Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
narbs wrote:Joelsim wrote:narbs wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I take it you mean the 83 election?narbs wrote:As someone who's been a party member since I was old enough to join this is the saddest day since the 93 election.
That's because Labour are pretty much where they were in 1983. i.e. a hard left protest party rooted in the past, hopelessly out of step with the electorate and with no idea how to sensibly manage the economy. And a scruffy loser for a leader.
No, I meant 93 when Kinnock lost.
Unfortunately May et al have equally no idea how to manage the economy (something inherited from Cameron and Osborne) but they seem to be entirely in step with the electorate who are equally clueless.
To be honest the economy is a massive problem for all post 2009. The debt is huge, so f*cking huge as to be a problem. With what's happened this year so far it's only going to get far worse. Blame Brown for spending the silver when we were booming, blame the bankers, blame austerity, the simple fact is we have an ageing population who need more welfare than expected, and now Brexit. Hot potatoes anyone?
But equally, Corbyn (nor any Labour leader since Blair) has had the slightest inkling on how to do things properly as regards the economy, nor it seems what that means to those who need it most.
The debt isn't huge though. It is probably less proportionally than my mortgage or yours.
At a time of virtually free money we should be borrowing to build capital programmes- HS2 and the electrification of GWR shouldn't even be a question. Instead we subsidise private companies to do work, badly - why are we paying private train companies to deliver an awful service?
We have no post-EU membership plan. Every statement by the three ministers in charge of negotiating our withdrawal are immediately slapped down by the PM. It's a joke amongst senior diplomats.
And at at time like this when Labour should have a raft of policies for the next election we're in a hilarious mess. Which, funnily, isn't hilarious for the people in the country who need a Labour govt.
Debt - do me a favour, you can't compare it to a mortgage at all. It's way too big and has been growing for years. Needs to be kept in check.
Private vs public - benefits to both, but believe less bureaucracy is better than the private profit angle in many cases to drive the business forward. Of course depends on the company in charge, but don't have an issue with most privatisation. Borrowing more at this point in time would be foolhardy.
The three stooges - either a brilliant plan by the Remainers or an absolute disaster, not made my mind up on this one yet. The only given is that these guys are F*cking tw*ts.
Labour plan - there isn't one. As far away as ever from having even the most basic grasp of economics. And couldn't agree more on the people who need it most.
All in all a disaster.0 -
Regarding the investment angle, as I've said we need to not create any more debt that isn't going to pay back such as throwing money down the drain on Steel. But why can't we retrain those guys and make it world leader in renewables instead of giving money to the French and Chinese on Hinckley. An example, but of course I don't know the market well enough.
There are loads of opportunities, but for some reason this 'old' govt (as always) plays to what they know instead of leading.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Debt - do me a favour, you can't compare it to a mortgage at all. It's way too big and has been growing for years. Needs to be kept in check.
Private vs public - benefits to both, but believe less bureaucracy is better than the private profit angle in many cases to drive the business forward. Of course depends on the company in charge, but don't have an issue with most privatisation. Borrowing more at this point in time would be foolhardy.
The three stooges - either a brilliant plan by the Remainers or an absolute disaster, not made my mind up on this one yet. The only given is that these guys are F*cking tw*ts.
Labour plan - there isn't one. As far away as ever from having even the most basic grasp of economics. And couldn't agree more on the people who need it most.
All in all a disaster.
Debt- I agree, but I made the analogy deliberately because it's the constant analogy from politicians. And it's based on the accepted wisdom that state borrowing is awful but individual borrowing is vital to the economy. And it's not difficult to see why that is perpetuated. I think state borrowing now is essential, and it's foolhardy not to do it.
I don't have an issue with the private sector at all. I've worked for two top FTSE100 companies for more than a few years. And, let's be honest, they're no more efficient or effective than their public sector contemporaries. They're equally driven by short-term performance results. Indeed, at senior levels I've bumped into the same people in public, private and third sector organisations.0 -
narbs wrote:Joelsim wrote:Debt - do me a favour, you can't compare it to a mortgage at all. It's way too big and has been growing for years. Needs to be kept in check.
