won't win a shooting war against a Jihad unless we commit genocide, but if we fight with free speech, burger bars, Hollywood films, emancipation, equal rights, universal education and modern amenities then support for the nutters will remain a fringe.
There will always be idiots, responding to them with idiocy only fuels the fire, justifies their idiocy and gives them the means to recruit more ignorant people to their savagery.
Yes we have to be alert, there are lines to draw in the sand, but once they are pushed back over the line you have to put the sword down and pick up the pen or you are no better than they.
O.
Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work: he was doing his work. How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?
Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about? Do you not look at the news? We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level. To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive. Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it? You need to join the real world. Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.
-
Picking up on the discussion on whether there is enough of a left vote to win , I see that UKIP are being counted here as 'right' . I would suggest that this isn't really that true. A lot of the UKIP voters are people who used to vote Labour. Even if we take Jack Knave, our own resident Kipper, much of what he espouses is what would be regarded as left wing, particularly in regards to business. The whole left right thing is an overdone simplicity.
Wow, you really do read my posts!!!!
The thing is the Neo-Liberal project is about an elite running the rest of us and that is what Soviet Russia was about. It doesn't work because there are far less people inputting into the system, creating fewer ideas, and those that have control have been brainwashed into their sterile ways because of their success in taking power. It's natural selection in human affairs.
I agree the left/right thing has been turned on its head. They may say Corbyn is yesteryear but what goes around comes around and by 2020, with a few modern adjustments, he could be in vogue again.
-
As for UKIP votees, my guess is that about the same number of them would support nationalisation as Labour voters
UKIP has attracted people from the left into their party and some of the spats are due to this. Patrick O'Flynn is more left and he has had some of Farage's dragon breath sent his way.
I'm for some form of renationalization because privatization has been a con by the elites to get rich of the people.
-
UKIP and Tory are fairly authoritarian, though - typically considered right-wing as they've often gone hand in hand - with Labour fairly central on that score and the Greens and Lib Dems fairly libertarian.
politicalcompass.org tracks that sort of thing quite well.
O.
O, I'd put Labour firmly in the authoritarian segment, since they want the state to oversee most things. Tory would - with their free enterprise, free market approach - would seem to be less authoritarian. UKIP - I'm not sure. Farage seems to me to be very much a free-marketeer yet other things he says seem to put him firmly into the authoritarian group.
The Tories are also authoritarian but in a Neo-Liberal way as the EU is, that is, by stealth by gradually taking the wealth and controlling the people over generations so they don't really see it and just accept what they are born into. Keeping them happy the way adults keep children happy by just supplying enough sweets to shut them up.
Difficult to say where UKIP is on this as there is an internal struggle going on, if not actively as such but definitely in ideas. Basically it is still forming its final 'shape'.
-
Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.
Or save it dependent on one's viewpoint. Given that none of the candiadtes will do that in my opinion, the overdramatisation of Corbyn's effect is of questionable worth. The real problem they face now is that even should another candidate win, the mutterings from MPs like Simon Danczuk have created an atmosphere that almost guarantees some form of split.
People have been asking, here, what Labour are for? I don't think the party members and MPs know the answer to this - they are a ship without a rudder. And it will be this void of ideas, vision and purpose that will cause them to fall apart as they flap about as fishes on a beach - the realization that at their centre is a vacuous black hole and they will be blown away in a political supernova.
-
People have been asking, here, what Labour are for?
Seem to remeber seeing a very interesting article (Spectator? New Statesman?) questioning whether Labour actually works when it 'policies' itself out of existence? In other words, when it lifts people out of poverty, ensures that everyone has workplace and other representation, enacts business-related policies that ensure far wages, pensions, equality of aspiration, etc., does it then mean that those 'workers' then begin to look beyond them to other parties that they feel can better deliver their 'improved/heightened' aspirations?
-
Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work: he was doing his work. How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?
In the absence of any reliable test of who's interpretation of scripture is 'right', any work done genuinely in the belief that it's Holy is 'god's work' - they're indistinguishable. Hitler believed his cause was God's work, in his own words. The majority Catholic German populace went along with it. It might not be your take on what a god wants, but until and unless god makes it clear, Christianity is simply the sum total of the work done by people pertaining to be Christians because of their religious affiliation.
Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about? Do you not look at the news? We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level. To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive. Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it? You need to join the real world. Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.
How do we find out who to talk to unless we make the offer? How do we let anyone in the organisations know that we're willing to talk? How do we encourage the more diplomatically minded?
If we shoot them and wait for them to offer dialogue, and they shoot us and wait for us to offer dialogue, how does conversation break out over the sound of bullets?
Yes, I look at the news, I see the horrors, I see the abrogation of humanity that fervent religion can bring to the world. Shooting religious people makes them martyrs and their followers more religious, because religion has no foundation in reason or logic. Talking to them, though, educating them, being seen to be better... Revenge is easy, hate is simple, but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves a world of half-blind people fighting each other for access to the soup.
O.
-
Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work: he was doing his work. How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?
In the absence of any reliable test of who's interpretation of scripture is 'right', any work done genuinely in the belief that it's Holy is 'god's work' - they're indistinguishable. Hitler believed his cause was God's work, in his own words. The majority Catholic German populace went along with it. It might not be your take on what a god wants, but until and unless god makes it clear, Christianity is simply the sum total of the work done by people pertaining to be Christians because of their religious affiliation.
Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about? Do you not look at the news? We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level. To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive. Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it? You need to join the real world. Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.
How do we find out who to talk to unless we make the offer? How do we let anyone in the organisations know that we're willing to talk? How do we encourage the more diplomatically minded?
If we shoot them and wait for them to offer dialogue, and they shoot us and wait for us to offer dialogue, how does conversation break out over the sound of bullets?
Yes, I look at the news, I see the horrors, I see the abrogation of humanity that fervent religion can bring to the world. Shooting religious people makes them martyrs and their followers more religious, because religion has no foundation in reason or logic. Talking to them, though, educating them, being seen to be better... Revenge is easy, hate is simple, but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves a world of half-blind people fighting each other for access to the soup.
O.
The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up. Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.
-
The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up. Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.
If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.
Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.
I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.
O.
-
The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up. Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.
If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.
Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.
I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.
O.
There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends. Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.
-
The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up. Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.
If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.
Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.
I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.
O.
There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends. Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.
He was a Christian of some stripe as I understand it.
Of course he did not kill anywhere near as many people as your God.
-
I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
-
Dear Rhiannon,
What!!! Kill another atheist argument. :o
Visions of little atheists sitting on the sidelines, once we were heroes. :P
Gonnagle.
-
I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Depends what you mean put it to bed.
He was a Christian of sorts and had links with Catholicism.
That's all there is to it really.
I understand why Christians want to chuck him out of the club, but that's not up to them.
-
He tried to annihilate Catholicsm. Is that what you mean by a link? Or are you saying that anyone born to a Christian faith remains a Christian even if they don't believe any of it?
I don't much care what Christians think about Hitler. Historians don't think there is any basis for the 'Hitler was a Christian' position though. Sure, he knew how to play the Christian card to gain influence, but that doesn't make him a believer and there's plenty of evidence just in the wiki link I gave earlier to the contrary.
-
http://news.sky.com/story/1536004/voters-more-likely-to-choose-corbyn-led-labour
-
Dear Sane,
Could be a title for another thread but I find Cooper criticising Corbyn over the question, does he want to be Prime Minister.
Who would not hesitate when asked that question.
Gonnagle.
-
I reckon Corbyn is Labour's only hope in Scotland. If they elect another right-wing Blairite, Scotland is gone for ever.
I see that the Broon is delivering a speech today, criticizing Corbyn. Presumably, it will be another booming speech such as the one which saved Scotland for Labour during the referendum debate. Oh hang on, I think I got that exactly wrong.
-
I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Depends what you mean put it to bed.
He was a Christian of sorts and had links with Catholicism.
That's all there is to it really.
I understand why Christians want to chuck him out of the club, but that's not up to them.
You apparently have no grasp of history or appreciation of what Hitler was about. I pointed out a fact to you that Hitler's moving motivation was to destroy the Jews, who are "God's Chosen People," according to the Bible," which I note you conveniently ignored. Perhaps you would like to address it now, and put some meat on your belief that Hitler was a Christian. Can you pass the test?
-
I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Depends what you mean put it to bed.
He was a Christian of sorts and had links with Catholicism.
That's all there is to it really.
I understand why Christians want to chuck him out of the club, but that's not up to them.
You apparently have no grasp of history or appreciation of what Hitler was about. I pointed out a fact to you that Hitler's moving motivation was to destroy the Jews, who are "God's Chosen People," according to the Bible," which I note you conveniently ignored. Perhaps you would like to address it now, and put some meat on your belief that Hitler was a Christian. Can you pass the test?
