Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 20:24:55 GMT 1
The only slight snag with this case scenario is it’s not the EU who want a hard boarder between the North and South of Ireland - it our Government wanting it because of the red lines May set in the negotiations Being out of the single market and customs union, and not wanting free movement of people dictates there has to be a boarder. The alternative is no boarder and Northern Ireland remains in all these arrangements, therefore a part of the U.K. hasn’t left the EU (DUP won’t agree that) or you have unchecked boarders into the U.K. via Northern Ireland which is goes against “taking back control” Over two years not a single workable policy for maintaining the good Friday agreement (an international treaty so kinda important) whilst also meeting the UK’s red lines over EU withdrawal has been put forward. It’s not a simple process otherwise someone would have a solution by now That's not true... UK has always maintained that the border can be a virtual border with technology crossings... it's the EU that are saying all about a hard border... how are the borders of Switzerland and to the east of Europe maintained without hard borders.... Massive mountain ranges and a thousand square miles of battlefield at the moment Maggie!
|
|
|
Post by highlandshrew on Nov 29, 2018 20:43:15 GMT 1
The only slight snag with this case scenario is it’s not the EU who want a hard boarder between the North and South of Ireland - it our Government wanting it because of the red lines May set in the negotiations Being out of the single market and customs union, and not wanting free movement of people dictates there has to be a boarder. The alternative is no boarder and Northern Ireland remains in all these arrangements, therefore a part of the U.K. hasn’t left the EU (DUP won’t agree that) or you have unchecked boarders into the U.K. via Northern Ireland which is goes against “taking back control” Over two years not a single workable policy for maintaining the good Friday agreement (an international treaty so kinda important) whilst also meeting the UK’s red lines over EU withdrawal has been put forward. It’s not a simple process otherwise someone would have a solution by now That's not true... UK has always maintained that the border can be a virtual border with technology crossings... it's the EU that are saying all about a hard border... how are the borders of Switzerland and to the east of Europe maintained without hard borders.... Sorry. I stupidly thought 'taking back control of our borders' implied some form of control on who walked across them from other EU countries. Apparently not! I don't think this 'virtual border' concept was particularly well explained by the Leave camp in the referendum - probably too busy telling porkies about how much we would save to spend on the NHS. Where is the mighty BoJo by the way?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 29, 2018 21:05:43 GMT 1
I think i'd rather take my chances with all of those listed over Diane 'Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us' Abbott. She a one int she bless 'er... Honestly I kind of agree. No fan of Abbott myself but I’d certainly trust her integrity over that of Boris. Perspectives I guess! Truly a wonderful and golden era for UK politics, aren't we the lucky ones...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Nov 29, 2018 21:07:37 GMT 1
The only slight snag with this case scenario is it’s not the EU who want a hard boarder between the North and South of Ireland - it our Government wanting it because of the red lines May set in the negotiations Being out of the single market and customs union, and not wanting free movement of people dictates there has to be a boarder. The alternative is no boarder and Northern Ireland remains in all these arrangements, therefore a part of the U.K. hasn’t left the EU (DUP won’t agree that) or you have unchecked boarders into the U.K. via Northern Ireland which is goes against “taking back control” Over two years not a single workable policy for maintaining the good Friday agreement (an international treaty so kinda important) whilst also meeting the UK’s red lines over EU withdrawal has been put forward. It’s not a simple process otherwise someone would have a solution by now That's not true... UK has always maintained that the border can be a virtual border with technology crossings... it's the EU that are saying all about a hard border... how are the borders of Switzerland and to the east of Europe maintained without hard borders.... You're right the The UK government have suggested that will technology will allow the border to be frictionless in a couple of years, although have provided no evidence of that actually being anywhere near existing. If they are so sure of it then the backstop in the withdrawl agreement is fine as technology will sort it all in the next couple of years As for Switzerland they have a series of trade agreements with the EU which effectively make them part of the Customs Union and Single market - something May's red lines rule out. Even then they have check points on the main road and rail routes into the EU with checks taking anything from a few minutes for cars, or up to a couple of hours for freight. Not all crossings are checked but there is a physical border check which is something unacceptable to a lot of people in Northern Ireland and indeed the Good Friday Agreement. EU borders with Russia and Eastern European Countries outside the EU also have boarders on crossings, or are governed by the Schengen agreement allowing visa travel between these nations. The UK and Ireland aren't part of the Schengen agreement (they both opted out) so couldn't operate under that system. They could opt back into that agreement but then that allows freedom of movement from other nations in Schengen - again going against one of Mays red lines about free movement.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 29, 2018 22:23:21 GMT 1