Private vs public - benefits to both, but believe less bureaucracy is better than the private profit angle in many cases to drive the business forward. Of course depends on the company in charge, but don't have an issue with most privatisation. Borrowing more at this point in time would be foolhardy.
The three stooges - either a brilliant plan by the Remainers or an absolute disaster, not made my mind up on this one yet. The only given is that these guys are F*cking tw*ts.
Labour plan - there isn't one. As far away as ever from having even the most basic grasp of economics. And couldn't agree more on the people who need it most.
All in all a disaster.
Debt- I agree, but I made the analogy deliberately because it's the constant analogy from politicians. And it's based on the accepted wisdom that state borrowing is awful but individual borrowing is vital to the economy. And it's not difficult to see why that is perpetuated. I think state borrowing now is essential, and it's foolhardy not to do it.
I don't have an issue with the private sector at all. I've worked for two top FTSE100 companies for more than a few years. And, let's be honest, they're no more efficient or effective than their public sector contemporaries. They're equally driven by short-term performance results. Indeed, at senior levels I've bumped into the same people in public, private and third sector organisations.
They're more efficient than public sector, pretty sure about that. This is mostly good, not always of course. Public seems to sit, no decisions, nothing needed, people going through the motions. Am I wrong?0 -
Joelsim wrote:Regarding the investment angle, as I've said we need to not create any more debt that isn't going to pay back such as throwing money down the drain on Steel. But why can't we retrain those guys and make it world leader in renewables instead of giving money to the French and Chinese on Hinckley. An example, but of course I don't know the market well enough.
There are loads of opportunities, but for some reason this 'old' govt (as always) plays to what they know instead of leading.
Honestly? Because if you're leading Tata/Siemens/National Grid in this country no-one will thank you for retraining people for skills that we need 20 years hence. Well, at least not whilst you're in post.
The major problem we have in the UK, which is why I made a vague attempt to discuss grammar schools earlier in this thread, is that our policies are decided on plans that would make Stalin's 5 Years look enlightened.
A minister is in post for what, 18 months? Unless you're as sh*t as Jeremy Hunt and they can't move you. So all you want to do is announce a cool policy, get some quick results, and hope that any backlash doesn't appear until at least three years after you left.0 -
narbs wrote:Joelsim wrote:Regarding the investment angle, as I've said we need to not create any more debt that isn't going to pay back such as throwing money down the drain on Steel. But why can't we retrain those guys and make it world leader in renewables instead of giving money to the French and Chinese on Hinckley. An example, but of course I don't know the market well enough.
There are loads of opportunities, but for some reason this 'old' govt (as always) plays to what they know instead of leading.
Honestly? Because if you're leading Tata/Siemens/National Grid in this country no-one will thank you for retraining people for skills that we need 20 years hence. Well, at least not whilst you're in post.
The major problem we have in the UK, which is why I made a vague attempt to discuss grammar schools earlier in this thread, is that our policies are decided on plans that would make Stalin's 5 Years look enlightened.
A minister is in post for what, 18 months? Unless you're as sh*t as Jeremy Hunt and they can't move you. So all you want to do is announce a cool policy, get some quick results, and hope that any backlash doesn't appear until at least three years after you left.
Well there you go. Madness, but unfortunately true (and hugely narrow minded).
Maybe that's why we don't lead in much these days.0 -
Joelsim wrote:They're more efficient than public sector, pretty sure about that. This is mostly good, not always of course. Public seems to sit, no decisions, nothing needed, people going through the motions. Am I wrong?
Are you sure? I currently report to a charity board and I'm held far more accountable than I ever was in my previous role where I reported to a FTSE100 board. Obviously that's just my experience but I've found at least as much resistance to change in the private sector and, if anything, the third sector I've found very innovative.0 -
Joelsim wrote:narbs wrote:Joelsim wrote:Debt - do me a favour, you can't compare it to a mortgage at all. It's way too big and has been growing for years. Needs to be kept in check.