Yes easily.
He declared himself one.
Who are you to judge?
Your God killed everyone bar some he liked (and others that also just happened to have boats).
So your God is also guilt of culling his chosen people.
With love of course!
http://tinyurl.com/pprj23c
Edited to replace long URL.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has apparently called for renationalisation of certain areas of industries - the old Clause 4.
Do you agree? If so, which areas would you like to see re-nationalised?
Yes, the 1970s were great, let's head on back there!
-
Depends what you mean put it to bed.
He was a Christian of sorts and had links with Catholicism.
You haven't managed to answer the question that Rhi has asked you, so perhaps if we break it down into manageable bites, you'll find it easier to answer.
1) What do you mean by "He was a Christian of sorts"
2) What do you mean by "and had links with Catholicism"
3) What's "all there is to it really"?
I understand why Christians want to chuck him out of the club, but that's not up to them.
Is it up to you to decide who is a Christian, then? Surely that's God's prerogative?
-
There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends. Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.
Hitler was, without a shadow of a doubt, barking. However, you'll recall that I fail to see how anyone can accept the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Fairy Tales as a true story can claim to be playing with a full bag of marbles...
You having a different understanding of the purported words and deeds of Jesus is irrelevant: if his religion inspired his actions, and if the religious sentiment of the German people that followed him motivated theirs, then it was a Christian act, given that they were Christians.
You might not like what they did for Jesus, but you aren't the arbiter of what's 'true' Christianity - until and unless you can explain why your version is definitively right. You can believe as much as you like, but they can believe just as strongly.
O.
-
There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends. Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.
Hitler was, without a shadow of a doubt, barking. However, you'll recall that I fail to see how anyone can accept the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Fairy Tales as a true story can claim to be playing with a full bag of marbles...
You having a different understanding of the purported words and deeds of Jesus is irrelevant: if his religion inspired his actions, and if the religious sentiment of the German people that followed him motivated theirs, then it was a Christian act, given that they were Christians.
You might not like what they did for Jesus, but you aren't the arbiter of what's 'true' Christianity - until and unless you can explain why your version is definitively right. You can believe as much as you like, but they can believe just as strongly.
O.
And those who thought it was Christian to fight him?, bearing in mind antitheists were allied to him initially?
-
1) What do you mean by "He was a Christian of sorts"
2) What do you mean by "and had links with Catholicism"
He was born into a Catholic family and was probably Christian in the same sense that most Europeans were i.e. more or less by default.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if his "relationship with God" changed significantly over the years such that, by the time of the war you wouldn't describe him as a Christian of any stripe.
These discussions amuse me because it seems it never occurs to anybody on either side that Hitler's religious beliefs could ever have changed over his life time.
-
There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends. Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.
Hitler was, without a shadow of a doubt, barking. However, you'll recall that I fail to see how anyone can accept the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Fairy Tales as a true story can claim to be playing with a full bag of marbles...
You having a different understanding of the purported words and deeds of Jesus is irrelevant: if his religion inspired his actions, and if the religious sentiment of the German people that followed him motivated theirs, then it was a Christian act, given that they were Christians.
You might not like what they did for Jesus, but you aren't the arbiter of what's 'true' Christianity - until and unless you can explain why your version is definitively right. You can believe as much as you like, but they can believe just as strongly.
O.
And those who thought it was Christian to fight him?, bearing in mind antitheists were allied to him initially?
What about them? If they were claiming motivation from their interpretation of Christianity then, yes, I'd say they were Christian too.
By antitheists I'm presuming you mean the Russians who were allied to him for a while, then turned on him, rather than the Catholic Italians who were allied to him for a while, or the Catholic Church which didn't see fit to excommunicate him...?
O.
-
... if his religion inspired his actions, ...
In view of his stated aim that he wanted to destroy not just the Catholic Church but the church as a whole (an aim that I believe was stated in private even before he became Chancellor) does it seem possible that whatever his religion was, it wasn't Christanity?
...and if the religious sentiment of the German people that followed him motivated theirs, then it was a Christian act, given that they were Christians.
One needs to remember that the majority of the German people were desperate for an economy that would allow them to live anything other than a hand-to-mouth life. When Hitler was first elected, it was on the basis of his improving the economy to allow this happen. By the time his real aims became public, the German people had been sucked into a cycle that would have been very difficult to escape from. So, their Christian 'sentiment' would have been to provide all with a better quality of life. Is there anything wrong with that? The fact that the outworking of that sentiment became corrupted by Hitler and his henchman, doesn't necessarily mean that others agreed or continued to agree with that corruption.
Hindsight is a truly valuable gift ;)
-
Dear Thread,
It was Bashers wot didit. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
... if his religion inspired his actions, ...
In view of his stated aim that he wanted to destroy not just the Catholic Church but the church as a whole (an aim that I believe was stated in private even before he became Chancellor) does it seem possible that whatever his religion was, it wasn't Christanity?
It's possible, yes, but then I recall that various Christian figures have, at various times, wanted to eradicate other Christian sects and denominations - that he wanted to eradicate Catholicism and the church structure in Germany doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted to eradicate Christianity, just that he wanted to destroy external control of it. In much the same way that Stalin wanted the church destroyed as much because it was an alternative power structure as because of an ideological dislike of religion (which was also an influence, I don't deny).
One needs to remeber that the majority of the German people were desperate for an economy that would allow them to live anything other than a hand-to-mouth life. When Hitler was first elected, it was on the basis of his improving the economy to allow this happen. By the time his real aims became public, the German people had been sucked into a cycle that would have been very difficult to escape from. So, their Christian 'sentiment' would have been to provide all with a better quality of life. Is there anything wrong with that? The fact that the outworking of that sentiment became corrupted by Hitler and his henchman, doesn't necessarily mean that others agreed or continued to agree with that corruption.
Hitler didn't man the gas-chambers on his own. He and his cosy inner circle didn't build them, stock them, resupply them... It's a complex set of circumstances, it would be unrealistic to claim to suggest that 'good men would simply have said no' because they good men would almost certainly have just ended up dead, I appreciate.
When Hitler's 'true agenda' came out, though, there were still elections happening, and he was still elected in them...
O.
-
People have been asking, here, what Labour are for?
Seem to remeber seeing a very interesting article (Spectator? New Statesman?) questioning whether Labour actually works when it 'policies' itself out of existence? In other words, when it lifts people out of poverty, ensures that everyone has workplace and other representation, enacts business-related policies that ensure far wages, pensions, equality of aspiration, etc., does it then mean that those 'workers' then begin to look beyond them to other parties that they feel can better deliver their 'improved/heightened' aspirations?
This is probably why New Labour appeared as the Tories had, in the short term improved peoples' lives. What New Labour did wrong was to carry on the Neo-Liberal project which allowed the bankers and the elites to send the people back to being poor again - hence Corbyn mania.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has apparently called for renationalisation of certain areas of industries - the old Clause 4.
Do you agree? If so, which areas would you like to see re-nationalised?
Yes, the 1970s were great, let's head on back there!
We can't the Unions aren't as strong as they were.
-
... that he wanted to eradicate Catholicism and the church structure in Germany doesn't necessarily mean that he wanted to eradicate Christianity,
Not quite sure where the quote was from, and where it has been quoted here in the past, but I understand that Hitler is quoted as saying that he wants to do away with the 'Church' and that he defined this as Christianity in toto. I'll see if I can find the quote.
Found it
The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of interest and debate. Hitler was raised by an increasingly anti-clerical father and devout Catholic mother. Baptized as an infant and confirmed at the age of fifteen, he ceased attending Mass and participating in the sacraments in later life. In adulthood Hitler became disdainful of Christianity, but in the pursuit and maintenance of power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations. Hitler's architect Albert Speer believed he had "no real attachment" to Catholicism, but that he had never formally left the Church. Unlike his comrade Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was not excommunicated prior to his suicide. The biographer John Toland noted Hitler's anticlericalism but considered him still in "good standing" with the Church by 1941, while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian - a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler's Table Talk. Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler's long-term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany, while others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
-
Well, triangulation seemed a brilliant wheeze at first, since then Labour could be Tory-lite, appeal to the middle-class, and yet keep the old Labour vote, in the ex-industrial 'heartlands'. However, as NS pointed out, Cameron then triangulated back, and also both the Nu Labour voters and the Old Labour voters began to feel that it was a bit blurry and ignored them. 'Between two stools' is quite apt. Scotland was lost completely, other voters went off to UKIP, and of course, some back to the Tories. Why vote Tory-lite when you can have the unadulterated Blue Essence?
