|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Actually, although they'll use impressive sounding words to create an impression that their policies follow a defined economic theory, the reality is different. The Tory Party economic policy is basically a mix of make-it-up-as-we-go-ism with what-we-can-con-punters-to-vote-for-ism. With the sad truth being that a large number of punters have swallowed the whole mirage hook, line and sinker and actually believe that a) the Tories are the only party with economic competance and b) that the solid economic theories underpinning other parties policy is bunkum.
If you have any evidence that the other parties policies are based on solid economic theories I would be delighted to see it. Edmund Dell wrote a book on the Chancellors of the Exchequer from Dalton to Lamont and pretty much concluded that the only ones who knew what they were doing were Gaitskell, Thorneycroft, Jenkins, Healey and Howe. If he had done a second edition he would have probably added Clarke and Darling to the list and made regretful noises about Brown.
Economic policy since the war has generally been a mixture of economic theory, making it up on the hoof and generously dishing out bribes to favoured sectors of the electorate and swing voters appear to vote for it out of a mixture of how they are doing, how they think things are going generally, and whether they think the other lot are much cop.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My wife reckons that austerity is loved by many English people, as it pleases their fierce Protestant conscience, which demands punishment for unknown crimes. I couldn't possibly comment.
There could be something in that. Take all those period dramas and current fascination with ancestors who were smitten with proper grinding poverty, it is as if some sort of yearning is going on.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
"So they established the rule, that all poor people should have the alternative (for they would compel nobody, not they,) of being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it."
Oliver Twist.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Which does, kinda sorta, make lilBuddha's point as this sort of thing hardly fits snugly onto the side of a bus.
To be honest I'm kind of losing sight of what my original point was, which suggests I might not have one ...
I think what I was getting at was that within the spectrum of conservative thought, there are plenty of ideas that are complex and counter-intuitive but not wrong or stupid, but conservatives seem more willing than progressives to dumb their ideas down to something plausible but simplistic.
(I do think some of Mr Corbyn's awkward interviews occur when he feels he is being manipulated by the interviewer into giving an easy answer which is also wrong. An abler politician would probably avoid the trap more adroitly but in fairness I do agree with his supporters that it is somewhat questionable that this is one of the skills we require of our leaders.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Wrong and stupid are subjective. The Conservatives proposing the ideas are doing so for their benefit. The conservatives voting for those ideas, are often doing so against their benefit.
Lowering taxes is an example of this.
Many progressive ideas are less simple, like social services help society in general, even those who do not use them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wrong and stupid are subjective. The Conservatives proposing the ideas are doing so for their benefit. The conservatives voting for those ideas, are often doing so against their benefit.
Lowering taxes is an example of this.
Many progressive ideas are less simple, like social services help society in general, even those who do not use them.
These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.
Over the years, the Conservatives have done this better than Labour. Darn it, they have managed to make virtues of selfishness and greed!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
...by rebranding them as 'self-reliance' and 'thrift'.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...by rebranding them as 'self-reliance' and 'thrift'.
Don't forget the rebranding of "not giving a shit" as "personal responsibility"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In fairness to the electorate most of us can discern pretty much whether the government's policies are helping or hurting us and ours and it is more difficult to work out whether or not they are good for the country as a whole. This cuts both ways. My driving instructor in the 1990s lost his small business during the ERM recession. He was, by background and instinct, a working class Tory but he was solid for Mr Blair on the grounds that Mr Major had mucked up his life. Interestingly he voted for Ken as Mayor the first time round. I'm guessing that he voted for Boris as Mayor went back to the Tories in 2010 or, at a pinch, 2015 and will almost certainly vote for Mrs May this time around. Most people on this thread, it appears, would regard him as selfish and unprincipled. I think of him as someone who voted according to rational self-interest and could, therefore, potentially be persuaded to defect back to Labour given a decent leader and prospectus. Of course, the question is complicated by intangibles, he could have become old and bitter and ended up as a supporter of UKIP or his kid could have married an EU national and driven him into the arms of Tim Farron. But in any event it seems eccentric to assume that the electorate should cast their votes out of left-wing idealism and get cross when they think that their well being and that of their family are significant factors in their decision making.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.