Private vs public - benefits to both, but believe less bureaucracy is better than the private profit angle in many cases to drive the business forward. Of course depends on the company in charge, but don't have an issue with most privatisation. Borrowing more at this point in time would be foolhardy.
The three stooges - either a brilliant plan by the Remainers or an absolute disaster, not made my mind up on this one yet. The only given is that these guys are F*cking tw*ts.
Labour plan - there isn't one. As far away as ever from having even the most basic grasp of economics. And couldn't agree more on the people who need it most.
All in all a disaster.
Debt- I agree, but I made the analogy deliberately because it's the constant analogy from politicians. And it's based on the accepted wisdom that state borrowing is awful but individual borrowing is vital to the economy. And it's not difficult to see why that is perpetuated. I think state borrowing now is essential, and it's foolhardy not to do it.
I don't have an issue with the private sector at all. I've worked for two top FTSE100 companies for more than a few years. And, let's be honest, they're no more efficient or effective than their public sector contemporaries. They're equally driven by short-term performance results. Indeed, at senior levels I've bumped into the same people in public, private and third sector organisations.
They're more efficient than public sector, pretty sure about that. This is mostly good, not always of course. Public seems to sit, no decisions, nothing needed, people going through the motions. Am I wrong?
I believe private sector companies are likely to be more efficient in most/many situations, but rail is slightly different as it's made up of a network of monopolies (or oligopolies at best) which means that there is very little natural competition (and most of them required public subsidy to make any profit). This means the pressure to be efficient is a bit different to in a normal competitive market, and also requires a whole load of bureaucracy and rules to try and artificially create competitive pressures. I'm not sure a wholesale public purchase of railways is a good idea but it could be used in some cases.
Don't really understand why the government felt the need to privatise East Coast when it was one of the very few operators which was profitable and doing OK - Well I do understand, there are a lot of die hard free marketeers in the Tories, but it didn't really make sense when half the other operators aren't doing so well and East Coast was actually returning money to the government.0 -
Labour lurching even further to the left already - more power to be given 'activists' like the Momentum hard liners to set policy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37466034
It would be vaguely worrying if they had a hope in hell of getting elected."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
1st half of this week's FT Politics podcast has a good deconstruction of the problems in Labour and why Corbyn is unelectable (including some things which I don't think have been mentioned here), and also discusses the options the moderates now have remaining.
http://podcast.ft.com/2016/09/24/what-n ... e-osborne/ - should be free to listen.
2nd section is on George Osborne and the various divisions in the Conservatives which is also interesting.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:1st half of this week's FT Politics podcast has a good deconstruction of the problems in Labour and why Corbyn is unelectable (including some things which I don't think have been mentioned here), and also discusses the options the moderates now have remaining.
http://podcast.ft.com/2016/09/24/what-n ... e-osborne/ - should be free to listen.
2nd section is on George Osborne and the various divisions in the Conservatives which is also interesting.
Thing is Labour lost 2 elections with a moderate leadership and were decimated in Scotland.
for some reason, people seem more than happy with poor education, healthcare, lack of affordable homes, over crowded transport network, growing inequality and hardly any manufacturing industry.......so maybe Labour and the left has had its day and what "we" actually want is an extreme right wind party, like the FN in France? not a bunch of loonies like ukip (though they did get 4m votes) but a genuine hard right party with well thought out and hard line policies, against immigration, the disabled, the unemployed etc.