It is interesting to see the reversal now, although who knows where it will all go. Ironically, Corbyn is not hard left at all, but moderate Keynesian, but then Keynes is now considered left-wing, so far has politics moved to the right.
Why have we got a thread on Hitler going on in the middle of this?
-
Well, triangulation seemed a brilliant wheeze at first, since then Labour could be Tory-lite, appeal to the middle-class, and yet keep the old Labour vote, in the ex-industrial 'heartlands'. However, as NS pointed out, Cameron then triangulated back, and also both the Nu Labour voters and the Old Labour voters began to feel that it was a bit blurry and ignored them. 'Between two stools' is quite apt. Scotland was lost completely, other voters went off to UKIP, and of course, some back to the Tories. Why vote Tory-lite when you can have the unadulterated Blue Essence?
It is interesting to see the reversal now, although who knows where it will all go. Ironically, Corbyn is not hard left at all, but moderate Keynesian, but then Keynes is now considered left-wing, so far has politics moved to the right.
Why have we got a thread on Hitler going on in the middle of this?
It seems his head pops up into everything, though it beats me how he surfaced here?
-
Somebody will say that Corbyn is a Nazi, I bet.
-
I was chatting with a friend about this, and he said, Labour is broken. I thought that's correct. I don't think Corbyn can turn it round, it's like turning a big oil tanker. The party is too deeply identified with Tory-lite, or a kind of mimicry of the Tories, or more precisely, neo-liberalism.
However, I doubt if this means that the right-wing will sail serenely on. After all, it was neo-liberalism which produced the biggest economic crisis for 80 years, and then we've had the Greek fiasco. Hold on to your hats, put your money somewhere safe, and whatever you do, don't get old or sick.
-
Why have we got a thread on Hitler going on in the middle of this?
Have just been looking back a page or two and it seems to hve come out the issue of Corbym and talking to terrorists. I think that it was BA who made the first mention, but then he and Outrider seem to have got into a series of exchanges - Post #184 onwards (immediately after your reference to talking with the Taliban).
-
I was chatting with a friend about this, and he said, Labour is broken. I thought that's correct. I don't think Corbyn can turn it round, it's like turning a big oil tanker. The party is too deeply identified with Tory-lite, or a kind of mimicry of the Tories, or more precisely, neo-liberalism.
However, I doubt if this means that the right-wing will sail serenely on. After all, it was neo-liberalism which produced the biggest economic crisis for 80 years, and then we've had the Greek fiasco. Hold on to your hats, put your money somewhere safe, and whatever you do, don't get old or sick.
.....old or sick......bugger!!!
Yeah, Labour are dead for the time being. But as the only trick in town is Neo-Liberalism so are the Tories, and by implication all of us...
-
Hold on to your hats, put your money somewhere safe, and whatever you do, don't get old or sick.
That last phrase has just reminded me of a speech made by Neil Kinnock in Bridgend on June 7th 1983 - two days before the 1983 general election - which I've always thought to be one of the finest political speeches of the twentieth century:
If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can't pay. I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.
If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary. I warn you not to be young. I warn you not to fall ill. I warn you not to get old.
-
In retrospect, seems like hysterical scaremongering!
Medical and care services have to be paid for somewhere. The economy has to be organised and manged to generate the appropriate level of funding. But, as people alter their behaviour to adjust to changing circumstances, it is difficult to come up with systems dynamic enough to cope. Politicians don't bother with workable policies and resort to slagging.
Has LA abandoned us here?
-
Have the Labour Party stated when the result will be announced? Surely they will want a leader in place before their asnnual conference?
-
The 12th, I think.
-
The 12th, I think.
Yeah, Saturday 12th.
-
I can't quite believe Labour will elect Corbyn I thinks its understable having watched the competition being interviewed. Either way is the Labour party now forever divided anyway.
-
Dear Jakswan,
A mindset, have we all become accustomed to New Labour and Tory way of thinking.
Greed, has British society become "I'am alright Jack".
Of course this is only my opinion, but I see Corbyn as someone who is thinking about the country as a whole.
The people of the United Kingdom are an asset, we need to invest in that asset.
Renationalisation of the railway, make it affordable for people to travel to work.
Build more homes, a roof over your head is a right not a luxury.
Compassion should be a watchword in politics, I think Corbyn has this.
Anyway, the above is only my opinion, and I am old enough to see that new Labour and Tory governments have not worked.
Gonnagle.
-
Corby appears different, to me, because he's not looking at the job of government to be a board of directors for UK plc. The Greens in the last election were similar - and the Lib Dems to an extent, though not so much - which made them seem unelectable because they were so far from the 'norm'.
The exciting prospect for me is not that Corbyn might actually make the Labour party electable, but rather that it changes the timbre of the political discussion from purely about maximising the top-line of the economy to actually making the economy work for the country's greater good.
His individual ideas and policies are less important than the principle his support brings back to the political arena.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Excellent post, a shift in political thinking!
Gonnagle.
-
Yes, good points from the big O there. Corbyn has already shifted the political debate, and I am looking forward to his exchanges with Cameron. Many people are expecting Corbyn to be humiliated, but I am not so sure. That guy is pretty sure-footed and intellectually able. I hope he will dissect neo-liberalism and lay bare its unseemly innards.
-
A mindset, have we all become accustomed to New Labour and Tory way of thinking.
Greed, has British society become "I'am alright Jack".
With respect that is not what British society is about.
Of course this is only my opinion, but I see Corbyn as someone who is thinking about the country as a whole.
The people of the United Kingdom are an asset, we need to invest in that asset.
I see so its only Corbyn supporters who think that is it, you are creating a strawman.
Renationalisation of the railway, make it affordable for people to travel to work.
I see so the cost of rail travel for season ticket holders has gone up has it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703
Maybe before making it point check the facts?
Build more homes, a roof over your head is a right not a luxury.
Not a unique Corbyn policy even if it is a Crobyn policy?
Compassion should be a watchword in politics, I think Corbyn has this.
Yeah sure everyone who doesn't support the Labour party wants to shoot anyone not like themselves. You do get that a part of the reason Labour got battered in the election is partly down to this sort of attitude.
Anyway, the above is only my opinion, and I am old enough to see that new Labour and Tory governments have not worked.
What does that even mean?
-
The exciting prospect for me is not that Corbyn might actually make the Labour party electable,
Wow really I wouldn't know for sure but looking at it from the centre (I'm Libdem) his policies whilst idealistic (I can recognise they are well meant) seem absolutely barmy in reality.
but rather that it changes the timbre of the political discussion from purely about maximising the top-line of the economy to actually making the economy work for the country's greater good.
What other countries run by that far left a government has this worked out well?
-
Wow really I wouldn't know for sure but looking at it from the centre (I'm Libdem) his policies whilst idealistic (I can recognise they are well meant) seem absolutely barmy in reality.
I'm Lib Dem, too, at the moment. His policies do seem excessive, like I say I don't think (as some do) that they'll suddenly make the Labour party electable - what they will do is actually differentiate the Labour party from the Tories, because at the moment we have them both clustering around the same mid-right, slightly authoritarian conservatism.
What other countries run by that far left a government has this worked out well?
How far left? As far left as it appears he wants to go, or just left of where we are now? On the far left, not many, but left of where we are now - any number, but with the additional libertarianism I'd have to point to the Scandinavian countries.
O.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Rail fares, I am at a loss in seeing any point you are trying to make.
Travelling to and from work should never be a burden on your finances.
Making it easy for all to travel to work, especially those on low wage should be a government priority.
Edinburgh to Glasgow, return, cheapest I could find, £12, well out of minimum wage range.
As I say, a mindset, people who can afford rail fare do not think twice about those who can't.
Gonnagle.
-
How far left? As far left as it appears he wants to go, or just left of where we are now? On the far left, not many, but left of where we are now - any number, but with the additional libertarianism I'd have to point to the Scandinavian countries.
Why so far afield - what about this country immediately after the war?
-
Yes, I see Corbyn as a moderate Keynesian, or if you like, in favour of a mixed economy. It's laughable that people call this far left, and shows how far to the right we have moved. Many of his economic policies were standard after the war, and during the period of the 'postwar consensus'.
-
Dear Wigs,
Far left, right wing, moderate, liberal, bah humbug.
Gonnagle.
-
How far left? As far left as it appears he wants to go, or just left of where we are now? On the far left, not many, but left of where we are now - any number, but with the additional libertarianism I'd have to point to the Scandinavian countries.
Why so far afield - what about this country immediately after the war?
Because the world economies, and our place in it, and the markets in which we make money abroad and at home, are markedly different and we won't be able to replicate the post-war era.
O.
-
Rail fares, I am at a loss in seeing any point you are trying to make.
