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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hachik0)
    But still, Blair was and still is, a total and utter **** head. Same goes for Gordon Brown.
    I'm hardly a huge fan of Tony Blair but this name calling doesn't really add much to what we need now- clear discussion of policies.

    (One of the good things Blair did was get the 2 sides in Northern Ireland to stop killing each other after approximately 1,000 years of fighting btw. )

    Whether TB, DC, TM, JC etc. are likeable / pop star material / glamour pusses or not is not the question. What we need to examine are their policies.

    So, do we want a National Health service - or do we want it privatised and sold off to American companies? Our attitude to the imminent Trans Atlantic Trade Agreement TTIP is crucial.
    Do we think nationalising the railways is a good idea so the profits can go into providing services for the population, or not?
    Do we think that borrowing money to invest in housing / industry / jobs, is a good idea or not?
    Do we think that nationalising Gas, Electricity, Water so the profits are given to the population , is a good idea or not?
    Do we think that Local Authorities should build more social housing or not?
    Do we think that there should be rent tribunals to establish fair rents or not?
    Do we think that economic planning is a bad idea or the market should decide?
    Do we think taxes are theft, or not?
    Do we think people should be able to send their money to off shore tax havens, or not?
    Do we think that the Government should set interest rates and control our economy more or the Bank of England?
    Do we think the Government has a responsibility to provide for basic needs of the population - sick pay, unemployment pay, pensions, maternity- paternity pay etc. or is it everyone for themselves?

    I could go on.

    When you have thought about it and examined the policies of the various parties / leaders you will decide how to vote, based on what you are likely to get.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    I'm hardly a huge fan of Tony Blair but this name calling doesn't really add much to what we need now- clear discussion of policies.

    (One of the good things Blair did was get the 2 sides in Northern Ireland to stop killing each other after approximately 1,000 years of fighting btw. )

    Whether TB, DC, TM, JC etc. are likeable / pop star material / glamour pusses or not is not the question. What we need to examine are their policies.

    So, do we want a National Health service - or do we want it privatised and sold off to American companies? Our attitude to the imminent Trans Atlantic Trade Agreement TTIP is crucial.
    Do we think nationalising the railways is a good idea so the profits can go into providing services for the population, or not?
    Do we think that borrowing money to invest in housing / industry / jobs, is a good idea or not?
    Do we think that nationalising Gas, Electricity, Water so the profits are given to the population , is a good idea or not?
    Do we think that Local Authorities should build more social housing or not?
    Do we think that there should be rent tribunals to establish fair rents or not?
    Do we think that economic planning is a bad idea or the market should decide?
    Do we think taxes are theft, or not?
    Do we think people should be able to send their money to off shore tax havens, or not?
    Do we think that the Government should set interest rates and control our economy more or the Bank of England?
    Do we think the Government has a responsibility to provide for basic needs of the population - sick pay, unemployment pay, pensions, maternity- paternity pay etc. or is it everyone for themselves?

    I could go on.

    When you have thought about it and examined the policies of the various parties / leaders you will decide how to vote, based on what you are likely to get.
    The massive MASSIVE problem with this is that people either partially or wholly vote based on things other than policies

    People bear in mind the party leaders when they vote at elections

    Jeremy Corbyn has had a charisma bypass and doesn't seem to possess any communicative intelligence at all. People generally find him uninspiring and lacklustre

    If Labour does not win elections it cannot implement any policies at all
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    The massive MASSIVE problem with this is that people either partially or wholly vote based on things other than policies

    People bear in mind the party leaders when they vote at elections

    Jeremy Corbyn has had a charisma bypass and doesn't seem to possess any communicative intelligence at all. People generally find him uninspiring and lacklustre

    If Labour does not win elections it cannot implement any policies at all
    How did people find Ed Miliband?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    The massive MASSIVE problem with this is that people either partially or wholly vote based on things other than policies

    People bear in mind the party leaders when they vote at elections

    Jeremy Corbyn has had a charisma bypass and doesn't seem to possess any communicative intelligence at all. People generally find him uninspiring and lacklustre

    If Labour does not win elections it cannot implement any policies at all
    There may be an historical cause for the lack of sophistication in the political nouse of the British or their failure to comprehend the seriousness they need to bring to their choices. After all in comparison with some of the continental countries - Iraq or Syria, France or Spain or Russia, we have had a relatively easy time of it. No invading, cruel armies, no occupation by a vindictive foreign power, no small error that leads to your father being put up against a wall and shot, no need for even young children to make crucial political choices on a daily basis, no realisation that politics can be a life or death affair.

