Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
I disliked Corbyn and some of his policies when he first became leader but he has grown on me, i wish i lived in a constituency where Labour had a chance.
As to whether he can became PM ? doubtful but that applies to any Labour leader, we ve a predominately right wing electorate and in some cases, media, Labour have tried 2 centralist leaders and it got them no-where but if Labours newly found popularity makes the Tories adopt more sensible policies, then your vote was well used.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
True - but ultimately, if you sack people for behaving in the way that you yourself would do then what message does that send? To me it is very much that he is very narrow minded, doesn't listen to people, is autocratic and will do anything to achieve his ends. He behaves more like a Tory than Tony Blair. I think he will be found out - hopefully before he does somehow wangle himself into power.
I suspect that the more that seems like a possibility, the more seriously the media will look at him and therefore the less chance he will have of winning an election.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
True - but ultimately, if you sack people for behaving in the way that you yourself would do then what message does that send? To me it is very much that he is very narrow minded, doesn't listen to people, is autocratic and will do anything to achieve his ends. He behaves more like a Tory than Tony Blair. I think he will be found out - hopefully before he does somehow wangle himself into power.
I suspect that the more that seems like a possibility, the more seriously the media will look at him and therefore the less chance he will have of winning an election.
Bleak picture!!!!
whenever a fellow techi has been "promoted" into management, they change, their ideals they treat their former colleagues differently and vice versa everything changes.
i guess JC as a protesting backbencher could be a principled trouble maker..... as a potential PM, he has had to wear the cloths of power, whatever the shortfalls in this, its wholly better than another 5 or 10 years of the Tories and the damage they ve done to this country and continue to do so with Brexit.
My real beef with JC is that he doesnt stand up and say Brexit is a total disaster and should be halted, it will prove to be and i fear that we ll continue to implement it on the basis of no one will want to admit they are wrong and our political leaders are so wealthy it doesnt really affect them, so much like public transport or our potholed roads, they really dont care.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
I disliked Corbyn and some of his policies when he first became leader but he has grown on me, i wish i lived in a constituency where Labour had a chance.
As to whether he can became PM ? doubtful but that applies to any Labour leader, we ve a predominately right wing electorate and in some cases, media, Labour have tried 2 centralist leaders and it got them no-where but if Labours newly found popularity makes the Tories adopt more sensible policies, then your vote was well used.
I am not sure how you can count Blair as getting them nowhere and who is the other centralist leader they tried?0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
True - but ultimately, if you sack people for behaving in the way that you yourself would do then what message does that send? To me it is very much that he is very narrow minded, doesn't listen to people, is autocratic and will do anything to achieve his ends. He behaves more like a Tory than Tony Blair. I think he will be found out - hopefully before he does somehow wangle himself into power.
I suspect that the more that seems like a possibility, the more seriously the media will look at him and therefore the less chance he will have of winning an election.
Bleak picture!!!!
whenever a fellow techi has been "promoted" into management, they change, their ideals they treat their former colleagues differently and vice versa everything changes.
i guess JC as a protesting backbencher could be a principled trouble maker..... as a potential PM, he has had to wear the cloths of power, whatever the shortfalls in this, its wholly better than another 5 or 10 years of the Tories and the damage they ve done to this country and continue to do so with Brexit.
My real beef with JC is that he doesnt stand up and say Brexit is a total disaster and should be halted, it will prove to be and i fear that we ll continue to implement it on the basis of no one will want to admit they are wrong and our political leaders are so wealthy it doesnt really affect them, so much like public transport or our potholed roads, they really dont care.
Corbyn is a Brexiter. I find it bewildering that all the apparently Pro-EU 18-24 voters who got sucked in by the tuition fee promise, didn't notice this. If he is so principled, why does he find it so hard to be straight about this?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
I disliked Corbyn and some of his policies when he first became leader but he has grown on me, i wish i lived in a constituency where Labour had a chance.
As to whether he can became PM ? doubtful but that applies to any Labour leader, we ve a predominately right wing electorate and in some cases, media, Labour have tried 2 centralist leaders and it got them no-where but if Labours newly found popularity makes the Tories adopt more sensible policies, then your vote was well used.
I am not sure how you can count Blair as getting them nowhere and who is the other centralist leader they tried?
