Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Well equal treatment for all is now part of Corbyn's massively realistic and well thought out 'manifesto': a good few little nuggets of leftiebollox in here:Ballysmate wrote:1. Members of your party get caught out with anti semitic behaviour.
2. Appoint a sympathetic supporter to carry out a review.
3. Review clears everyone of any wrongdoing and states there is no problem.
4. Reward reviewer with seat in Lords.
Corbyn’s 10 pledges
1Full employment and an economy that works for all: based around a £500bn public investment via the planned national investment bank.
2A secure homes guarantee: building 1m new homes in five years, at least half of them council homes. Also rent controls and secure tenancies.
3Security at work: includes stronger employment rights, an end to zero hours contracts and mandatory collective bargaining for companies with 250 or more employees.
4Secure our NHS and social care: end health service privatisation and bring services into a “secure, publicly-provided NHS”.
5A national education service: includes universal public childcare, the “progressive restoration” of free education, and quality apprenticeships.
6Action to secure our environment: includes keeping to Paris climate agreement, and moving to a “low-carbon economy” and green industries, in part via national investment bank.
7Put the public back into our economy and services: includes renationalising railways and bringing private bus, leisure and sports facilities back into local government control.
8Cut income and wealth inequality: make a progressive tax system so highest earners are “fairly taxed”, shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid.
9Action to secure an equal society: includes action to combat violence against women, as well as discrimination based on race, sexuality or disability, and defend the Human Rights Act.
10 Peace and justice at the heart of foreign policy: aims to put conflict resolution and human rights “at the heart of foreign policy”."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
None of that matters though does it. Labour are currently unelectable and will be for the foreseeable future.
I can see the party splitting after the leadership election, all Labour have done in the last 10 years is become Tory-lite. At least we may get some actual differences in policies should they split into two.0 -
Number 9 doesn't include religion. Is it free game on religious oppression, harassment and abuse of that human right?
Oh! Forgot the anti-Semitic comments. Already answered that one comrade!0 -
Hey! Can I just say one thing? Is it part of socialism to escape the real world? What I mean is, do I have to lose grasp of reality to become a socialist or can I pick the parts of socialism that's actually possible?
If it's the latter you'll end up with a centre left party I think. God I hope there's a split. We need a centre left party like desperately. If it takes the creation of a new party so be it. Just hope there's enough unions moderate enough to follow the moderate, centre left politicians (like 80% of old/new Labour).0 -
You only have to listen to some of the idealistic ranting on here to see that the former is quite a common trait of lefties.Tangled Metal wrote:Hey! Can I just say one thing? Is it part of socialism to escape the real world? What I mean is, do I have to lose grasp of reality to become a socialist or can I pick the parts of socialism that's actually possible?"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:
You only have to listen to some of the idealistic ranting on here to see that the former is quite a common trait of lefties.Tangled Metal wrote:Hey! Can I just say one thing? Is it part of socialism to escape the real world? What I mean is, do I have to lose grasp of reality to become a socialist or can I pick the parts of socialism that's actually possible?
eh? what part of the tory eco policy based around Osbournes and Camerons election, is still current? TM is pretty much following labours policies of 2015, which you said were leftiebollox
Corbyn is an idealist, anyone can see that some of his 10 pledges are un affordable and would take away funds from ones that would work, like social housing or Apprenticeships0 -
That wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. Sorry if I touched a raw nerve "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
why have we had 6 years of austerity Steve0 ? seems to me, that if it can be abandoned, in a few days, without the world crashing down, then we ve endured some extreme cuts, for no reason at all.
How much is it going to cost to start putting right this damage?
Perhaps a more balanced approach to the economy would have been a better option.0 -
Err, because we borrowed a huge amount of money as a nation and it was getting worse under Labour even when the economy was doing well. When you're overspending you need to wind it in. It's a simple enough principle but people still don't get it even now. In particular Corbyn and Smith who respectively have pledged an additional £500 billion and £200 billion of additional spending which will have to be largely financed by even more borrowing.mamba80 wrote:why have we had 6 years of austerity Steve0 ? seems to me, that if it can be abandoned, in a few days, without the world crashing down, then we ve endured some extreme cuts, for no reason at all.
How much is it going to cost to start putting right this damage?
Perhaps a more balanced approach to the economy would have been a better option.
PS: to quote one T. May, its not austerity, it's living within your means. (I'm sure you and I do it, no reason why the country can be exempt).
Who has abandoned what?"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:
Err, because we borrowed a huge amount of money as a nation and it was getting worse under Labour even when the economy was doing well. When you're overspending you need to wind it in. It's a simple enough principle but people still don't get it even now. In particular Corbyn and Smith who respectively have pledged an additional £500 billion and £200 billion of additional spending which will have to be largely financed by even more borrowing.mamba80 wrote:why have we had 6 years of austerity Steve0 ? seems to me, that if it can be abandoned, in a few days, without the world crashing down, then we ve endured some extreme cuts, for no reason at all.
