LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 10, 2017 6:34:54 GMT 1
Don't agree about race to the bottom - I think that applies to genuinely low cost low skill items such as clothing to produce. For me it's more about attracting businesses that will help the mix of getting people in employment, investing in infrastructure and upskilling the workforce. It's not just about producing low skill items. It's also about the standard of living, lack of affordable housing and people working 7 days a week to make ends meet. Your point about upskilling the workforce is interesting too in light of this year's Skills Funding Agency cuts. JLR will be okay to upskill and train new people, but SMEs', the backbone of the local economy are going to struggle. I'd suggest the SMEs would struggle allot more if JLR wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 10, 2017 13:29:54 GMT 1
I’ve always voted Labour but not this time and it’s not a difficult decision. Some of Corbyn’s policies are OK, albeit a bit trivial in the scheme of things e.g. hospital parking, but they’re nearly all about spending money. He’s got precious little to say about income generation beyond tax. However, even if you love his policies, Labour are unelectable on the grounds of competence. His shadow cabinet comprises the second and third picks from the minority of MPs prepared to support him. Diane Abbot wants to be Home Secretary but she’s too lazy to learn the most basic details of her brief. And she’s an intellectual giant compared to Emily Thornbury. Someone on here said that Corbyn’s job is to win the party, not the election. What a betrayal of labour voters that is but sadly it’s probably how Corbyn sees it. Better to be “right” than in a position to help anyone. John McDonnell addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square the other day below Syria and Soviet Union flags, so you can tell he’s not really interested in talking to anyone beyond his band of true believers. And don’t assume that this election will rid us of Corbyn either. He and Momentum will blame the electorate for not getting it and try again. I doubt he’ll step down unless he has the numbers to put a fellow traveller on the leadership ballot. Of course Corbyn and co. could search their souls and ask why large sections of Labour’s traditional support are deserting them, or they could just call them names and blame the media instead. I have some sympathy with you. But I'd question your comment that Labour policies are all about spending money. What income generation policies do the Tories have? Governments raise revenue through taxation or selling off assets. How else can they do it? What are Tory policies exactly? Ignore the tired slogans, what are they actually offering? Tax & national insurance (other than VAT) - nothing promised (we know what that means). Pensions - nothing promised (ditto) Healthcare - nothing promised (privatisation will continue) Policing/ fire service - nothing promised Education - grammar schools (favouring more affluent areas, killing social mobility) Business - the Tories continue to raise taxes on small businesses. Their business friendly policies are mainly for the large corporates. Defence - Trident renewal (though many senior military figures believe it's a waste of money. I can't believe some politicians are actually talking about first use of nuclear weapons as though it were like sending a few more troops to Germany). I understand your doubts about Labour competence in some areas. That's true of all parties though and certainly of this government. Why else do you think Tory election strategy is to keep the party name in the small print and promote the Tories as "Theresa May's team" as if this were a presidential election? I think many of the more experienced Labour figures would return to the front bench if ministerial positions were up for grabs. This isn't a perfect choice - when is it ever? It's the usual "least worst" option. The job is to put aside what the press and media have said about any party and focus on what they're actually saying themselves. What have you heard from May that makes you believe she's the right person, if that's where you're heading? What has Corbyn said that makes you think he's as bad as the Tory supporting media say he is? I'm not really a Corbynite myself and would have no hesitation (well, only a slight one) voting for whichever party in my constituency had the best chance of beating the Tories. It happens to be Labour where I am but I firmly believe voters should ignore party leaders and use the progressive alliance website to find out how best to vote tactically. Our electoral system is redundant, so we have to find the best way of making it workable, but that's another story. Last point. If you've not been a Tory in the past, do you really want to see a Tory landslide? Do you really want May & Hunt & all the podgy, smug, overfed, overindulged Tory boys to have free rein to do whatever they like with this country, with nobody able to put the brakes on? Remember the Tory party is more right wing than ever, with centre right veterans like Clarke and Heseltine marginalised and held in contempt by many on their own side. May now says she's in favour of legalising fox hunting. In the 21st century, our PM wants to bring back blood sports. Heaven knows what state the NHS, state education and other public services will be in by 2022 if that landslide happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 18:14:08 GMT 1
It's not just about producing low skill items. It's also about the standard of living, lack of affordable housing and people working 7 days a week to make ends meet. Your point about upskilling the workforce is interesting too in light of this year's Skills Funding Agency cuts. JLR will be okay to upskill and train new people, but SMEs', the backbone of the local economy are going to struggle. I'd suggest the SMEs would struggle allot more if JLR wasn't there at all. They're going to struggle to train new employees and up skill. I'm not talking about the extended logistics train. Of course without the right skills the SME's will be no use anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Matster on May 10, 2017 21:37:06 GMT 1
