''The Left's problem isn't that there aren't problems within society - it's that the Left, particularly the moderate Left are out of ideas to find solutions to these keys, and are unable to build a coalition of various different groups in order to win an election. ''
How can you expect to be in power when you are out of ideas?
I expect that the Left will be in power the moderate Left actually get some ideas.
I wouldn't go quite so far as you, in fact people have coped much better than I thought, but I lean more toward it than the idea there hasn't been a drop in standard of living for many people. I know too many people who've seen very harsh real wage drops.
Personally I've been doing fine though, so it's all good.
There's an interesting study which I wish I could remember the link for, that showed how most people didn't actually "feel" the effect of even quite severe economic downturns in the past. Their house price might have dropped, but if they didn't have to sell up then that wasn't necessarily a problem - and it made the step up to buying a bigger house (or a first one) cheaper. Average wages might have stagnated or fallen, but very few jobs impose nominal wage cuts and many people still reach higher service bands, get a promotion, or upskill to a better-paid career altogether. Unemployment might have risen, but the additional number of people who lose their job (in comparison to the "natural rate of churn" that would have happened anyway) is still a rather small minority.
The flip side is that those people who got hit, often got hit very hard (household's main wage earner loses job and can't find a new one for several years; can't keep up with mortgage, negative equity, house repossessed; poor prospects for kids graduating college or university, resulting in long-run effect on their earnings potential even decades after the event).
I've been through four recessions (if you count the dotcom bust). The '81 and '01 recessions hit me and my family very hard. I didn't even notice the '91 version, and I was well insulated from '08 (paper losses on investments, but that's why you have to take a long term view).
What's the old saw? "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you do". Something like that.
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
Corbyn and Trump seem to be redefining what is accepted opinion thesedays. I worry I'll wake up one day and fine society will be coming for the moderates, and those who just don't care all that much about things.
If the Tories go as extreme as Corbyn, we're all in trouble. I guess I'll be sticking to the default party, that is the LDs.
I'll say again that I think the election of a new Chair of the Parliamentary Labour party in the new year will be very interesting. Suddenly this person takes on great significance. I can't believe they'll retain the current Corbyn-sympathiser.
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
If I agreed with Polly Toynbee a lot, I think I'd be see as quite left-wing on this site (although tbh I probably already am). What Melanie Philips regards a 'plain' (or straight-talking) just happens to coincide with the expression of Right-Wing opinions. Philips has joined The Times fairly recently, as far as I recall. Where I used to see most of her content, was on the Mail Online. I have seen some of her Times articles - usually in copies of the Times left on the tube.
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
Not really. They advocate returning the size of the state to something like that of the early Blair years, before Brown went on his mad splurge. It's not really 'small state' or 'right wing', but centre-right.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
If there's one thing the BBC can do well, it's rig a vote without rigging a vote. I expect a lot of Andy Murray and the Davis Cup early on in the show, compared with the most passing reference to boxing. It'll be explained away - if at all - by who holds the rights to the respective coverage, or some such.
'''Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.''
???
Melanie Philips has been on question time and is a widely read columnist in a major national newspaper.
That is the mainstream.
I don't like her, but I actually agree. One thing that annoys me no end is people on the left and right (although it has seemed more on the UKIP strand of the right until recently, given the rise of Corbynistas, given the media hostility to them), where people misuse 'mainstream' when referring to media outlets and commentators. We hear plenty of what I would think of as pretty extreme stuff in perfectly mainstream media. Just because it is not the majority, does not make it not mainstream. Too often people use MSM as code for media they disagree with, but regardless, I read some pretty crazy stuff in the major outlers, those views and the people who spew them are mainstream, they just aren't majority views, which I don't think is the same thing.
Play nicely everyone. A pleasant day to all.
On topic, if Corbyn is, as appears safe, I hope he reshuffles sooner rather than later. Either it works, unexpectedly, or it forces a confrontation with reality much sooner and Labour can recover quicker.
