Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour leadership: Owen Smith wants 'new industrial revolution' Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Different language, same message: A bigger state and higher taxes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Those two things are inevitable. Article 50 will be triggered, and then there's no way you can go backwards in the process; the call for a second referendum will be irrelevant (and ignored) because once you've triggered, you can't prevent your exit even if you do have a contrary vote.

    Once we are out of Europe, the Labour Party will accept that and move on. As for immigration, once we are out of Europe the introduction of an Australian style points system is inevitable. Again, Labour will like that policy well enough when it realises opposing it is a no go.

    The real question is, if Labour can ditch the hard left ******s, get past its EU and immigration issues, would you then give them consideration?

    As for "political correctness", I'm genuinely unsure what you mean. If by that you mean it's politically incorrect to say something like "I ****ing hate all faggo ts" or "Ni ggers shouldn't be allowed to own property or vote", then yes I guess the Labour Party supports political correctness. So do the conservatives, so does UKIP, so does everyone who is within a stone's throw of being mainstream. The only people who would disagree with that are probably the BNP. I'm not sure what the issue is with that
    I mean like how the Labour party is the largest supporter of the new 'online police squads' who look out for when people are 'offended' by something online. They tried to push for a new 'anti-Islamophobia' law last election.

    Not to mention events such as when that renowned scientist had to step down for saying something about women in labs, how you fall for them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    I mean like how the Labour party is the largest supporter of the new 'online police squads' who look out for when people are 'offended' by something online.
    I don't think that's Labour Party policy now or ever has been. What the police do is respond to things said online that might contravene the Public Order Act, principally sections that were passed by the Thatcher government. In fact, prosecutions for saying something "nasty" has principally occurred under the current Conservative government.

    They tried to push for a new 'anti-Islamophobia' law last election.
    Labour's policy was to beef up existing offences, not create any new ones. Even so, I opposed it and the policy has been dropped. And I doubt any such laws would be pushed by a party led by Dan Jarvis, a man who has actually fought in close quarters against fanatical Islamists

    Not to mention events such as when that renowned scientist had to step down for saying something about women in labs, how you fall for them.
    Not sure how that's Labour's fault, though. He said something very silly, he then resigned of his own accord.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Different language, same message: A bigger state and higher taxes.
    Is a larger state always bad?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "He has also said he would end the public sector pay cap by bringing back the 50p top rate of income tax and a 1% increase in corporation tax. "

    If he wants to kill the City after Brexit he should do that.

