General Election 2019 thread (8 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Correct.

So you are now saying that it doesn't matter what a leader of a party thinks or will do?

Not in a private nationwide ballot. No.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Let me make a case for internet infrastructure being nationalised:

1) It’s a monopoly that was developed by the state. There’s no real competition. Virgin have sunk billions in and got nowhere near, the “competition” between ISPs is false because all rely on an OpenReach line. Currently we are handing private shareholders a monopoly position using assets created by the state at taxpayer expense

2) It’s an essential utility. These days internet access is required in many interactions with the state and is the primary place for education and entertainment. If we made libraries and post offices and TV licences free for certain people then the 21st century equivalent is broadband.
3) Full broadband access means we can move service access entirely online and reap the cost savings
4) (the most important IMO) National Security. Increasingly our biggest security threats are cyber based. Be it outright cyber espionage or more subtle interference having the infrastructure in private hands is a risk and we should be able to control who has access to the cables and boxes that make up our network in the same way we should for nuclear power.

Besides, the Brexit Party manifesto that apparently isn’t a manifesto also pledges free broadband for all. Are we to believe that the Brexit Party is some sort of extreme socialist organisation.

 

[shmmeee]

It IS a big issue for me.

Would you vote for a party that wants to leave if you wasn't 100% Labour?

Im not 100% Labour. I’ve voted everyone bar Tory and only joined Labour in 2015 after the election loss.

Brexit isn’t my number one issue by a country mile. It’s fucking stupid but the people voted for it and as I keep saying a soft Brexit is probably the right compromise, I think a confirmatory referendum is probably right too.

But the *party* doesn’t want to leave. You don’t even really know the leader does. And their policy is for the people to decide anyway.

So yeah, I would.

 

[skybluetony176]

Correct.

So you are now saying that it doesn't matter what a leader of a party thinks or will do?

Apparently not in the Tory Party so why Corbyn comes in for special treatment is beyond me.

 

[Mcbean]

Got any specific policies you think are too left wing?

I think it’s a sweet shop that is going to go bust not that I trust the Tory numbers either - you need entrepreneurs to employ people to earn a wage and live their lives I think some of the free offers devalue the product like prescriptions and there will be more wastage and therefore more costs - my job went because of Brexit but I think UK can be a strong player in world markets including the EU outside the EU organisationally

 

[shmmeee]

I think it’s a sweet shop that is going to go bust not that I trust the Tory numbers either - you need entrepreneurs to employ people to earn a wage and live their lives I think some of the free offers devalue the product like prescriptions and there will be more wastage and therefore more costs - my job went because of Brexit but I think UK can be a strong player in world markets including the EU outside the EU organisationally

I doubt we’d go bust. It’s fairly standard European state size and we could afford it IMO.

We have massive prescription waste anyway, that’s human nature. I’m not sure it being free for those not on benefits would massively increase it but it’s a fair concern.

 

[fernandopartridge]

[

I doubt we’d go bust. It’s fairly standard European state size and we could afford it IMO.

We have massive prescription waste anyway, that’s human nature. I’m not sure it being free for those not on benefits would massively increase it but it’s a fair concern.

It's a prescription anyway, it has to be prescribed and if it was 'free' the NHS would be tightening up prescription guidelines anyway (not they're not already). It isn't a giveaway.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Correct.

So you are now saying that it doesn't matter what a leader of a party thinks or will do?