Its not as if europe hasnt voted for this sort of thing before.0 -
It looks like winning a large mandate has turned Corbyn from a man of principle to a smug bully forcing colleagues to change their speeches at the last minute. I really can't see how Labour can get through without splitting into centre left and hard left parties.0
-
Milipede wasn't extreme but he was a bit of a leftie. Moderate compared to the bunch that are in charge now.mamba80 wrote:
Thing is Labour lost 2 elections with a moderate leadership and were decimated in Scotland.
for some reason, people seem more than happy with poor education, healthcare, lack of affordable homes, over crowded transport network, growing inequality and hardly any manufacturing industry.......so maybe Labour and the left has had its day and what "we" actually want is an extreme right wind party, like the FN in France? not a bunch of loonies like ukip (though they did get 4m votes) but a genuine hard right party with well thought out and hard line policies, against immigration, the disabled, the unemployed etc.
Its not as if europe hasnt voted for this sort of thing before.
Possibly part of the reason is people don't see things quite as badly as you do?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Milipede wasn't extreme but he was a bit of a leftie. Moderate compared to the bunch that are in charge now.mamba80 wrote:
Thing is Labour lost 2 elections with a moderate leadership and were decimated in Scotland.
for some reason, people seem more than happy with poor education, healthcare, lack of affordable homes, over crowded transport network, growing inequality and hardly any manufacturing industry.......so maybe Labour and the left has had its day and what "we" actually want is an extreme right wind party, like the FN in France? not a bunch of loonies like ukip (though they did get 4m votes) but a genuine hard right party with well thought out and hard line policies, against immigration, the disabled, the unemployed etc.
Its not as if europe hasnt voted for this sort of thing before.
Possibly part of the reason is people don't see things quite as badly as you do?
Milliband lost comprehensively to a weak Conservative party, as i said we in the UK seem to want to stay over to the right, is that because of our voting system or who actually gets of their 'harris and votes?
convince me, why do you think our education system, health and transport (road and rail) are doing so well?0 -
See above - you made the claim that things are bad, so you back up your assertions.mamba80 wrote:for some reason, people seem more than happy with poor education, healthcare, lack of affordable homes, over crowded transport network, growing inequality and hardly any manufacturing industry......."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
At least McDonnell is honest enough to use the 'S' word:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-mcdonnell-socialism-back-mainstream-politics-philip-greens-crackdown-labour-conference-corbyn-a7331431.html
Not that it was ever in doubt."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
What a cracking bunch - I see the North London socialist clique are now firmly in control of Labour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584531"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Meanwhile, well done Baroness Manzoor who has just left the Lib Dems to join the Tories:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37599184
Well said also. To quote: "I could not support the leadership of a party that calls itself democratic and then refuses to acknowledge the will of the people in a referendum."
Sounds familiar
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:What a cracking bunch - I see the North London socialist clique are now firmly in control of Labour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584531
Did you vote for him again 2nd time around?
And if so, given you're more of an Osbourne liberalist type of Tory rather than the interventionist "I don't need to listen to business leaders" May, d'ya regret that without a stronger Labour party (who by all accounts have said they're for staying in the single market), the hardline Brexiters can hold the gov't to ransom?0 -
Doesn't really matter as it was a landslide for Corbyn anyway.Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:What a cracking bunch - I see the North London socialist clique are now firmly in control of Labour:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584531
Did you vote for him again 2nd time around?
And if so, given you're more of an Osbourne liberalist type of Tory rather than the interventionist "I don't need to listen to business leaders" May, d'ya regret that without a stronger Labour party (who by all accounts have said they're for staying in the single market), the hardline Brexiters can hold the gov't to ransom?
Bit late for Labour to be saying they want to stay in after the vote - but that's for another thread really. I'm more interested in your reaction to the Manzoor defection.
- What do you think of her reasoning? Pretty big blow for a party that prides itself on being Democratic, surely?
- And does worry you that a senior figure has left what is already a small fringe party?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not the biggest Tim Farron fan.
His approach is broadly a calculation that most people associate Labour & tories with Brexit, and there is a big hole there to fill. I can see the value in that. It'll take a couple of decade until they're in a position to be in power again, so I can see the value of promising things that are impractical.