    Maybe we will / have to learn the hard way - by making mistakes, by being flippant, by living with our failure to think, by making silly, rapid judgments about people without making an effort to learn about their values and ideas.

    This is what our grand parents generation did. Even without being occupied, they learnt the very, very hard way. They were bombed, they fought across France, Belgium, Italy, lost members of their family, were maimed, suffered from shell shock, discovered the horrors of Belsen.

    But, they did learn. They came back and founded the Welfare State - free medical care, legal aid, sick pay etc. and gained a sense of responsibility towards everyone who lived in the country they loved.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    The Blair government lifted one million children out of child poverty. They made huge advances in providing government support to parents through redistributive measures like child benefit and working tax credits. They introduced the minimum wage. They invested massively in the NHS after decades of underinvestment where some hospitals hadn't even seen a lick of paint since the Callaghan years. They creates SureStart and a hundred other initiatives, and invested in education.

    The Blair government wasn't by any means a left-wing government. It had both centre-left and centrist instincts. But it's wrong to deny they achieved anything at all
    Hear hear!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Chris Bryant believes that Labour will be reduced to a 'rump' of 75 seats if an election was called today, a net loss of around 150 seats. LOL. Daily mail also reports that there were 2 instances where Corbyn supposedly told members of the public that he was voting to LEAVE the EU.

    And the Labour membership still want to keep Corbyn?!?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desi123)
    Jeremy Corbyn is the death of Labour
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Chris Bryant believes that Labour will be reduced to a 'rump' of 75 seats if an election was called today, a net loss of around 150 seats. LOL. Daily mail also reports that there were 2 instances where Corbyn supposedly told members of the public that he was voting to LEAVE the EU.

    And the Labour membership still want to keep Corbyn?!?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Where is this poll people are speaking of? I'm curious as to what % it must have the labour vote at.Surely it would have to be below 20? Current polling has Labour between 29 and 32.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pete_91)
    Where is this poll people are speaking of? I'm curious as to what % it must have the labour vote at.Surely it would have to be below 20? Current polling has Labour between 29 and 32.
    Apparently it is an internal poll (hence not a public one) that claims 1/3 of Labour voters in 2015 would not vote for Labour now. I need to have a look to quote it (check in the Guardian Live page) but it was done by Yougov I believe.
    The polling you see in national polling also doesn't necessarily reflect how successful the party will be. My suspicion post-referendum is that Labour has gained support in London and other inner city areas but lost support across other seats (particularly in the North). Even if the National (public) polling was correct, 29 to 32 % is poor at this stage of the electoral cycle.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    How did people find Ed Miliband?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    they just followed the trail of grease*

    http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs...d-selwynv2.jpg
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Apparently it is an internal poll (hence not a public one) that claims 1/3 of Labour voters in 2015 would not vote for Labour now. I need to have a look to quote it (check in the Guardian Live page) but it was done by Yougov I believe.
    The polling you see in national polling also doesn't necessarily reflect how successful the party will be. My suspicion post-referendum is that Labour has gained support in London and other inner city areas but lost support across other seats (particularly in the North). Even if the National (public) polling was correct, 29 to 32 % is poor at this stage of the electoral cycle.
    The Labour Party is going through a struggle to fight for Corbyn policies ; ( policies which even Daily Telegraph readers want according to their survey)

    the Nationalisation of the Railways, Gas, Electricity, Water etc. so the profits can go to rebuilding this country instead of into the Swiss bank accounts of millionaires,

    preserving the NHS not selling it off so that US companies can make a profit.

    having rent tribunals to set fair rents

    building social housing and truly affordable housing linked to people's incomes.
    ensuring big businesses don't avoid paying tax.,

    The MPs, some of whom are the pay of exactly these companies /organisations / venture capitalist trusts, are understandably doing the work they are paid to do and fighting for the policies their paymasters want.