How much is it going to cost to start putting right this damage?
Perhaps a more balanced approach to the economy would have been a better option.
PS: to quote one T. May, its not austerity, it's living within your means. (I'm sure you and I do it, no reason why the country can be exempt).
Who has abandoned what?
The latest forecasts suggest a £40bn hole in govt finances to the end of the next financial year yet Hammond is talking about loosening fiscal policy.
I think it is fair to say that Hammond has abandoned the principle of a balanced budget over the economic cycle.0 -
The issue here is a lowering of government revenue which will make balancing of income and expenditure more difficult. It does not mean that they intend to 'spend their way out of this', aka piss money up the wall, Labour style. See the proposed spending amounts quoted above by the Labour hopefuls.
Looser fiscal policy can take several forms."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:The issue here is a lowering of government revenue which will make balancing of income and expenditure more difficult. It does not mean that they intend to 'spend their way out of this', aka wee-wee money up the wall, Labour style. See the proposed spending amounts quoted above by the Labour hopefuls.
Looser fiscal policy can take several forms.
The signals are that they have abandoned the goal of balancing income and expenditure. It is all subjective but I see little point in HS2, Hinckley Point or Trident all of which could be described as p1ssing money up the wall.
I do of course agree it is not on the scale of Labour pledges which read like a Monty Python sketch0 -
Not sure there is a lot of choice. If your income goes down and your expenses stay the same, you have to borrow the difference. Effectively that is loosening of fiscal policy but forced.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:The issue here is a lowering of government revenue which will make balancing of income and expenditure more difficult. It does not mean that they intend to 'spend their way out of this', aka wee-wee money up the wall, Labour style. See the proposed spending amounts quoted above by the Labour hopefuls.
Looser fiscal policy can take several forms.
The signals are that they have abandoned the goal of balancing income and expenditure. It is all subjective but I see little point in HS2, Hinckley Point or Trident all of which could be described as p1ssing money up the wall.
I do of course agree it is not on the scale of Labour pledges which read like a Monty Python sketch
Agree, the merits of certain pieces of expenditure are a separate discussion point."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:
Not sure there is a lot of choice. If your income goes down and your expenses stay the same, you have to borrow the difference. Effectively that is loosening of fiscal policy but forced.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:The issue here is a lowering of government revenue which will make balancing of income and expenditure more difficult. It does not mean that they intend to 'spend their way out of this', aka wee-wee money up the wall, Labour style. See the proposed spending amounts quoted above by the Labour hopefuls.
Looser fiscal policy can take several forms.
The signals are that they have abandoned the goal of balancing income and expenditure. It is all subjective but I see little point in HS2, Hinckley Point or Trident all of which could be described as p1ssing money up the wall.
I do of course agree it is not on the scale of Labour pledges which read like a Monty Python sketch
Agree, the merits of certain pieces of expenditure are a separate discussion point.
Do you think cutting interest rates and boosting QE will work? (Genuine question) my thought is that it will make no difference as the availability of cheap credit is not the problem.
The problem is the uncertainty over Brexit so you have to solve that problem as soon as possible.0 -
I think it will have some positive impact. The EU experience over the last few years has been that QE and rock bottom interest rates has kept the Eurozone limping along. Ditto, it seemed to have an effect here after the GFC.Surrey Commuter wrote:Do you think cutting interest rates and boosting QE will work? (Genuine question) my thought is that it will make no difference as the availability of cheap credit is not the problem.
The problem is the uncertainty over Brexit so you have to solve that problem as soon as possible.
Whether it will be enough will depend on the degree of uncertainty (and other forces at work in the global economy) vs the degree of rate drop and AD - both quite moderate. That said, the degree of uncertainty is open to debate given what has been said earlier in this thread.
As a short term counter to the negative influence I think it is right. Also the question is what else could/should the government do? Governments are not quite as omnipotent as some people think in terms their ability to solve these things."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:
I think it will have some positive impact. The EU experience over the last few years has been that QE and rock bottom interest rates has kept the Eurozone limping along. Ditto, it seemed to have an effect here after the GFC.Surrey Commuter wrote:Do you think cutting interest rates and boosting QE will work? (Genuine question) my thought is that it will make no difference as the availability of cheap credit is not the problem.
The problem is the uncertainty over Brexit so you have to solve that problem as soon as possible.
Whether it will be enough will depend on the degree of uncertainty (and other forces at work in the global economy) vs the degree of rate drop and AD - both quite moderate. That said, the degree of uncertainty is open to debate given what has been said earlier in this thread.
As a short term counter to the negative influence I think it is right. Also the question is what else could/should the government do? Governments are not quite as omnipotent as some people think in terms their ability to solve these things.