    I still don't understand how exactly he is going to trigger a new industrial revolution.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Is a larger state always bad?
    Define larger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Unfortunately due to large-scale entryism and a preposterous electoral system devised by Corbyn that allowed any Tory to pay £3 to vote for Corbyn, the Labour Party is quickly deteriorating to the point where it can no longer be considered a serious contender, let alone a party of government
    The electoral system and £3 vote were not devised by Corbyn, The idea actually came from the right of the party, long before he was even a candidate, to try to dilute the union member votes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Define larger.
    I meant the question somewhat differently. Looking at it from the perspective of proportion of GDP, is it always bad if that proportion grows? Given any particular state w/ regards to proportion of GDP taken up by government activity, is it always desirous that the proportion should be smaller, in your opinion?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Seems contradictory. Claims he wants a new industrial revolution but at the same time proposes a whole heap of measures that would reduce business competitiveness. Also no different to Corbyn or Miliband in that his magic solution to everything is a vague, generic 'more investment' or 'close tax loopholes'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    The electoral system and £3 vote were not devised by Corbyn, The idea actually came from the right of the party, long before he was even a candidate, to try to dilute the union member votes.
    The fact of whose idea it was has no actual bearing on the fact that it allowed all sorts of Trots and Tories to cast ballots, and was a preposterous device in the first place.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    D Miliband could have lead them strongly been seen as credible, etc. He would however, have offered absolutely nothing that differed from political consensus. He would have also done daft, disastrous things in the middle east.
    I think if he were to come now he wouldn't get far at all. From his charity work I think he understands the crisis and is this a jab at Blair? Becuase I think it's unfair to blame a crisis on a previous leader, it's the failures of Cameron and Obama that are the reason for unrest in the Middle East, we can argue that in a parallel universe where Blair didn't invade Iraq (and somehow stopped Bush from doing so), all is peace and harmony in the Middle East… truth is the Syrian uprising had nothing to do with Iraq, ISIS/Al-Qaeda still would've taken advantage of it so it was inevitable. The thing is we don't need a radical change in Britain, we need to build on what we have. We don't need a new industrial revolution (I laugh at that phrase). We need a person who supports free markets and enterprise but truly cares about equality in every possible way and that's what DM put on the table.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Seems contradictory. Claims he wants a new industrial revolution but at the same time proposes a whole heap of measures that would reduce business competitiveness. Also no different to Corbyn or Miliband in that his magic solution to everything is a vague, generic 'more investment' or 'close tax loopholes'.
    He gave a 20 point, detailed policy programme. You may disagree ideologically but he certainly was not vague.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    He gave a 20 point, detailed policy programme. You may disagree ideologically but he certainly was not vague.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I didn't say he didn't have policies. Corbyn has a detailed policy programme too. But everything is funded by 'investment' and 'closing tax loopholes' (and taxing the rich).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I meant the question somewhat differently. Looking at it from the perspective of proportion of GDP, is it always bad if that proportion grows? Given any particular state w/ regards to proportion of GDP taken up by government activity, is it always desirous that the proportion should be smaller, in your opinion?
    Absolutely. I strongly believe that the government will be more inefficient in how it allocates resources when compared to the free market. There are naturally certain aspects where a government needs to be active, e.g. defense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    'Second referendum please', candidate of the future revolution. Risible.
    Another thing- the wealth tax. That's it in a nutshell. Don't tax massive incomes higher, don't tax corporations higher, but instead punish people for acumen and saving and inheritance. This is the pits of Labour, along with their 'we'll do nothing about private schools but make grammar schools illegal' BS.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    . We don't need a new industrial revolution (I laugh at that phrase). We need a person who supports free markets and enterprise but truly cares about equality in every possible way and that's what DM put on the table.
    I don't like the phrase because it's grandiose, we couldn't repeat that, the world is different. However, it would be healthy if we were not building our economy on financial services, and London solely, a house of cards. This has disenfranchised swathes of the country and made it a sort of phoney nation along with ares of disastrous mass immigration and poverty. And when you say free markets, enterprise and all that 's great at it's best- but what we have had, that has been portrayed as an alternative to supposedly more regressive leftists like Corbyn, is more like neo-liberal corporate oligarchy- where are the medium and smaller firms, competition, capitalism providing the best to the customer? What we've had, facilitated by EU membership, is business tied up and stifled by bureaucracy with MNC and bankster who've been lobbying the EU to aid their monopolization. I am led to believe something similar has been happening in the US. People feel all this, plus globalization, mass immigration, depressed wages etc, so many people don't feel any sense of prosperity or economic freedom.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Absolutely. I strongly believe that the government will be more inefficient in how it allocates resources when compared to the free market. There are naturally certain aspects where a government needs to be active, e.g. defense.
    You must love Corbyn's £500 billion borrowing and spending plan.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I don't like the phrase because it's grandiose, we couldn't repeat that, the world is different. However, it would be healthy if we were not building our economy on financial services, and London solely, a house of cards.
    Most big infrastructure plans only benefit London, such as HS2, Crossrail, or Heathrow's 3rd runway. With the money used on HS2 (£80bn), they could build subway systems in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow. It would be much more useful for the country and spread decision making centers more evenly than just London - a bit like in Germany.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You must love Corbyn's £500 billion borrowing and spending plan.
    Yep, it's exactly what Britain needs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I didn't say he didn't have policies. Corbyn has a detailed policy programme too. But everything is funded by 'investment' and 'closing tax loopholes' (and taxing the rich).
    I don't think Corbyn has a detailed policy programme. He is very clear on ideology, but he is very weak on presenting detailed policies.

    Smith on the other hand has actually put some substance there. Rather than saying simply that he is 'anti-austerity' or 'wants investment', he has given details about how much investment, how he will fund it, what the funding will be used for etc.

    Besides what's wrong with investing to grow or cutting tax loopholes?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.