The Capitalist diligently chased up the matter a month later to see if anything had changed. Since City A.M. reached out in November and again last week, Burgon’s press officers have yet to say whether or not he’s met with anyone connected with the City. Not even for a coffee.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
A Labour party with an agenda like that would be on the way to being attractive.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
I would add a few things to Southam's list
10 Be internationalist by all means but stand up for Britain's interests if threatened 11 Demonstrate that the party understands the negative consequences of high immigration as well as the positives 12 Demonstrate that the party understands that public services can be improved without spending megabucks and show how they will ensure value for money 13 Stand up to producer interests to ensure public service reform
@taffys 'Mainstream' commentator doesn't always mean moderate. Medhi Hasan, and Polly Toynbee have all been on QT too, but somehow I doubt that PB consider their views moderate.
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
It's not dancing on pinheads, it's pretty much a statement of fact. I'm not here to convince, I'm here to discuss, and debate, and mainly to introduce a perspective which is completely different to most on PB. It's no skin off my nose if I don't convince PBers of my own views. And of course many people will disagree with me here. It's a site which at this moment in time is dominated by right-wingers and Conservatives who are most likely (and do) reject critical assessments of them, and their party. It doesn't mean that because large amounts of people disagree with a perspective, its' wrong. It's an entirely fallacious line of argument, in fact (ad populum, I think it is).
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
Not really. They advocate returning the size of the state to something like that of the early Blair years, before Brown went on his mad splurge. It's not really 'small state' or 'right wing', but centre-right.
So you don't think Cameron and Osborne are small-state Conservatives, then?
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
If I agreed with Polly Toynbee a lot, I think I'd be see as quite left-wing on this site (although tbh I probably already am). What Melanie Philips regards a 'plain' (or straight-talking) just happens to coincide with the expression of Right-Wing opinions. Philips has joined The Times fairly recently, as far as I recall. Where I used to see most of her content, was on the Mail Online. I have seen some of her Times articles - usually in copies of the Times left on the tube.
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
Cameron and Osborne will be spending £760 billion this year, £70 billion of which will be borrowed. That is not small state. I can totally grok an argument for a more re distributive tax system and I wait with bated breath for Labour to make that argument.
However, as Mr Nabavi alluded, public spending veered out of control from around '03 and the task is simply to return it to historic norms (as a % of GDP).
My view is that once the structural deficit is eliminated we can have a proper conversation on how much, and on what, the UK state spends. Before then it's fiddling while Rome burns. This is why Osborne has become such a disappointment to me. The autumn statement was worse than his '12 budget.
Yentob is still am employee, so surely they should conduct the investigation they were about to undertake. Imagine if Fred the Shred had said oh well I shall resign my position at the top of the bank, but I am taking a role as Bank Manager in Harpenden, therefore no need to investigate anything or take any further action.
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
Not really. They advocate returning the size of the state to something like that of the early Blair years, before Brown went on his mad splurge. It's not really 'small state' or 'right wing', but centre-right.
So you don't think Cameron and Osborne are small-state Conservatives, then?
They present themselves as it, but a lot on the right seem to disagree.
So you don't think Cameron and Osborne are small-state Conservatives, then?
No, they are one-nation Conservatives (especially Cameron), in the tradition of R A Butler, Macmillan, and Whitelaw. Someone like John Redwood would be an example of a small-state Conservative.
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
Apocalypse. You seem to have formed the view that Osborne's views align with Melanie Philips. They certainly do not. Osborne's social views are closer to those in the Labour and the Lib dems than his own party let alone Melanie's. Osborne is married to a good friend of Ed Miliband's wife - they once went on holiday together before marriage. Osborne's current economic policies are closer to a Ted Heath style of Conservative party than Thatcher. PS I do not want Osborne as Cameron's replacement, not my idea of a good Chancellor/Leader!
@Pulpstar, I never said Cameron and Osborne were right-wing, although many opinions they hold are (i.e. being small-state for example).
Not really. They advocate returning the size of the state to something like that of the early Blair years, before Brown went on his mad splurge. It's not really 'small state' or 'right wing', but centre-right.