    The membership of the Labour Party thinks they should be supporting the Corbyn policies instead.

    We need to take politics seriously and decide who to vote for on the basis of policies. Otherwise we will continue to wonder how we ended up with the MPs we have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    The Labour Party is going through a struggle to fight for Corbyn policies ; ( policies which even Daily Telegraph readers want according to their survey).
    The problem (except for foreign affairs and defence) isn't policy; it's that Corbyn is utterly incapable of selling those policies to the electorate and winning an election. He's seen as a complete joke, and that's why 53% of the 9 million people who voted Labour in the last election now want Corbyn to resign

    By the way, pretty much all of those policies (in one form or another) were promised by Miliband, who you people call a "Blairite" (i.e. you call anyone who isn't Corbyn loyalist a Blairite).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    The problem (except for foreign affairs and defence) isn't policy; it's that Corbyn is utterly incapable of selling those policies to the electorate and winning an election. He's seen as a complete joke, and that's why 53% of the 9 million people who voted Labour in the last election now want Corbyn to resign

    By the way, pretty much all of those policies (in one form or another) were promised by Miliband, who you people call a "Blairite" (i.e. you call anyone who isn't Corbyn loyalist a Blairite).
    The problem is policy. These MPs are opposed to them and therefore won't help promote them. They were often parachuted in by Blair. Local party members want to be listened to , that's why they back Corbyn because he wants more democracy. He managed to sell his ideas enough to triple Labour party membership. 230,000 people have signed the petition to support Jeremy in the last few days.
    https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...n-after-brexit

    This action by MPs will come to haunt the Labour Party for years. It will be a weapon the other parties will be able to use against the Labour Party for years to come. ' Your MPs are anti democratic , they won't listen to their own members'.

    Jeremy Corbyn is only seen as a complete joke because he has policies which would stymie the views of our largely off shore based / foreign newspaper owners. No Labour leader will get their backing while they have policies which they don't want.

    The question is do the people of Britain want them. If they do they need to be more discerning and vote for people who want them too, not just because he 'smiles and smiles ' - but is a vilain. ( Shakespeare).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    The problem is policy.
    The problem isn't policy, given the plurality of the parliamentary party are made up of the soft left and agree with him on economic policy (particularly given Corbyn isn't that different from Miliband on policy; in fact, some Miliband policies were to the left of what Corbyn has offered). Even MPs who were strong supporters of Corbyn (Seema Malhotra, Lisa Nandy and Pat Glass) have now resigned from the front bench and called on him to resign.

    I'm sorry but if you think all 80% of the PLP who now oppose Corbyn are Blairites then you know almost nothing about the Labour Party. Just shrieking "Blairite" at anyone who thinks Corbyn is incapable of winning an election is pathetic and shows just how out of touch you are and that you are living in a Corbynite bubble.

    These MPs are opposed to them and therefore won't help promote them. They were often parachuted in by Blair.
    Your information is about ten years out of date. It seems like the people who push this idea that the entire parliamentary party are all Blairites are people who haven't been in the party very long and really know next to nothing about the different factions. The Blairites are the second smallest faction in the party (after the hard left). The largest is the Milibandite soft left and Brownites are the second largest. Old Labourites (trade union oriented, eurosceptical but anti-Corbyn like Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart) are in the middle

    Local party members want to be listened to , that's why they back Corbyn because he wants more democracy
    Actually, 51% of party members voted against Corbyn in the leadership election. It was mainly because of trade union members and £3 voters that he got in. And this time a lot of moderates who are disillusioned with the Tories are going to be piling in. I know a lot of people who have joined Labour over the last few days to vote against Corbyn in any leadership election. And 53% of Labour party voters in 2015 now want Corbyn to resign.

    It seems you Corbynites are willing to destroy the party and burn it down rather than have Corbyn give way
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, 51% of party members voted against Corbyn in the leadership election. It was mainly because of trade union members and £3 voters that he got in. And this time a lot of moderates who are disillusioned with the Tories are going to be piling in. I know a lot of people who have joined Labour over the last few days to vote against Corbyn in any leadership election. And 53% of Labour party voters in 2015 now want Corbyn to resign.