I’ve always voted Labour but not this time and it’s not a difficult decision. Some of Corbyn’s policies are OK, albeit a bit trivial in the scheme of things e.g. hospital parking, but they’re nearly all about spending money. He’s got precious little to say about income generation beyond tax. However, even if you love his policies, Labour are unelectable on the grounds of competence. His shadow cabinet comprises the second and third picks from the minority of MPs prepared to support him. Diane Abbot wants to be Home Secretary but she’s too lazy to learn the most basic details of her brief. And she’s an intellectual giant compared to Emily Thornbury. Someone on here said that Corbyn’s job is to win the party, not the election. What a betrayal of labour voters that is but sadly it’s probably how Corbyn sees it. Better to be “right” than in a position to help anyone. John McDonnell addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square the other day below Syria and Soviet Union flags, so you can tell he’s not really interested in talking to anyone beyond his band of true believers. And don’t assume that this election will rid us of Corbyn either. He and Momentum will blame the electorate for not getting it and try again. I doubt he’ll step down unless he has the numbers to put a fellow traveller on the leadership ballot. Of course Corbyn and co. could search their souls and ask why large sections of Labour’s traditional support are deserting them, or they could just call them names and blame the media instead. I have some sympathy with you. But I'd question your comment that Labour policies are all about spending money. What income generation policies do the Tories have? Governments raise revenue through taxation or selling off assets. How else can they do it? What are Tory policies exactly? Ignore the tired slogans, what are they actually offering? Tax & national insurance (other than VAT) - nothing promised (we know what that means). Pensions - nothing promised (ditto) Healthcare - nothing promised (privatisation will continue) Policing/ fire service - nothing promised Education - grammar schools (favouring more affluent areas, killing social mobility) Business - the Tories continue to raise taxes on small businesses. Their business friendly policies are mainly for the large corporates. Defence - Trident renewal (though many senior military figures believe it's a waste of money. I can't believe some politicians are actually talking about first use of nuclear weapons as though it were like sending a few more troops to Germany). I understand your doubts about Labour competence in some areas. That's true of all parties though and certainly of this government. Why else do you think Tory election strategy is to keep the party name in the small print and promote the Tories as "Theresa May's team" as if this were a presidential election? I think many of the more experienced Labour figures would return to the front bench if ministerial positions were up for grabs. This isn't a perfect choice - when is it ever? It's the usual "least worst" option. The job is to put aside what the press and media have said about any party and focus on what they're actually saying themselves. What have you heard from May that makes you believe she's the right person, if that's where you're heading? What has Corbyn said that makes you think he's as bad as the Tory supporting media say he is? I'm not really a Corbynite myself and would have no hesitation (well, only a slight one) voting for whichever party in my constituency had the best chance of beating the Tories. It happens to be Labour where I am but I firmly believe voters should ignore party leaders and use the progressive alliance website to find out how best to vote tactically. Our electoral system is redundant, so we have to find the best way of making it workable, but that's another story. Last point. If you've not been a Tory in the past, do you really want to see a Tory landslide? Do you really want May & Hunt & all the podgy, smug, overfed, overindulged Tory boys to have free rein to do whatever they like with this country, with nobody able to put the brakes on? Remember the Tory party is more right wing than ever, with centre right veterans like Clarke and Heseltine marginalised and held in contempt by many on their own side. May now says she's in favour of legalising fox hunting. In the 21st century, our PM wants to bring back blood sports. Heaven knows what state the NHS, state education and other public services will be in by 2022 if that landslide happens. It doesn't matter what they claim they will do. May's projected image on a large part of the population is that she's the best person for the job. Corbyn is seen as weaker and people like Abbot won't help matters. The mantra of Strong and Stable vs Coalition of Chaos is a very good sticky phrase that I doubt will be shaken off. Looking at the last GE, Shropshire was Tory control 51% in North Shropshire, I think 42% in Shrewsbury and 49% in South Shropshire. They are all seen as safe seats. With a weakened ukip those figures might well be strengthened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2017 22:46:16 GMT 1
As an old Novaportan we should cut the guy some slack and get behind a local lad.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 10, 2017 22:58:05 GMT 1