Read the link I posted.
Travelling to and from work should never be a burden on your finances.
So it should be free?
Making it easy for all to travel to work, especially those on low wage should be a government priority.
Edinburgh to Glasgow, return, cheapest I could find, £12, well out of minimum wage range.
So what price should it be?
As I say, a mindset, people who can afford rail fare do not think twice about those who can't.
Which is pure bullshit, I travel from Swansea to Norwich twice a month and would like the fairs to be cheaper.
-
Dear Jakswan,
I did read your link, rail fares are extortionate, if you want the working class to be mobile, make it affordable, that makes common sense to me.
No, it should not be free, but keeping the working population mobile should not be left to a company who only thinks of profit.
The price should be affordable.
As for bullshit, once again, affordable for all.
Should not a governments main job be to keep the wheels of industry moving.
Gonnagle.
-
It's bull to say that people who can afford rail fairs don't give a shit about those who can't, Gonners. You can't possibly know that.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Fair enough, it was a rubbish generalisation, boy I am not feeling the love on this forum today. :P
Gonnagle.
-
My ex got a company loan to pay for his season ticket. We could 'afford' it but only by cutting back hard elsewhere.
-
Fair enough, it was a rubbish generalisation, boy I am not feeling the love on this forum today. :P
Thanks, I enjoy chatting with you.
from my link
"A single from London to Manchester has gone up by 208%, up from £50 in 1995 to £154 today. That is more than three times the rate of inflation.
But a season ticket for the same journey has risen by only 65% - just less than inflation."
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.
-
So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.
That was in 1948.
-
Dear Jakswan,
There's no fool like a old fool, I have not mastered the old bit yet but the fooling seems to come natural to me. :-[
Finding out more about this subject, it seems that we/the government are investing heavily in the railway.
Here in Scotland we have a thing called EGIP, Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement ( why anyone would want to travel to Edinbugger >:( ).
So to my addled way of thinking, why are we forking out so someone else can take the profit.
It seems to me, just like the NHS that moving the population to and from work is vital, it should not be in the hands of private companies.
The Bible tells us, we can not serve two masters, who comes first, shareholders or us.
Gonnagle.
PS: that last sentence, sue me. 8)
-
( why anyone would want to travel to Edinbugger >:( ).
Scott monument, Prince's Mile, Edinburgh Tattoo, Queensferry, Dunfermline, Forth bridges, Edinburgh Castle.... just to get away from Bearsden, Paisley, Renfrew and that baufin' orange sewer pig! :)
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
It's the strangest of feelings.
Step of the train in Waverley, yer wallet no longer belongs to you, you will pay and you will pay dearly, usually for a cheap imitation of Scotland.
Step off the train at Queen St or the Central, you breath a sense of fairness, yes we will have your wallet but only if you are daft enough to walk down a unlit alley at night.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
It's the strangest of feelings.
Step of the train in Waverley, yer wallet no longer belongs to you, you will pay and you will pay dearly, usually for a cheap imitation of Scotland.
Step off the train at Queen St or the Central, you breath a sense of fairness, yes we will have your wallet but only if you are daft enough to walk down a unlit alley at night.
Gonnagle.
As a half-Scot, but with an English accent, I always felt welcome in Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Caithness, Kirkaldy and the like, but never quite as accepted in Glasgow. It's not hatred or venom, it's just they hear the accent and they close off.
Having said that, it's been nearly 20 years now since I was in Glasgow, so maybe things have changed.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Strange, but the east coast for me has always seemed a kind of forced welcome.
But I kind of know where you are coming from, us weggies do have a sharp edge, something in our pysche that we feel we have to be hard, but get past that play acting and you find a deeply compassionate and welcoming people.
Gonnagle.
-
Finding out more about this subject, it seems that we/the government are investing heavily in the railway.
Here in Scotland we have a thing called EGIP, Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement ( why anyone would want to travel to Edinbugger >:( ).
So to my addled way of thinking, why are we forking out so someone else can take the profit.
Well the argument for privatisation is that the private sector is more efficient than the public one. Are you against all privatisation so would even go as far as nationalising opticians, dentists and doctors? Or is just big companies because they are the bogeyman?
Is your 'politics of compassion' a smokescreen for 'politics of envy'? i can tell you I want to deliver the most efficient service to as many people as possible and don't really care if someone is making a buck along the way.
As to whether this better for the railways is a debatable point which I don't know the answer to, purely anecdotal, comparing the railways nationalised I think Greater Anglia are worse and First Great Western are better.
It seems to me, just like the NHS that moving the population to and from work is vital, it should not be in the hands of private companies.
Last I heard 40% of the healthcare provided by the NHS is done by the private sector.
The Bible tells us,
Might tell you but it sure doesn't tell me sod all.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Who the hell am I envious of!!
And yes a very old argument, private is not better than public, it is more profitable for private but not more efficient.
That is a old Tory lie to see off the Unions, and by the way, I am anti union, a necessary evil.
I am not against privatisation, I love the fact that a man can rise in this country through his own endeavour.
But not vital services, transport, water, housing and of course the NHS.
Oh and just so you know, about ten years ago I may have been agreeing with you, for a long time I was a young stupid Tory, I think I have grown slightly wiser.
Gonnagle.
-
Who the hell am I envious of!!
And yes a very old argument, private is not better than public, it is more profitable for private but not more efficient.
Evidence? So you'll be advocating privatising the healthcare services I mentioned as well then? You are like current politicans avoid answering direct questions.
That is a old Tory lie to see off the Unions
I would suggest its an excuse to avoid defending your position.
I am not against privatisation, I love the fact that a man can rise in this country through his own endeavour.
But not vital services, transport, water, housing and of course the NHS.
So you'll be advocating privatising the healthcare services I mentioned as well then?
Oh and just so you know, about ten years ago I may have been agreeing with you, for a long time I was a young stupid Tory, I think I have grown slightly wiser.
I'm not a tory, I find both the tories and labour deal in idealism, clinging to positions against any evidence hiding from it by trotting out words like compassionate and passages from the Bible.
-
So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.
You mean "privatised"
-
So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.
You mean "privatised"
Does he? Obviously the numeric value of a season ticket today as opposed to the 70s is greater, but is it equivalently more expensive, when inflation is taken into account?
-
So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.
You mean "privatised"
Does he? Obviously the numeric value of a season ticket today as opposed to the 70s is greater, but is it equivalently more expensive, when inflation is taken into account?
He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised. As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
As expected.
I'm equally cock-a-hoop to see that the redoubtable Tom Watson has been appointed deputy leader.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
Do you want a party that stands by the principles under which it was founded or one that prostitutes itself to the electorate to gain votes?
Personally, I would go with the latter, if only to get the current government out, but the electorate generally seems wise to the ruse and isn't voting Labour in enough numbers for them to get in, so there is nothing to lose by sticking to principles.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
That's the script anyway.
The plot twist is that labour no longer play the role with quiet unassuming irrelevance but are now vocal and active.
Osborne cannot now claim that labour are really with them.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.
Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.
Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!
Yes, I much prefer the bad new days where the corporations hold the country to ransom.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.
Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!
Damn that's feudalism down the drain again.
-
He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised. As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.
Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere. They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised/done away with. As regards the railways, who actually sets the ticket prices? The Government, the companies, the retail price index - or perhaps all three in degrees?
-
He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised. As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.
Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere. They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised.
I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended? So I have to ask: what point is it you think you are making here?
-
Do you want a party that stands by the principles under which it was founded or one that prostitutes itself to the electorate to gain votes?
Personally, I would go with the latter, if only to get the current government out, but the electorate generally seems wise to the ruse and isn't voting Labour in enough numbers for them to get in, so there is nothing to lose by sticking to principles.
Does either 'main' party stand by the principles under which it was founded? Does Jeremy Corbyn embody the principles by which the Labour Party was founded? In part, perhaps, but in total?
-
I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended? So I have to ask: what point is it you think you are making here?
The point I'm making is that jakswan's original post that you have so kindly 'corrected' can equally mean the moment in time that the running of the railways moved from private hands to public, and the period of time during which they were run as public companies - ie between 1948 - 1995. Exactly which meaning he had in might is not that clear, so the use of the term 'nationalised' isn't necessarily the 'obvious mistake' that you would have us believe.
-
I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended? So I have to ask: what point is it you think you are making here?
The point I'm making is that jakswan's original post that you have so kindly 'corrected' can equally mean the moment in time that the running of the railways moved from private hands to public, and the period of time during which they were run as public companies - ie between 1948 - 1995. Exactly which meaning he had in might is not that clear, so the use of the term 'nationalised' isn't necessarily the 'obvious mistake' that you would have us believe.