The GFC dried up the credit markets so QE and slashing interest rates was addressing the problem. This time it feels like they need to be seen to be doing something. I don't think the problem (uncertainty) can be fixed so I would be tempted to keep the powder dry so we can fix future problems as they show themselves.0 -
I think QE and low interest rates were probably more effective in helping to tackle the lack of credit in the GFC. But it can still have an impact on business activity, investment and consumer spending. As I said above, these are policies continued in the Eurozone well past the GFC which seems to have kept overall growth in the zone - albeit pretty anaemic growth as they have to battle issues that we dont have to - e.g. the problems caused by the single currency itself, more rigid Labour markets etc.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think it will have some positive impact. The EU experience over the last few years has been that QE and rock bottom interest rates has kept the Eurozone limping along. Ditto, it seemed to have an effect here after the GFC.Surrey Commuter wrote:Do you think cutting interest rates and boosting QE will work? (Genuine question) my thought is that it will make no difference as the availability of cheap credit is not the problem.
The problem is the uncertainty over Brexit so you have to solve that problem as soon as possible.
Whether it will be enough will depend on the degree of uncertainty (and other forces at work in the global economy) vs the degree of rate drop and AD - both quite moderate. That said, the degree of uncertainty is open to debate given what has been said earlier in this thread.
As a short term counter to the negative influence I think it is right. Also the question is what else could/should the government do? Governments are not quite as omnipotent as some people think in terms their ability to solve these things.
The GFC dried up the credit markets so QE and slashing interest rates was addressing the problem. This time it feels like they need to be seen to be doing something. I don't think the problem (uncertainty) can be fixed so I would be tempted to keep the powder dry so we can fix future problems as they show themselves.
As to keeping our powder dry, tbh there's not a lot of powder in the interest rate keg. QE is a bit more flexible but clearly has implications if you really turn on the taps.
IMO the uncertainty is probably worse than most feasible future reality scenarios."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495
And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:"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:And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495
And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:
Can you point me to some evidence which shows that grammar schools 'improve social mobility for bright but less well off kids'?0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I think QE and low interest rates were probably more effective in helping to tackle the lack of credit in the GFC. But it can still have an impact on business activity, investment and consumer spending. As I said above, these are policies continued in the Eurozone well past the GFC which seems to have kept overall growth in the zone - albeit pretty anaemic growth as they have to battle issues that we dont have to - e.g. the problems caused by the single currency itself, more rigid Labour markets etc.Surrey Commuter wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I think it will have some positive impact. The EU experience over the last few years has been that QE and rock bottom interest rates has kept the Eurozone limping along. Ditto, it seemed to have an effect here after the GFC.Surrey Commuter wrote:Do you think cutting interest rates and boosting QE will work? (Genuine question) my thought is that it will make no difference as the availability of cheap credit is not the problem.
The problem is the uncertainty over Brexit so you have to solve that problem as soon as possible.
Whether it will be enough will depend on the degree of uncertainty (and other forces at work in the global economy) vs the degree of rate drop and AD - both quite moderate. That said, the degree of uncertainty is open to debate given what has been said earlier in this thread.
As a short term counter to the negative influence I think it is right. Also the question is what else could/should the government do? Governments are not quite as omnipotent as some people think in terms their ability to solve these things.
The GFC dried up the credit markets so QE and slashing interest rates was addressing the problem. This time it feels like they need to be seen to be doing something. I don't think the problem (uncertainty) can be fixed so I would be tempted to keep the powder dry so we can fix future problems as they show themselves.
As to keeping our powder dry, tbh there's not a lot of powder in the interest rate keg. QE is a bit more flexible but clearly has implications if you really turn on the taps.
IMO the uncertainty is probably worse than most feasible future reality scenarios.
I was thinking of keeping a lid on public finances until there is something that can be fixed, ie unemployment. I think we just have to accept a rate of growth around zero for the next few years and then approx 1.5% for the next decade. Trying to use the Govt to keep it at 2-2.5% will just drive us to the poorhouse.0 -
Here you go - clearly superior academic results. It is pretty well accepted that this will on the whole result in better life chances and career opportunities.narbs wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495
And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:
Can you point me to some evidence which shows that grammar schools 'improve social mobility for bright but less well off kids'?
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01398.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwip-ISEgbDOAhVJC8AKHf0pCBEQFggyMAY&usg=AFQjCNHq3fMa3x-ymi1m7NPGM_AoQdH22w
(Edit: see section 3)
Unless you have evidence that better academic qualifications damages a child's chances?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The most obvious evidence for social mobility from grammar schools would have to be how badly it is gone downhill since their abolition. There used to be a lot more non-private school students st Oxbridge in the 60s and 70s.