Please tell me what would happen on 29th of March to the Eire / Northern Ireland border if we leave without an agreement? The Belfast agreement has become the new bible for those wishing to use it to push their own political agenda. It says very little, and implies a lot. But since it is unenforceable in law that doesn't matter. It's a political document. In law all NI has is the right to choose to be part of the UK or part of Ireland (assuming Ireland accepts them). Other than that it has no more right to choose to be different than Scotland, Wales or North Yorkshire, for that matter. For the first time in my lifetime it is about time that the British Government leaned on the Irish Government. Since it is they that would be the ones taxing their people and forcing them to build border towers nobody wants and that some will try to blow up. The Irish Government needs to talk to Brussels and demand mutual recognition in Ireland - essentially a free trade area in Ireland because the rest of the EU hasn't yet realised that is required between the EU and the UK. The Irish government has to decide whether to accept Brussels' dictat in Ireland or whether they are going to push to extend the concept of the Common Travel Area from people to cows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 8:29:50 GMT 1
I'd say the last Labour manifesto was more Keynesian or Democratic Socialist in outlook than Socialist. State ownership of utilities and infrastructure; using government capital to invest in infrastructure and a greater focus on using government funding to boost the economy are all quite common in Western politics - especially in Scandinavian countries. To an extent it was Keynesian economics that Obama employed to tackle the financial crisis during his time as US President, and are backed up by a lot of economists in times of low growth or recession. The funding and tax levels proposed in the last Labour manifesto were actually pretty similar to the level public spending in the UK during the 80s and 90s, which presumably makes Thatcher, Major and Blair out to be Socialists too. There are faults with Labour policies which rightly need to be challenged. Jibes about Socialism and Diane Abbott don't really add much to the argument unfortunately. Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 8:57:34 GMT 1
I'd say the last Labour manifesto was more Keynesian or Democratic Socialist in outlook than Socialist. State ownership of utilities and infrastructure; using government capital to invest in infrastructure and a greater focus on using government funding to boost the economy are all quite common in Western politics - especially in Scandinavian countries. To an extent it was Keynesian economics that Obama employed to tackle the financial crisis during his time as US President, and are backed up by a lot of economists in times of low growth or recession. The funding and tax levels proposed in the last Labour manifesto were actually pretty similar to the level public spending in the UK during the 80s and 90s, which presumably makes Thatcher, Major and Blair out to be Socialists too. There are faults with Labour policies which rightly need to be challenged. Jibes about Socialism and Diane Abbott don't really add much to the argument unfortunately. Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. Yeah but VENEZUELA.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Nov 30, 2018 9:14:57 GMT 1
Please tell me what would happen on 29th of March to the Eire / Northern Ireland border if we leave without an agreement? Like the border between Switzerland and Germany / France - missed it completely when we went into Switzerland from France and going out into Germany we slowed down for a hut in the centre of the road but it was empty and we carried on. But they’ve got a trade free travel agreement it’s being suggested we leave without one, a bit of a difference
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Nov 30, 2018 11:13:26 GMT 1
***to play*** No I don’t know what they are. I think you think it’s big and clever to make such stupid posts and so I’m challenging you to explain why. And as you still seem incapable of providing any kind of explanation for your pathetic and ill thought out statement, I’ll assume you made it to simply try and look big and clever.....and of course fail miserably! Incorrect. JC claims they will "tax the super-rich" etc. The "super-rich" will invest their money elsewhere rather than in Britain, leaving less money to tax. The pot will dwindle, and they'll move onto over-taxation of the middle classes. There will be no incentive for high earners to work if they're being over taxed, which effectively makes for a less productive country. Harsh taxation regimes discourage risk takers, productivity and business/investment meaning the economy will suffer. You essentially make less in tax revenues this way. It’s clear that any talented individuals and individuals investing in business will simply invest in a more tax friendly environment.
