Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

He’d still be being dragged in a direction he doesn’t want to go and having to focus on his party rather than the country.

I actually think Brexit (in terms of a deal that gets through Parliament) can be resolved before the next General Election (unless a snap election is called). IMO, Parliament are going to put their votes behind a soft-Brexit and the government will have to go for it, or will fold and then the next (if it's Labour) government will continue on the soft-Brexit path.

The votes over the next couple of weeks should tell us quite a lot.

 

[ringo]

@the dza you sound as if you want a government that runs the country along social democratic, social justice, socialist lines. And both Germany and France, and other European nations, suggest that it is possible to do that successfully, depending on what version you apply.

However, it is getting from a to b - from an economy that has been ideologically been driven and shaped by the free market, market forces, capitalism, liberalisation, an emphasis on the individual rather than the community etc. That change that would require many years of sustained c. socialist (ish) policies. Many mainland European countries have a more deep seated affinity with the collective and socialist principles - and it has taken them many years to get to where they are.. I don't think the UK has the same historical affinity. I am not saying that is a good thing - I just think that implementing even a German style social democracy would be almost impossible, because a government would not be afforded the time it needed, or the global economic stability it needed.

After all the longest labour led government in recent memory didn't really bother - it may not have wholeheartedly pursued a neo-con privatisation policy, but it wasn't exactly socialist.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I don't need to sell it to you, you're an intelligent person. Read about what Labour want to do in government, compare it to what the Tories have been doing and then make your own mind up as to what's best and vote accordingly.

So you'll defend them vehemently day after day. You'll promote their agenda as what is best for all. You'll persist with sticking up for "your side" of things here no matter what, but you wont actually take the time to spell out WHY in a meaningful way.

What a cop out.

Re. a soft-Brexit. My opinion is that if we were starting from scratch, our current arrangement inside the EU is about the best we can do. Now that's being done away with, a soft-Brexit is the least worst option. It satisfies the box that was ticked to 'leave' (as people keep saying, it was only 'leave' or 'remain' on the ballot). And it is straight-forward compared to the other types of brexit, in terms of risk to jobs, the irish border problem etc. I understand why people would be unhappy with it, but it's still my opinion that it's the least worst option. Enough people could tolerate that outcome, both inside and outside of parliament, to make it do-able.

Im a firm believer that its the worst of all worlds, and that doing it just to "tick a box" if fundamentally fudging ridiculous.

I strongly believe a full and proper Brexit could be a great thing for the UK, but also that the current charlatans we have in the house (on all sides) are fundamentally unable to deliver it.

Because of this if there were a second referendum, Leave, Soft or Remain - Id probably vote Remain.

"Soft Brexit" is bad, no matter how you look at it. If we had leaders worth a damn this wouldnt even be an option.

 

[the dza]

@the dza you sound as if you want a government that runs the country along social democratic, social justice, socialist lines. And both Germany and France, and other European nations, suggest that it is possible to do that successfully, depending on what version you apply.

However, it is getting from a to b - from an economy that has been ideologically been driven and shaped by the free market, market forces, capitalism, liberalisation, an emphasis on the individual rather than the community etc. That change that would require many years of sustained c. socialist (ish) policies. Many mainland European countries have a more deep seated affinity with the collective and socialist principles - and it has taken them many years to get to where they are.. I don't think the UK has the same historical affinity. I am not saying that is a good thing - I just think that implementing even a German style social democracy would be almost impossible, because a government would not be afforded the time it needed, or the global economic stability it needed.

After all the longest labour led government in recent memory didn't really bother - it may not have wholeheartedly pursued a neo-con privatisation policy, but it wasn't exactly socialist.

Maybe, but then I'd go back to Atlee (I've said this before in the thread, boring repetitive qunt that I am!). A one term Labour government established the post-war consensus and legislated for the NHS, Welfare State, Social Housing, Nationalisation of Utilities etc. Socialists did it and they did it in 5 years, from the rubble of World War 2. Most of it lasted decades, a good chunk of it still going strong today. Political will is important and I agree that the last Labour government didn't really have the will to change too much, though I acknowledge that they did good things as well as bad.