So you don't think Cameron and Osborne are small-state Conservatives, then?
Osborne occasionally talks the talk but as you'll see from my previous post, he does not walk the walk. Deeds, not words.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
'''Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.''
???
Melanie Philips has been on question time and is a widely read columnist in a major national newspaper.
That is the mainstream.
I don't like her, but I actually agree. One thing that annoys me no end is people on the left and right (although it has seemed more on the UKIP strand of the right until recently, given the rise of Corbynistas, given the media hostility to them), where people misuse 'mainstream' when referring to media outlets and commentators. We hear plenty of what I would think of as pretty extreme stuff in perfectly mainstream media. Just because it is not the majority, does not make it not mainstream. Too often people use MSM as code for media they disagree with, but regardless, I read some pretty crazy stuff in the major outlers, those views and the people who spew them are mainstream, they just aren't majority views, which I don't think is the same thing.
Play nicely everyone. A pleasant day to all.
On topic, if Corbyn is, as appears safe, I hope he reshuffles sooner rather than later. Either it works, unexpectedly, or it forces a confrontation with reality much sooner and Labour can recover quicker.
Christmas Eve c. 5 pm is a good time to buy bad news, like prophet's warnings.
@John_M I think you have a point there re Osborne - although it's strange then that apparently we'll have a state that is smaller than the US! I think that was reported shortly after the budget. However, I can't agree with @Richard_Nabavi that Cameron and Osborne are 'one-nation' Conservatives, given the divisive way they have gone about implementing the cuts.
I don't believe I've ever said that Osborne's social views are close to Melanie Philips. I'm aware that Osborne is socially liberal, on issues such as abortion for example.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
That's not true: people get ridiculed on here all the time, whether they are talking rubbish or not.
If SeanT has had a few drinks, he is likely to accuse someone of gross stupidity for claiming that Gordon Brown had one working eye.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
A Labour party with an agenda like that would be on the way to being attractive.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
The Spectator has periodic articles about the way the state education sector fails the poor. The middle classes who don't/can't educate their children privately can usually get them into an excellent comprehensive. That's progressively more unlikely as you descend the social scale. Yet, we obsess about the public schools. It's a bizarre blind spot in the British psyche.
If I was to pick one key driver of inequality in the UK, even ahead of inherited wealth, it would be our state education system. So much talent wasted, so many children unchallenged and disengaged. It is a disgrace and anyone purporting to be interested in it should be focussed on its failures like a laser.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
Well then it appears that this site has changed in 7 years. Previously, from talking to other PBers in the past, this site was much more balanced politically, with more frequent Labour, LD and even Green party voices. So I'm sure that in the past, therefore that individuals who made coherent points were not ridiculed. However, since the Tories won the election, this site has been pretty much dominated by those who either vote Conservative, or are Right-wing. I don't believe that they exclusively get to define what is 'credible' and and what is 'coherent', and what should be 'ridiculed'.
So no, I won't change my tone. I will stand my ground, and state what I believe in. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or even read it. That is all your choice.
Yentob is still am employee, so surely they should conduct the investigation they were about to undertake. Imagine if Fred the Shred had said oh well I shall resign my position at the top of the bank, but I am taking a role as Bank Manager in Harpenden, therefore no need to investigate anything or take any further action.
Similar to a policeman retiring early to take a pension to avoid a disciplinary hearing. Just plain bent and the tax payer loses out.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
That's not true: people get ridiculed on here all the time, whether they are talking rubbish or not.
If SeanT has had a few drinks, he is likely to accuse someone of gross stupidity for claiming that Gordon Brown had one working eye.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
That's not true: people get ridiculed on here all the time, whether they are talking rubbish or not.
If SeanT has had a few drinks, he is likely to accuse someone of gross stupidity for claiming that Gordon Brown had one working eye.