Blair..... ??? what r u on about? Brown and Miliband, both far more mainstream and both lost, Corbyn has done far better than Miliband, reducing Mays majority to minus.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
I disliked Corbyn and some of his policies when he first became leader but he has grown on me, i wish i lived in a constituency where Labour had a chance.
As to whether he can became PM ? doubtful but that applies to any Labour leader, we ve a predominately right wing electorate and in some cases, media, Labour have tried 2 centralist leaders and it got them no-where but if Labours newly found popularity makes the Tories adopt more sensible policies, then your vote was well used.
I am not sure how you can count Blair as getting them nowhere and who is the other centralist leader they tried?
Blair..... ??? what r u on about? Brown and Miliband, both far more mainstream and both lost, Corbyn has done far better than Miliband, reducing Mays majority to minus.
Ed Milliband was never seen as centralist until JC came along0 -
what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.0 -
Guaranteed jobs for stonemasons.0
-
mamba80 wrote:what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.
Mansion tax
you must concede the Labour Party was seen to have shifted leftwards by electing him?
In a two party system each party is effectively a coalition. There are elements of the Tory party far to the right of Le Pen0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.
Mansion tax
you must concede the Labour Party was seen to have shifted leftwards by electing him?
In a two party system each party is effectively a coalition. There are elements of the Tory party far to the right of Le Pen
Mansion Tax? is that it? that makes him a leftie?
as i said, the media portrayed Labour had shifted to the left but the reality was Miliband was pretty much a middle of the road labour leader, but of course he was more left of centre than blair but tbh there were Tory Mps more left wing than TB !
As i said, in a european context we are very right wing country, maybe thats a result of a poor education system or our peculiar class set-up
Labour need to be different than the Tories, the libdems trouble is that they are seen as too similar, this was Milibands problem too, that and being made to look an idiot by the press.0 -
Indeed. I appreciate that choices about who you vote for are usually very compromised, but most of the people I know who are in favour of Corbyn's left-wing policies are also very strongly pro-EU. I guess Corbyn doesn't want them to realise how anti-EU he is.rjsterry wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:
Indeed so. I understand that there are always compromises when you choose who to vote for, but Corbyn'smamba80 wrote:Rolf F wrote:Hmmmm, so the "Man of principles" doesn't want anyone with principles in his cabinet unless they are the same principles as his. That, of course, in the real world means he wants a cabinet full of unprincipled lackeys. Lets be honest, Cobyn's relatively small failure at the election was a surprise but it doesn't alter the fact that he won't become Prime Minister unless the wacky world we live in gets a lot wackier.
For my perspective, I think I made the right choice to vote Labour but I suspect I won't vote Labour next time - not unless they either get rid of Corbyn or he grows up a bit. Possibly a shame as my constituency is a small three figure marginal and I'd love to kick the Tory T**t who is currently in place out. But I think I had one vote in me for Corbyn and I've used that up.
He needed to assert his authority though? Labour splits are seized upon, Chuka was a bl00dy idiot, a gift to the Tories.
True - but ultimately, if you sack people for behaving in the way that you yourself would do then what message does that send? To me it is very much that he is very narrow minded, doesn't listen to people, is autocratic and will do anything to achieve his ends. He behaves more like a Tory than Tony Blair. I think he will be found out - hopefully before he does somehow wangle himself into power.
I suspect that the more that seems like a possibility, the more seriously the media will look at him and therefore the less chance he will have of winning an election.
Bleak picture!!!!
whenever a fellow techi has been "promoted" into management, they change, their ideals they treat their former colleagues differently and vice versa everything changes.
i guess JC as a protesting backbencher could be a principled trouble maker..... as a potential PM, he has had to wear the cloths of power, whatever the shortfalls in this, its wholly better than another 5 or 10 years of the Tories and the damage they ve done to this country and continue to do so with Brexit.
My real beef with JC is that he doesnt stand up and say Brexit is a total disaster and should be halted, it will prove to be and i fear that we ll continue to implement it on the basis of no one will want to admit they are wrong and our political leaders are so wealthy it doesnt really affect them, so much like public transport or our potholed roads, they really dont care.