Anecdotally, I'd point out that Mrs Bomp, who is now a pretty high-up doctor and academic, would have been highly unlikely to go to university (the first in her working-class Belfast family) if it hadn't been for the failure of Northern Ireland grammar schools to lie down and die.0 -
I would agree that trying to maintain 2.0%-2.5% would be potentially damaging given what it would require. But a 0.25% rate cut and £60bn of QE is not that large and not enough to get back to that rate of growth. I believe that something approaching sort of rate will likely return once the uncertainty is over, provided there are sensible decision on things like tax and regulation and depending obviously on what type post BREXIT EU relationship there is and other factors in the global economy.Surrey Commuter wrote:I was thinking of keeping a lid on public finances until there is something that can be fixed, ie unemployment. I think we just have to accept a rate of growth around zero for the next few years and then approx 1.5% for the next decade. Trying to use the Govt to keep it at 2-2.5% will just drive us to the poorhouse."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:Here you go - clearly superior academic results. It is pretty well accepted that this will on the whole result in better life chances and career opportunities.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01398.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwip-ISEgbDOAhVJC8AKHf0pCBEQFggyMAY&usg=AFQjCNHq3fMa3x-ymi1m7NPGM_AoQdH22w
(Edit: see section 3)
Unless you have evidence that better academic qualifications damages a child's chances?
Indeed, superior academic results. However, that's not what I asked.
Have you got any evidence that this is benefitting children from less well off backgrounds?
Did you read the paper you linked to?0 -
How would it not benefit a poorer child that goes to a grammar given those results? The superior results are clear and the link between good academic qualifications and life success are pretty well established. So again, what evidence do you have that tells you this is not the case?narbs wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Here you go - clearly superior academic results. It is pretty well accepted that this will on the whole result in better life chances and career opportunities.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01398.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwip-ISEgbDOAhVJC8AKHf0pCBEQFggyMAY&usg=AFQjCNHq3fMa3x-ymi1m7NPGM_AoQdH22w
(Edit: see section 3)
Unless you have evidence that better academic qualifications damages a child's chances?
Indeed, superior academic results. However, that's not what I asked.
Have you got any evidence that this is benefitting children from less well off backgrounds?
Did you read the paper you linked to?
I read the bit I needed you make the point. Did you read it?"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:
How would it not benefit a poorer child that goes to a grammar given those results? The superior results are clear and the link between good academic qualifications and life success are pretty well established. So again, what evidence do you have that tells you this is not the case?narbs wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Here you go - clearly superior academic results. It is pretty well accepted that this will on the whole result in better life chances and career opportunities.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01398.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwip-ISEgbDOAhVJC8AKHf0pCBEQFggyMAY&usg=AFQjCNHq3fMa3x-ymi1m7NPGM_AoQdH22w
(Edit: see section 3)
Unless you have evidence that better academic qualifications damages a child's chances?
Indeed, superior academic results. However, that's not what I asked.
Have you got any evidence that this is benefitting children from less well off backgrounds?
Did you read the paper you linked to?
I read the bit I needed you make the point. Did you read it?
I'll ask again - where is the evidence that it is benefitting poorer children and improving social mobility?
I've read that paper, and several others. The majority of evidence points to grammar schools' GCSE results being in line with what you would expect from their cohort intake at 11 - value added scores are comparatively poor.0 -
I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.
Anecdotally, my kid attends a grammar school and is doing really well there - as are her friends, some of whom come from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.
Where is the evidence you say you have?
And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree, the biggest issue is that there not enough of these schools. Soon to be rectified.bompington wrote:The most obvious evidence for social mobility from grammar schools would have to be how badly it is gone downhill since their abolition. There used to be a lot more non-private school students st Oxbridge in the 60s and 70s.
Anecdotally, I'd point out that Mrs Bomp, who is now a pretty high-up doctor and academic, would have been highly unlikely to go to university (the first in her working-class Belfast family) if it hadn't been for the failure of Northern Ireland grammar schools to lie down and die."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:I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.
All you've shown is some evidence that grammar schools have better exam results.
The paper you linked to (and the full Sutton Trust report mentioned) go further. The evidence is that there is little value added increase in exam results - that the kids would have achieved those results anyway.
Grammar schools take fewer pupils from, for example, families that qualify for free school meals, children with SENs, looked-after children. If you want to claim that grammar schools are good for social mobility then you need to show that they are taking children from these backgrounds and improving on what they could achieve elsewhere.
You can't, because they're not.0 -
bompington wrote:The most obvious evidence for social mobility from grammar schools would have to be how badly it is gone downhill since their abolition. There used to be a lot more non-private school students st Oxbridge in the 60s and 70s.
Anecdotally, I'd point out that Mrs Bomp, who is now a pretty high-up doctor and academic, would have been highly unlikely to go to university (the first in her working-class Belfast family) if it hadn't been for the failure of Northern Ireland grammar schools to lie down and die.
You've just made that up haven't you?0