I have some sympathy with you. But I'd question your comment that Labour policies are all about spending money. What income generation policies do the Tories have? Governments raise revenue through taxation or selling off assets. How else can they do it? What are Tory policies exactly? Ignore the tired slogans, what are they actually offering? Tax & national insurance (other than VAT) - nothing promised (we know what that means). Pensions - nothing promised (ditto) Healthcare - nothing promised (privatisation will continue) Policing/ fire service - nothing promised Education - grammar schools (favouring more affluent areas, killing social mobility) Business - the Tories continue to raise taxes on small businesses. Their business friendly policies are mainly for the large corporates. Defence - Trident renewal (though many senior military figures believe it's a waste of money. I can't believe some politicians are actually talking about first use of nuclear weapons as though it were like sending a few more troops to Germany). I understand your doubts about Labour competence in some areas. That's true of all parties though and certainly of this government. Why else do you think Tory election strategy is to keep the party name in the small print and promote the Tories as "Theresa May's team" as if this were a presidential election? I think many of the more experienced Labour figures would return to the front bench if ministerial positions were up for grabs. This isn't a perfect choice - when is it ever? It's the usual "least worst" option. The job is to put aside what the press and media have said about any party and focus on what they're actually saying themselves. What have you heard from May that makes you believe she's the right person, if that's where you're heading? What has Corbyn said that makes you think he's as bad as the Tory supporting media say he is? I'm not really a Corbynite myself and would have no hesitation (well, only a slight one) voting for whichever party in my constituency had the best chance of beating the Tories. It happens to be Labour where I am but I firmly believe voters should ignore party leaders and use the progressive alliance website to find out how best to vote tactically. Our electoral system is redundant, so we have to find the best way of making it workable, but that's another story. Last point. If you've not been a Tory in the past, do you really want to see a Tory landslide? Do you really want May & Hunt & all the podgy, smug, overfed, overindulged Tory boys to have free rein to do whatever they like with this country, with nobody able to put the brakes on? Remember the Tory party is more right wing than ever, with centre right veterans like Clarke and Heseltine marginalised and held in contempt by many on their own side. May now says she's in favour of legalising fox hunting. In the 21st century, our PM wants to bring back blood sports. Heaven knows what state the NHS, state education and other public services will be in by 2022 if that landslide happens. It doesn't matter what they claim they will do. May's projected image on a large part of the population is that she's the best person for the job. Corbyn is seen as weaker and people like Abbot won't help matters. The mantra of Strong and Stable vs Coalition of Chaos is a very good sticky phrase that I doubt will be shaken off. Looking at the last GE, Shropshire was Tory control 51% in North Shropshire, I think 42% in Shrewsbury and 49% in South Shropshire. They are all seen as safe seats. With a weakened ukip those figures might well be strengthened. What I struggle to comprehend is how anyone but the staunchest of Tories can think a big Tory majority will be good for the country. It won't make any difference to the brexit negotiations but it will allow the NHS to be dismantled more quickly, services to be cut more drastically, pensions to be cut (justifiably in some cases), taxes to be increased for lower earners and so on. Perhaps you're right and policies don't matter any more. To me it's a depressing thought that people would be taken in by meaningless slogans cooked up by an Australian spin doctor and parroted by a robotic PM, who responds like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights to anything even vaguely unscripted. Even the disastrous Cameron was capable of thinking on his feet. May clearly can't.
|
|
|
Post by Matster on May 10, 2017 23:14:24 GMT 1
As an old Novaportan we should cut the guy some slack and get behind a local lad. If PR was in place we might have more chance of differing results in our county. As an example North Shropshire has not changed his it vote's for over a century. The only way to tackle a safe seat is to only have one person opposing it who has a good local presence.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on May 11, 2017 0:34:37 GMT 1
About this whole Labour spending money "meme".
What matters ultimately is the relationship between spending and revenues, not actual amounts.
If Labour spends £50bn more but that results in a similar or greater increase in revenues as a result of greater tax take from better employment and increased economic activity that will reduxe the deficit, reduce borrowing and ultimately bring the point where we can start paying down debt and reducing interest payments nearer.
Most economists advocate counter cyclical spending; when the private sector starts to fail, the public sector ramps up like a safety valve increasing the money available in the system through benefit payments and increased employment in the public sector which ultimately props up demand and props up the tax base.
What the Coalition did in 2010 onwards was the opposite of that. They a situation where the private sector was collapsing and exacerbated it by slashing public spending which meant that the deficit and our borrowing ballooned even though we were cutting spending.
This makes no economic sense. It makes political sense though, if your aim is to use the recession as a tool to scapegoat the public sector and push through purely ideological reforms around the privatisation of the public services. The "shock doctrine" in action.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 11, 2017 7:53:50 GMT 1
[/quote]What I struggle to comprehend is how anyone but the staunchest of Tories can think a big Tory majority will be good for the country. It won't make any difference to the brexit negotiations but it will allow the NHS to be dismantled more quickly, services to be cut more drastically, pensions to be cut (justifiably in some cases), taxes to be increased for lower earners and so on.