I think there is something in this - but the more powerful influence is the kind of kind of resentment built up by 'retail grievance' - the kind of media that makes money by selling anger as a consumer product.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
But in any event it seems eccentric to assume that the electorate should cast their votes out of left-wing idealism and get cross when they think that their well being and that of their family are significant factors in their decision making.
I don't mind people voting out of rational self-interest that much, unless they're wealthy enough that they're just trying to rig the game so they can rack up their own score. What I mind is when people are really lousy at estimating the effect of voting a particular way on them and their family and end up voting for parties that will screw them.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Even worse, IMO, are the large number of people who don't appear to even try and think things through and just believe what the papers tell them is in their best interest.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Just curious, with the election of Macron and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea) would you say the tide might be turning against the Torie party, or is your election just too soon to have any real impact?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Ask us again on June 9th.
It's not looking good at the moment - the right-wing tabloids are still foaming at the mouth.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea)
Scary thought, if she does engage dialog with the North. Could that paradoxically mean the US can take an very aggressive line on the basis that NK can only really retaliate against the South leaving it either not attacking, or (more likely) attacking and doing the damage to both that the talks were meant to avoid.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just curious, with the election of Macron and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea) would you say the tide might be turning against the Torie party, or is your election just too soon to have any real impact?
I don't think an election in South Korea is going to change British voters' minds about the ineptness of Jeremy Corbyn.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Does this, on an Australian (left-wing) news site, ring true about Corybn and Labour?
quote:
The Labour policies themselves are decent enough: a million new skilled jobs, and a National Investment Bank, a “rights at work” program, a million new homes to be built in five years, reconstructing education as the National Education Service, with similar universality and equality of treatment, renationalising railways (by not renewing lapsing tenders) and increasing ‘social democratic control’ of the energy system.
All good stuff, and a program that links transformation of production with consumption and services, as any modern social democratic program should. Trouble is, Corbyn can’t stick to the script. Whenever a microphone is stuck in front of him, he talks exclusively of the poor and dispossessed, those in terrible housing, people on zero-hour contracts, etc, etc. “Take a walk around the streets of our big cities at night” to see the poverty, he suggested in a BBC interview, sounding like he was on the edge of bursting into Streets of London: “so how can you tell me you’re lonely, and say for you that the sun don’t shine …” etc, etc.
This reflex act is a measure of Corbyn’s decency, the fact that he’s really a 19th-century radical liberal in modern garb, passionately concerned with the genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.
...
Yet even such new voters, if they could be turned out, would not be enough. Corbyn must know, at some level, that he has to offer something to the broad middle classes.
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even worse, IMO, are the large number of people who don't appear to even try and think things through and just believe what the papers tell them is in their best interest.
Your social circle must be very different from mine. I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".
I think that there is a tendency to assume that correlation is the same thing as causation. There are more immigrants and my daughter didn't get into the school I wanted because not enough places so we should reduce immigration but that cuts both ways. The Sun has never backed the losing side in an election therefore Mr Murdoch determines the election result.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
Both. There's been no serious, attempt to take voters off the Tories, which is the only way to win an election for the Labour Party and his ratings have been poor from the outset.
2015 Post-mortem: In 2010 the Labour Party elected it's weakest leader since Neil Kinnock who failed to build an election winning coalition.
Labour Party: Hold my beer.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Does this, on an Australian (left-wing) news site, ring true about Corybn and Labour?genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
I don't know if you can remember Arthur Calwell, Leader of the ALP between 1960-67. Calwell was recognised as a decent and honourable man, who had served his party faithfully for decades. He had obtained ministerial experience in a very busy portfolio. At the election the year after he became leader, the ALP scored a majority of the popular vote and took a major swing of seats in its favour. In all his long period as an MP Calwell remained loyal to his party - from memory he never disobeyed a whip. In other words, he showed many qualities of loyalty and experience sadly lacking in Corbyn.
Yet the swing in 1961 was not really in his favour but was one against the Menzies government, and was not built on in subsequent elections. Why? A large part of the answer is that he remained rooted in the past, in fighting again the battles of the depression years, was not seen as offering answers to the problems of the 60s.