But the post in which he made the mistake refers specifically to the time between 1995 (the year in which the railways were privatised) and now. The figures he gives to back up his point are for that period.
It's absolutely 100% clear that is what he meant.
-
He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised. As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.
Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere. They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised.
I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended? So I have to ask: what point is it you think you are making here?
I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.
-
Cameron and then Osborne can only look like Flashman now.
-
I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.
hmm, I thought I'd understood .. until your lastest post - So you did mean workers will (when?) be able to buy season tickets that are cheaper than they were in 1947?
-
I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.
hmm, I thought I'd understood .. until your lastest post - So you did mean workers will (when?) be able to buy season tickets that are cheaper than they were in 1947?
I'll try again.
"A single from London to Manchester has gone up by 208%, up from £50 in 1995 to £154 today. That is more than three times the rate of inflation.
But a season ticket for the same journey has risen by only 65% - just less than inflation."
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were in the public sector in 1995.
-
I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-
So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.
hmm, I thought I'd understood .. until your lastest post - So you did mean workers will (when?) be able to buy season tickets that are cheaper than they were in 1947?
I think I have figured out the confusion. The phrase "when the railways were nationalised" is ambiguous. It can refer to
- the act of nationalisation
- the state of being in public ownership
I think Jakswan meant the latter.
-
I think I have figured out the confusion. The phrase "when the railways were nationalised" is ambiguous. It can refer to
- the act of nationalisation
- the state of being in public ownership
I think Jakswan meant the latter.
Good to see that you have finally caught up with what I pointed out in posts #260, 271 and 274 and with which you fairly aggressively disagreed with back then.
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
As a majority leader, perhaps - I've heard people questioning today already if he intends to remain in the seat through the next election.
However, the prospect of a slight lift in Labour support in Scotland becomes a significant possibility, as does the possibility of a formal left-wing alliance.
Lib Dems will, most likely, regain at least some of their seats at the next election, and they're more likely to align with Labour in the short term than with the increasingly right-wing and authoritarian Tories. The Greens would welcome the possibility of a formal alliance that gets them into genuine policy-making, and the policies are more akin to the SNP and Plaid Cymru core values.
O.
-
As a majority leader, perhaps - I've heard people questioning today already if he intends to remain in the seat through the next election.
However, the prospect of a slight lift in Labour support in Scotland becomes a significant possibility, as does the possibility of a formal left-wing alliance.
Lib Dems will, most likely, regain at least some of their seats at the next election, and they're more likely to align with Labour in the short term than with the increasingly right-wing and authoritarian Tories. The Greens would welcome the possibility of a formal alliance that gets them into genuine policy-making, and the policies are more akin to the SNP and Plaid Cymru core values.
I can't see that playing well, SNP are toxic South of the Border, how long will it take for someone to claim Corbyn's friends are Hamas, Hezbollah, Sinn Fein and SNP.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has apparently called for renationalisation of certain areas of industries - the old Clause 4.
Do you agree? If so, which areas would you like to see re-nationalised?
Water, Gas and Electricity.
What if they remove claus 4 first... ::) :o
-
Breaking News: it is Corbyn.
With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!
I wouldn't be too sure of that - the times they are a changin' - Corbyn won't stick to all the hard lines he has aired and will soften his outlook to embrace more of his Labour MPs. All politicians do this when reality hits them - look as Tsipras and how he caved in. This will disappoint some of those who voted for him but will bring on board voters who are having a hard time from austerity and feeling forgotten by the last decades politics.
The are many Labour types up North who do not like what Corbyn has said so far but this will change because of the above, and will no doubt lose some of UKIP's ex-Labour voters.
-
Yes, I think Corbyn will focus on anti-austerity, and will kick Nato and so on into the long grass. Even then, it won't be enough. Labour can't win, unless there is a big mess, either economically, or politically. Normally, you would say that the Tories can avoid this, but we live in very peculiar times. How many people predicted that C would win the Labour leadership?
-
This will disappoint some of those who voted for him but will bring on board voters who are having a hard time from austerity and feeling forgotten by the last decades politics.
Are you referring to the politics of the last decade or the politics of the last decades here, Jack? (decade's, or decades')
-
This will disappoint some of those who voted for him but will bring on board voters who are having a hard time from austerity and feeling forgotten by the last decades politics.
Are you referring to the politics of the last decade or the politics of the last decades here, Jack? (decade's, or decades')
Sorry, yes, it should have read decade's.
Really, all this austerity stuff we have now is a product of the Thatcherite Neo-Liberal project but its effects have only been felt fairly recently, hence 'decade's politics'.
-
Really, all this austerity stuff we have now is a product of the Thatcherite Neo-Liberal project but its effects have only been felt fairly recently, hence 'decade's politics'.
Again, I'd disagree, Jack. This whole austerity stuff can be traced back to the demise of Britain's manufacturing industries, which really started shortly after the 2nd World War.
Take the Cowley car plants in Oxford. One of the big bugbears of both the unions and management there in the 60s and 70s was the out-dated equipment that was both inefficient and dangerous. It was well-known at the time that a lot of the machinery used at that time was still of pre-war vintage.
-
Really, all this austerity stuff we have now is a product of the Thatcherite Neo-Liberal project but its effects have only been felt fairly recently, hence 'decade's politics'.
Again, I'd disagree, Jack. This whole austerity stuff can be traced back to the demise of Britain's manufacturing industries, which really started shortly after the 2nd World War.
Take the Cowley car plants in Oxford. One of the big bugbears of both the unions and management there in the 60s and 70s was the out-dated equipment that was both inefficient and dangerous. It was well-known at the time that a lot of the machinery used at that time was still of pre-war vintage.
Austerity is about cutting government spending, I'm not seeing the link between this and car plants?
-
Austerity is about cutting government spending, I'm not seeing the link between this and car plants?
jaks, if the UK still had efficient manufacturing industries run by and owned by British industrialists, rather than by companies from the Far East and parts of Europe and America, the Exchequer could be receiving far more in corporation tax and other business-related income sources than it currently does. It is partly as a result of this that the Government has to borrow as much as it does, and hence the need for austerity. The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance - despite what many would have us believe. In fact, with the exception perhaps of Germany, European nations are now members of the 2nd division of nations on a number of parameters. Britain's role on the UN Security Council is a historic exception to the rule.
-
jaks, if the UK still had efficient manufacturing industries run by and owned by British industrialists, rather than by companies from the Far East and parts of Europe and America, the Exchequer could be receiving far more in corporation tax and other business-related income sources than it currently does. It is partly as a result of this that the Government has to borrow as much as it does, and hence the need for austerity.
No you can't make that assumption.
The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance - despite what many would have us believe. In fact, with the exception perhaps of Germany, European nations are now members of the 2nd division of nations on a number of parameters. Britain's role on the UN Security Council is a historic exception to the rule.
Any evidence for any of these claims? Last time I looked UK had 6th largest economy in the world.
-
jaks, if the UK still had efficient manufacturing industries run by and owned by British industrialists, rather than by companies from the Far East and parts of Europe and America, the Exchequer could be receiving far more in corporation tax and other business-related income sources than it currently does.
The only way for the UK to return to a manufacturing base is to eliminate the bulk of the Health and Safety legislation we've implemented and regress to a third-world standard of living in order to have labour cheap enough to compete - presuming we could still get the materials cheaply, because they just aren't here any more.
As to getting more from corporation tax, if we can't get the current companies to pay in the world economy, why would we be any better at getting them to pay for physical manufacture rather than service provision? If we were, why would they remain here when they can do it cheaper elsewhere?
This economic downturn in the UK - in the West in general - is just the inevitable downturn that comes from having benefitted in the past, this is the free market in action. We have earned, become rich, become affluent and therefore become uncompetitive. Other countries will now have their day - the only way to buck that trend is to use the facilities we have to create technologies and industries that other countries cannot match.
If we are to look at cars, for instance, we need to be leading the field in fuel cells (for instance).
O.
-
Any evidence for any of these claims? Last time I looked UK had 6th largest economy in the world.
"The United Kingdom has the fifth-largest national economy (and second-largest in Europe) measured by nominal GDP and tenth-largest in the world (and third-largest in Europe)[1] measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
I appreciate that the UK is part of the G* and other, similar groupings, but I understand that our influence is waning.
By the way, and on a slightly different train of thought, what is your view on the composition of the G8 - where not only is the EU now a member, but also France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Isn't that somewhat Euro-centric?
-
The only way for the UK to return to a manufacturing base is to eliminate the bulk of the Health and Safety legislation we've implemented and regress to a third-world standard of living in order to have labour cheap enough to compete - presuming we could still get the materials cheaply, because they just aren't here any more.