Perhaps you're right and policies don't matter any more. To me it's a depressing thought that people would be taken in by meaningless slogans cooked up by an Australian spin doctor and parroted by a robotic PM, who responds like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights to anything even vaguely unscripted. Even the disastrous Cameron was capable of thinking on his feet. May clearly can't. [/quote]
And that is precisely the problem with Labour at this election, it's doesn't understand it's own electorate. It's been too busy talking to itself for the past 2 years and getting comfort from moving towards the traditional Left that it forgot to consider whether even its core vote think it's a good idea. People are voting for the Tories because they want a hard brexit. They blame immigration, rightly or wrongly, on stresses in our public services and on their own communities, not just austerity. They voted to leave, to actually leave, not to remain in the single market where they will have to accept EU rules and free movement without a say in making them. They prioritise these things above spending money, as they belive the public finances are already at breaking point. I don't agree with many, if not all, of these points and I certainly won't be voting Tory. However, I can understand them, and labour need to start to understand them and come up with solutions grounded in their values if they will ever find a way back to power.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 11, 2017 11:49:38 GMT 1
The leaked Labour manifesto is absolutely grounded in Labour values. Whether people agree with it or not, I'd challenge anyone to say it isn't.
What is Labour's electorate? The "traditional" working class? That's a shrinking group and will never be enough by itself to take Labour to power. The polling shows Labour to be far and away the biggest party amongst the 18-24 age group, which is also the group least supportive of hard brexit. How do you marry those two groups? Then there are the middle class Labour supporters - graduates usually, often working in the public sector but there are plenty of us in the private sector too! Taking a strong anti-immigration line doesn't go down well with this group.
I don't envy anyone the task of trying to unify these very different groups. The Tories have no qualms about talking up an anti-immigration agenda, even though their continuous past failures to get anywhere near their own arbitrary (and economically damaging) targets should make them the party to be trusted least of all on the issue - both dishonest and incompetent.
So much will change in the next five years that I don't think a Labour defeat would be the disaster many claim it to be. The economic road will get rougher soon and there'll be fallout for the government of the day from the negative effects of brexit. Whatever your position on brexit, you'd have to be ultra-naïve to believe there won't be any. Similarly, whatever positive benefits it might bring are unlikely to flood in immediately.
I think the 2022 election might be a very different beast to this one. I hope by then we'll be moving further away from two-party politics and towards a more mature democracy that better reflects the whole country.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 11, 2017 19:46:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 11, 2017 22:53:46 GMT 1
About this Labour spending money meme. It is nonsense.
It ignores the fact that the public finances are not under the government’s control. Government borrowing ("borrowing") is the counterpart of private sector saving (both here and overseas). If the private sector wants to save more, then government must borrow more; the alternative is for it to depress the economy by cutting spending or raising taxes.
If anyone says, "but where is the money coming from to pay for it". Hit them with a large wet fish to knock some sense into them.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 11, 2017 23:41:01 GMT 1
The leaked Labour manifesto is absolutely grounded in Labour values. Whether people agree with it or not, I'd challenge anyone to say it isn't. What is Labour's electorate? The "traditional" working class? That's a shrinking group and will never be enough by itself to take Labour to power. The polling shows Labour to be far and away the biggest party amongst the 18-24 age group, which is also the group least supportive of hard brexit. How do you marry those two groups? Then there are the middle class Labour supporters - graduates usually, often working in the public sector but there are plenty of us in the private sector too! Taking a strong anti-immigration line doesn't go down well with this group. I don't envy anyone the task of trying to unify these very different groups. The Tories have no qualms about talking up an anti-immigration agenda, even though their continuous past failures to get anywhere near their own arbitrary (and economically damaging) targets should make them the party to be trusted least of all on the issue - both dishonest and incompetent. So much will change in the next five years that I don't think a Labour defeat would be the disaster many claim it to be. The economic road will get rougher soon and there'll be fallout for the government of the day from the negative effects of brexit. Whatever your position on brexit, you'd have to be ultra-naïve to believe there won't be any. Similarly, whatever positive benefits it might bring are unlikely to flood in immediately. I think the 2022 election might be a very different beast to this one. I hope by then we'll be moving further away from two-party politics and towards a more mature democracy that better reflects the whole country. My point was that I can understand why people are voting Tory, even if i don't agree with them. I'm sorry but I've seen so many comments over the last week on twitter, facebook etc by Labour supporting friends lamenting the mental state of anyone voting Tory I despair. I felt the same way about Leave voters after the referendum, but about two days later their was an excellent documentary (Why we voted leave) which opened my eyes. These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. I didn't say it was easy but Labour needs to address these issue if it ever hopes to win.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2017 10:47:07 GMT 1