Not sure why you've added the word 'now' in there, as if I've changed my position. When it comes to what is party policy I've never cared about the personal opinion of the leader. I don't let their personal behaviour/opinions have much of an effect on my voting decisions either - it's party policy that matters. I've got almost no time at all for Alexander but if the Tories came up with policies I agreed with (unlikely at the current time) I would suck up that personal opinion and tolerate him as PM. I think Corbyn doesn't come across as forceful enough and Swinson as an egomaniac, but again I would tolerate them for decent party policy.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure why you've added the word 'now' in there, as if I've changed my position. When it comes to what is party policy I've never cared about the personal opinion of the leader. I don't let their personal behaviour/opinions have much of an effect on my voting decisions either - it's party policy that matters. I've got almost no time at all for Alexander but if the Tories came up with policies I agreed with (unlikely at the current time) I would suck up that personal opinion and tolerate him as PM. I think Corbyn doesn't come across as forceful enough and Swinson as an egomaniac, but again I would tolerate them for decent party policy.

please show me the party policy is to campaign against Brexit in its manifesto which is covered from page 88 - and why the guardian referenced it’s neutrality today.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

please show me the party policy is to campaign against Brexit in its manifesto which is covered from page 88 - and why the guardian referenced it’s neutrality today.

I know it is - if you check back I linked it!

 

[theferret]

So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, and bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.

Make a good case for the Tories please.

 

[Grendel]

I know it is - if you check back I linked it!

You supplied a link to the manifesto? where?

 

[clint van damme]

So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.

Which businesses shouldn't be nationalised? I asked some questions re: nationalisation earlier and no one has answered yet

 

[shmmeee]

So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.

Stopped reading when you implied Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and Priti Patel aren’t at least as incompetent as any of the Labour front bench. Burgeon and Co are terrible, but no worse than that lot.

The rest is tired right wing tropes (“oh you love tax so much why don’t you pay more?”)

 

[Ian1779]

So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.

Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.

Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?

Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.

Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.

We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?

Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?

Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.

You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.

This is literally right wing bingo. If you think this is centrist... then it shows how far right we have been dragged.

 

[theferret]

Stopped reading when you implied Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and Priti Patel aren’t at least as incompetent as any of the Labour front bench. Burgeon and Co are terrible, but no worse than that lot.

The rest is tired right wing tropes (“oh you love tax so much why don’t you pay more?”)

The bit about paying more tax came right at the end and was a bit of a throwaway comment, but it does suggest you actually you read it all :happy:

Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry - yes, notably less competent than their Tory equivalents in my view, but that's not to suggest I have posters on my wall, far from it. You see it differently, fine. We just just disagree on that.

 

[skybluetony176]

The bit about paying more tax came right at the end and was a bit of a throwaway comment, but it does suggest you actually you read it all :happy:

Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry - yes, notably less competent than their Tory equivalents in my view, but that's not to suggest I have posters on my wall, far from it. You see it differently, fine. We just just disagree on that.

The problem with that theory is that the Tory parties Diane Abbott is Boris Johnson. Apparently the best person that the Tories can find to lead their party so they have the problem that they’ve peaked in terms of quality of people at the bottom of the Labour Parties scale.

 

[theferret]

This is literally right wing bingo. If you think this is centrist... then it shows how far right we have been dragged.

And there it is. It didn't take long for the 'far right' mud-slinging to start. I think it says more about the shift in your position to be honest. My views haven't really changed since I voted for Blair in 1997.

 

[Ian1779]

And there it is. It didn't take long for the 'far right' mud-slinging to start. I think it says more about the shift in your position to be honest. My views haven't really changed since I voted for Blair in 1997.

it’s not a mud sling at all... but your arguments are not ‘centrist’.
You say about the supposed incompetence of the Labour front bench... can you give an actual example of their incompetence with some facts/evidence to support it- because I could give a stack load of examples for the Tory cabinet...

 

[shmmeee]

Thought this was interesting:

The bit about paying more tax came right at the end and was a bit of a throwaway comment, but it does suggest you actually you read it all :happy:

Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry - yes, notably less competent than their Tory equivalents in my view, but that's not to suggest I have posters on my wall, far from it. You see it differently, fine. We just just disagree on that.

Fair.

 

[theferret]

it’s not a mud sling at all... but your arguments are not ‘centrist’.
You say about the supposed incompetence of the Labour front bench... can you give an actual example of their incompetence with some facts/evidence to support it- because I could give a stack load of examples for the Tory cabinet...