I agree completely with what you sad in this post. If you remember though, I was trying to get Jack K to realise that the downturn didn't start with Thatcher; if anything, she was effectively the final act of a 30-40 year process.
-
Any evidence for any of these claims? Last time I looked UK had 6th largest economy in the world.
"The United Kingdom has the fifth-largest national economy (and second-largest in Europe) measured by nominal GDP and tenth-largest in the world (and third-largest in Europe)[1] measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
I appreciate that the UK is part of the G* and other, similar groupings, but I understand that our influence is waning.
By the way, and on a slightly different train of thought, what is your view on the composition of the G8 - where not only is the EU now a member, but also France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Isn't that somewhat Euro-centric?
So are withdrawing 'The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance'?
The G8 is a forum, what do you think it is and its members chosen?
.
-
Really, all this austerity stuff we have now is a product of the Thatcherite Neo-Liberal project but its effects have only been felt fairly recently, hence 'decade's politics'.
Again, I'd disagree, Jack. This whole austerity stuff can be traced back to the demise of Britain's manufacturing industries, which really started shortly after the 2nd World War.
Take the Cowley car plants in Oxford. One of the big bugbears of both the unions and management there in the 60s and 70s was the out-dated equipment that was both inefficient and dangerous. It was well-known at the time that a lot of the machinery used at that time was still of pre-war vintage.
You need to finish your little dissertation. What are you trying to say?
You could say that this attitude you seem to be implying goes back even further to the way our education system was perceived in the early 20th century. Britain was seen as being more 'academic', more of the 'leaders' than the 'workers' - we had had centuries where we had basically sponged of the empire for our lifestyle.
-
Austerity is about cutting government spending, I'm not seeing the link between this and car plants?
jaks, if the UK still had efficient manufacturing industries run by and owned by British industrialists, rather than by companies from the Far East and parts of Europe and America, the Exchequer could be receiving far more in corporation tax and other business-related income sources than it currently does. It is partly as a result of this that the Government has to borrow as much as it does, and hence the need for austerity. The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance - despite what many would have us believe. In fact, with the exception perhaps of Germany, European nations are now members of the 2nd division of nations on a number of parameters. Britain's role on the UN Security Council is a historic exception to the rule.
Well, it is true that privatisation has been an total failure and yet our politicians keep trying it out. It is also true that the idea you can rely on foreigners for your essentials and there wont be any risks or consequence is a 'global' lie, as it allows them to hold us at gunpoint - as seen by how Russia does this with its gas on Europe. We have lost a huge amount of our skills base which would be immensely difficult to get back and puts us at a disadvantage with the rest of the world.
-
So are withdrawing 'The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance'?
I assume you missed out a 'you' here. No I'm not withdrawing my statement because that is what I am hearing in almost every economic and financial report I hear - on TV/radio/etc. We are no longer a big player on the international stage. We are on the wane.
The G8 is a forum, what do you think it is and its members chosen?
The members were originally chosen before there was such a thing as the EU and shortly after the UK joined (or was allowed into) the EEC. Not quite sure why Italy was included - its economy has always been relatively small, I thought - but could see why France wasn't going to accept being left off the table if Germany was to be there.
As you say it is a forum, a talking shop. Does it actually produce anything other than ideas?
-
You need to finish your little dissertation. What are you trying to say?
The second paragraph was an exemplar of the point I'd made in the first.
You could say that this attitude you seem to be implying goes back even further to the way our education system was perceived in the early 20th century. Britain was seen as being more 'academic', more of the 'leaders' than the 'workers' - we had had centuries where we had basically sponged of the empire for our lifestyle.
Not really. Historically, we had led the world until the 1st World War, then America and Germany began to run us close and even overtake us. The existence of Trades Unions shows that we weren't "seen as being more 'academic', more of the 'leaders' than the 'workers' " even if multiple inventions came out of Britain. Unfortunately, in part due to the efforts we put into the 2nd World War, we finished that conflict on our economic knees which meant that other nations, besides the US and Germany - like Japan and Korea (and more recently China), began to catch us up.
-
So are withdrawing 'The UK is no longer a big player in international business and finance'?
I assume you missed out a 'you' here. No I'm not withdrawing my statement because that is what I am hearing in almost every economic and financial report I hear - on TV/radio/etc. We are no longer a big player on the international stage. We are on the wane.
The G8 is a forum, what do you think it is and its members chosen?
The members were originally chosen before there was such a thing as the EU and shortly after the UK joined (or was allowed into) the EEC. Not quite sure why Italy was included - its economy has always been relatively small, I thought - but could see why France wasn't going to accept being left off the table if Germany was to be there.
As you say it is a forum, a talking shop. Does it actually produce anything other than ideas?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_sorpasso_(economics)
-
No I'm not withdrawing my statement because that is what I am hearing in almost every economic and financial report I hear - on TV/radio/etc. We are no longer a big player on the international stage. We are on the wane.
Ok you can just be wrong then. :)
Your first statement is factually incorrect, 'we are on the wane' is an opinion.
The members were originally chosen before there was such a thing as the EU and shortly after the UK joined (or was allowed into) the EEC. Not quite sure why Italy was included - its economy has always been relatively small, I thought - but could see why France wasn't going to accept being left off the table if Germany was to be there.
As you say it is a forum, a talking shop. Does it actually produce anything other than ideas?
Italy has one of the largest economies in the World, and would have possibly been top 6/7 at the the time this organisation formed. I think you should better educate yourself on these topics.
-
Your first statement is factually incorrect,
Sorry, Jaks, since you have no idea which news reports I read and listen to (though mostly those on the BBC and in newspapers like the Independent, Guardian and Times), you can't state whether or not my first statement is factually wrong. I sort of agree that the phrase 'we are on the wane' could be an opinion, but then I'm simply stating what said experts and reporters say and write.
Italy has one of the largest economies in the World, and would have possibly been top 6/7 at the the time this organisation formed. I think you should better educate yourself on these topics.
"the eight-largest by nominal GDP in the world, and the 12th-largest by GDP (PPP)"(wikipedia) to be precise. I suppose my lack of appreciation of that was as much to do with the fact that I've never been there and therefore not experienced the quality of life, and partly because I thought that it was more into niche products - like Ferraris, expensive shoes and clothing, etc. I also tend to forget things like its wine and meat production. It may also have to do with the fact that I've always thought that it was Germany who got the Marshall Aid; was there an Italian equivalent following the 2nd WW? My fault.
-
Sorry, Jaks, since you have no idea which news reports I read and listen to (though mostly those on the BBC and in newspapers like the Independent, Guardian and Times), you can't state whether or not my first statement is factually wrong. I sort of agree that the phrase 'we are on the wane' could be an opinion, but then I'm simply stating what said experts and reporters say and write.
You made two statements:-
1. We are no longer a big player (in international business and finance) on the international stage.
2. We are on the wane.
(2) is an opinion one I'm inclined to agree with in the context of world influence. (1) is incorrect by any measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index
With regards to being wrong about Italy.
My fault.
Wow well done!
-
This whole austerity stuff can be traced back to the demise of Britain's manufacturing industries
Apart from a couple of blips, manufacturing has grown steadily since the war. It's a myth that there has been any demise in it.
-
I think some economists argue that Osborne is the radical, in economic terms, and Corbyn's ideas are fairly standard (mixed economy). This is interesting, well, marginally, as it also predicts that Osborne's methods will probably lead to an economic crisis, as he is trying simultaneously to expand the economy, and shrink it (via cuts). Or 'expansionary contraction', as I've heard it called.
However, I doubt if there will be rational arguments along these lines, as modern politics is more a kind of cartoon show, yah boo to you, and so on.
-
Apart from a couple of blips, manufacturing has grown steadily since the war. It's a myth that there has been any demise in it.
But Jeremy, who own and therefore benefit most from that manufacturing? British companies and thence the British Government, or foreign companies and thence other nations' exchequers? For instance, how many British-owned quantity-car manufacturers can you name? How many rail rolling stock manufacturers in British ownership can you name? How about British-owned steel manufacturers?
-
You need to finish your little dissertation. What are you trying to say?
The second paragraph was an exemplar of the point I'd made in the first.
You could say that this attitude you seem to be implying goes back even further to the way our education system was perceived in the early 20th century. Britain was seen as being more 'academic', more of the 'leaders' than the 'workers' - we had had centuries where we had basically sponged of the empire for our lifestyle.
Not really. Historically, we had led the world until the 1st World War, then America and Germany began to run us close and even overtake us. The existence of Trades Unions shows that we weren't "seen as being more 'academic', more of the 'leaders' than the 'workers' " even if multiple inventions came out of Britain. Unfortunately, in part due to the efforts we put into the 2nd World War, we finished that conflict on our economic knees which meant that other nations, besides the US and Germany - like Japan and Korea (and more recently China), began to catch us up.