Yes: and he was absolutely wrong. Our strategic bombing did little to dent German arms production.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
Well then it appears that this site has changed in 7 years. Previously, from talking to other PBers in the past, this site was much more balanced politically, with more frequent Labour, LD and even Green party voices. So I'm sure that in the past, therefore that individuals who made coherent points were not ridiculed. However, since the Tories won the election, this site has been pretty much dominated by those who either vote Conservative, or are Right-wing. I don't believe that they exclusively get to define what is 'credible' and and what is 'coherent', and what should be 'ridiculed'.
So no, I won't change my tone. I will stand my ground, and state what I believe in. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or even read it. That is all your choice.
Apocalypse, maybe it also has something to do with the fact that 2 national parties lost badly at the GE, Labour and the Lib Dems. Two other national parties, the Conservatives and UKIP increased votes and can be seen as getting a bigger endorsement from the voters. For the Lib Dems they have fallen so far as to become a "people carrier" size of a party. For Labour the GE defeat, loss of Scotland and selection of a 67 year old student Leader has sent much of the Labour activists into a deep depression. Hence why the make up of PB has changed. But if you make a claim about PB being full of Cameron/Osborne supporters please take a step back and list them. I would reckon it to be about 5 regulars.
Trump: Given his comment is squarely against the intent* of the First Amendment and freedom of religion, I wonder how the majority of Republican's who support the Right To Bear Arms on the basis that the US Constitution is a 'sacred text' can continue to support him**?
*IANA(Constitutional)L **Is there a collective noun for Trump supporters? Trumpers? Trumpettes? Top Trumps?
"Previously, from talking to other PBers in the past"
Golly, you've *talked* with this group and that negates everything else?
Well, I'm impressed. Stop digging.
It was an attempt to offer an alternative view of PB History from the way you have represented it. Or rather, to contextualise the reason why perspectives may have been ridiculed less in the past. Your opinion isn't necessarily fact. I also didn't realise that this discussion centred around impressing you.
"Previously, from talking to other PBers in the past"
Golly, you've *talked* with this group and that negates everything else?
Well, I'm impressed. Stop digging.
It was an attempt to offer an alternative view of PB History from the way you have represented it. Or rather, to contextualise the reason why perspectives may have been ridiculed less in the past. Your opinion isn't necessarily fact. I also didn't realise that this discussion centred around impressing you.
Then change your tone. No posters here get ridiculed unless they're talking cobblers.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
@Plato_Says I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
That's not true: people get ridiculed on here all the time, whether they are talking rubbish or not.
If SeanT has had a few drinks, he is likely to accuse someone of gross stupidity for claiming that Gordon Brown had one working eye.
Yes: and he was absolutely wrong. Our strategic bombing did little to dent German arms production.
Yes it did. If we had not bombed Germany its production would have been higher. There was huge diversion of resources to defending itself from air attack.
"I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position"
@Plato_Says I know that 'many' have, that's why I mentioned it in my post to you. Just because it isn't an opinion which coincides with your own, doesn't mean it's not valid. It would be curious if all perspectives of the last 7 years of a political website were all the same.
You keep on mentioning 'stop digging'. I don't particularly agree with that assessment of my posts, much like you don't agree with other views of how PB was in the past.
@Plato_Says I said that much of your opinions appear to align with the Conservative Right, not that you were *on* the Conservative Right. Much of my own opinions, do not align with socialism, it didn't stop me from voting Labour in May. Plato, my observation isn't as outrageous as you think. Agreeing with Melanie Philips on several occasions for example is hardly a 'moderate'.
Apocalypse. You seem to have formed the view that Osborne's views align with Melanie Philips. They certainly do not. Osborne's social views are closer to those in the Labour and the Lib dems than his own party let alone Melanie's. Osborne is married to a good friend of Ed Miliband's wife - they once went on holiday together before marriage. Osborne's current economic policies are closer to a Ted Heath style of Conservative party than Thatcher. PS I do not want Osborne as Cameron's replacement, not my idea of a good Chancellor/Leader!
Then you are a fool, making things up as you go along.