    It seems you Corbynites are willing to destroy the party and burn it down rather than have Corbyn give way[/QUOTE]

    Let's examine your claim. Is it true that he only won because of the supporters and affiliates?

    Votes in Leadership election 2015
    (by members)
    Corbyn 49.5%
    Burnham 22.69%
    Cooper 22.18%
    Kendall 5.54%

    ( by Registered Supporters the 3 pounders)
    Corbyn 83.76%
    Burnham 5.83%
    Cooper 22.18%
    Kendall 2.44%

    ( by affiliated members, in unions etc.)
    Corbyn 57.61%
    Burnham 26%
    Cooper 12.64%
    Kendall 3.75%

    so Corbyn won overwhelmingly - members, supporters, affiliates.

    Since when, the supporters have in the main joined the Labour Party as full members so there's going to have to be a huge influx of membership opposing Corbyn for him to lose. There is no sign of that. It will just be a waste of time when we should be doing more important things. It is these MPs who are prepared to wreck the Labour Party to ensure than the will of the membership is not obeyed - the democratic deficit.. They don't seem to have thought it through. It is not clever to be out of touch with your membership. After all you need them to select you, work for you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    The Labour Party is going through a struggle to fight for Corbyn policies ; ( policies which even Daily Telegraph readers want according to their survey)
    the Nationalisation of the Railways, Gas, Electricity, Water etc. so the profits can go to rebuilding this country instead of into the Swiss bank accounts of millionaires,
    preserving the NHS not selling it off so that US companies can make a profit.
    having rent tribunals to set fair rents
    building social housing and truly affordable housing linked to people's incomes.
    ensuring big businesses don't avoid paying tax.,
    The MPs, some of whom are the pay of exactly these companies /organisations / venture capitalist trusts, are understandably doing the work they are paid to do and fighting for the policies their paymasters want.
    The membership of the Labour Party thinks they should be supporting the Corbyn policies instead.
    We need to take politics seriously and decide who to vote for on the basis of policies. Otherwise we will continue to wonder how we ended up with the MPs we have.
    I would agree that those policies are popular with the public. However you've also failed to note any of the other, far less popular ideas espoused by Corbyn to the general public. E.g calling Hamas 'his friends', sympathising with the IRA, giving back the Falklands to Argentina, printing money for a People's QE. Not to mention that undoubtedly post referendum any Labour leader needs to reach out to all the Labour that have concerns over immigration (i.e a lot), that he has consistently flipped flopped on.

    That's not even mentioning how chaotic him as leader of the opposition has been, and how that would therefore reflect on him being the leader of a government.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    I would agree that those policies are popular with the public. However you've also failed to note any of the other, far less popular ideas espoused by Corbyn to the general public. E.g calling Hamas 'his friends', sympathising with the IRA, giving back the Falklands to Argentina, printing money for a People's QE. Not to mention that undoubtedly post referendum any Labour leader needs to reach out to all the Labour that have concerns over immigration (i.e a lot), that he has consistently flipped flopped on.

    That's not even mentioning how chaotic him as leader of the opposition has been, and how that would therefore reflect on him being the leader of a government.
    He specifically has said he does not support Hamas, ( but he understands the concerns of the Palestinians) he does not support the IRA ( but he understands the concerns of the Irish population in Northern Ireland who have suffered from discrimination over the years.) . He suggested we work towards a compromise on the Falklands to resolve the problem. Isn't that what we British do, work towards a compromise?

    If we can have QE , borrow / print money to give to banks why can't we do it to help the ordinary people of the country? Any business person would expect to borrow when they are building up a business. It's hardly revolutionary. The problems we are having as a result of immigration are due to a lack of planning and provision by the Government - investing in housing, the NHS , schools etc. He is proposing to do just that. Immigrants in the main give more to the economy than they take out. They are necessary for the future of the country as our low birth rate has not been good enough to pay for our elderly population.

