Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I'm pretty sure the alternative would not have been a good option for me.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy
You seem to think that unchallenged incompetence is good thing, as long as the incompetence wears a blue rosette. The actual quality of government is secondary.
If you believed in the quality of the party you support, you'd welcome the challenge. It appears you don't want that challenge. Fair enough.
Plan still working "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure the alternative would not have been a good option for me.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy
You seem to think that unchallenged incompetence is good thing, as long as the incompetence wears a blue rosette. The actual quality of government is secondary.
If you believed in the quality of the party you support, you'd welcome the challenge. It appears you don't want that challenge. Fair enough.
Plan still working
You seem to be missing the point: a stronger opposition would mean better government. So one can only assume you're content with unchallenged incompetence, as long as it's Tory.
The alternative isn't a Labour government, as things stand, it's a better Tory one. Weird that you dont want that.0 -
However you wish to define Tory we do not have a Tory Govt.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure the alternative would not have been a good option for me.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy
You seem to think that unchallenged incompetence is good thing, as long as the incompetence wears a blue rosette. The actual quality of government is secondary.
If you believed in the quality of the party you support, you'd welcome the challenge. It appears you don't want that challenge. Fair enough.
Plan still working
You seem to be missing the point: a stronger opposition would mean better government. So one can only assume you're content with unchallenged incompetence, as long as it's Tory.
The alternative isn't a Labour government, as things stand, it's a better Tory one. Weird that you dont want that.
I could live in a stable but it would not make me a horse.1 -
surrey_commuter said:
However you wish to define Tory we do not have a Tory Govt.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure the alternative would not have been a good option for me.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy
You seem to think that unchallenged incompetence is good thing, as long as the incompetence wears a blue rosette. The actual quality of government is secondary.
If you believed in the quality of the party you support, you'd welcome the challenge. It appears you don't want that challenge. Fair enough.
Plan still working
You seem to be missing the point: a stronger opposition would mean better government. So one can only assume you're content with unchallenged incompetence, as long as it's Tory.
The alternative isn't a Labour government, as things stand, it's a better Tory one. Weird that you dont want that.
I could live in a stable but it would not make me a horse.
TINO, maybe, but it's got the blue rosette that makes it qualify for unquestioning support.0 -
You miss my point, I hope on purpose.Stevo_666 said:
If Labour had got in, I suspect I would already suffering some punishment taxation. Looking at the income tax plans in their last manifesto, it would have been substantial. Which of course I would be keen to avoid.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but you changed it to "the ****ers" on your latest post. Thought my post was clear about that. Sorry if it was too complicated, I'll try and rephrase it.Stevo_666 said:
Have another read of the first post in this thread, its clear enough all these years on.kingstongraham said:
I thought it was to keep THOSE ****ers out of power, not the ****ers in general.Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.
If a) then fair enough. If b), then a spectacular misfire.
Back when this started, it was Cameron. Pretty much downhill to ****erville all the way since then.
You wanted to stop the specific Labour badged ****ers, and have ended up with a bunch of spendy ****ers anyway. Funny old world, isn't it?
So my point stands.
If you take some credit for Corbyn being elected, you have moved the Labour Party left a long way, and the conservatives have followed it much further than would have previously been possible.
Lifelong Labour voters now consider the conservative party policies acceptable in their thousands. Do you think they have all moved to suddenly support thatcherism?
The only issue is you still can't believe in the magic money tree, can you?0 -
I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Your aim wasn't a competent government with traditional Tory values then. Just a blue rosette. Call that a win if you likeStevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.0 -
I prefer discussions to debating contests.Stevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.
There are no goalposts, this isn't football.
Be interesting if you engaged in a discussion.0 -
Given the original aim of the thread it's clearly mission accomplished. I know you're not a mind reader so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm happy with the resultkingstongraham said:
I prefer discussions to debating contests.Stevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.
There are no goalposts, this isn't football.