Apocalypse, maybe it also has something to do with the fact that 2 national parties lost badly at the GE, Labour and the Lib Dems. Two other national parties, the Conservatives and UKIP increased votes and can be seen as getting a bigger endorsement from the voters. For the Lib Dems they have fallen so far as to become a "people carrier" size of a party. For Labour the GE defeat, loss of Scotland and selection of a 67 year old student Leader has sent much of the Labour activists into a deep depression. Hence why the make up of PB has changed. But if you make a claim about PB being full of Cameron/Osborne supporters please take a step back and list them. I would reckon it to be about 5 regulars.
Oh yes, I definitely feel that the GE has made many lefties go into hiding. I think at this stage though, they need to get out of hiding.
On PBers not being Cameron/Osborne supporters for the most part, I think many before the GE previously weren't. However, since the GE it appears to have turned many into Cameron/Osborne defenders. I think the budget some weeks ago is probably the start of things changing though.
As long standing PBer - I have to say that I'm ASTONISHED that you're willing to vote Tory in protest at Corbyn.
You've been such a Party man. I have much sympathy with your view - he's transmogrifying your Party into something way beyond the visible political universe of electability.
Being a direct switcher from Labour to Tory (because I live in a very tight marginal where a vote for anyone else is a waste of time) I find the complacency that some display towards Corbyn more than a little alarming.
In the run up to GE 2020 it is possible that there has been another financial crash (many seem to believe it is when rather than if the next one), Syria could go very badly and the Tories, after tearing themselves apart over the EU Ref could choose a very unattractive right-wing leader again. If these events were to all occur then I could see Corbyn having a good chance - most people vote against rather than for.
The next choice of Tory leader will be hugely influential for the outcome of GE2020
I live in the tightest Labour marginal and under FPTP anything but a Labour or Tory vote is gesture politics. I lived through the Foot years and although I disagreed with him he was a great parliamentarian and party loyalist, Corbyn is in a different league, he's spent his entire political career in fringe far-left political activities and is a dangerous man IMO. Labour is basically transforming into Syriza or Podemos.
@Plato_Says I know that 'many' have, that's why I mentioned it in my post to you. Just because it isn't an opinion which coincides with your own, doesn't mean it's not valid. It would be curious if all perspectives of the last 7 years of a political website were all the same.
You keep on mentioning 'stop digging'. I don't particularly agree with that assessment of my posts, much like you don't agree with other views of how PB was in the past.
If Tyson Fury were a Muslim - there'd be none of this.
If I understand his background enough - he's an Irish gypsy. Their culture is very clear on homosexuals, adultery, keeping marriage amongst their own culture and other stuff. Men are head of the household.
What's different to Muslims bar even more offensive honor killing and FGM? Oh and terrorists? I can't think of a gyspy related terrorism attack. Slavery and organised crime - yes.
The whole Tyson Fury thing is Dapper Laughs all over again. The Twitter mob enabled by the left leaning media are building up the hysteria and continuing linking to a petition, that they then write another story to report it is growing in number, linking again to said petition, rinse and repeat.
There is a simple solution if you object to Tyson Fury, don't vote for him, vote for somebody else. There is a simple solution to Dapper Laughs, don't pay to go and see him, don't watch his social media output.
There are plenty of people who I find objectionable, but I don't want them banned e.g. Frankie Boyle. Funny how he gets 2nd and 3rd chances at the BBC / Guardian, despite being a d##khead.
I sort of want Tyson Fury to win now, just to see the swallowed a wasp look on the all the Beeboids, but somehow I don't think they will allow that to happen.
If there's one thing the BBC can do well, it's rig a vote without rigging a vote. I expect a lot of Andy Murray and the Davis Cup early on in the show, compared with the most passing reference to boxing. It'll be explained away - if at all - by who holds the rights to the respective coverage, or some such.
They won't have any boxing footage to show that is for sure. AFAIK, boxing is very very protective of the rights, hence why even after the fact, so often all you will see is stills in the reports, because the rights holders demand a fortune. Very convenient in this case though.