The leaked Labour manifesto is absolutely grounded in Labour values. Whether people agree with it or not, I'd challenge anyone to say it isn't. What is Labour's electorate? The "traditional" working class? That's a shrinking group and will never be enough by itself to take Labour to power. The polling shows Labour to be far and away the biggest party amongst the 18-24 age group, which is also the group least supportive of hard brexit. How do you marry those two groups? Then there are the middle class Labour supporters - graduates usually, often working in the public sector but there are plenty of us in the private sector too! Taking a strong anti-immigration line doesn't go down well with this group. I don't envy anyone the task of trying to unify these very different groups. The Tories have no qualms about talking up an anti-immigration agenda, even though their continuous past failures to get anywhere near their own arbitrary (and economically damaging) targets should make them the party to be trusted least of all on the issue - both dishonest and incompetent. So much will change in the next five years that I don't think a Labour defeat would be the disaster many claim it to be. The economic road will get rougher soon and there'll be fallout for the government of the day from the negative effects of brexit. Whatever your position on brexit, you'd have to be ultra-naïve to believe there won't be any. Similarly, whatever positive benefits it might bring are unlikely to flood in immediately. I think the 2022 election might be a very different beast to this one. I hope by then we'll be moving further away from two-party politics and towards a more mature democracy that better reflects the whole country. My point was that I can understand why people are voting Tory, even if i don't agree with them. I'm sorry but I've seen so many comments over the last week on twitter, facebook etc by Labour supporting friends lamenting the mental state of anyone voting Tory I despair. I felt the same way about Leave voters after the referendum, but about two days later their was an excellent documentary (Why we voted leave) which opened my eyes. These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. I didn't say it was easy but Labour needs to address these issue if it ever hopes to win. Yep, I understand what you're saying. Something's become disconnected between Labour and some of its past voters. It's depressing to see a working class Labour man in Hartlepool say he won't vote Labour this time, when you know his life won't get any better after a big Tory win. He has his reasons but I can still believe he's wrong. I read a comment yesterday that all our electoral discussions make no difference. The result is decided by people who aren't really interested. It's the headlines and opening/closing summaries on the news, before people switch over, and the front pages of the papers that carry the most influence. Does the internet/social media change this? Probably not much; if you're not that bothered, you're unlikely to have much politics in your feeds. Seeing how BBC Question Time apparently gave its opening question to a Tory councillor last night, and looking at the hysterical press reporting of Labour's draft manifesto, it's not hard to see where this one's being pushed. Not easy in that environment for many of the disinterested or not-very-interested to say, "no, there might be more to this". I'll always believe in democracy, but our version of it is a shoddy thing.
|
|
|
Post by another fine mess on May 12, 2017 11:02:02 GMT 1
Some interesting points above. I think that Venceremos is dead right and has got to the heart of the dilemma facing Labour – i.e. how to reconcile the metropolitan liberal wing (predominantly in London and Bristol) with the traditional, more socially conservative wing (everywhere else). Those two groups will need to find more things in common if they’re going to keep voting for the same party.
The former group has always existed but more on the fringes (hence Corbyn’s profile until recently). Now they’re in charge and they don’t seem to have that much to say to those in the other group. For example, traditional Labour voters are very concerned about uncontrolled mass immigration for all sorts of reasons. We don’t have to get into that debate now but it has been Labour’s lack of engagement with those concerns that has pushed some of their voters to UKIP and the Tories.
By the way, the old economic left – right axis has become less and less reliable in determining how people think and vote. An interesting example is swing voters who, we’re told, decide elections. Studies show that these people are NOT in the centre ground. For example, they tend to be far tougher on law and order than average Tories and angrier about white collar crime and executive pay than average Labour voters. Ominously for Corbyn, the vast majority of them think that immigration is out of control.
Finally, I agree that the Labour manifesto contains a lot of popular and appealing things and I think they’ve been quite clever. Why not promise all sorts of goodies like scrapping tuition fees if you won’t have to deliver them but they’ll help reduce the size of the defeat?