    What is very dangerous, is blaming immigrants for our problems when they are actually part of the solution. It leads to attacks on the most visible of them - like Muslim women. They are not 'taking our jobs'. They are working to support our ageing society. They are not using the NHS for free, they are supporting it by working in it. Countries which have had large amounts of immigrants , the US, Germany etc. have thrived. The job of the Labour Party etc. is to explain the benefits immigrants bring and the risks to us if we blame the wrong people for our problems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    X
    Regarding the IRA, whilst I would agree that discrimination against Catholics was extensive, his close links with a terrorist organisation have been questionable, such as refusing to denounce the activities of the IRA on a BBC Radio Ulster broadcast in addition to being in high association with groups that have large levels of sympathy with its activities. He might have said that he doesn’t support Hamas, but he definitely said that they were his friends in what he now calls a ‘loose sense’. This has proved disastrous for the Jewish vote, of which only 8.5% will now will vote Labour. This links completely into whole anti-Semitism fiasco, which I won’t delve much into, but I think you would agree didn’t aid the Labour party’s prospects at all. On the issue of the Falklands, it has become abundantly clear that the population want to remain British – where 99.8% voted for it remaining a British Overseas Territory. On your point that ‘isn’t it what we British do, work towards a compromise?’ I have to say that is an incredibly unsubstantiated statement and if anything, we have proven in the referendum that we want to be more isolated. Also in other cases regarding foreign policy, historically Britain has been very good at no compromise – e.g Churchill’s leadership during WW2. In all of these cases (indeed Corbyn being a Republican adds onto this), he is losing much of the patriotic working class labour voter to UKIP. Could you honestly see Corbyn standing up to Putin?

    QE is a complex economical issue and I will openly admit that I am no economist. However I think it is common sense that any politician would want to optimise the utility of governmental spending, stimulating economic growth whilst also working towards a small budget deficit/small budget surplus. The fact of the matter is that we are already ‘borrowing’, to the net tune of £74billion in the last financial year, which you know as well as I do just adds to the national debt meaning the next generation in this country will have to take on the burden. We need to accept as a country that we need to cut spending in areas that are not in British interest, and make our money ‘better spent’. Corbyn proposes printing vast sums of money, which is fundamentally different to the QE at present which only exists ‘digitally’, and I would question whether this has been advantageous to any economy that has tried this, by causing rapid inflation (e.g Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe). His economic policies also go into monetary policy – which is meant to be apolitical (and for good reasons too), and only the fringe of economists agree with the idea.

    I’m not going to go into the complexities regarding immigration at this time but what the Left too often do regarding immigration is completely dismiss the issue and simplify it into solely an economic one. This will cost Labour voters and whilst telling voters they are effectively wrong on it is admirable it will most likely turn more people away from the party. This is particularly persuasive in that the nature of the referendum made it largely about immigration, in which Labour Northern Heartlands voted overwhelmingly to leave. I’m not going to go into the seats that are at risk but any analysis of voting patterns will show that a lot of UKIPs target seats will be Northern ones.

    By all means keep Corbyn if you want the party to continue its inept ideological self-indulgence. The country is more right-wing than it has been in a very long time, meaning there is no place for a hard-left labour party. But if you want to change the country you have to win elections, and it doesn’t seem Corbyn is anywhere near winning one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Regarding the IRA, whilst I would agree that discrimination against Catholics was extensive, his close links with a terrorist organisation have been questionable, such as refusing to denounce the activities of the IRA on a BBC Radio Ulster broadcast in addition to being in high association with groups that have large levels of sympathy with its activities. He might have said that he doesn’t support Hamas, but he definitely said that they were his friends in what he now calls a ‘loose sense’. This has proved disastrous for the Jewish vote, of which only 8.5% will now will vote Labour. This links completely into whole anti-Semitism fiasco, which I won’t delve much into, but I think you would agree didn’t aid the Labour party’s prospects at all. On the issue of the Falklands, it has become abundantly clear that the population want to remain British – where 99.8% voted for it remaining a British Overseas Territory. On your point that ‘isn’t it what we British do, work towards a compromise?’ I have to say that is an incredibly unsubstantiated statement and if anything, we have proven in the referendum that we want to be more isolated. Also in other cases regarding foreign policy, historically Britain has been very good at no compromise – e.g Churchill’s leadership during WW2. In all of these cases (indeed Corbyn being a Republican adds onto this), he is losing much of the patriotic working class labour voter to UKIP. Could you honestly see Corbyn standing up to Putin?