The simple solution is to ignore the programme altogether. Its a waste of time and been so for an awful long time.
For me, a moderate, electable Labour party needs to: 1. Have the fight for equality of opportunity at its very core. 2. Always ensure that the most vulnerable and the poorest are not adversely affected by government policy. 3. Be unambivalent in saying the capitalist system is the best lever for achieving its aims. The market is an opportunity, not the enemy. 4. Be clear that the market does not exist in a bubble of its own and that it is not always the answer. 5. See the state as a guarantor of the highest standards of service and service delivery. But not always as a service provider. 6. Be willing to unequivocally make the case for welfare, but be totally intolerant of welfare abuse. 7. Be embedded in middle Britain, not in specific geographies or communities. Celebrate Britain. 8. Make the case for internationalism, not isolation; focus on soft power as a means to ensuring Britain's voice is heard. 9. Be unafraid of making the case for wealth redistribution as something that ultimately benefits everyone; while at the same time embracing aspiration as a very positive force.
It's not a hugely ambitious list. It is a moderate one. It's not hugely exciting, but practical, deliverable politicies rarely are. A lot of it is about competence. Corbynistas will hate it.
A Labour party with an agenda like that would be on the way to being attractive.
I think they also need to focus on how our education system fails 90% of our population at the present time, even if the top 10% get a world class education. They need to out-Grove Grove in looking for improvements for the majority giving them a better chance of getting well paid employment in the modern world.
I think they also need to demonstrate that they are safe with the economy again by recognising that your list of objectives have to take place within a stable and sustainable economic framework. This means (and it is something that Miliband just refused to address) addressing how those desirable objectives are done without spending lots more money that we haven't got.
12 Demonstrate that the party understands that public services can be improved without spending megabucks and show how they will ensure value for money 13 Stand up to producer interests to ensure public service reform
Surely the simplest change there is:
- Measure public services by outputs - not inputs.
Its (almost) always 'number of nurses(doctors/firemen/policemen)' rather than;
@Plato_Says I know that 'many' have, that's why I mentioned it in my post to you. Just because it isn't an opinion which coincides with your own, doesn't mean it's not valid. It would be curious if all perspectives of the last 7 years of a political website were all the same.
You keep on mentioning 'stop digging'. I don't particularly agree with that assessment of my posts, much like you don't agree with other views of how PB was in the past.
I don't see why not; when many PBers have mentioned the site's changes several times in recent months. I don't see why I should reject their views, but yet accept your assessment of PB.
I don't what to say it but for some Labour moderates one begins to wonder if the Corbyn nightmare continues for more than a year or so the inevitably of a break away centre-left party becomes plausible ( backed as the Independent suggested yesterday by big funding now being withdrawn from Corbynites' Labour). This becomes even more probable with deselections, anti-trident, stop the war trots, and the massive drop in Lab's polling current in national polls.
The Tory's triumph currently is guaranteed with hedge fund millions, massive media support, wealthy middle class support south of the Trent and elderly demographics who vote. Labour than shrinks into its heartlands and core Northern or Islington metropolitan socialist Vets. Its all up for the centre left.
Comments
???
Melanie Philips has been on question time and is a widely read columnist in a major national newspaper.
That is the mainstream.
Your comments say more about your own sensibilities and prejudices than they do about what constitutes 'right' and 'left'
I'm not sure you're convincing anyone here - its a rerun of a previous thread when you claimed something about feminism and were widely ridiculed.
When many people disagree with you - it's wise to consider that it's You, Not Them.
What's the old saw? "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when you do". Something like that.
If the Tories go as extreme as Corbyn, we're all in trouble. I guess I'll be sticking to the default party, that is the LDs.
And is Ian McNicoll in danger as Gen Sec?
Play nicely everyone. A pleasant day to all.