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 12, 2017 11:55:50 GMT 1
My point was that I can understand why people are voting Tory, even if i don't agree with them. I'm sorry but I've seen so many comments over the last week on twitter, facebook etc by Labour supporting friends lamenting the mental state of anyone voting Tory I despair. I felt the same way about Leave voters after the referendum, but about two days later their was an excellent documentary (Why we voted leave) which opened my eyes. These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. I didn't say it was easy but Labour needs to address these issue if it ever hopes to win. Yep, I understand what you're saying. Something's become disconnected between Labour and some of its past voters. It's depressing to see a working class Labour man in Hartlepool say he won't vote Labour this time, when you know his life won't get any better after a big Tory win. He has his reasons but I can still believe he's wrong. I read a comment yesterday that all our electoral discussions make no difference. The result is decided by people who aren't really interested. It's the headlines and opening/closing summaries on the news, before people switch over, and the front pages of the papers that carry the most influence. Does the internet/social media change this? Probably not much; if you're not that bothered, you're unlikely to have much politics in your feeds. Seeing how BBC Question Time apparently gave its opening question to a Tory councillor last night, and looking at the hysterical press reporting of Labour's draft manifesto, it's not hard to see where this one's being pushed. Not easy in that environment for many of the disinterested or not-very-interested to say, "no, there might be more to this". I'll always believe in democracy, but our version of it is a shoddy thing. But isn't the insinuation that people that vote don't care/don't know whats good for them and are manipulated by a biased media, part of the problem? People that vote Tory can be just as well informed as you or me and the assumption that they aren't equally as shoddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 12:03:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on May 12, 2017 12:05:02 GMT 1
Not a supporter of Corbyn but have to say he is making an excellent speech at present at Chatham House.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2017 12:29:57 GMT 1
Yep, I understand what you're saying. Something's become disconnected between Labour and some of its past voters. It's depressing to see a working class Labour man in Hartlepool say he won't vote Labour this time, when you know his life won't get any better after a big Tory win. He has his reasons but I can still believe he's wrong. I read a comment yesterday that all our electoral discussions make no difference. The result is decided by people who aren't really interested. It's the headlines and opening/closing summaries on the news, before people switch over, and the front pages of the papers that carry the most influence. Does the internet/social media change this? Probably not much; if you're not that bothered, you're unlikely to have much politics in your feeds. Seeing how BBC Question Time apparently gave its opening question to a Tory councillor last night, and looking at the hysterical press reporting of Labour's draft manifesto, it's not hard to see where this one's being pushed. Not easy in that environment for many of the disinterested or not-very-interested to say, "no, there might be more to this". I'll always believe in democracy, but our version of it is a shoddy thing. But isn't the insinuation that people that vote don't care/don't know whats good for them and are manipulated by a biased media, part of the problem? People that vote Tory can be just as well informed as you or me and the assumption that they aren't equally as shoddy. Of course, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying it isn't those with an active political interest who determine the outcome of elections. But that doesn't stop me from thinking I'm right, or a committed Tory or other party voter from thinking they're right. Nor does it stop any of us from trying to persuade others that we're right! How that's done is another matter. There will be people on all sides guilty of over-egging it. If I say I believe Labour is the least worst option and someone tells me I'm trying to drag Britain back to the 1970s, how is that any different from your example of Labour supporting friends questioning the sanity of those voting Tory? It works both ways. In your words - "These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. "
You said that in the context of the EU referendum but we're talking about a general election now. Both main parties would undertake brexit negotiations but how those talks will go is a mystery to everyone. Neither party is seeking to reverse the referendum result. Labour is concerned to protect workers' rights as enshrined in EU law. What is it that Labour is saying that doesn't address these legitimate concerns? And what is it the Tories are saying that does? My concern is that this becomes a self-perpetuating mantra, even if the evidence doesn't support it.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 12, 2017 12:47:17 GMT 1
If anyone says, "but where is the money coming from to pay for it". Hit them with a large wet fish to knock some sense into them. Trouble is, Sean, we don't have enough fish.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 12, 2017 13:22:59 GMT 1
But isn't the insinuation that people that vote don't care/don't know whats good for them and are manipulated by a biased media, part of the problem? People that vote Tory can be just as well informed as you or me and the assumption that they aren't equally as shoddy. Of course, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying it isn't those with an active political interest who determine the outcome of elections. But that doesn't stop me from thinking I'm right, or a committed Tory or other party voter from thinking they're right. Nor does it stop any of us from trying to persuade others that we're right! How that's done is another matter. There will be people on all sides guilty of over-egging it. If I say I believe Labour is the least worst option and someone tells me I'm trying to drag Britain back to the 1970s, how is that any different from your example of Labour supporting friends questioning the sanity of those voting Tory? It works both ways. In your words - "These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. "
You said that in the context of the EU referendum but we're talking about a general election now. Both main parties would undertake brexit negotiations but how those talks will go is a mystery to everyone. Neither party is seeking to reverse the referendum result. Labour is concerned to protect workers' rights as enshrined in EU law. What is it that Labour is saying that doesn't address these legitimate concerns? And what is it the Tories are saying that does? My concern is that this becomes a self-perpetuating mantra, even if the evidence doesn't support it.