I'd say the arguments I put were the definition of centrist, but it depends on your perspective I guess.

Pointing out, and applauding, that the minimum wage is relatively high and has been increased above the rate of inflation several times in recent years is not right wing. Pointing out, and applauding, the fact that the starting rate of tax is higher than other major economies is not right wing. Saying that the very top earners should pay a bit more is not right wing. Stating that some industries are better in private hands is not an extremist position and is shared by many on the centre-left. Defending the existence of private schools is not an extreme view When Diane Abbott sent her kids to private schools, she was accused of hypocrisy, but not of being 'right wing'. I think people should have the choice, but equally, I think investment in education should be a major priority. So yes, my views, if I were to expand on all of them in detail and bore the socks off you, are pretty centrist, certainly when viewed in an historical context but perhaps they will not qualify me for a membership card for Momentum right now.

This, partly, is the reason why many are turning away from the left. You see it so often now; decent, charitable, generous people (often with left leanings) being labelled a fascist because they express a view out of sync with the doctrines laid down by the woke left twitter mobs.

 

[shmmeee]

I'd say the arguments I put were the definition of centrist, but it depends on your perspective I guess.

Pointing out, and applauding, that the minimum wage is relatively high and has been increased above the rate of inflation several times in recent years is not right wing. Pointing out, and applauding, the fact that the starting rate of tax is higher than other major economies is not right wing. Saying that the very top earners should pay a bit more is not right wing. Stating that some industries are better in private hands is not an extremist position and is shared by many on the centre-left. Defending the existence of private schools is not an extreme view When Diane Abbott sent her kids to private schools, she was accused of hypocrisy, but not of being 'right wing'. I think people should have the choice, but equally, I think investment in education should be a major priority. So yes, my views, if I were to expand on all of them in detail and bore the socks off you, are pretty centrist, certainly when viewed in an historical context but perhaps they will not qualify me for a membership card for Momentum right now.

This, partly, is the reason why many are turning away from the left. You see it so often now; decent, charitable, generous people (often with left leanings) being labelled a fascist because they express a view out of sync with the doctrines laid down by the woke left twitter mobs.

Mate. Everyone hates the woke Twitter mobs. In many ways they are very right wing (much race and gender ideology is basically individualism and lacks any class analysis) and certainly bigoted and fascist. I hate that they self identify as left wing.

I think Labour have a real problem finding talent outside the activist pool.

 

[Astute]

Not in a private nationwide ballot. No.

Why are you both pretending that I have said it is about how Corbyn votes when I have made the truth clear several times?

 

[skybluetony176]

Thought this was interesting:

View attachment 13510



Fair.

Damn them happy socialist again with their high government spending. When will they learn.

 

[shmmeee]

Why are you both pretending that I have said it is about how Corbyn votes when I have made the truth clear several times?

Sorry I must have missed the change of topic. I thought you were still on about how Corbyn would vote in a referendum

 

[Astute]

But the *party* doesn’t want to leave. You don’t even really know the leader does.

So you finally admit that you don't know what Corbyn wants?

 

[shmmeee]

So you finally admit that you don't know what Corbyn wants?

Eh? I said at the start you can probably work out he’s a reluctant Remainer from his positions and statements over the years.

But no one ever k ones for sure how someone else voted in a secret ballot.

 

[Astute]

Sorry I must have missed the change of topic. I thought you were still on about how Corbyn would vote in a referendum

Considering I never mentioned once about how he would vote you could be right.

 

[Astute]

Eh? I said at the start you can probably work out he’s a reluctant Remainer from his positions and statements over the years.

But no one ever k ones for sure how someone else voted in a secret ballot.

So why do you make out constantly that I am wrong for saying exactly the same thing?

 

[shmmeee]

My choice is Labour or do what I have never done before and not vote.

So when was it said? Corbyn is the leader. Corbyn has always stated he wants out of the EU. Labour have said they want the opposite of the Tories. That is normal. What I need to hear is what the Labour leader wants now. What will he go for? Remain or leave. Simple question. But we never get an answer.