    QE is a complex economical issue and I will openly admit that I am no economist. However I think it is common sense that any politician would want to optimise the utility of governmental spending, stimulating economic growth whilst also working towards a small budget deficit/small budget surplus. The fact of the matter is that we are already ‘borrowing’, to the net tune of £74billion in the last financial year, which you know as well as I do just adds to the national debt meaning the next generation in this country will have to take on the burden. We need to accept as a country that we need to cut spending in areas that are not in British interest, and make our money ‘better spent’. Corbyn proposes printing vast sums of money, which is fundamentally different to the QE at present which only exists ‘digitally’, and I would question whether this has been advantageous to any economy that has tried this, by causing rapid inflation (e.g Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe). His economic policies also go into monetary policy – which is meant to be apolitical (and for good reasons too), and only the fringe of economists agree with the idea.

    I’m not going to go into the complexities regarding immigration at this time but what the Left too often do regarding immigration is completely dismiss the issue and simplify it into solely an economic one. This will cost Labour voters and whilst telling voters they are effectively wrong on it is admirable it will most likely turn more people away from the party. This is particularly persuasive in that the nature of the referendum made it largely about immigration, in which Labour Northern Heartlands voted overwhelmingly to leave. I’m not going to go into the seats that are at risk but any analysis of voting patterns will show that a lot of UKIPs target seats will be Northern ones.

    By all means keep Corbyn if you want the party to continue its inept ideological self-indulgence. The country is more right-wing than it has been in a very long time, meaning there is no place for a hard-left labour party. But if you want to change the country you have to win elections, and it doesn’t seem Corbyn is anywhere near winning one.
    As you know people of Jewish origins, like people of Christian origins have largely become non practising in recent decades. They have married 'out' and have a range of political views. There are a large number in the Labour Party who know full well that the Labour Party has been in the fore front of campaigning for equality, whether against anti semitism, racism, anti feminism etc. for decades because they have been involved in it at a time when other parties were complacent or in the case of the Liberal Party eg were actively carrying out homophobic attacks on Labour candidates. What the Jewish Chronicle says will have only a marginal influence.

    Economic policy is never apolitical. Monetary policy is never apolitical either. Government needs to have control of eg interest rates.

    After WW2 the country had a much bigger national debt than now and borrowed hugely ( from America ) . Was this also wrong?

    It also largely founded the Welfare State as we know it - Legal Aid, the NHS etc., etc. Should it have waited? What is missing now from right wing politicians is the political will to improve the plight of the bulk of the country who are suffering. Worse, often they advocate a 'the market knows best' type of laissez -faire - hypocritically wringing their hands, saying there is nothing we can / should do. A sort of mixture of Panglossian ' all is for the best in the best of all worlds' and a pessimistic 'what will be, will be' plus a damning philosophy that we have no collective responsibility for our common welfare so private health insurance, private schools, private pensions - and those who can't afford it , can lump it.

    As for the view that some of the poorest in society are/ have misread who is responsible for their plight. The lack of housing, schools, jobs is a result of poor Governmental planning and the failure to tackle tax evasion/ avoidance. Any failure to challenge the contrary right wing view that it is the fault of the immigrants who are 'taking our jobs', our hospital places ' etc, is not only not solving the problem for the most deprived but risking the development of increasingly vicious attacks on immigrants.

    Ironic because , economically speaking, immigrants are part of the solution in our ageing country not part of the problem. Should we not challenge this right wing, false view? A view which is designed to turn their anger away from Government and towards immigrants as scapegoats. Should we condone it? - to keep these folk onside ?