 

[scaramanga]

No, I'm saying gaining enough seats to take away May's majority whilst also gaining enough votes to put marginals into play next time is a good result. A similar performance would see Labour as the largest party next time and forming a government. You keep telling yourself that the election was just like when Brown lost 90+ seats if it makes you feel better about it.

Gains are only relevant when balanced against starting position. Had Labour won 0 seats in the previous election, a gain of 250 would have been expected. From were Milibland left the party, a gain of much, much more than Corbyn managed would have been the expected result from a competent, electable leader. What little he did gain was pathetic.

 

[the dza]

So you'll defend them vehemently day after day. You'll promote their agenda as what is best for all. You'll persist with sticking up for "your side" of things here no matter what, but you wont actually take the time to spell out WHY in a meaningful way.

What a cop out.




Im a firm believer that its the worst of all worlds, and that doing it just to "tick a box" if fundamentally fudging ridiculous.

I strongly believe a full and proper Brexit could be a great thing for the UK, but also that the current charlatans we have in the house (on all sides) are fundamentally unable to deliver it.

Because of this if there were a second referendum, Leave, Soft or Remain - Id probably vote Remain.

"Soft Brexit" is bad, no matter how you look at it. If we had leaders worth a damn this wouldnt even be an option.

I wanted to have some lunch, forgive me for not quoting the manifesto in it's entirety!

I take your point on soft-Brexit, but I advocate it given where we are today, in the country and in Parliament. Damage limitation imo. You don't agree, fair enough.

Going back to why I advocate for a Corbyn-led Labour government opposed to a Tory one. Broadly, it's so that the necessary money will be put back into public services via taking a bit more money from those who have the most. This should help to fix school budgets, prisons, social care (which takes strain from the NHS), local services like childrens centres (used most by the poorest), aid to reduce homelessness.

All these areas have been hammered by Tory budgets. And the Tories, imo, use austerity as a cover for ideologically shrinking the role of the state. Socialists like Corbyn don't hide that their ideology is to enhance the role of the state for, as they see it, the benefit of all; hence the programs of nationalisation which I also support.

Overall, a far less harsh society for those who need help the most, be that disabled people phucked over by Universal Credit, or people who live in neighbourhoods getting worse for violent crime (due in large part to there being 20,000 less old bill), or old people who are stuck in hospital because they can't get the care they need at home due to cuts in the budgets for social care, or the hospitals over-stretched not just by record low increases in funding, but having to bear the brunt of those social care cuts.

Add in things like making education free at the point of use, across the board, and being against interventionist wars like Iraq and Libya, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

These are some of the broad outlines of policy that I'd support. For a little more detail, you'd have to read the 2017 manifesto and the accompanying 'grey book' that set out the tax plans.

 

[the dza]

Gains are only relevant when balanced against starting position. Had Labour won 0 seats in the previous election, a gain of 250 would have been expected. From were Milibland left the party, a gain of much, much more than Corbyn managed would have been the expected result from a competent, electable leader. What little he did gain was pathetic.

If you say so. I'm just happy that Labour are in a position to become the largest party next time out, with a socialist leader. But he's unelectable, so don't worry too much. It's why the Tories are scared of another election, because the opposition is unelectable...

 

[scaramanga]

If you say so. I'm just happy that Labour are in a position to become the largest party next time out, with a socialist leader. But he's unelectable, so don't worry too much. It's why the Tories are scared of another election, because the opposition is unelectable...

He can't get a majority - you've admitted that yourself. He's entirely unelectable. What scares the Conservatives is that they don't have anyone electable either right now.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I wanted to have some lunch, forgive me for not quoting the manifesto in it's entirety!

I take your point on soft-Brexit, but I advocate it given where we are today, in the country and in Parliament. Damage limitation imo. You don't agree, fair enough.

Going back to why I advocate for a Corbyn-led Labour government opposed to a Tory one. Broadly, it's so that the necessary money will be put back into public services via taking a bit more money from those who have the most. This should help to fix school budgets, prisons, social care (which takes strain from the NHS), local services like childrens centres (used most by the poorest), aid to reduce homelessness.