The 1st WW bit : Why do you think that was that the case? I'm not asking because I don't know, I would like you to follow the events that caused that so I can make my point.
-
But Jeremy, who own and therefore benefit most from that manufacturing?
Moving the goalposts I see. I take it you concede that British manufacturing is far from dead.
-
The 1st WW bit : Why do you think that was that the case? I'm not asking because I don't know, I would like you to follow the events that caused that so I can make my point.
In fact, the 1st World War made the USA very rich off the backs of Britain and France. We borrowed loads of money off them and bought lots of stuff off them and that is where our relative decline started.
It is also, by the way, is the main reason the USA joined in. They were protecting their investment.
-
Moving the goalposts I see. I take it you concede that British manufacturing is far from dead.
Not moving the goalposts if you look at my original post #289 which I then clarified in post #291. I still believe that British manufacturing is at rock bottom. Manufacturing within Britain, on the other hand, isn't.
-
I think some economists argue that Osborne is the radical, in economic terms, and Corbyn's ideas are fairly standard (mixed economy). This is interesting, well, marginally, as it also predicts that Osborne's methods will probably lead to an economic crisis, as he is trying simultaneously to expand the economy, and shrink it (via cuts). Or 'expansionary contraction', as I've heard it called.
Labour were predicting crisis in 2010 as I recall, although the main economic policy of Labour and SNP were austerity just spun differently.
I think Corbyn has some very valid points, the concern I have it that he'll go the rich, but because they are able to move and dodge taxes the burden to pay more will fall on the rest of us.
We do need someone to nail the big corps though, Google, Amazon, Starbucks, etc, I suspect the so called Google tax is merely lip service.
However, I doubt if there will be rational arguments along these lines, as modern politics is more a kind of cartoon show, yah boo to you, and so on.
Yes by all sides, I think there is a tendency to demonise opponents rather than come up with strong arguments, 'tree hugging lefties', 'thieving Tory bastards', etc.
I have to say the left are also prone to condescending drivel, aka Gonzo's 'all about compassion' etc.
-
Dear Jakswan,
First of all I am not a leftie ( I am left handed ) this left wing, right wing, Liberal, moderate talk is so 1950's.
We need to step away from this kind of thinking, if I ask for the railways to be put back in the hands of the public I am not being left wing, I am thinking about the good of the country.
And if you think that there is something wrong with putting compassion into politics, well I think that is your problem.
We have been led down the garden path with New Labour and Tory thinking, it has not worked, it is time to put the great back into Great Britain, not as some kind of world power but a world leader, education, health services, innovation, show the world that Britain is a great place to live, not because you receive a free ride but because you will be treated fairly.
Just as an aside, do you know that nurses work 12 hours a day, how can you give someone the best level of care when you are on your feet for 12 hours, this is a nonsense, victorian.
Gonnagle.
-
First of all I am not a leftie ( I am left handed ) this left wing, right wing, Liberal, moderate talk is so 1950's.
We need to step away from this kind of thinking, if I ask for the railways to be put back in the hands of the public I am not being left wing, I am thinking about the good of the country.
And if you think that there is something wrong with putting compassion into politics, well I think that is your problem.
No its your problem because its a load of bollocks. Compassion my arse, sanctimonious drivel more like.
We have been led down the garden path with New Labour and Tory thinking, it has not worked, it is time to put the great back into Great Britain, not as some kind of world power but a world leader, education, health services, innovation, show the world that Britain is a great place to live, not because you receive a free ride but because you will be treated fairly.
Like it was in Victorian times? Since you seem so keen on purely spouting rhetoric can I say rose tinted glasses? Britain was not such a great place to live when it was a world power, my Grandfather had zero opportunities to change his lot he was born poor, lived in a slum and died poor.
I'm not saying its perfect but you seem to think you are the only one who has compassion.
Just as an aside, do you know that nurses work 12 hours a day, how can you give someone the best level of care when you are on your feet for 12 hours, this is a nonsense, victorian.
So what do you propose get on your high horse muttering about compassion to make yourself feel better or propose some sort of constructive solution.
By the way the NHS is devolved so I'd get onto the Tory-light SNP party to sort out Nurses conditions in Scotland. How about putting on a penny to income tax to improve nursing conditions in Scotland? No, is that because your compassion is all very well but if you have to pay for it then its in the dustbin.
-
First of all I am not a leftie ( I am left handed ) this left wing, right wing, Liberal, moderate talk is so 1950's.
Well, it's been updated a little since then with the addition of the liberal-authoritarian axis becoming (slowly) more prominent.
We need to step away from this kind of thinking,
Indeed, arguments need to stand on their own merits, not because of which wing someone puts them on.
if I ask for the railways to be put back in the hands of the public I am not being left wing, I am thinking about the good of the country.
Well, you are being left-wing, you're just not advocating because of a pre-conceived left-wing status.
We have been led down the garden path with New Labour and Tory thinking, it has not worked, it is time to put the great back into Great Britain, not as some kind of world power but a world leader, education, health services, innovation, show the world that Britain is a great place to live, not because you receive a free ride but because you will be treated fairly.
Unfortunately, with politics of the modern era, that's exactly what New Labour and the current Tories claim they're doing - that's what everyone claims they're doing.
O.
Just as an aside, do you know that nurses work 12 hours a day, how can you give someone the best level of care when you are on your feet for 12 hours, this is a nonsense, victorian.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
-
No its your problem because its a load of bollocks. Compassion my arse, sanctimonious drivel more like.
What's wrong with a little compassion? Hell, what's wrong with a whole load of compassion rather than a perpetual drive for profit maximisation? This is politics, not business.
Like it was in Victorian times? Since you seem so keen on purely spouting rhetoric can I say rose tinted glasses? Britain was not such a great place to live when it was a world power, my Grandfather had zero opportunities to change his lot he was born poor, lived in a slum and died poor.
And if you're born poor today how much better are the chances? If you're born black and poor, even worse? Muslim and poor? Born abroad... There have always been problems, and although we're in a better place than we were we haven't finished the improvements by a long stretch.
I'm not saying its perfect but you seem to think you are the only one who has compassion.
I don't think he was saying that, I think he was saying that a lot of the political class these days claim it - might even believe it, at some level - but their idea of compassion fails to actually address the realities of being in the situations that need compassion.
So what do you propose get on your high horse muttering about compassion to make yourself feel better or propose some sort of constructive solution.
I'd think the solution to that particular issue was pretty self-evident - why are NHS shifts so long? What is being done about the recruitment policies, the training regimes, the workload intensity?
By the way the NHS is devolved so I'd get onto the Tory-light SNP party to sort out Nurses conditions in Scotland. How about putting on a penny to income tax to improve nursing conditions in Scotland? No, is that because your compassion is all very well but if you have to pay for it then its in the dustbin.
Why are we having to pay for it? We had the money, but we gave it to a banking industry that lived by the sword but failed to die by public subsidy - why aren't they paying back the money they owe?
O.
-
What's wrong with a little compassion? Hell, what's wrong with a whole load of compassion rather than a perpetual drive for profit maximisation? This is politics, not business.
Absolutely nothing, its more that Gonzo claims he has compassion and seems to suggest everyone else doesn't.
And if you're born poor today how much better are the chances? If you're born black and poor, even worse? Muslim and poor? Born abroad... There have always been problems, and although we're in a better place than we were we haven't finished the improvements by a long stretch.
Agree but Britain being a world leader is irrelevant we need to have compassion for all.
I'd think the solution to that particular issue was pretty self-evident - why are NHS shifts so long? What is being done about the recruitment policies, the training regimes, the workload intensity?
I don't know since Gonzo has raised the issue I was hoping he would have put more substance into it, perhaps he has merely heard a few sound bites.
Why are we having to pay for it? We had the money, but we gave it to a banking industry that lived by the sword but failed to die by public subsidy - why aren't they paying back the money they owe?
We didn't have the money we had to borrow it, I don't know why they are not paying it back perhaps because they don't have it?
Shall I tell the nurses that its all the banks fault then and they just have to continue to suffer?
-
Absolutely nothing, its more that Gonzo claims he has compassion and seems to suggest everyone else doesn't.
That's not how I read it - I read it that he wants to see compassion from the politicians and currently he isn't.
Agree but Britain being a world leader is irrelevant we need to have compassion for all.
Absolutely, and the sort of lack of compassion that turns the NHS debate into 'how many foreign scroungers can our already underfunded services take' is not leading.