    The left wing thinks there is plenty we can and should do to tackle the incipient hatred of the foreign because it is morally wrong and counter productive in solving our economic problems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    As you know people of Jewish origins, like people of Christian origins have largely become non practising in recent decades. They have married 'out' and have a range of political views. There are a large number in the Labour Party who know full well that the Labour Party has been in the fore front of campaigning for equality, whether against anti semitism, racism, anti feminism etc. for decades because they have been involved in it at a time when other parties were complacent or in the case of the Liberal Party eg were actively carrying out homophobic attacks on Labour candidates. What the Jewish Chronicle says will have only a marginal influence.
    I hope I’m not arguing with another Corbynite poll denier.Identifying Christians or Jews as voting groups is still very legitimate, as are other characteristic groups such as age, social group or gender. Reports like the House of Commons General Election Report (something which any Labour member should read if they want to win elections) show who parties need to appeal to.I would completely agree that the Labour party were at the forefront of many of the things you mentioned, however under Corbyn, particularly with Jews,Labour’s support has decreased substantially. If you read the article, 87% feel that there is ‘antisemitism among Labour's members and elected representatives.’ A report on Anti Semitism in the Labour party has just led to a Labour MP being abused for ‘collusion’ with the right-wing press by Momentum. The image of Labour is not one of credibility over this issue, and so they will lose key constituencies if it doesn’t sort out its anti-Semitic image problem.

    (Original post by pickup)
    Economic policy is never apolitical. Monetary policy is never apolitical either. Government needs to have control of eg interest rates.
    Economic policy as you should know is differentiated by fiscal (taxation) policy and monetary (money supply) policy. The chancellor can act on fiscal policy only, whilst the Bank of England is completely independent and has control of monetary policy, something which your good chum TONY BLAIR did. We can argue whether it was a good idea to do this but I tend to agree with Brown that it was a good idea in that it effectively made monetary policy more long-term (rather than pandering to the short-term needs politicians often desire).

    (Original post by pickup)
    After WW2 the country had a much bigger national debt than now and borrowed hugely ( from America ) . Was this also wrong?
    You can’t seriously be comparing the current state of the country now to that during WW2. The state in WW2 was directly under threat by the Nazis and so heavy borrowing was necessary for defence spending. Please tell me how this country is now in such a threat which would facilitate rapid spending increases, which would only add to our ever-present budget deficit? I bet you can’t. The lack of fiscal-prudence is shocking now in the Labour party and widely in the public they are (to some degree rightly) blamed for the Recession. They will lose support for this.

    (Original post by pickup)
    It also largely founded the Welfare State as we know it - Legal Aid, the NHS etc., etc. Should it have waited?
    Firstly it didn’t create all the welfare state as we know it. Lloyd George’s People’s Budget initiated the start of the Welfare State. The furthering of the nation state under Labour in 1945 had many reasons – all a far cry of that today. It was seen as a way of rebuilding and uniting the nation after a bruising war.That incentive is not there anymore. Of course, not many want to see the complete abolition of the welfare state, but I think it is fair to say that many want it restricted. It is all well and good that we have public institutions and it is better that we do in the sense that overall costs might be reduced (economies of scale) as opposed to a more competitive NHS, but it isn’t if we can’t afford it and its future generations that have to pay up for our short-termist self-indulging policies. I am also of the opinion (as are many) that people have taken these institutions for granted. Why should I bother working if I can ‘earn’ just as much on welfare? Healthy living – I don’t have to bother with that, the NHS will sort any problems I have! It has created a sense of dependency beyond belief in some communities and I think you would agree all taxpayers have a right to be angry when taxpayer money is allocated to people who don’t need it. In many ways it has become a hindrance on the economy, rather than helped it. I don’t see how any of these institutions are intrinsically at threat by having a different Labour party leader than Corbyn though.
    (Original post by pickup)
    What is missing now from right wing politicians is the political will to improve the plight of the bulk of the country who are suffering. Worse, often they advocate a 'the market knows best' type of laissez -faire - hypocritically wringing their hands, saying there is nothing we can / should do. A sort of mixture of Panglossian ' all is for the best in the best of all worlds' and a pessimistic 'what will be, will be' plus a damning philosophy that we have no collective responsibility for our common welfare so private health insurance, private schools, private pensions - and those who can't afford it , can lump it.
    This is getting quite ideological, but I am guessing this is with reference to the Blairites in the Labour Party?It is complete rubbish to suggest that right-wing politicians don’t have the ‘political will’ to deal with the problems of the bulk of the country. You seem to be simplifying this solely into a social problem – when the problems faced by the many are far larger than that (for instance political, economic and foreign problems). There have been times in history when Conservatives have done this magnificently, for instance Benjamin Disraeli’s Reform Act which enfranchised the working class for the first time in history, Churchill’s leadership during WW2 when members of the Labour Party were calling for pacifism or perhaps Margaret Thatcher’s rejuvenation of the British economy from the disastrous times under Labour during the 1970s which led to calamities unspeakable today – such as the Winter of Discontent and inflation running at 25% per year.The whole point of ‘austerity’ is living within our means, something the country hasn’t done in a very long time. It’s a very simple concept. Cut the spending, reduce the deficit and reduce the amount of debt repayments future generations will have to pay. All you have to do is have a look at countries like Greece which had a ballooning national debt to GDP due to mostly wasteful spending. Do you want to end up in a position like Greece for short-term fulfilment? Blairites at least accept the notion that the country needs to live within its means, and most of the public accept that notion too. You tell me what you think is less ‘caring’.
    (Original post by pickup)
    As for the view that some of the poorest in society are/ have misread who is responsible for their plight. The lack of housing, schools, jobs is a result of poor Governmental planning and the failure to tackle tax evasion/ avoidance.
    The lack of housing/schools is mostly due to the government I would agree, but it was wasteful spending by previous governments (particularly Labour) that also contributed to this mess. Let’s also be clear, tax evasion = illegal, tax avoidance = not illegal. Tax evasion is where I deliberately avoid paying tax when I should be, tax avoidance is where I avoid paying tax via loopholes (e.g a parent giving their house to their children 8 years before they die to ‘avoid’ inheritance tax). The Tories have done far more in dealing with evasion than New Labour did, although of course more could be done. Unemployment is low now – but I would agree that there is a skills crisis and the Tories haven’t done enough on the issue. Perhaps the only thing I agree on Corbyn with is the need for a NES (National Education Service), provided that it focuses on the sciences/maths/business/economics. Something similar to this was tried under Blair but failed quite badly.