I agree that the dismissing of opposing arguments occurs both ways. The problem is that the Tories and their supporters can afford to do it when they have a 16-20 point lead in the polls, Labour can't. There's a piece in the Times by Phillip Collins that sums it up for me. "The Labour manifesto exhibits the same lack of engagement with domestic questions that the leader has shown all his political career. It contains nothing on how to improve schools and the NHS beyond demands for more spending. It has nothing on welfare except guarantee to restore housing benefit entitlements and retain the triple lock on pensions. Immigration, the biggest issue in the referendum campaign and the fault line of Labour support, is ignored apart from an airy promise to talk about the benefits.... On Europe, the Labour muddle is written up faithfully rather than solved. On all the big questions Labour has next to nothing to say."To contrast, the Conservatives have a very clear policy on both immigration and Europe, both of which i disagree with but you can't argue that they don't have anything to say. These might not be your or my priorities, but the fact is, if Labour doesn't deal with them at all, they may get annihilated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 13:35:01 GMT 1
Of course, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying it isn't those with an active political interest who determine the outcome of elections. But that doesn't stop me from thinking I'm right, or a committed Tory or other party voter from thinking they're right. Nor does it stop any of us from trying to persuade others that we're right! How that's done is another matter. There will be people on all sides guilty of over-egging it. If I say I believe Labour is the least worst option and someone tells me I'm trying to drag Britain back to the 1970s, how is that any different from your example of Labour supporting friends questioning the sanity of those voting Tory? It works both ways. In your words - "These were normal reasonable people with legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed. "
You said that in the context of the EU referendum but we're talking about a general election now. Both main parties would undertake brexit negotiations but how those talks will go is a mystery to everyone. Neither party is seeking to reverse the referendum result. Labour is concerned to protect workers' rights as enshrined in EU law. What is it that Labour is saying that doesn't address these legitimate concerns? And what is it the Tories are saying that does? My concern is that this becomes a self-perpetuating mantra, even if the evidence doesn't support it.
I agree that the dismissing of opposing arguments occurs both ways. The problem is that the Tories and their supporters can afford to do it when they have a 16-20 point lead in the polls, Labour can't. There's a piece in the Times by Phillip Collins that sums it up for me. "The Labour manifesto exhibits the same lack of engagement with domestic questions that the leader has shown all his political career. It contains nothing on how to improve schools and the NHS beyond demands for more spending. It has nothing on welfare except guarantee to restore housing benefit entitlements and retain the triple lock on pensions. Immigration, the biggest issue in the referendum campaign and the fault line of Labour support, is ignored apart from an airy promise to talk about the benefits.... On Europe, the Labour muddle is written up faithfully rather than solved. On all the big questions Labour has next to nothing to say."To contrast, the Conservatives have a very clear policy on both immigration and Europe, both of which i disagree with but you can't argue that they don't have anything to say. These might not be your or my priorities, but the fact is, if Labour doesn't deal with them at all, they may get annihilated. Why would Corbyn make operational improvement plans to schools and NHS. Surely this is the responsibility of sector leaders and subject experts. It is precisely this kind of ministerial meddling (Gove and Lansley) trying to play expert why both sectors are in such a mess that they are now. With both major reforms slammed as wasteful and unnecessary in numerous reports.
The tories 'clear policy on immigration' amounts to a vague target they have failed to hit 7 years in a row and have in fact moved completely the opposite way from. Their 'clear policy on Europe' amounts to a white paper filled with incorrect graphics and white space and more vague platitudes about Brexit meaning Brexit and an only discernible policy of trying to p**s off European counterparts as much as possible.
Labours position on immigration is clear, they want controls but not at the expense of the economy or our public services. Starmer has set out labours position on Europe clearly and wants fairer less hostile negotiation.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 12, 2017 14:16:24 GMT 1
I agree that the dismissing of opposing arguments occurs both ways. The problem is that the Tories and their supporters can afford to do it when they have a 16-20 point lead in the polls, Labour can't. There's a piece in the Times by Phillip Collins that sums it up for me. "The Labour manifesto exhibits the same lack of engagement with domestic questions that the leader has shown all his political career. It contains nothing on how to improve schools and the NHS beyond demands for more spending. It has nothing on welfare except guarantee to restore housing benefit entitlements and retain the triple lock on pensions. Immigration, the biggest issue in the referendum campaign and the fault line of Labour support, is ignored apart from an airy promise to talk about the benefits.... On Europe, the Labour muddle is written up faithfully rather than solved. On all the big questions Labour has next to nothing to say."To contrast, the Conservatives have a very clear policy on both immigration and Europe, both of which i disagree with but you can't argue that they don't have anything to say. These might not be your or my priorities, but the fact is, if Labour doesn't deal with them at all, they may get annihilated. Why would Corbyn make operational improvement plans to schools and NHS. Surely this is the responsibility of sector leaders and subject experts. It is precisely this kind of ministerial meddling (Gove and Lansley) trying to play expert why both sectors are in such a mess that they are now. With both major reforms slammed as wasteful and unnecessary in numerous reports.