Lib Dems have been the best performing party in local council elections since the election, so that's something.
As for the defections: my understanding was that Manzoor never really had much connection with the Lib Dems when she was appointed and that was the concern when she was made a peer in the first place. Turns out, the concern was broadly correct.
I do think that while Theresa May parks her tanks on UKIP's lawn, she is forgetting that the Tories won the last election by picking up Lib Dem seats. She may (whey) be calculating that Lib Dems are no so small they won't have the stature to compete with them anyway (and that may well be right) but it's an opportunity to bounce back nonetheless.0 -
I'm praying for a Lab/LD alliance. Unlikely I know.0
-
The gap in policy and philosophy is too large. That would only happen if there is a centre left breakaway group from Labour.Joelsim wrote:I'm praying for a Lab/LD alliance. Unlikely I know."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'd suspect the survivalist instinct of the remaining LDers would prevent an alliance any time soon.
I don't see what a larger party would gain from a mere 8 seats anyway.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not the biggest Tim Farron fan.
His approach is broadly a calculation that most people associate Labour & tories with Brexit, and there is a big hole there to fill. I can see the value in that. It'll take a couple of decade until they're in a position to be in power again, so I can see the value of promising things that are impractical.
Lib Dems have been the best performing party in local council elections since the election, so that's something.
As for the defections: my understanding was that Manzoor never really had much connection with the Lib Dems when she was appointed and that was the concern when she was made a peer in the first place. Turns out, the concern was broadly correct.
I do think that while Theresa May parks her tanks on UKIP's lawn, she is forgetting that the Tories won the last election by picking up Lib Dem seats. She may (whey) be calculating that Lib Dems are no so small they won't have the stature to compete with them anyway (and that may well be right) but it's an opportunity to bounce back nonetheless.
The Liberal/SDP alliance were in this position c.1990, they reformed as the LibDmes and Paddy Ashdown did the heavy lifting as leader to make them electable on the national stage, not just at local level. I don't think Tim Farron has the werewithal to do the job to be honest, but there is too small a pool to draw from.
My impression of the Tory conference is that May and Hammond are shaping up as a double act to rival Blair and Brown - she doing the arms wide vision thing, while he gets all dour and pragmatic on the economic front. I see Amber Rudd's big idea has already been dismissed by the cabinet before she has unpacked her bags.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not the biggest Tim Farron fan.
His approach is broadly a calculation that most people associate Labour & tories with Brexit, and there is a big hole there to fill. I can see the value in that. It'll take a couple of decade until they're in a position to be in power again, so I can see the value of promising things that are impractical.
Lib Dems have been the best performing party in local council elections since the election, so that's something.
As for the defections: my understanding was that Manzoor never really had much connection with the Lib Dems when she was appointed and that was the concern when she was made a peer in the first place. Turns out, the concern was broadly correct.
I do think that while Theresa May parks her tanks on UKIP's lawn, she is forgetting that the Tories won the last election by picking up Lib Dem seats. She may (whey) be calculating that Lib Dems are no so small they won't have the stature to compete with them anyway (and that may well be right) but it's an opportunity to bounce back nonetheless.
The Liberal/SDP alliance were in this position c.1990, they reformed as the LibDmes and Paddy Ashdown did the heavy lifting as leader to make them electable on the national stage, not just at local level. I don't think Tim Farron has the werewithal to do the job to be honest, but there is too small a pool to draw from.
My impression of the Tory conference is that May and Hammond are shaping up as a double act to rival Blair and Brown - she doing the arms wide vision thing, while he gets all dour and pragmatic on the economic front. I see Amber Rudd's big idea has already been dismissed by the cabinet before she has unpacked her bags.
Amazing what a load of bad press can achieve in such a short period. May's honeymoon period with the quality press is already over. She's in for a rough ride from many movers and shakers from now on. A hard Brexit (which is the only realistic outcome) isn't palatable.0 -
See that Shami has done an Abbott regarding her kids schooling.0