    (Original post by pickup)
    Any failure to challenge the contrary right wing view that it is the fault of the immigrants who are 'taking our jobs', our hospital places ' etc, is not only not solving the problem for the most deprived but risking the development of increasingly vicious attacks on immigrants.
    Ironic because , economically speaking, immigrants are part of the solution in our ageing country not part of the problem. Should we not challenge this right wing, false view? A view which is designed to turn their anger away from Government and towards immigrants as scapegoats. Should we condone it? - to keep these folk onside ?
    You are conflating right wing in this case with solely the right-wing of UKIP. Indeed, to call UKIP a completely right-wing party is false because it has become abundantly clear from the EU result it is Labour’s core vote that has concerns over immigration. Most people on the right are for limited immigration (including myself) – not an abolition to immigration nor free movement (or do you support this?). If anything you’ve dramatised the narrative
    over immigration when if you actually listen, most politicians are saying it aids the problem, but it is not the sole reason for the problem.You’ve also again limited it into an economic issue when it is not, it is a broader social one too. High-skilled immigration is beneficial to the country but low-skilled immigration has harmed those in the ‘lowest 20th percentile’ (that is a good blog post at saying why labour should not be supporting free movement of people). Constant denial by Corbynites over this issue only demonises the people the Labour party are supposedly meant to serve- the less well off.The social issue should also be addressed. A key part of being part of a country is that there are common customs and we are unified by it. Labour’s promotion of a multicultural agenda (also rejected in the EU referendum) has significantly strained this. I personally know people who were in low-skilled jobs who tell me that they were effectively socially ostracized by the fact that they couldn’t talk to many of their colleagues as their foreign colleagues grouped together and spoke another language. There are some communities which have had significant increases in immigration which has exacerbated the tensions as mentioned above. It is high time for Labour to realise that working class communities do not want integration, they want assimilation.

    (Original post by pickup)
    The left wing thinks there is plenty we can and should do to tackle the incipient hatred of the foreign because it is morally wrong and counter productive in solving our economic problems.
    And there are many of the Right that would say the same. This issue of ‘hatred of the foreign’ has been inflated beyond belief by many in Labour (nearly as much as the lies over Food Banks they espoused during the election) when they actually initiated the problem by allowing free movement of people. They wanted to permanently change the social fabric of the country without consulting the people. For this they should be ashamed, and if they don’t want to lose many seats in the upcoming election the leadership should accept that this is (at the very least) a concern that needs dealing with.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.