Be interesting if you engaged in a discussion. It's not really a debate as such. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'd rather know what you think rather than establishing that you've won a game you decided to play. But I'm aware that's a forlorn hope.Stevo_666 said:
Given the original aim of the thread it's clearly mission accomplished. I know you're not a mind reader so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm happy with the resultkingstongraham said:
I prefer discussions to debating contests.Stevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.
There are no goalposts, this isn't football.
Be interesting if you engaged in a discussion. It's not really a debate as such.
0 -
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die
Blair on the future of centre left politics in the West.
Think there are some really interesting points.
Thesis seems to be that the main issue that is changing everything in society is technology and the progressive left is lacking a leader who can frame a vision and strategy to embrace that shift. He sees the change as significant as the industrial revolution, and it is a shift that a progressive political force should be well suited to. Embraced the change rather than small c conservativism.
Instead they are reaching into the past to find solutions, which is in essence a form of small c conservatism, hence their problem.
He sees things like the level of taxation vs spending etc as secondary to the fundamental shift in societies.
Then the interesting bit:Precisely because a new younger generation are looking for radical policy, as every new generation does, and because they’re not really finding it in an economic message which doesn’t enthuse, so progressives have defaulted to issues around culture, gender, race and identity. Handling these issues successfully is an equally great challenge for modern progressives.
Which is sort of what I've been trying to articulate but clearly not very well.
He then goes about how the left should address the 'culture wars' which I think is sensible, as well as some stuff about what the labour party should do specifically but I thought the above bit was the most interesting.
0 -
Yes an interesting article.
Just to unpick it a bit - how much substance is actually in it - I don't mean that rhetorically.
- Old Labour policy is outdated - technology and the world has moved on.
- Those looking for something radical, or just something new in terms of politics have turned to cultural issues as the left has nothing to offer in terms of economics.
- Moderates are uncomfortable engaging with cultural issues and the radical left - defund the police, BLM, extinction rebellion, corbynistas - have therefore come to represent what the left stands for in the eyes of the public.
What is missing is what should the new left politics be? If tax and spend/nationalisation etc is no longer relevant (and is that actually a given anyway) it begs the question what are the new ways of addressing traditional left concerns of social inequality, poverty, opportunity and so on?
Seems that the right is also confronting these issues - Dom Cummings in govt was if nothing else representative of Boris looking for new ideas for the society we live in now rather than trying to apply 20th century solutions.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I've told you what I think on this point - see above. You appear to be trying to tell me that I'm not thinking that. I'll have to disagree.kingstongraham said:
I'd rather know what you think rather than establishing that you've won a game you decided to play. But I'm aware that's a forlorn hope.Stevo_666 said:
Given the original aim of the thread it's clearly mission accomplished. I know you're not a mind reader so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm happy with the resultkingstongraham said:
I prefer discussions to debating contests.Stevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.
There are no goalposts, this isn't football.
Be interesting if you engaged in a discussion. It's not really a debate as such."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Far from it, I entirely believe that you want the Conservative party to lose, no matter what policies they spew out.Stevo_666 said:
I've told you what I think on this point - see above. You appear to be trying to tell me that I'm not thinking that. I'll have to disagree.kingstongraham said:
I'd rather know what you think rather than establishing that you've won a game you decided to play. But I'm aware that's a forlorn hope.Stevo_666 said:
Given the original aim of the thread it's clearly mission accomplished. I know you're not a mind reader so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm happy with the resultkingstongraham said:
I prefer discussions to debating contests.Stevo_666 said:I'm not missing any relevant points. I've told you all what the aim was and the aim was achieved
However much you try to move to-be goalposts or make peripheral points.
There are no goalposts, this isn't football.
Be interesting if you engaged in a discussion. It's not really a debate as such.
I also understand why you prefer them to Labour, because they are currently to the right of the current Labour party.
And I know you like to win.
What I don't quite understand is why you would be so happy that they have moved so far left economically that they are very much like the Labour party of a few years ago. If you don't believe in the money tree, then what happens next after all this spending?