All these areas have been hammered by Tory budgets. And the Tories, imo, use austerity as a cover for ideologically shrinking the role of the state. Socialists like Corbyn don't hide that their ideology is to enhance the role of the state for, as they see it, the benefit of all; hence the programs of nationalisation which I also support.

Overall, a far less harsh society for those who need help the most, be that disabled people phucked over by Universal Credit, or people who live in neighbourhoods getting worse for violent crime (due in large part to there being 20,000 less old bill), or old people who are stuck in hospital because they can't get the care they need at home due to cuts in the budgets for social care, or the hospitals over-stretched not just by record low increases in funding, but having to bear the brunt of those social care cuts.

Add in things like making education free at the point of use, across the board, and being against interventionist wars like Iraq and Libya, which have made the world a far more dangerous place.

These are some of the broad outlines of policy that I'd support. For a little more detail, you'd have to read the 2017 manifesto and the accompanying 'grey book' that set out the tax plans.

I went through the manifesto at the time, Im not interested in you quoting it. Im more interested in why YOU support it.

So thanks for the response (in good faith as well, which is appreciated).

Up until now most counter argument from most Labour supporters has been "anything but the Tories", which Im sure you can appreciate gives the impression of being completely biased and with questionable objectivity.

The way I see it, youve got the faith, youre a believer in JC - something I cant comprehend at this point.

Youre in here defending the cause daily, clearly passionate, so the WHY is what is interesting to me.

I read the manifesto at the time (not the grey book if memory serves) and I saw business being punished, debt going up, and welfare being pumped with money with no real plan to spend it wisely or reform things.

[I do have a particular issue with Labour (under Blair) creating an army of voters by creating a nation of benefit riding layabouts, and cant deny its a real sticking point for me whenever Labour talk about pumping money into benefits etc.]

I saw a country already in debt simply going further down the hole.

I actually liked the ideas on nationalisation and education. I dont know how achievable they are, but I like the intent.

I think national rail and energy (and general infrastructure) etc is the sort of thing that can really help the country help itself.

Education is insanely expensive right now, and its crippling people financially for trying to better themselves, fundamentally theres something wrong there.

We can obviously disagree on it, but I actually think Soft Brexit is a massive issue - rather than a compromise I feel its storing up problems for down the line. Id much rather a more definitive plan around it other than to give into the EU on whatever they want, ceed any power, and basically be under their thumb. Corbyns version in particular seems to nix our ability to look outward to the rest of the world, which in turn makes it utterly pointless as "brexit" of any shape or form.

I can see you like the general intent, do you think it will actually work?

What will be the cost of pumping all that money into the state? Will we borrow it all? Will taxing businesses actually work? Or will they avoid what they can, lessen the take and lead to more debt?

Will the NHS actually be any better without genuine reform? I have serious doubts as to what simply upping the budget will achieve.

Cant argue with spending more on Policing, its a no brainer - but where the money comes from is of course a concern, on top of everything else they plan to spend.

And heres where they fail to convince me, the more I look at it (and I fully accept Im far from an expert), the more it seems to me like itll either never happen, never work, or leave us ultimately worse off...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

He can't get a majority - you've admitted that yourself. He's entirely unelectable. What scares the Conservatives is that they don't have anyone electable either right now.

I think its fair to say if either party had an actual leader, they would walk it.

Makes me wonder what the hell is going on with the Lib Dems, you would think the environment is ripe for a centre party to make up ground in a big way.

 

[scaramanga]

A one term Labour government established the post-war consensus and legislated for the NHS, Welfare State, Social Housing, Nationalisation of Utilities etc. Socialists did it and they did it in 5 years, from the rubble of World War 2.

The electorate has been dismantling that legacy for longer than it accepted it. Thatcher was elected 39 years ago, 35 years after the end of WWII.

 

[the dza]

He can't get a majority - you've admitted that yourself. He's entirely unelectable. What scares the Conservatives is that they don't have anyone electable either right now.

He doesn't need a majority to become PM and get legislation through Parliament, so long as the SNP play ball. And I've outlined why I think they will. You might disagree, we'll just have to see what happens. Polling suggests this is as likely an outcome as anything else right now, but I also expect polling to move as Brexit develops more. Which way it will move, I don't know.