It's well known that most economies grind to a halt under socialism.
Another point is debt. JC would continue with the standard spend, spend, spend mentality. The national debt would increase, but in addition to this our credit rating would essentially devalue meaning we'd pay more interest on our current levels of debt. It’s always the same under "new" Labour.
So if labour are so bad, how is it that we haven't sorted out the debt problems in the 8 years since they were last in power? In fact aren't we more in debt now, despite public services being massively under funded and many in crisis? How come if sorting the debt was so important could we invoke an expensive referendum, masses of time and money to deal with the consequences and then another snap election?
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Nov 30, 2018 11:26:36 GMT 1
You love the play the daft card. Me and plenty of others have our reasons, and you know what they are. He is a serious danger to our economy and to add to that, far more dangerous than a no deal Brexit would be for the economy. In the last 8 years Cameron called a referendum fully expecting remain to win. He resigned due to the god almighty cock up the leave vote resulted in so step forward May. Hey let’s call a general election to strengthen our majority, what a disaster! Never mind I’ll push forward to get a great deal for the country. Does anyone think she’s done that? All the Tory chums can do is scare munger about labour and how much worse it would be with JC at the helm. Could it really be any worse than what’s about to happen? Oh I forgot we’ve got Boris waiting in the wings to completely mess things up making Trump look like a genius politician....God help us 😩
|
|
|
Post by champagneprince on Nov 30, 2018 11:42:28 GMT 1
You love the play the daft card. Me and plenty of others have our reasons, and you know what they are. He is a serious danger to our economy and to add to that, far more dangerous than a no deal Brexit would be for the economy. In the last 8 years Cameron called a referendum fully expecting remain to win. He resigned due to the god almighty cock up the leave vote resulted in so step forward May. Hey let’s call a general election to strengthen our majority, what a disaster! Never mind I’ll push forward to get a great deal for the country. Does anyone think she’s done that? All the Tory chums can do is scare munger about labour and how much worse it would be with JC at the helm. Could it really be any worse than what’s about to happen? Oh I forgot we’ve got Boris waiting in the wings to completely mess things up making Trump look like a genius politician....God help us 😩 Let's not forget here that although Cameron called a referendum it still needed to be agreed with by MP's and they did so by a huge majority of 544 to 53. As for the tactic of scaremongering against Labour Corbyn, well sadly, it'll probably be enough for them and we'll get another 4 years of Tory rule. Boot Corbyn out and it'll probably be a landslide for labour. I agree about Boris. I mean FFS. Besides, it was his for the taking last time and he bottled out of it.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Nov 30, 2018 11:47:06 GMT 1
I see May has swooned off to Buenos Aires for the G20.
On current form she'll come back and announce she's given away the Falkland Islands!
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 30, 2018 12:30:36 GMT 1
You love the play the daft card. Me and plenty of others have our reasons, and you know what they are. He is a serious danger to our economy and to add to that, far more dangerous than a no deal Brexit would be for the economy. Could it really be any worse than what’s about to happen? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Nov 30, 2018 16:23:22 GMT 1
I'd say the last Labour manifesto was more Keynesian or Democratic Socialist in outlook than Socialist. State ownership of utilities and infrastructure; using government capital to invest in infrastructure and a greater focus on using government funding to boost the economy are all quite common in Western politics - especially in Scandinavian countries. To an extent it was Keynesian economics that Obama employed to tackle the financial crisis during his time as US President, and are backed up by a lot of economists in times of low growth or recession. The funding and tax levels proposed in the last Labour manifesto were actually pretty similar to the level public spending in the UK during the 80s and 90s, which presumably makes Thatcher, Major and Blair out to be Socialists too. There are faults with Labour policies which rightly need to be challenged. Jibes about Socialism and Diane Abbott don't really add much to the argument unfortunately. Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. Such ignorance it not surprising given the heavily Tory biased press in this country. Some people will clearly hear or read and believe any old nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 30, 2018 17:03:43 GMT 1
Incorrect. JC claims they will "tax the super-rich" etc. The "super-rich" will invest their money elsewhere rather than in Britain, leaving less money to tax. The pot will dwindle, and they'll move onto over-taxation of the middle classes. There will be no incentive for high earners to work if they're being over taxed, which effectively makes for a less productive country. Harsh taxation regimes discourage risk takers, productivity and business/investment meaning the economy will suffer. You essentially make less in tax revenues this way. It’s clear that any talented individuals and individuals investing in business will simply invest in a more tax friendly environment.
