Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where should a concerned LAB supporter direct his anger?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where should a concerned LAB supporter direct his anger?
“I want us to employ the power of government as a force for good to transform the way we deal with mental health problems right across society, and at every stage of life.”
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If they don't feel the leadership's policies are true labour policies they should be angry at the membership for backing it, and probably leave the party until it changes tune. If they think the policies are fine but Corbyn is just bad at delivering them, then anger should be at him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Analysis_of_results
https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/849246186502574080
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/tony-parsons-labour-party-nasty
1. A realisation that 'more money' cannot be the answer for everything. Resources are finite. Nobody on the left ever ever seems to talk about how we can deliver more public services through efficiency. If the order of events is Input - Process - Output and you want more Output then Process needs sorting if Inputs are limited. This line of thinking probably seems very alien to you Don. But maybe not to taxpayers.
2. You've lost a culture war (or at least some battles). Labour went full SJW. You should never go full SJW. At least in a 'small c' conservative country. You lost your base.
3. What is Labour for? Who is it for? What objectives via what policies? Bleating 'nasty Tories' isn't going to persuade X million voters to stop voting Tory and vote Labour is it? What is the party (not Corbyn, the party) offering middle England?
Ironic that the "nasty party" is the one focusing on the Easter bunny whilst Don's party is the one banging on about Hitler and Jews.
This is between Kraft and the National Trust. What business is it of politicians ?-
http://i.imgur.com/ofiS5PX.gif
It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."
So it is all very well for Mr Brind to suggest that if Corbyn really cared about the poor and disavantaged he would step down and make way for someone who would give Labour a shot at winning power, but if the alternatives are Labour MP's who support welfare cuts, then even if they got into power, they would be unlikely to "undo the nasty things the Tories are doing"
Blame Margaret Beckett.
The point is that Labour has come to the end of its road, its no-ones fault. Labour was founded in response to some problems of the 1890s & its just not "fit for purpose" anymore. Both the Tory & Liberal traditions have re-invented themselves several times during Labours lifetime but Labour cant do that. Its time to "let it go".
Labour supporters can go over to The Libdems or The Greens, or they can take a long holiday from Politics & do other stuff.
The government clarified the rules and regs to make sure this widening was stopped. So the only possible cut would be to someone who was found eligible in those four weeks that the ruling of the tribunal was valid.
We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.
Missing the borrowing forecast by a mere £480 billion was, as you say, down to Gordo not being 'very good at his job'. (!!!) A £160 billion deficit might also take over 7 years to resolve.
NHS funding (% of GDP) fails to keep pace with other countries. I exclude the absurd USA which spends 17% but is full of red tape, copayments, reclaims, means testing and until recently 40 M uninsured people. Keep pace with other tax-funded systems like Canada or Scandinavia, then little cause for complaint.
1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend
In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.
If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.
The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.
The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.
*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.
So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green
It looks like Lord Hayward has started posting a few comments on the VoteUK discussion forum:
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/9322/good-bad-night-2017-elections?page=6
The result of this terrible situation is that we have had governments since 2010 which have had to make difficult choices that Labour in government refused to take by not having a spending review. Have they got every decision right? Of course not. Have some of the results of some of their decisions been arbitrary and unfair? Of course they have. Is it an important role of an Opposition to highlight these errors and seek to have them corrected? Damn right it is and Labour currently do a shockingly poor job.
But Don is talking beyond the day job of trying to correct the errors. He is talking about an alternative government. That requires making the kind of choices that Labour ran away from in 2009. I see absolutely no sign that they are willing to undertake or even attempt such an exercise. It is so much easier to pretend that the Tories are just wicked. Simplistic but pointless. And that is exactly what the Labour Party is today.
The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.
If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.
You can oppose/support these measures if you state where else you'll find the savings. But Labour just doesn't do that. Not remotely credible.
In the various NT houses we visited there were Easter egg hunts. TBH I did not notice whether the word Easter was included. I found the Cadbury's logo - a lurid combination of purple and yellow far more horrible. And Cadbury's chocolate is revolting.
Labour supporters should understand that no one party has a monopoly on moral or political virtue. One offputting aspect of Labour is its self-righteousness, often loudly proclaimed in the face of actions and sayings which are repellent to many. (It was, after all, a revered Labour bigwig that called Tories "lower than vermin".)
As to the nasty things identified above, what is Labour's answer? How is extra spending to be earned? Is there any limit to what should be spent on the NHS or on education? Should the users of the service contribute at all? Should there be any limit on the services to be provided to the NHS? Should child benefit be limited in some way? Etc etc.
Simply saying that you want to help people is not enough. How you want to help them, what it will cost and how you deal with any unintended consequences need addressing too, something that Labour often seems to forget.
Is there any alternative to Corbyn who has even begun to address such issues?
Perhaps you could put some numbers on that:
What level is 'rich'?
How much would you like to take from them?
How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich?
How long till we end up like Venezuela?
Indeed. But he won't because he is stubborn, old fool.
But many of the arguments against a massive investment plan were fallacious. A country with its own currency, and a central bank, in a super-low interest rate environment, would be insulated from much of the problems of "going bust" or suffering the lack of confidence that the Tories said it would and hence (PROVISO INSERTED HERE), there was an argument for EdM to row back on austerity, invoke Krugman, et al if necessary in support, and to outline a coherent spending and investment plan.
But he tried to do both and neither at the same time and hence there was no clear understanding of just what Lab would be in government and hence they were not given the chance by the electorate to get anywhere near power.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
Two seems a fair enough compromise.
Annual wealth tax to encourage productive use of assets ? It's not easy to do.
Theresa May takes stand against Saudi regime by not wearing headscarf - ignoring Foreign Office advice
Now that's a bit more controversial than eggs.
Ireland, Iceland and Spain had cuts in public spending.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-considers-far-reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602
To hear the wailing at any restriction on benefits which have only been relatively introduced, you'd think the government was proposing the slaughter of the first-born. It is precisely this sort of attitude - exemplified in spades over the NI proposals in the budget and Osborne's earlier attempts to limit the amount of tax relief on charitable contributions rich people could get - that hobbles our attempts to deal with the deficit and get a sustainable and fair welfare system.
The Tories are frit and go after soft targets. Labour have no answers at all. This is not going to help when the next recession comes along nor as we face life outside the EU. Before we can spend money we have to earn it. It would be good if all parties could learn this rather important lesson.
My visa interview was very brief. I was asked what I do, I gave a one word answer, and my visa was approved.