Corbyn is similarly seen as being a return to the days of Michael Foot, but unable to show the party loyalty or suitable executive experience Foot brought to the position; indeed his present campaign has built on the reputation he gained on his election as party leader of having great difficulty in running his own office. In addition, he's unable to shake off past associations now seen as very indiscreet and ill-chosen. Basically, he seems largely unelectable.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours). Though the Tories do play the "Labour will raise tax/NI and you'll take home less" card every election - even when Labour have committed to not raising taxes (at least, not for the vast majority of people). What people probably notice is that their pay doesn't seme to go quite as far as it used to - their rents, utilities, groceries etc all cost more. Which is where the Tories play their "the economy is safe in our hands" and "Labour policies will result in more inflation" cards, which again are not entirely truthful when looked at objectively. And, the majority of our papers just trot out the Tory line as though it's objective truth and people believe it. The same could be said about the verifiably false statements in the media about immigration (immigrants take our jobs, houses, welch off the NHS etc), even British history (Britain was a great trading nation ... well, not exactly - we traded a lot but the money was made through manufacturing turning imported raw materials into exportable products, and so the "great trading nation" can only really be recreated if we also invest in manufacturing).
I would say it's not just Mail readers. I equally dispair of Guardian readers who just soak up what they read without assessing it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.
The BBCs Iain Watson reported that most labour MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 are in trouble. I don't know how he knows that of course...
In the meantime, every time I see Tim Farron having an argument in the street with someone, I like him more.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The BBCs Iain Watson reported that most labour MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 are in trouble. I don't know how he knows that of course...
Presumably that's where the swingometer currently sits.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Wasn't the last NI rise in 2011/12? Which would have been under a (marginally moderated by the LibDems) Conservative government. The same party warning us of tax rises if people vote in a Labour government.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
Same here. NI rise due to changes to state pension and rises in occupational pension contributions.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
You mean like Kezia Dugdale? Neil Kinnock?
In what way is the Labour Party's electoral system corrupt, exactly? Because it doesn't produce the results you want?
I think whether it's appropriate for Corbyn to resign or not is going to depend not just on win/lose but on whether there is progress in vote share since 2015. Two years is a very short time to turn defeat into victory but if the party goes backwards then it would be reasonable to expect Corbyn to resign. However, if it becomes clear that the PLP plan an undemocratic stitch-up like when they imposed Gordon Brown on the party and the country (or when the tories imposed Theresa May) then all bets are off.
[ 10. May 2017, 19:25: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.
[ 10. May 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
Mrs Tor lost £5k pa a few years back, due to a 'take massive paycut or to be transferred into a pool of people we're threatening to make redundant' deal, which we just couldn't risk.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wasn't the last NI rise in 2011/12? Which would have been under a (marginally moderated by the LibDems) Conservative government. The same party warning us of tax rises if people vote in a Labour government.
It depends. If you were paying "Contracted out" NICs then your contribution would have risen from April 2016 to pay for the enhanced state pension. That affects almost all of the public sector plus many others with an employment based pension scheme.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.
If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
Historically, that's just wrong. Churchill hung on after 1945 (with Labour majority 145!), Attlee after 1951, Gaitskell after 1959 (when the Tories won a majority of 100!), Heath in 1966 (when Labour won a majority of 98!), Wilson in 1970, Heath in 1974, Heath in 1974 (at which point he was defenestrated by Mrs T.) and Kinnock in 1987 (when the Conservatives won a majority of 102!).
Things changed in 1992 - Kinnock went, then Major in 1997, Hague in 2001, Howard in 2005 (after the defenestration of IDS), Brown in 2010, Miliband in 2015 and Cameron in 2016.
Theoretically Corbyn could suffer a thumping defeat in this election and subsequently see himself and his party returned to power - Churchill and Heath came back after thumping defeats and Labour under Wilson after a thumping defeat of his predecessor - it's not unlikely that Gaitskell would have won in 1964. If Mrs Thatcher had been a bit more conciliatory about Europe and done something to mitigate the poll tax she might have contested the 1992 election against Neil Kinnock and lost narrowly. If Gordon Brown had called a snap election in 2008 he would have probably won and no-one would have expected Cameron to stand down.