It's well known that most economies grind to a halt under socialism.
Another point is debt. JC would continue with the standard spend, spend, spend mentality. The national debt would increase, but in addition to this our credit rating would essentially devalue meaning we'd pay more interest on our current levels of debt. It’s always the same under "new" Labour.
Thank you! That wasn’t so hard was it? Shame it's complete bo11ox though. It's clear a lot of effort went in to writing a post that appears to show someone who actually has a clue but failed on every point. Bless.
Just to pick up on a couple of points.
The super rich don't invest much, if any, money. Do you see Jeff Bezos putting his hand in his own pocket to build a new Amazon hub in New York? No off course you don't, because Amazon force these cities to bid against each other with promises of tax breaks, no unions and lax regulation.
Did you see the Glasers spend a penny of their own cash to buy Man. Utd.? Nope, just creative accounting and the club are owned by them and in debt at the same time. Genius.
If you believe that the super rich actually spend their own money you really need to look a bit deeper.
The spend, spend, spend allegation comes out every time, but the last 8 year of Tory rule have seen them borrow more money than every Labour government EVER combined. If you actually do some research you'd find out that every Labour government has paid down the national debt.
Stop reading the Mail and Express, open your mind and RESEARCH stuff. You'll come out the other side a better person.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 9:46:59 GMT 1
I'd say the last Labour manifesto was more Keynesian or Democratic Socialist in outlook than Socialist. State ownership of utilities and infrastructure; using government capital to invest in infrastructure and a greater focus on using government funding to boost the economy are all quite common in Western politics - especially in Scandinavian countries. To an extent it was Keynesian economics that Obama employed to tackle the financial crisis during his time as US President, and are backed up by a lot of economists in times of low growth or recession. The funding and tax levels proposed in the last Labour manifesto were actually pretty similar to the level public spending in the UK during the 80s and 90s, which presumably makes Thatcher, Major and Blair out to be Socialists too. There are faults with Labour policies which rightly need to be challenged. Jibes about Socialism and Diane Abbott don't really add much to the argument unfortunately. Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. I don't think it helps Labour's cause when the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated... I will be the first socialist Labour ChancellorI will be the first socialist in the tradition of the Labour PartyLook, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist...and has also stated that overthrowing capitalism is now his job. Perhaps people are well aware of Labour's current ambition but are concerned of their future direction considering McDonnell's remarks. And whilst socialism is a very broad church and every man and his dog will no doubt have his own definition, isn't it reasonable to trot out the socialist line if the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself stated that he will be the first socialist Chancellor?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 10:07:01 GMT 1
Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. Yeah but VENEZUELA. Speaking of McDonnell, here's a real pearler from him regarding Venezuela... Here you had the contrast between capitalism in crisis and socialism in action.Goes without saying of course that some folk will try and dismiss the remarks made by some within Labour regards to Venezuela because quite frankly, as things have transpired, it makes them look pretty ****ing stupid. And when politicians make themselves look stupid people do tend to notice and it never does them or their cause much good. Labour got it horribly wrong about Venezuela, embarrassingly wrong. Hardly a surprise that when the leader of the opposition (and one or two other within their ranks) gets it so wrong that people will be wary. Hardly surprising that when the leader of the opposition announces that Venezuela has shown us "another way is possible", that people will be wary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 10:32:53 GMT 1
Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. I don't think it helps Labour's cause when the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated... I will be the first socialist Labour ChancellorI will be the first socialist in the tradition of the Labour PartyLook, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist...and has also stated that overthrowing capitalism is now his job. Perhaps people are well aware of Labour's current ambition but are concerned of their future direction considering McDonnell's remarks. And whilst socialism is a very broad church and every man and his dog will no doubt have his own definition, isn't it reasonable to trot out the socialist line if the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself stated that he will be the first socialist Chancellor? And let’s be honest the last thing anyone wants or needs is a politian who is honest about their beliefs or intentions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 10:35:38 GMT 1
Absolutely spot on. I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing. I don't think it helps Labour's cause when the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated... I will be the first socialist Labour ChancellorI will be the first socialist in the tradition of the Labour PartyLook, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist...and has also stated that overthrowing capitalism is now his job. Perhaps people are well aware of Labour's current ambition but are concerned of their future direction considering McDonnell's remarks. And whilst socialism is a very broad church and every man and his dog will no doubt have his own definition, isn't it reasonable to trot out the socialist line if the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself stated that he will be the first socialist Chancellor? You've just proven the point...
