Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

It is if the degree to which they do it is markedly different.

I seem to remember the IFS giving both the major parties' manifestos short shrift (and they didn't think much of anyone else's for that matter). But that is all history now; what Corbyn promised a few months ago is now more or less irrelevant. The fact that large parts of it would have been unachievable doesn't make May's alternatives any more achievable. Being "not as bad as Labour" - a party that for all Corbyn's worthy rhetoric, seems as interested in denying it's most recent period of real achievement as it does with dealing with today's problems - strikes me as a pretty meagre boast. What's sad is that the obvious ambition and apparent awareness of May's speech on becoming prime minister, seems to have just evaporated. And very little has taken its place from either inside or outside the party.

You're a Lib Dem.

Care to explain how the Lib Dems proposals are so much better and if so, why practically nobody bothered to vote for them?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If both sides do it it's not a differentiating argument.

It is if the degree to which they do it is markedly different.

I seem to remember the IFS giving both the major parties' manifestos short shrift (and they didn't think much of anyone else's for that matter). But that is all history now; what Corbyn promised a few months ago is now more or less irrelevant. The fact that large parts of it would have been unachievable doesn't make May's alternatives any more achievable. Being "not as bad as Labour" - a party that for all Corbyn's worthy rhetoric, seems as interested in denying it's most recent period of real achievement as it does with dealing with today's problems - strikes me as a pretty meagre boast. What's sad is that the obvious ambition and apparent awareness of May's speech on becoming prime minister, seems to have just evaporated. And very little has taken its place from either inside or outside the party.

You're a Lib Dem.

Care to explain how the Lib Dems proposals are so much better and if so, why practically nobody bothered to vote for them?

If you hadn't twigged by now, I'm pretty disappointed in them, too. I think they got a lot of things wrong in both the recent elections and when in government. Despite that they are the party closest to my own political views and I don't believe in spoiling ballot papers so Lib Dems it is. My local Lib Dem MP also happens to be a very good constituency MP so that makes it an easy decision.

As to the other bit of your question, do you want a complete policy by policy comparison? For a couple of examples, they would be keeping us at least in the EEA and not wasting time worrying about the ECJ, or trying to put arbitrary and probably unachievable numbers on immigration. Why didn't people vote for them? Partly the second referendum thing - most people (even those who think leaving the EU is a colossal waste of time and effort) can't really face another few months of campaigning that another referendum would entail, and would rather just get it over and done with. More generally immigration is (and probably always will be) such a populist whipping boy that it would take years of effort to to overcome. When it comes to trying to win an election, promising to control/reduce immigration (even though the economy is dependent on immigration) is such an easy vote winner that most parties can't resist adding it in to the manifesto. A more detailed discussion of immigration is probably a subject for another thread.

Anyway, my point is, the deficiencies or otherwise of Labour, the Lib Dems or any other party aren't an excuse for the government's failings. They're failing on their own terms let alone anyone else's.

Stevo_666

I don't think anyone here thinks their preferred party is perfect or anywhere near and that includes me. But its the advocacy system in here and I prefer to have a go at the other side rather than my own side.

Like you, I vote for the party that I think is closest to my own views and values. And the party that I think will do best for the country and - let's be honest here - will be best for me personally.

Also I think most people realise that Corbyn would be a disaster if he ever got in.

rjsterry

Fair enough, and I certainly agree with your last point - more because of the people lurking behind Corbyn who would see his success as some sort of licence to enhance their own standing in much the same way as Trump's election has emboldened the far right.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Anyway, my point is, the deficiencies or otherwise of Labour, the Lib Dems or any other party aren't an excuse for the government's failings. They're failing on their own terms let alone anyone else's.

A pretty excoriating critique by Tory Matthew d'Ancona. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-brexit "To be absolutely sure that Labour forms the next government, all the Tories have to do is carry on as they are."

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Anyway, my point is, the deficiencies or otherwise of Labour, the Lib Dems or any other party aren't an excuse for the government's failings. They're failing on their own terms let alone anyone else's.