At least, that is the sort of line I expect the Labour Hard Left to take. I have some sympathy inasmuch that if in some parallel universe Corbyn had fallen under a bus and the Labour Party had inexplicably elected someone decent and then been beaten in a snap election lots of people would be calling for Mr or Ms. Decent to be given a second chance.
However we are not talking about Mr or Ms Decent, we are talking about Jeremy Corbyn a man who bears some responsibility for harming our country and a great deal of responsibility for harming one of the great parties of the state. His election was a disaster, his career as Leader of the Opposition has been a disaster and to quote George Bernard Shaw I care not whether or not he goes quickly or quickly goes, but go he must! If he doesn't Labour MPs must consider the En Marche! option or resign themselves to irrelevance.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.
If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
All election campaigns consist of both policies and personal attacks. Hague was "weak, weak, weak", Major was a hopeless duffer, Howard was a combination of Dracula and Svengali. By your logic no defeated party leader need resign after a General Election.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Callan, timing does matter. The longer Corbyn is there, the longer before Labour can regroup and the the Tories have even longer to dismantle reforms dating back to Attlee's government.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, some Labour people are now touting Macron as the ideal, a guy who worships at the shrine of globalization, which has hollowed out industrial parts of France, just as it has here. I suppose he has the fantasy, like Blair, that you can make it work for ordinary people. Good luck.
I don't think the English will ever elect left-wing politicians, except in an emergency. So what does the left do? They can rage impotently on the sidelines, or join Labour, I guess. Or in Scotland, SNP.
It's all very repetitive also. I remember Callaghan decrying Keynes at the Labour conference. What can one do?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think the English will ever elect left-wing politicians, except in an emergency. So what does the left do? They can rage impotently on the sidelines, or join Labour, I guess. Or in Scotland, SNP.
It's all very repetitive also. I remember Callaghan decrying Keynes at the Labour conference. What can one do?
The main problem is that the right have very successfully redefined politics, so that what was left-of-centre Social Democracy thirty or forty years ago, and adopted by the "One Nation" group of the Conservative party, is now regarded as neo-Communism.
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.
I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the Attlee measures after the war would today rank as pure Bolshevism. The description of Corbyn as hard left says the same thing, that basic Labour ideas are now supposed to be shocking and not to be countenanced.
Now, one left-wing view of that is that the ruling class can no longer afford such reforms (as Attlee's), and has to pull back cash from the poor, to finance the rich. I suppose you can also cite greed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Callan, timing does matter. The longer Corbyn is there, the longer before Labour can regroup and the the Tories have even longer to dismantle reforms dating back to Attlee's government.
See my last paragraph.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
On the other hand the experiment in untrammelled Tory hegemony does not appear to be particularly successful in delivering left-wing policies. It didn't happen on the previous occasion that it was tried in the 1980s, or, indeed, in the 1930s. If you want left wing policies you need left wing politicians who are sufficiently centrist and competent to deliver left-wing parliamentary majorities.
I think the other issue is how you deliver what you define as left-wing policies. There is a perfectly respectable left-wing tradition, from Keynes to Kendall, which says the market where possible, the state where necessary. To take but one example, our local comprehensive school was turned into an academy, a few years ago, run by a corporation which also runs a number of highly prestigious C of E private schools. This has, in time, driven up standards thereby improving the life chances of the children concerned and contributing to the objective of "providing free quality education for all". On one level that's right-wing. An academy! Run by people who run private schools! On the other hand it brings about left-wing outcomes for the children who attend it. The trouble with the left is that it is full of Kantians who would rather fail under the Categorial Imperative of "Did This Happen In Clem Attlee's Day?" rather than consequentialists who, to borrow a phrase, holds to "what matters is what works".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.
I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.
Scrapping tuition fees is a hideous idea that will lead to a reduction in the number of university places available, reduced facilities and support for the students who do manage to get a place, and job losses across the HE sector. It may well also lead to a reduction in the number of students from less privileged backgrounds.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.