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 10:44:19 GMT 1
I don't think it helps Labour's cause when the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated... I will be the first socialist Labour ChancellorI will be the first socialist in the tradition of the Labour PartyLook, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist...and has also stated that overthrowing capitalism is now his job. Perhaps people are well aware of Labour's current ambition but are concerned of their future direction considering McDonnell's remarks. And whilst socialism is a very broad church and every man and his dog will no doubt have his own definition, isn't it reasonable to trot out the socialist line if the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself stated that he will be the first socialist Chancellor? And let’s be honest the last thing anyone wants or needs is a politian who is honest about their beliefs or intentions. Well he should certainly be commended for that. No doubt. But I don't think that's what is being discussed here...
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 10:47:32 GMT 1
I don't think it helps Labour's cause when the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously stated... I will be the first socialist Labour ChancellorI will be the first socialist in the tradition of the Labour PartyLook, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist...and has also stated that overthrowing capitalism is now his job. Perhaps people are well aware of Labour's current ambition but are concerned of their future direction considering McDonnell's remarks. And whilst socialism is a very broad church and every man and his dog will no doubt have his own definition, isn't it reasonable to trot out the socialist line if the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself stated that he will be the first socialist Chancellor? You've just proven the point... Sure. That its perfectly understandable for people to trot out the socialist line when the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 10:51:23 GMT 1
You've just proven the point... Sure. That its perfectly understandable for people to trot out the socialist line when the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor. No, you see having Marxist views on economics, doesn't mean you're politically Marxist. A very good mate is a dyed in the wool old school Tory. But, is economically Marxist, it causes great hilarity between us over a pint. In other words, see Mattw's post. Which is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 11:07:42 GMT 1
Sure. That its perfectly understandable for people to trot out the socialist line when the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor. No, you see having Marxist views on economics, doesn't mean you're politically Marxist. A very good mate is a dyed in the wool old school Tory. But, is economically Marxist, it causes great hilarity between us over a pint. In other words, see Mattw's post. Which is spot on. But it doesn't mean he isn't either does it? I mean he has stated there is an a lot to be learnt from reading Das Kapital. And when we are referring to the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer stating he is a Marxist and that he thinks he can learn from Das Kapital then it's hardly surprising that people see him as having Marxist views on economics and have concerns because of it. And like I say, considering he has stated himself that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor, it's hardly surprising that people trot out the socialist line when looking to Labour. How else are people supposed to see him and Labour, what else considering that is how the Shadow Chancellor himself defines himself. Above you mentioned... I laugh when people trot (no pun intended) out the Socialist line, clearly understand nothing.I don't find that particularly odd considering the current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks an awful lot about socialism and defines himself as a socialist. Not as if people are pulling this out of thin air. McDonnell, as Matron points out, is pretty open about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 11:20:55 GMT 1
No, you see having Marxist views on economics, doesn't mean you're politically Marxist. A very good mate is a dyed in the wool old school Tory. But, is economically Marxist, it causes great hilarity between us over a pint. In other words, see Mattw's post. Which is spot on. But it doesn't mean he isn't either does it? I mean he has stated there is an a lot to be learnt from reading Das Kapital. And when we are referring to the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer stating he is a Marxist and that he thinks he can learn from Das Kapital then it's hardly surprising that people see him as having Marxist views on economics and have concerns because of it. And like I say, considering he has stated himself that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor, it's hardly surprising that people trot out the socialist line when looking to Labour. How else are people supposed to see him and Labour, what else considering that is how the Shadow Chancellor himself defines himself. The point is, as pointed out by Mattw and me upthread, is that people trot out the Socialist line, without realising that Marxist economic policies have been used by middle-of-the-road Labour and Tories in the past. So, personally, when people use Socialism, which is in fact Social Democracy (there's a difference) as a stick to beat Corbyn and McDonnell with, I laugh. So, people can do and say what they like, without actually reading, or studying what they are talking about. And I can chuckle about, like my mate and I do.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Dec 1, 2018 11:38:47 GMT 1
Just as well a fair % of the great British population is more concerned with Strictly and I'm a Celebrity than politics. Hence the issues raised of the timing of the debate between May and Corbyn. There will be the odd march about Brexit through London and elsewhere, but that's about it.