Corbyn is a Brexiter. I find it bewildering that all the apparently Pro-EU 18-24 voters who got sucked in by the tuition fee promise, didn't notice this. If he is so principled, why does he find it so hard to be straight about this?0 -
JC is like all the politicians in this respect, he doesnt want to be seen as thwarting the "will of the people" but like his mentor Tony Benn, he is no EU federalist but i do think he will be the first to turn around and say STOP!
ffs someone needs too!0 -
mamba80 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.
Mansion tax
you must concede the Labour Party was seen to have shifted leftwards by electing him?
In a two party system each party is effectively a coalition. There are elements of the Tory party far to the right of Le Pen
Mansion Tax? is that it? that makes him a leftie?
as i said, the media portrayed Labour had shifted to the left but the reality was Miliband was pretty much a middle of the road labour leader, but of course he was more left of centre than blair but tbh there were Tory Mps more left wing than TB !
As i said, in a european context we are very right wing country, maybe thats a result of a poor education system or our peculiar class set-up
Labour need to be different than the Tories, the libdems trouble is that they are seen as too similar, this was Milibands problem too, that and being made to look an idiot by the press.
My ideal would be to have the parties more tightly grouped (in terms of policies).0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.
Mansion tax
you must concede the Labour Party was seen to have shifted leftwards by electing him?
In a two party system each party is effectively a coalition. There are elements of the Tory party far to the right of Le Pen
Mansion Tax? is that it? that makes him a leftie?
as i said, the media portrayed Labour had shifted to the left but the reality was Miliband was pretty much a middle of the road labour leader, but of course he was more left of centre than blair but tbh there were Tory Mps more left wing than TB !
As i said, in a european context we are very right wing country, maybe thats a result of a poor education system or our peculiar class set-up
Labour need to be different than the Tories, the libdems trouble is that they are seen as too similar, this was Milibands problem too, that and being made to look an idiot by the press.
My ideal would be to have the parties more tightly grouped (in terms of policies).
Around the positions you agree with, I presume?0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:what hard core leftie policies did he espouse?
unless you mean the 'Mail depicted him as Marxist... oh yes they did did'nt they or rather his father was and anti british to boot...lol!
its the problem Labour will always have.
Incidently, JC in a european context, would nt be seen as particularly left wing, the Tories on the other hand shared a manifesto which was similar to LePen's FN.
Mansion tax
you must concede the Labour Party was seen to have shifted leftwards by electing him?
In a two party system each party is effectively a coalition. There are elements of the Tory party far to the right of Le Pen
Mansion Tax? is that it? that makes him a leftie?
as i said, the media portrayed Labour had shifted to the left but the reality was Miliband was pretty much a middle of the road labour leader, but of course he was more left of centre than blair but tbh there were Tory Mps more left wing than TB !
As i said, in a european context we are very right wing country, maybe thats a result of a poor education system or our peculiar class set-up
Labour need to be different than the Tories, the libdems trouble is that they are seen as too similar, this was Milibands problem too, that and being made to look an idiot by the press.
My ideal would be to have the parties more tightly grouped (in terms of policies).
Around the positions you agree with, I presume?
See it as a change in emphasis.
My positions are Thatcherite in the primacy of the markets and a small State but socially liberal. Which means I am still looking.0 -
How on earth can you have both? they are mutually exclusive.0
-
Hardly. You can also be socially quite regressive whilst espousing all sorts of protectionist nonsense. For example, Le Pen's FN is pretty anti-free market economically. Think of it as two axes, rather than a single spectrum.mamba80 wrote:How on earth can you have both? they are mutually exclusive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Sorry but they are, you cannot have a so called small state and still provide the protection and full services that "socially liberal" implies.0
-
mamba80 wrote:Sorry but they are, you cannot have a so called small state and still provide the protection and full services that "socially liberal" implies.
That isn't what being economically liberal is
My position is fundemtbally free market, but to tweak and adjust it in order to reduce as many negative externalities as possible.
There ought to be a focus on genuine equal opportunity. Wherever you're born, to whoever you're born, you should have to same opportunities in life; weather that's earnings, or education (depending on your own ability to achieve success).
Also, everyone deserves to live by the consequences of their decisions; if you earn well you ought to live well and visa versa, but no one deserves to live in poverty and no-one needs to be Uber rich, though if they engage in the social contract then I have no problem.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:mamba80 wrote:Sorry but they are, you cannot have a so called small state and still provide the protection and full services that "socially liberal" implies.