 

[scaramanga]

I think its fair to say if either party had an actual leader, they would walk it.

Makes me wonder what the hell is going on with the Lib Dems, you would think the environment is ripe for a centre party to make up ground in a big way.

They're suffering from the tribalism of "anyone but the Tories" - they'll be punished for the coalition for a generation.

 

[the dza]

The electorate has been dismantling that legacy for longer than it accepted it. Thatcher was elected 39 years ago, 35 years after the end of WWII.

And the pendulum is swinging back the other way now, imo. The same Labour members who chose David Milliband over Ed (and that's how the voting broke down in that leadership election, it was before 1 member 1 vote was a thing) chose Corbyn over Cooper, Burnham and Kendall. That's disregarding £3 supporters, new members etc. The same group, went from David Milliband to Corbyn. IMO, they felt the wind changing and I think they are right.

 

[scaramanga]

Broadly, it's so that the necessary money will be put back into public services via taking a bit more money from those who have the most.

Out of interest, where do you see the line of "those who have the most" beginning?

One of the main reasons (amongst many) that I thoroughly oppose Corbyn is his would-be Chancellor's opinion that people earning £80K a year are rich. It's also been stated by many in Corbyn's movement (including Corbyn and the Shadow Chancellor) that the rich should be taxed heavily, as they can afford it. The logical conclusion of which, is that people earning £80K or more are likely to be heavily taxed under a Momentum government. £80K per annum is not rich - not in the South East, not with a family to support, etc. In many parts of London £80K is barely a survival salary.

Does your thinking align with Corbyn's or do you just hope that he won't do what he says when elected?

 

[ringo]

Maybe, but then I'd go back to Atlee (I've said this before in the thread, boring repetitive qunt that I am!). A one term Labour government established the post-war consensus and legislated for the NHS, Welfare State, Social Housing, Nationalisation of Utilities etc. Socialists did it and they did it in 5 years, from the rubble of World War 2. Most of it lasted decades, a good chunk of it still going strong today. Political will is important and I agree that the last Labour government didn't really have the will to change too much, though I acknowledge that they did good things as well as bad.

And perhaps that was the one moment, immediately post WW2, that a Labour government could have passed such a radical legislative programme. (Not as familiar with Wilson record although know he was strong on housing construction and wealth distribution) Within six years the economic realities of post WW2 had caught up with the UK and he was out of office. Maybe, if there is post Brexit chaos, there will be another opportunity. But personally - for reasons I've already explained - I don't think that will happen (the opportunity - not necessarily the chaos).

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

They're suffering from the tribalism of "anyone but the Tories" - they'll be punished for the coalition for a generation.

I feel like thats a bit out of date, though theres plenty of evidence in this thread of people being devoted to party lines.

I honestly think people are more disposed to voting for policy than party these days.

I personally dont give a brick about the coalition, if the Lib Dems came forward with a vision I agreed with and thought achievable they would get my vote.

Both Labour and Conservative parties look to me to be as weak as they have been in generations - when will there be a better time for alternative parties to get in a take a share of power and start balancing things up?

And perhaps that was the one moment, immediately post WW2, that a Labour government could have passed such a radical legislative programme. (Not as familiar with Wilson record although know he was strong on housing construction and wealth distribution) Within six years the economic realities of post WW2 had caught up with the UK and he was out of office. Maybe, if there is post Brexit chaos, there will be another opportunity. But personally - for reasons I've already explained - I don't think that will happen (the opportunity - not necessarily the chaos).

This is a large part of why Ive been pro Hard Brexit over Soft.

I think if there is proper carnage and chaos, our "leadership" will all bolt (if not get booted) and people with real conviction and vision will start stepping forward.

What an opportunity for genuine change in how things are done, and in moving power back to the people.

Or, at least, Politicians GENUINELY serving the people.

 

[ringo]

If you say so. I'm just happy that Labour are in a position to become the largest party next time out, with a socialist leader. But he's unelectable, so don't worry too much. It's why the Tories are scared of another election, because the opposition is unelectable...