Otherwise we might well have experienced the British equivalent of the Gilets Jaunes protests in France, which although on the face of it is about fuel prices is in reality a protest about Macron. And the French don't hold back when protesting.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 11:41:53 GMT 1
But it doesn't mean he isn't either does it? I mean he has stated there is an a lot to be learnt from reading Das Kapital. And when we are referring to the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer stating he is a Marxist and that he thinks he can learn from Das Kapital then it's hardly surprising that people see him as having Marxist views on economics and have concerns because of it. And like I say, considering he has stated himself that he will be the first socialist Labour Chancellor, it's hardly surprising that people trot out the socialist line when looking to Labour. How else are people supposed to see him and Labour, what else considering that is how the Shadow Chancellor himself defines himself. The point is, as pointed out by Mattw and me upthread, is that people trot out the Socialist line, without realising that Marxist economic policies have been used by middle-of-the-road Labour and Tories in the past. So, personally, when people use Socialism, which is in fact Social Democracy (there's a difference) as a stick to beat Corbyn and McDonnell with, I laugh. So, people can do and say what they like, without actually reading, or studying what they are talking about. And I can chuckle about, like my mate and I do. Well he has at times spoken specifically about socialism, bringing a socialist society to the UK. No mention of social democracy along with those comments. So he has stated himself that he is a socialist and he has spoken about transforming the UK into a socialist society. And as for social democracy, that, as far as I am aware, is a capitalist system. Something McDonnell has stated he wishes to overthrow. We'll have to agree to disagree but for me, considering what he comes out with, it's perfectly acceptable for people to trot out the "socialism" line when it comes to Labour as long as McDonnell continues as Shadow Chancellor and as long as he keeps coming out with that he comes out with. Hardly a surprise some are wary of Labour because of it. That he is the Shadow Chancellor, that he is a self confessed Marxist and that he said there is a lot to be learnt from Das Kapital, its hardly surprising people are wary, wary of where this might all end if he was the Chancellor.
|
|
|
Post by shropshirelad42 on Dec 1, 2018 11:43:08 GMT 1
Some posters seem to be getting away from the point.........THE BREXIT DEAL!!!........ and are now going down the route of party politics........ "My leaders are better than your leaders" etc etc. YAWN !! YAWN !! The deal is on the table so let's just comment about it's good points (if any !!) or it's bad points (if any !!) I am a 'leaver' but was hoping for a much better deal than has been offered. I have not read in any national newspaper about the 'worries & fears' of the citizens of France, Germany et al who must also be EXTREMELY concerned about how the outcome is going to affect them. I am certain that lots & lots of German/French and other European businesses rely as much on the UK as we do on them. I don't want to blather on too much but having listened to several interviews on radio and TV with James Dyson (of hoover fame) and Sir Digby Jones (very highly thought of by British businessmen)on the panels I keep wondering why the likes of these two gentlemen were not involved in the Brexit talks. They speak so much more sense than the politicians and explain things in 'plain' English. Or is my bias because I just DO NOT trust the politicians
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Dec 1, 2018 12:09:08 GMT 1
The point is, as pointed out by Mattw and me upthread, is that people trot out the Socialist line, without realising that Marxist economic policies have been used by middle-of-the-road Labour and Tories in the past. So, personally, when people use Socialism, which is in fact Social Democracy (there's a difference) as a stick to beat Corbyn and McDonnell with, I laugh. So, people can do and say what they like, without actually reading, or studying what they are talking about. And I can chuckle about, like my mate and I do. Well he has at times spoken specifically about socialism, bringing a socialist society to the UK. No mention of social democracy along with those comments. So again, as he has stated himself that he is a socialist and he has spoken about transforming the UK into a socialist society. And as for social democracy, that, as far as I am aware, is a capitalist system. Something McDonnell has stated he wishes to overthrow. We'll have to agree to disagree but for me, considering what he comes out with, it's perfectly acceptable for people to trot out the "socialism" line when it comes to Labour as long as McDonnell continues as Shadow Chancellor and as long as he keeps coming out with that he comes out with. Hardly a surprise some are wary of Labour because of it. That he is the Shadow Chancellor, that he is a self confessed Marxist and that he said there is a lot to be learnt from Das Kapital, its hardly surprising people are wary, wary of where this might all end if he was the Chancellor. I think with the Labour party, and other parties for that matter, there is always the element of playing to the home crowd in what Leaders say in interviews and at party conferences and rallies etc. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are good at that, just as Johnson, Gove and May are with the Conservative audience. However all politicians are aware of the fact they are part of a party and political system which more practical policies have to be followed. You have to judge parties on what their actual policies are and how they are developed, and if you look in detail at the Labour manefesto put forward at the last election there really isn't anything from Das Kapital in it, or indeed much that isn't being done by centre right and left led countries across the western world. There are many Labour Councils in England led by politicians from the left of the party but still follow socially democratic policies. Think the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread is that judging any politician on sound bites and personal characteristics isn't helpful and has arguably left us with the poor quality of political debate that we have now and has caused the difficulties with brexit. By all means pull policies apart but base them on whats actually not being put forward not on some theoretical interpretation of what they might be trying to do
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 1, 2018 13:05:44 GMT 1
Well he has at times spoken specifically about socialism, bringing a socialist society to the UK. No mention of social democracy along with those comments. So again, as he has stated himself that he is a socialist and he has spoken about transforming the UK into a socialist society. And as for social democracy, that, as far as I am aware, is a capitalist system. Something McDonnell has stated he wishes to overthrow. We'll have to agree to disagree but for me, considering what he comes out with, it's perfectly acceptable for people to trot out the "socialism" line when it comes to Labour as long as McDonnell continues as Shadow Chancellor and as long as he keeps coming out with that he comes out with. Hardly a surprise some are wary of Labour because of it. That he is the Shadow Chancellor, that he is a self confessed Marxist and that he said there is a lot to be learnt from Das Kapital, its hardly surprising people are wary, wary of where this might all end if he was the Chancellor. I think with the Labour party, and other parties for that matter, there is always the element of playing to the home crowd in what Leaders say in interviews and at party conferences and rallies etc. Both Corbyn and McDonnell are good at that, just as Johnson, Gove and May are with the Conservative audience. However all politicians are aware of the fact they are part of a party and political system which more practical policies have to be followed. You have to judge parties on what their actual policies are and how they are developed, and if you look in detail at the Labour manefesto put forward at the last election there really isn't anything from Das Kapital in it, or indeed much that isn't being done by centre right and left led countries across the western world. There are many Labour Councils in England led by politicians from the left of the party but still follow socially democratic policies. Think the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread is that judging any politician on sound bites and personal characteristics isn't helpful and has arguably left us with the poor quality of political debate that we have now and has caused the difficulties with brexit. By all means pull policies apart but base them on whats actually not being put forward not on some theoretical interpretation of what they might be trying to do They do indeed, good post. Just that for me if you have the Shadow Chancellor stating that he is a socialist and that he wishes to overthrow capitalism and transform the UK to socialist society then plenty will take him at his word; in that that is exactly where he would take the UK given the chance. And that chance would only come about with a Labour government. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me that people would talk of socialism when looking to Labour, if that is the Shadow Chancellors stated aim. Where it might all eventually end if given the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Dec 1, 2018 13:56:02 GMT 1
I have often thought of myself- and indeed called myself, as socialist.
I am starting to think I am unclean, or something.
|
|