That isn't what being economically liberal is
My position is fundemtbally free market, but to tweak and adjust it in order to reduce as many negative externalities as possible.
There ought to be a focus on genuine equal opportunity. Wherever you're born, to whoever you're born, you should have to same opportunities in life; weather that's earnings, or education (depending on your own ability to achieve success).
Also, everyone deserves to live by the consequences of their decisions; if you earn well you ought to live well and visa versa, but no one deserves to live in poverty and no-one needs to be Uber rich, though if they engage in the social contract then I have no problem.
i was replying to SC.....Surrey Commuter wrote:My positions are Thatcherite in the primacy of the markets and a small State but socially liberal. Which means I am still looking.
to provide a sufficient safety net and the opportunities for all that you want, needs intervention, say Sure Start or meals for kids? parenting classes, social services, council housing etc etc ...that means money, staff, resources, a small state it is not !!!
the Rotherham disgrace happened because there was no state looking out for these girls... same as in Jersey right now... or the Grenfell fire.0 -
There was plenty of state in Rotherham. Almost all of them were choosing to look the other way. Jersey isn't part of the UK and has a separate government. I think we'll find Grenfell is far more complicated than that.mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:mamba80 wrote:Sorry but they are, you cannot have a so called small state and still provide the protection and full services that "socially liberal" implies.
That isn't what being economically liberal is
My position is fundemtbally free market, but to tweak and adjust it in order to reduce as many negative externalities as possible.
There ought to be a focus on genuine equal opportunity. Wherever you're born, to whoever you're born, you should have to same opportunities in life; weather that's earnings, or education (depending on your own ability to achieve success).
Also, everyone deserves to live by the consequences of their decisions; if you earn well you ought to live well and visa versa, but no one deserves to live in poverty and no-one needs to be Uber rich, though if they engage in the social contract then I have no problem.
i was replying to SC.....Surrey Commuter wrote:My positions are Thatcherite in the primacy of the markets and a small State but socially liberal. Which means I am still looking.
to provide a sufficient safety net and the opportunities for all that you want, needs intervention, say Sure Start or meals for kids? parenting classes, social services, council housing etc etc ...that means money, staff, resources, a small state it is not !!!
the Rotherham disgrace happened because there was no state looking out for these girls... same as in Jersey right now... or the Grenfell fire.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:mamba80 wrote:Sorry but they are, you cannot have a so called small state and still provide the protection and full services that "socially liberal" implies.
That isn't what being economically liberal is
My position is fundemtbally free market, but to tweak and adjust it in order to reduce as many negative externalities as possible.
There ought to be a focus on genuine equal opportunity. Wherever you're born, to whoever you're born, you should have to same opportunities in life; weather that's earnings, or education (depending on your own ability to achieve success).
Also, everyone deserves to live by the consequences of their decisions; if you earn well you ought to live well and visa versa, but no one deserves to live in poverty and no-one needs to be Uber rich, though if they engage in the social contract then I have no problem.
i was replying to SC.....Surrey Commuter wrote:My positions are Thatcherite in the primacy of the markets and a small State but socially liberal. Which means I am still looking.
to provide a sufficient safety net and the opportunities for all that you want, needs intervention, say Sure Start or meals for kids? parenting classes, social services, council housing etc etc ...that means money, staff, resources, a small state it is not !!!
the Rotherham disgrace happened because there was no state looking out for these girls... same as in Jersey right now... or the Grenfell fire.
There wasn't a shortage of state in Rotherham, just a shortage of anything useful being done by it to prevent abuse on an industrial scale.
As for Grenfell tower, it appears you have already made up your mind about the cause and any failings that may have led to this tragedy. We can all speculate I suppose but best to keep an open mind until the results of the investigation and enquiry are known don't you think?0 -
I agree that all of that costs money.
I also am a firm believer that certain things are more efficiently and effecitvely administered through the state (fire protection, policing, health, energy generation where natural monopolies exist, education, social care, town planning efc) and I also believe that regulation is important; the solution to bad regulation is to improve it, not to scrap it.
But you must be fundamentally economically liberal in order to generate the wealth that the rest of this feeds off.
Capitalism is a bit like fire; if you learn to harness it right, it can be really powerful and useful. If you don't it can be incredibly destructive.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I agree that all of that costs money.