I don't believe the Tories are scared of another election because of Corbyn at all. I don't think that they are scared of another election - if they were forced to, they would fight one and probably get another minority government. What they are, is not ready to fight another election. They want to get past March 29, sort out a new leader, and then fight another election.

 

[the dza]

I went through the manifesto at the time, Im not interested in you quoting it. Im more interested in why YOU support it.

So thanks for the response (in good faith as well, which is appreciated).

Up until now most counter argument from most Labour supporters has been "anything but the Tories", which Im sure you can appreciate gives the impression of being completely biased and with questionable objectivity.

The way I see it, youve got the faith, youre a believer in JC - something I cant comprehend at this point.

Youre in here defending the cause daily, clearly passionate, so the WHY is what is interesting to me.

I read the manifesto at the time (not the grey book if memory serves) and I saw business being punished, debt going up, and welfare being pumped with money with no real plan to spend it wisely or reform things.

[I do have a particular issue with Labour (under Blair) creating an army of voters by creating a nation of benefit riding layabouts, and cant deny its a real sticking point for me whenever Labour talk about pumping money into benefits etc.]

I saw a country already in debt simply going further down the hole.

I actually liked the ideas on nationalisation and education. I dont know how achievable they are, but I like the intent.

I think national rail and energy (and general infrastructure) etc is the sort of thing that can really help the country help itself.

Education is insanely expensive right now, and its crippling people financially for trying to better themselves, fundamentally theres something wrong there.

We can obviously disagree on it, but I actually think Soft Brexit is a massive issue - rather than a compromise I feel its storing up problems for down the line. Id much rather a more definitive plan around it other than to give into the EU on whatever they want, ceed any power, and basically be under their thumb. Corbyns version in particular seems to nix our ability to look outward to the rest of the world, which in turn makes it utterly pointless as "brexit" of any shape or form.

I can see you like the general intent, do you think it will actually work?

What will be the cost of pumping all that money into the state? Will we borrow it all? Will taxing businesses actually work? Or will they avoid what they can, lessen the take and lead to more debt?

Will the NHS actually be any better without genuine reform? I have serious doubts as to what simply upping the budget will achieve.

Cant argue with spending more on Policing, its a no brainer - but where the money comes from is of course a concern, on top of everything else they plan to spend.

And heres where they fail to convince me, the more I look at it (and I fully accept Im far from an expert), the more it seems to me like itll either never happen, never work, or leave us ultimately worse off...

I'm for the policies, not the personality. The thing I do like about Corbyn (and I have plenty of criticisms as well) is that you just know he and his government will at least have a good go at implementing the things they say that they want to do. I don't see him just saying a bunch of left-wing things to get votes and then getting into power and not rocking the boat, just to take a nice directorship somewhere after politics and earn millions.

From my political standpoint, voting for Labour under his leadership gives me something to vote FOR, for the first time, as opposed to just voting against things that I don't like. That's what made me pay £3 to vote for him (which turns out, wasn't necessary as he won amongst the existing Labour members anyway). And then I joined the Labour Party after he won, as I had a feeling there would be those in the Parliamentary Labour Party who would never give him a chance and try to stitch him up as soon as they could -- turns out that's what happened, so people like me voted for Corbyn again, as well as voting for NEC slates that would support the leadership rather than undermine it. Voting rights, basically why I joined (I'm not an activist, but credit to those who do it).

 

[scaramanga]

I feel like thats a bit out of date, though theres plenty of evidence in this thread of people being devoted to party lines.

I honestly think people are more disposed to voting for policy than party these days.

I personally dont give a brick about the coalition, if the Lib Dems came forward with a vision I agreed with and thought achievable they would get my vote.

Both Labour and Conservative parties look to me to be as weak as they have been in generations - when will there be a better time for alternative parties to get in a take a share of power and start balancing things up?

I agree. The Lib Dems as they were under Clegg got my vote and would now if there were an election (and if it weren't a wasted vote).

I hope my belief on entrenched voting is out of date, I hope that the Blairite voters can't stomach a Momentum government at the next election and vote LD.