I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.
If railway nationalisation is left-wing then I'm sure Margaret Thatcher's government would have privatised it. As it was some parts of the railway group, such as Sealink ferries and BR Engineering were sold off but it was 1994 before the railways themselves were privatised, and look at the fiasco of subsidised franchises, costing more than BR ever did and charging higher fares, plus a cowboy outfit (Railtrack) running the infrastructure, which had to be returned to the public sector in 2001.
quote:
Scrapping tuition fees is a hideous idea that will lead to a reduction in the number of university places available, reduced facilities and support for the students who do manage to get a place, and job losses across the HE sector. It may well also lead to a reduction in the number of students from less privileged backgrounds.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I've never really understood why left-wing people cling to railway re-nationalisation as some kind of totem. My understanding is that most railway journeys are taken in south-east England. Why is making the bus drivers of Blyth subsidise the commutes of the stockbrokers of Surrey considered progresssive or socialist?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
Some modern universities are little more than tech or commercial colleges that (somehow) have become able to award degrees in association with senior institutions. Even the polytechnics were more than that as they were centres of excellence in some field or other. I'm pretty sure parents will be happy to see their teenagers do apprenticeships that could lead to the professions (as used to be the case with law, engineering, architecture and could well be with IT nowadays) but the problem would be that there would have to be the prospects of jobs at the end of it - oh, but that's a problem with degree level education, where graduates end up in all sorts of low-paid jobs.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable.
I work in HE, somewhere in the lower divisions along with the Torquay and Southend Uniteds of the sector.
Not all lecturers behave this way, but in general and from a management perspective new entrants are effectively cash-cards to be inserted into the hole-in-the-wall of government funding and public cash extracted. Woe betide the department who loses a cash card before its 3 (or 4) year expiry date comes up.
Kids are being f*cked over twice when another institution offers them an MSc to redeem their dismal undergrad experience...only to shovel more of the same at them.
It's a real Arthur Daley experience out there. I don't know how it might be sorted, but parts of the sector are not doing much very noble at the moment. Closing bits of it or (gasp) turning us back into Polytecs supporting local industry (where that's still a thing) makes sense to me.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
As I understand from the leaks, Labour are not advocating wholesale nationalisation of energy, but plan to create a state-owned energy company to operate in the existing market and influence the other players towards more customer-centred behaviour (e.g. start actually competing with each other, stop incessant take-overs and price gouging). Anyone care to explain why that isn't a very sensible idea?
Nationalising everything in sight on principle would be extreme. Using the government's influence to improve things for consumers is just sensible. The Tory plan for price caps probably amounts to more state interference in the market and is anyway a policy ripped off from "Red Ed" Milliband. If someone in the PLP has leaked this to try and damage Corbyn, then I feel nothing but contempt for them and sympathy for Corbyn.
Totally unimpressed with the Tory "campaign" so far, it's basically just Theresa May telling carefully selected groups of journos how strong and stable she is. At least Corbyn & co are getting out there and mixing it up a bit, OK they've dropped few clangers, but someone who isn't making mistakes probably isn't doing anything.
The British electorate have shown very clearly in recent years that they hate being taken for granted. As long as the Tories continue with this lacklustre and complacent excuse for a campaign, there is a real danger of that feeling taking hold. I'm not sure Labour would be the main beneficiaries, but the protest voters might go back to UKIP or LibDem/Green/Nats.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the Tory campaign is dullsville, although I expect it will rev up soon. So much exposure of Kim Jong May is stultifying in the extreme, although I suppose Tory voters are having orgasms. But she was allowed to simper on the One Show, (more orgasms).
I am enjoying seeing Corbyn, as he actually looks alive, and not a cartoon in the Daily Mail. He is miles better at campaigning than May, but I guess that will count for little.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
I attended university during the same period. There were undoubtedly a number of bright kids from comprehensives there. I should know, I was one of them. But there were a number of bright kids from my comprehensive who could have made the cut and, for whatever reason, didn't. And certainly public life appears to me filled with people whose posh schooling allowed them to parlay a meagre talent into some kind of eminence.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