That's where I would like to understand your thinking. The narrow "we won, haha" is fine, but not that interesting.0 -
Guys, the Tories haven't moved left economically.
They have gone populist right. That is not the same thing.0 -
Is that not just arguing about what you call it. It's still a move from small government, low taxation, spending relatively within our means, to central control, market intervention and massive increases in borrowing to fund sweeties for their new fans.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Populist, obviously. But if the spending pledges are not that different, then why is one automatically right, one left?rick_chasey said:Guys, the Tories haven't moved left economically.
They have gone populist right. That is not the same thing.
Anyway, ignoring the left/right labels, if the fabled magic money tree doesn't exist, why do long term Conservative small government low tax voters not have an issue with this massive unfunded spend?1 -
Best I can come up with is that most are not thinking much further than their next holiday. It's not on their radar. Yet.kingstongraham said:
Populist, obviously. But if the spending pledges are not that different, then why is one automatically right, one left?rick_chasey said:Guys, the Tories haven't moved left economically.
They have gone populist right. That is not the same thing.
Anyway, ignoring the left/right labels, if the fabled magic money tree doesn't exist, why do long term Conservative small government low tax voters not have an issue with this massive unfunded spend?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes but I think framing it in a more accurate way allows you to see the unifying ideology around the gov't position, rather than seeing it as "taking from labour on x, being conservative on y".rjsterry said:Is that not just arguing about what you call it. It's still a move from small government, low taxation, spending relatively within our means, to central control, market intervention and massive increases in borrowing to fund sweeties for their new fans.
I also fundamentally disagree that big government is exclusively left wing. It is absolutely a feature of left-wing politics but it also features on the other side of the spectrum.
I'll avoid Godwining the thread but you can go through history and look at plenty of far right governments who gave government a big role and would not on any level be considered left wing.0 -
I think this is just bumping up against the limitations of stretching a description of 18th century French National Assembly to modern politics.rick_chasey said:
Yes but I think framing it in a more accurate way allows you to see the unifying ideology around the gov't position, rather than seeing it as "taking from labour on x, being conservative on y".rjsterry said:Is that not just arguing about what you call it. It's still a move from small government, low taxation, spending relatively within our means, to central control, market intervention and massive increases in borrowing to fund sweeties for their new fans.
I also fundamentally disagree that big government is exclusively left wing. It is absolutely a feature of left-wing politics but it also features on the other side of the spectrum.
I'll avoid Godwining the thread but you can go through history and look at plenty of far right governments who gave government a big role and would not on any level be considered left wing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It does not feature in the policies of right leaning Conservative, small government, low taxation, self reliance parties.rick_chasey said:
Yes but I think framing it in a more accurate way allows you to see the unifying ideology around the gov't position, rather than seeing it as "taking from labour on x, being conservative on y".rjsterry said:Is that not just arguing about what you call it. It's still a move from small government, low taxation, spending relatively within our means, to central control, market intervention and massive increases in borrowing to fund sweeties for their new fans.
I also fundamentally disagree that big government is exclusively left wing. It is absolutely a feature of left-wing politics but it also features on the other side of the spectrum.
I'll avoid Godwining the thread but you can go through history and look at plenty of far right governments who gave government a big role and would not on any level be considered left wing.
This is not a left wing government, obviously, but spending that was framed as abhorrent and unaffordable a matter of months ago are now not the preserve of the left. I just wonder why this is not a problem for supporters of the previous philosophy, who now subscribe to the Boris Johnson/Viv Nicholson theory of economics.1 -
It is truly bizarre and my only explanantion is that they will tolerate Boris for as long as they think they need him to win elections and then will jettison him for somebody who espouses traditional Tory values.kingstongraham said:
It does not feature in the policies of right leaning Conservative, small government, low taxation, self reliance parties.rick_chasey said:
Yes but I think framing it in a more accurate way allows you to see the unifying ideology around the gov't position, rather than seeing it as "taking from labour on x, being conservative on y".rjsterry said:Is that not just arguing about what you call it. It's still a move from small government, low taxation, spending relatively within our means, to central control, market intervention and massive increases in borrowing to fund sweeties for their new fans.