On topic, if Corbyn is, as appears safe, I hope he reshuffles sooner rather than later. Either it works, unexpectedly, or it forces a confrontation with reality much sooner and Labour can recover quicker.
http://www.cityam.com/230394/labours-shadow-city-minister-richard-burgon-remains-a-man-of-mystery-in-the-square-mile
Come back Ed Balls all is forgiven...well not quite, but at least you and Chuka actually met business people.
10 Be internationalist by all means but stand up for Britain's interests if threatened
11 Demonstrate that the party understands the negative consequences of high immigration as well as the positives
12 Demonstrate that the party understands that public services can be improved without spending megabucks and show how they will ensure value for money
13 Stand up to producer interests to ensure public service reform
You're talking a lot of partisan identity politics cobblers far too often.
Drop that and many PBers will engage with someone willing to debate.
However, as Mr Nabavi alluded, public spending veered out of control from around '03 and the task is simply to return it to historic norms (as a % of GDP).
My view is that once the structural deficit is eliminated we can have a proper conversation on how much, and on what, the UK state spends. Before then it's fiddling while Rome burns. This is why Osborne has become such a disappointment to me. The autumn statement was worse than his '12 budget.
Yentob is still am employee, so surely they should conduct the investigation they were about to undertake. Imagine if Fred the Shred had said oh well I shall resign my position at the top of the bank, but I am taking a role as Bank Manager in Harpenden, therefore no need to investigate anything or take any further action.
And for Trump fans, as I'm easily amused,
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/trump-claims-islam-fked-up-his-hair-20151208104538
PS I do not want Osborne as Cameron's replacement, not my idea of a good Chancellor/Leader!
I'm not going to 'drop' something just because PB disagrees with it. I don't agree that my politics is 'parstian' or 'identity' politics. I don't go out rushing to defend anything the Labour party do, or indeed any widespread opinion on the Left - unlike many on this site in regard to the Tory party. And as for 'identity politics' - which really appears to have become a bear bugger for some as of late, it appears that any kind of politics which isn't completely individualistic, or simply a kind of politics which some aren't comfortable with discussing is now 'identity politics'.
LeBron James signs lifetime deal with Nike
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35035743
I envision the 90 year old LeBron with zimmerframe, being told he has to rock all Nike as he potters around the retirement home.
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/674207860046217216
@TCPoliticalBetting
?
I don't believe I've ever said that Osborne's social views are close to Melanie Philips. I'm aware that Osborne is socially liberal, on issues such as abortion for example.
I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position.
If SeanT has had a few drinks, he is likely to accuse someone of gross stupidity for claiming that Gordon Brown had one working eye.
So no, I won't change my tone. I will stand my ground, and state what I believe in. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or even read it. That is all your choice.
"Previously, from talking to other PBers in the past"
Golly, you've *talked* with this group and that negates everything else?
Well, I'm impressed. Stop digging.
*IANA(Constitutional)L
**Is there a collective noun for Trump supporters? Trumpers? Trumpettes? Top Trumps?
"I've been here for about 7yrs and anyone who makes a coherent point isn't rubbished. That you're getting a reputation isn't about Not Being A Tory, it's not being credible in your position"
How patronizing.
You keep on mentioning 'stop digging'. I don't particularly agree with that assessment of my posts, much like you don't agree with other views of how PB was in the past.
On PBers not being Cameron/Osborne supporters for the most part, I think many before the GE previously weren't. However, since the GE it appears to have turned many into Cameron/Osborne defenders. I think the budget some weeks ago is probably the start of things changing though.
New client staked £1000 to be candidate at 5/2,& £1000 to be President, 9/2, on Donald Trump in a Hill's Cambridgeshire shop today. #Trump
- Measure public services by outputs - not inputs.
Its (almost) always 'number of nurses(doctors/firemen/policemen)' rather than;
- patients treated, fire deaths, crime....
New Thread New Thread
Phrases you never thought you'd use...
The Tory's triumph currently is guaranteed with hedge fund millions, massive media support, wealthy middle class support south of the Trent and elderly demographics who vote. Labour than shrinks into its heartlands and core Northern or Islington metropolitan socialist Vets. Its all up for the centre left.