The tories 'clear policy on immigration' amounts to a vague target they have failed to hit 7 years in a row and have in fact moved completely the opposite way from. Their 'clear policy on Europe' amounts to a white paper filled with incorrect graphics and white space and more vague platitudes about Brexit meaning Brexit and an only discernible policy of trying to p**s off European counterparts as much as possible.
Labours position on immigration is clear, they want controls but not at the expense of the economy or our public services. Starmer has set out labours position on Europe clearly and wants fairer less hostile negotiation.
Labours position on Europe and immigration seems to be an end to free movement but with access to the single market, which we know has already been dismissed by the EU. The Tories policy is to leave the single market, the customs union and the EU, therefore ending free movement and effectively handing back immigration control to the UK. Are you saying the Labour position is clearer than the Conservatives?! I'm not advocating the Tory position, I think it's a disaster, but Labours position is a mess!
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 12, 2017 14:26:37 GMT 1
Corbyn makes the same mistake as all socialists. He wants to increase public spending on various items by increasing taxes and probably by borrowing.
Just how many times does it have to be said; increasing taxes acts as a disincentive both to individuals and business resulting in a net reduction in the overall amount of taxes received by the government. A relatively low-tax economy is the best way to increase overall receipts to the exchequer through increased business activity and economic growth.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on May 12, 2017 14:53:20 GMT 1
Corbyn makes the same mistake as all socialists. He wants to increase public spending on various items by increasing taxes and probably by borrowing. Just how many times does it have to be said; increasing taxes acts as a disincentive both to individuals and business resulting in a net reduction in the overall amount of taxes received by the government. A relatively low-tax economy is the best way to increase overall receipts to the exchequer through increased business activity and economic growth. Christ. Where's that wet fish when you need it !
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 12, 2017 15:27:12 GMT 1
Corbyn makes the same mistake as all socialists. He wants to increase public spending on various items by increasing taxes and probably by borrowing. Just how many times does it have to be said; increasing taxes acts as a disincentive both to individuals and business resulting in a net reduction in the overall amount of taxes received by the government. A relatively low-tax economy is the best way to increase overall receipts to the exchequer through increased business activity and economic growth. Christ. Where's that wet fish when you need it ! There are none so blind etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 12, 2017 15:42:38 GMT 1
I see that Comrade Jezza has stated that he would only use Britain's nuclear deterrent after 'very careful consideration and only as a last resort'.
Thank God for that!
At least we can now stop Theresa' May's indiscriminate daily launchings of ICBMs.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on May 12, 2017 16:42:42 GMT 1
Corbyn makes the same mistake as all socialists. He wants to increase public spending on various items by increasing taxes and probably by borrowing. Just how many times does it have to be said; increasing taxes acts as a disincentive both to individuals and business resulting in a net reduction in the overall amount of taxes received by the government. A relatively low-tax economy is the best way to increase overall receipts to the exchequer through increased business activity and economic growth.No, that can be the case with extreme tax hikes. It's not the case all of the time and indeed, even the country in the world with the highest taxes (hello) is a highly prosperous and happy one. Corbyn's proposed tax increases are actually fairly modest for the most part. And yes, if there is an increase in borrowing (which the Conservatives have done at a greater rate than every Labour government in history since 2010, FYI) that would not actually be the end of the world. If the spending is in the right areas it can stimulate demand, boost output, increase tax receipts and decrease the deficit - both in nominal terms and (more likely) in percentage terms, which is the most important thing.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on May 12, 2017 17:42:07 GMT 1
Yes. And as for 'spending in the right areas' Re-nationalising railways, forming state owned energy companies and of course shovelling more cash into the inefficiently run NHS is hardly going to 'stimulate demand and boost output' as you put it. It will certainly stimulate demand for more civil servants. It's the economics of the mad-house.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 12, 2017 18:06:01 GMT 1
The publicly owned East Coast train company, which run services between 2009 and 2015 after the privately run franchise folder worked very well
Over £200 million returned to the treasury and £1 billion invested back into the network, plus improved capacity and punctuality for the passenger
|
|