I also fundamentally disagree that big government is exclusively left wing. It is absolutely a feature of left-wing politics but it also features on the other side of the spectrum.
I'll avoid Godwining the thread but you can go through history and look at plenty of far right governments who gave government a big role and would not on any level be considered left wing.
This is not a left wing government, obviously, but spending that was framed as abhorrent and unaffordable a matter of months ago are now not the preserve of the left. I just wonder why this is not a problem for supporters of the previous philosophy, who now subscribe to the Boris Johnson/Viv Nicholson theory of economics.0 -
Given the NHS is often the closest thing this country has to a national religion, I think true small state politics are always going to face an uphill battle.0
-
Left wing is typically orientated around equality and fairness, right? Regardless of who you are.kingstongraham said:
Populist, obviously. But if the spending pledges are not that different, then why is one automatically right, one left?rick_chasey said:Guys, the Tories haven't moved left economically.
They have gone populist right. That is not the same thing.
So the NHS is a left-wing intervention as it aims to provide everyone, regardless of who or what they are or how much money they have, with healthcare.
Right-wing populist approaches are much more divisive interventions. Classically they are normally interventions to help one group over another. They are for "the people" but never usually everyone. A classic example would be to offer extra child benefit to British families only, rather than all residents, so excluding immigrants.
It's normally orientated around the usual populist narrative about "us and them" with us being non-elite natives and them being elites and or foreigners.
0 -
It is probably because the wealthy and or older members of the public can see that the money needed to be spent and the Tories will seek to protect their wealth better than Labour. Yes they have moved less but only because a pandemic made them have to not because the wanted to.kingstongraham said:
Populist, obviously. But if the spending pledges are not that different, then why is one automatically right, one left?rick_chasey said:Guys, the Tories haven't moved left economically.
They have gone populist right. That is not the same thing.
Anyway, ignoring the left/right labels, if the fabled magic money tree doesn't exist, why do long term Conservative small government low tax voters not have an issue with this massive unfunded spend?0 -
So for example BoJo's latest efforts around brain-drain from the regions to cities is fairly right wing.
It's neither letting the market do it's work nor is it treating everyone equally - it's biased towards non-city dwellers.
Ergo, it's right wing.0 -
I think that's a wrong premise, fwiw. A lot of left wing policies do not treat everyone equally.1
-
No sure, they don't. Very little does. NHS is obviously favours sick people over not.kingstongraham said:I think that's a wrong premise, fwiw. A lot of left wing policies do not treat everyone equally.
But it is about the intent, right?
You know exactly what I'm driving at here.0 -
I do, but I think it's a mistake to assume that because this bunch of shysters are proposing something, the opposite of it is automatically the more virtuous thing.rick_chasey said:
No sure, they don't. Very little does. NHS is obviously favours sick people over not.kingstongraham said:I think that's a wrong premise, fwiw. A lot of left wing policies do not treat everyone equally.
But it is about the intent, right?
You know exactly what I'm driving at here.
They will do popular things, and some of these will have a positive impact. They will also subsequently claim that finances are desperate and other services need to be cut rather than taxes being raised.0 -
I'm not saying left is more virtuous.kingstongraham said:
I do, but I think it's a mistake to assume that because this bunch of shysters are proposing something, the opposite of it is automatically the more virtuous thing.rick_chasey said:
No sure, they don't. Very little does. NHS is obviously favours sick people over not.kingstongraham said:I think that's a wrong premise, fwiw. A lot of left wing policies do not treat everyone equally.
But it is about the intent, right?
You know exactly what I'm driving at here.
They will do popular things, and some of these will have a positive impact. They will also subsequently claim that finances are desperate and other services need to be cut rather than taxes being raised.
Seriously, I'm not.
I just want to make it clear that the current Tory party are not some mish mash. Their current gov't position is fairly well worn, just not in the UK.
0