A pretty excoriating critique by Tory Matthew d'Ancona. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-brexit "To be absolutely sure that Labour forms the next government, all the Tories have to do is carry on as they are."

How do you fancy the idea of a Corbyn led Labour government?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you fancy the idea of a Corbyn led Labour government?

I don't. But how long before we get to an American style, "fuck it, they can't worse than this lot. Let's try something different" complete cock up.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Anyway, my point is, the deficiencies or otherwise of Labour, the Lib Dems or any other party aren't an excuse for the government's failings. They're failing on their own terms let alone anyone else's.

A pretty excoriating critique by Tory Matthew d'Ancona. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-brexit "To be absolutely sure that Labour forms the next government, all the Tories have to do is carry on as they are."

How do you fancy the idea of a Corbyn led Labour government?

Not at all - but that doesn't stop me not liking what the Tories are up to. I'd prefer them to be a party which didn't view anyone with alternative views as the enemy (Corbyn & McDonnell are just as guilty of that), and would return to being a party of pragmatism rather than dogmatism.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

How do you fancy the idea of a Corbyn led Labour government?

I don't. But how long before we get to an American style, "fark it, they can't worse than this lot. Let's try something different" complete fool up.

I think that is a large part of why the last election results were as they were. Maybe I'm giving too much credit but I think a lot of people knew Corbyn was at heart a Brexiter and that the various campaign pledges were unaffordable but voted for him anyway.

Stevo_666

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

Coming from the person who did the direct opposite?

BelgianBeerGeek

Better dead than blue
The labour party has always had massive issues with Europe. Corbyn is of the old school, like Denis Healey, who detested/still hates our Euro-brethren. Maybe it was only Tony Blair who was cool about the EU?

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

"For people who who worry about the prospect of Hillary Clinton as President, then there is only one candidate who can realistically keep her away from the levers of power."

The last election was easy: both Corbyn and May were advocating policies which I believe to be suicidal for the country. I could vote for neither. May insists on something I still believe to be fundamentally wrong - and less easy to undo than a experiment with the 'hard left'. The disaster of the last election was that there wasn't a strong pragmatic party with a credible & charismatic leader to fill the vacuum at the centre.

tangled_metal

I actually watched a lecture by the IFS on BBC parliament channel on the economic impact of the three (four) main parties; conservative, labour and LibDems. The one thing I remember is graphs of the positive or negative impact of the policies overall by socio-economic grouping or earning level. Tories and Labour both had a similar shape graph across all levels, basically negative for all but the poor were clobbered more than middle and high earners. The goal is positive and level across the groups I guess but both Tories and Labour had a low graph at lower groupings rising to almost positive for mid groups then dropping a bit.

The only party to get even close to the ideal, fair for all impact was LibDems. Their policies were nearly positive for low and middle earning groups and only dropping a bit for the rich, the line dropped less for the rich than the other 2 parties IIRC.

One comment I remember was the speaker saying something along the lines of if you wanted a change to the better for the most people LibDems is the only party.

This was a long time back to remember it exactly but certainly labour and Tory's manifestos would have had not much difference to the impact economically. That's surprising because of how different their politics are. There's something about the further left you go in politics the more like the right they become. It can't be true can it?

Stevo_666

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Better dead than blue

It's your funeral then

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I actually watched a lecture by the IFS on BBC parliament channel on the economic impact of the three (four) main parties; conservative, labour and LibDems. The one thing I remember is graphs of the positive or negative impact of the policies overall by socio-economic grouping or earning level. Tories and Labour both had a similar shape graph across all levels, basically negative for all but the poor were clobbered more than middle and high earners. The goal is positive and level across the groups I guess but both Tories and Labour had a low graph at lower groupings rising to almost positive for mid groups then dropping a bit.

The only party to get even close to the ideal, fair for all impact was LibDems. Their policies were nearly positive for low and middle earning groups and only dropping a bit for the rich, the line dropped less for the rich than the other 2 parties IIRC.

One comment I remember was the speaker saying something along the lines of if you wanted a change to the better for the most people LibDems is the only party.