Shall I tell the nurses that its all the banks fault then and they just have to continue to suffer?
No, it would have been nice if our electorate had told the people they were electing that we wanted a little less of being nice to the banks' profit-margins and a little more of being nice to each other, but the main political parties and the media that supports them managed to ensure that despite a huge upswell in support for issues-based politics that we remained mired between two economically focussed centre-right parties in the New Labour/Tory split, with the only 'issue' on record being the divisiveness of nationalism.
O.
-
Dear Jakswan,
My my! but your an angry man.
First let me clarify, I am British, so spouting shit like, oh its devolved means nothing to me, the NHS for me, as was suggested by some UKIP politicians should be taken out of politics, it is to precious.
And yes, if it means putting up taxes to give a better health service, then yes, our population is living longer and with refugee/migrant influx, we need to invest to improve.
On the subject of nurses ya twat!! higher wages, lower hours, the job done by all front line staff in the NHS is demanding, we need them to perform at their best, not walking about half asleep.
Compassion ya numpty, it means to suffer with, most politicians don't know the price of bread, they need to walk a mile in another mans shoes.
Not sympathy, not empathy, fucking compassion.
Gonnagle.
PS: HAVE A NICE DAY.
-
What does this 'compassion' mean these days? To far too many it means wearing a ribbon for the latest cause, signing a Facebook petition, acting like a knob on Red Nose Day. We're very good at 'compassion' and our MPs get bombarded by e-postcards and petitions telling him what we want them to be 'compassionate' about.
-
My my! but your an angry man.
Not at all just not in the mood to take a lecture from an old fart spouting rhetoric.
First let me clarify, I am British, so spouting shit like, oh its devolved means nothing to me, the NHS for me, as was suggested by some UKIP politicians should be taken out of politics, it is to precious.
The control of the NHS in Scotland is in the hands of the Scottish government, this is reality, what you wish it to be is all very well but my advice is I'd check in the with reality occasionally if I were you.
And yes, if it means putting up taxes to give a better health service, then yes, our population is living longer and with refugee/migrant influx, we need to invest to improve.
Good man a proper coherent policy, well done. Went down like a lead balloon with the Scottish electorate maybe you should aim your compassion lectures at your fellow Scots.
On the subject of nurses ya twat!! higher wages, lower hours, the job done by all front line staff in the NHS is demanding, we need them to perform at their best, not walking about half asleep.
Yet thinks I'm angry, bless him. :) I'm not in favour of nurses on low wages and long hours or are you just intent on stating the obvious because you have sod all else to say?
Compassion ya numpty, it means to suffer with, most politicians don't know the price of bread, they need to walk a mile in another mans shoes.
Yes I know what it means I think Outrider had managed to correctly convey where you aiming the words.
Not sympathy, not empathy, fucking compassion.
Yes well done, I think those words are synonymous with each other actually. Oh there I go forgetting my audience, they mean the same thing you fucking useless dick-head. :)
PS: HAVE A NICE DAY.
Thanks been great so far, you as well old chum!
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I am no expert on Compassion and I would add I don't practice what I preach, I am as greedy and self centered as the next man.
But I am learning, compassion needs to be a everyday thing, like tying your shoe laces, we need to live it and breathe it.
It needs to be written in to every law we pass, every company large or small needs to have it at the heart of business.
It is not an easy road, how can a company make a profit if it has to pay its staff a decent wage, not easy, but compassion has to be where it starts and ends.
I truly don't have all the answers but we need to start somewhere, and for me the best place to start is politics, every law, every debate affects the people of this country, the politicians have a voice, let it be a compassionate voice.
Gonnagle.
PS:BTW, if you want to really know where this all started for me, this compassionate crusade, try Karen Armstrong, maybe one of her Ted talks.
-
Jak, empathy and sympathy are actually very different. It's why I think Gonners (although meaning well) is wrong - empathy is much more useful than compassion alone.
-
Dear Jakswan,
You always bring the best out in me.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I am no expert on Compassion and I would add I don't practice what I preach, I am as greedy and self centered as the next man.
But I am learning, compassion needs to be a everyday thing, like tying your shoe laces, we need to live it and breathe it.
It needs to be written in to every law we pass, every company large or small needs to have it at the heart of business.
It is not an easy road, how can a company make a profit if it has to pay its staff a decent wage, not easy, but compassion has to be where it starts and ends.
I truly don't have all the answers but we need to start somewhere, and for me the best place to start is politics, every law, every debate affects the people of this country, the politicians have a voice, let it be a compassionate voice.
Gonnagle.
PS:BTW, if you want to really know where this all started for me, this compassionate crusade, try Karen Armstrong, maybe one of her Ted talks.
Yes, Gonners, I know your inspiration comes from Armstrong. But not everyone wants to engage with her ideas. But without looking at it in-depth 'compassion' is just a sound bite. Telling a director of a small business that (s)he has to be 'compassionate' when (s)he's worried about the bank manager and complying with ever-changing employment law and directives is vague and patronising; what you are actually asking for is fairness.
We actually are very good at 'compassion', we click on our Facebook petitions and buy our campaign t-shirts before heading off to Starbucks. I'm quite sure many of our politicians know how to do compassion, it's a nice feeling to be right-on about 'issues' and they are very good at passing on letters to ministers and turning up at rallies.
What we actually need is fairness born out of empathy.
-
compassion needs to be a everyday thing..... every company large or small needs to have it at the heart of business.
How does that work when companies are competing against each other?
-
Dear Jakswan,
Competing for!! short term profit.
The customer does not come first, the shareholder does, what happens when you forget the customer, your shares fall, short term profit, then the shareholder cry's, why is my dividend small, because your company was only looking to the short term, or in easy to understand terms, pure and simple greed.
Gonnagle.
-
No it isn't, Gonners. Companies need to compete to stay afloat. Most businesses are small, don't have shareholders but provide valuable employment as well as keeping other businesses going (eg the estate agent that uses the local cleaning firm, sign person, EPC guy, mortgage advisor, surveyor, florist, handyman, sandwich bar).
What companies big and small can do is treat employees and customers fairly and adopt an attitude of 'how may I serve?' I believe by asking this of themselves across the board businesses attract 'added value'. Being competitive isn't simply about cost cutting and it certainly isn't only about greed.
-
Didn't realise SNP recently opted to continue to privatise Scotrail.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Fair enough, you have convinced me, fairness, trouble is I don't see this fairness.
Time was when there was a thing called a valued customer, what I see is only the next customer, press one for this, press two for that, press three for thingy, press four for boredom, your call is important to us. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Fair enough, you have convinced me, fairness, trouble is I don't see this fairness.
Time was when there was a thing called a valued customer, what I see is only the next customer, press one for this, press two for that, press three for thingy, press four for boredom, your call is important to us. >:(
Gonnagle.
As a customer, which would you prefer: an automated call handling system or to wait for half an hour in a queue and then find you dialled the wrong department?
-
My bank gives me the option of both - automated push-button stuff plus a default button to speak to an advisor. I'm guessing from the accents they are based in N Ireland; whenever I've rung them, whatever time of day, they are always helpful, chatty and friendly. Without exception.
I also once had a man from Currys carry my shopping round the store. He then persuaded me to buy a £90 DVD player plus a ten quid cable rather than the £350 one I'd been looking at. He was right as well.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I would prefer and I am almost sure that most pensioners would prefer to speak to a person seconds after ringing the company.
But no, that would entail spending money on more employees to answer phones.
Gonnagle.
PS: To reply to this post please choose from the following options.
1. Gonnagle yer a numpty.
2. I f you do not have yer special number, you know, the one that is at the top of yer bill that you can't find at the moment.
3. you can always contact us online, well that's if you have internet and you do not have arthritic fingers.
4.Your call is important to us but all our call handlers are busy at the moment, bless em!
5. Yes we know you have been waiting half an hour but hell you lead a boring life what else could you be doing.
-
When I'm put on hold I go on this forum.
Anyways, I'm clearly talking bollocks when I say I talk to real people at the bank (max wait a couple if minutes because most people use the automated thing/online). In truth the only organisation I've rung and not got any option to speak to a human being was the DVLA.
-
When I'm put on hold I go on this forum.
Anyways, I'm clearly talking bollocks when I say I talk to real people at the bank (max wait a couple if minutes because most people use the automated thing/online). In truth the only organisation I've rung and not got any option to speak to a human being was the DVLA.
The DVLA is the public sector Rhiannon, remember they have compassion. :)
-
Dear Jakswan,
Up yours!!
And in the words of the late Kenny Everett, its all done in the best possible taste.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Up yours!!
And in the words of the late Kenny Everett, its all done in the best possible taste.
Gonnagle.
I graciously accept your surrender. :)