I also am a firm believer that certain things are more efficiently and effecitvely administered through the state (fire protection, policing, health, energy generation where natural monopolies exist, education, social care, town planning efc) and I also believe that regulation is important; the solution to bad regulation is to improve it, not to scrap it.
But you must be fundamentally economically liberal in order to generate the wealth that the rest of this feeds off.
Capitalism is a bit like fire; if you learn to harness it right, it can be really powerful and useful. If you don't it can be incredibly destructive.
Crikey I not only find myself agreeing with Rick but discovering that he can enunciate my position better than I.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I agree that all of that costs money.
I also am a firm believer that certain things are more efficiently and effecitvely administered through the state (fire protection, policing, health, energy generation where natural monopolies exist, education, social care, town planning efc) and I also believe that regulation is important; the solution to bad regulation is to improve it, not to scrap it.
But you must be fundamentally economically liberal in order to generate the wealth that the rest of this feeds off.
Capitalism is a bit like fire; if you learn to harness it right, it can be really powerful and useful. If you don't it can be incredibly destructive.
Yes i agree, without increased tax receipts then we have no money for the things we want, my beef with the tories and their boast of 2m extra jobs is that so many of these folk will be claiming a load in working tax benefits.
i m not proposing communism! capitalism needs regulation or we end up with a Victorian style society and i think we are heading that way.
however i maintain that MT's idea of a small state and that the people are best placed to spend their money via tax cuts. is flawed.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I agree that all of that costs money.
I also am a firm believer that certain things are more efficiently and effecitvely administered through the state (fire protection, policing, health, energy generation where natural monopolies exist, education, social care, town planning efc) and I also believe that regulation is important; the solution to bad regulation is to improve it, not to scrap it.
But you must be fundamentally economically liberal in order to generate the wealth that the rest of this feeds off.
Capitalism is a bit like fire; if you learn to harness it right, it can be really powerful and useful. If you don't it can be incredibly destructive.
Yes i agree, without increased tax receipts then we have no money for the things we want, my beef with the tories and their boast of 2m extra jobs is that so many of these folk will be claiming a load in working tax benefits.
i m not proposing communism! capitalism needs regulation or we end up with a Victorian style society and i think we are heading that way.
however i maintain that MT's idea of a small state and that the people are best placed to spend their money via tax cuts. is flawed.
I agree that tax credits are an abomination that if created by the Tories would be seen as subsidising the likes of Tesco. Likewise Housing Benefit is a transfer of wealth to private landlords.
Try and convince me that people should not be trusted to spend their own money0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:mamba80 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I agree that all of that costs money.
I also am a firm believer that certain things are more efficiently and effecitvely administered through the state (fire protection, policing, health, energy generation where natural monopolies exist, education, social care, town planning efc) and I also believe that regulation is important; the solution to bad regulation is to improve it, not to scrap it.
But you must be fundamentally economically liberal in order to generate the wealth that the rest of this feeds off.
Capitalism is a bit like fire; if you learn to harness it right, it can be really powerful and useful. If you don't it can be incredibly destructive.
Yes i agree, without increased tax receipts then we have no money for the things we want, my beef with the tories and their boast of 2m extra jobs is that so many of these folk will be claiming a load in working tax benefits.
i m not proposing communism! capitalism needs regulation or we end up with a Victorian style society and i think we are heading that way.
however i maintain that MT's idea of a small state and that the people are best placed to spend their money via tax cuts. is flawed.
I agree that tax credits are an abomination that if created by the Tories would be seen as subsidising the likes of Tesco. Likewise Housing Benefit is a transfer of wealth to private landlords.
Try and convince me that people should not be trusted to spend their own money
because though folk can furnish their own homes, they cant build a school or a road, maintain it, cut the verges, employ teaches, social services, build a GP surgery, let alone a cardiac unit... i could go on... look, TM got rid of social housing, the individual buy to let landlord stepped in.. where has that got us?
We need an expansive state, it needs controlling and its powers need to be regulated but we need looking after... i ve driven to Chichester and back today, without the state, that journey just would not be possible, if i d been in an acident, it would the Police and health service i d rely on.... when you add in the important stuff, driving standards, military, health, education transport and we def need the state, the individual, no matter how much money we earn, all these things above cannot be provided by the individual.0