This was a long time back to remember it exactly but certainly labour and Tory's manifestos would have had not much difference to the impact economically. That's surprising because of how different their politics are. There's something about the further left you go in politics the more like the right they become. It can't be true can it?

Even if you might be right about the Lib Dems, in the near future they are unlikely to return to being a credible political force in terms of numbers of seats.

Hence my deliberate use of the word 'realistically' above.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

Coming from the person who did the direct opposite?

I said if people like yourselves are worried. My view is in my first sentence above.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

So you're holding out for a few Lib Dem voters to save the day if May does a John Major? Things are worse than I realised!
I didn't say I thought a Corbyn government was likely; just that it would be a bad idea.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

@ Briantrumpet: I think the Tory instinct for self preservation will get them through.

But for people like yourself, RJS and PBlakeney, if the prospect of a Corbyn government worries you then there is only one party that can realistically keep the hard left away from the levers of power. Time to join the conservative party and save your country?

(Actually that would make a good thread title )

So you're holding out for a few Lib Dem voters to save the day if May does a John Major? Things are worse than I realised!
I didn't say I thought a Corbyn government was likely; just that it would be a bad idea.

Nope, see my first sentence above

You may need to support the tories if they are doing as badly as you think...

rjsterry

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win - which is clearly a weakness of the Corbynistas who seem more ideological and fixed in their approach.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win - which is clearly a weakness of the Corbynistas who seem more ideological and fixed in their approach.

An interesting viewpoint.
Labour take stances based on ideology, Tories do whatever to remain in power. I would agree.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win

You sure about that?

Last 20 years says otherwise.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win

You sure about that?

Last 20 years says otherwise.

I mean some people are seriously talking about a leadership bid by Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win

You sure about that?

Last 20 years says otherwise.

I did say usually.

Anyway you do pick your stats selectively - last 10, 30 or 40 years says yes.

briantrumpet

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Let's hope you're right. Sometimes the famed self preservation goes on the blink. Remember the Howard, Hague and IDS years?

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win

You sure about that?

Last 20 years says otherwise.

I mean some people are seriously talking about a leadership bid by Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Time for the return of the nanny state.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win - which is clearly a weakness of the Corbynistas who seem more ideological and fixed in their approach.

An interesting viewpoint.
Labour take stances based on ideology, Tories do whatever to remain in power. I would agree.

True now, though the Blair administration was more pragmatic.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win - which is clearly a weakness of the Corbynistas who seem more ideological and fixed in their approach.

An interesting viewpoint.
Labour take stances based on ideology, Tories do whatever to remain in power. I would agree.

True now, though the Blair administration was more pragmatic.

I would argue that TB was a Tory with a red rosette.
Fitting the above perfectly.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Like I said, no party is anywhere near perfect but the Tories are usually pragmatic enough to change in order to survive and win - which is clearly a weakness of the Corbynistas who seem more ideological and fixed in their approach.

An interesting viewpoint.
Labour take stances based on ideology, Tories do whatever to remain in power. I would agree.

True now, though the Blair administration was more pragmatic.

I would argue that TB was a Tory with a red rosette.
Fitting the above perfectly.

A common claim made by the hard left.

Classify him how you want, he led the labour party. Quite successfully in terms of election results - see above re pragmatism vs ideology.

rick_chasey

I'm reminded of this passage when Stevo goes all 'looney left labour'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-brexit

Traditionally, Labour has been the party of teleology: convinced that history has a direction, that the dialectic of the struggle will lead to a preordained, glorious outcome. Now, it is the Tory Brexiters who have embraced this approach, interpreting Britain’s departure from the EU as a manifestation of national destiny, the unfolding of providence. Better trade, better wages, better borders, better trampolines, better tea cosies – you name it, everything will be better once we are free of the tyrannous grip of Brussels. Like all religions, this one tolerates no heresy. The relatively narrow victory of the leave campaign has been transformed from a mandate to be respected to a divine instruction from the burning bush. To voice the slightest doubt about any aspect of the process is to invite the charge of “remoaner”, and a cyber-lynching.