Are you not talking about his vote here?

What do you mean “what Corbyn will go for” otherwise?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'd say the arguments I put were the definition of centrist, but it depends on your perspective I guess.

Pointing out, and applauding, that the minimum wage is relatively high and has been increased above the rate of inflation several times in recent years is not right wing. Pointing out, and applauding, the fact that the starting rate of tax is higher than other major economies is not right wing. Saying that the very top earners should pay a bit more is not right wing. Stating that some industries are better in private hands is not an extremist position and is shared by many on the centre-left. Defending the existence of private schools is not an extreme view When Diane Abbott sent her kids to private schools, she was accused of hypocrisy, but not of being 'right wing'. I think people should have the choice, but equally, I think investment in education should be a major priority. So yes, my views, if I were to expand on all of them in detail and bore the socks off you, are pretty centrist, certainly when viewed in an historical context but perhaps they will not qualify me for a membership card for Momentum right now.

This, partly, is the reason why many are turning away from the left. You see it so often now; decent, charitable, generous people (often with left leanings) being labelled a fascist because they express a view out of sync with the doctrines laid down by the woke left twitter mobs.

It's the generalised schizzle that pushes in that direction though. I could come on with a general 'nationalisation is good' and you'd throw your hands up, call me a fantasist lefty, and then I'd have to explain how I thought it was pretty centrist to have utilities in public ownership, allow the profits from said utilities to be fed back into the state investment, rather than profits leave the country in the form of dividends to (in some cases) foreign state-owned utilities.

Now moving on from to that, I'd consider the removal of tuition fees pretty centrist. It's making a progressive tax system more up front if you tax the higher earners a little more, rather than claim back a loan. After all, the idea of investing in education is that it pays off further down the line, and if it pays off for the indivdual, it's also giving the country a competitive advantage as a result, the better trained its population are. It's only since the 1990s that paying for education has come to be seen as acceptable - before they even offered grants to the poorer sections, so they were able to have an equal opportunity for study. It may be a paper debt, but it's still a debt, and that's offputting to a fair few people to see £50k of debt before income, and before a guarantee of a return. Raise the taxes in a progressive manner (it doesn't even have to be much) and it does the same thing. That's also a completely different issue to the desire of various govenments (both Conservative and Labour) to push for increased higher education participation, not from a sense of improving learning, but by stopping them featuring on an unemployment index! In addition to the removal of tuition fees, a rounded policy would encourage meaningful apprenticeships in meaningful trades, and stop a qualification snobbery when it comes to recruitment, and emphasise capability can be demonstrated in other ways.

What we don't do is invest in society. It's not fantasy economics to do so and yes, it is regressing to a former age, but the likes of Lloyd George (who, let's not forget, ended up leading a Tory government, effectively) and Attlee had exactly the right idea in increasing the level of state involvement as an investment, an investment that would bear fruit down the line. Nobody, nobody is advocating a 90% rate for top earners (and if they did, it probably wouldn't affect any of us whenever it kicked in!) There is much we have done which shifts the burden onto people who can afford it least, increases in VAT coupled with decreases in income tax, so an attempt to re-address that and revert to a position that, ironically, was 'fairer' for much of Thatcher's time in power is not unreasonable.

None of us are alone, and an attempt to address society is refreshing, as whether we like it or not society improving helps us all a lot more, in the long run, than a possible individual improvement, at the expense of somebody else.

 

[Astute]

Are you not talking about his vote here?

What do you mean “what Corbyn will go for” otherwise?

You mean 'hear what Corbyn wants' and 'What will he go for'?

So since when was 'hear' a form of voting?

 

[shmmeee]

You mean 'hear what Corbyn wants' and 'What will he go for'?

So since when was 'hear' a form of voting?

He wants the public to decide. You want to know his personal opinion I.e. how he would vote. That’s the only co text in which a binary remain or leave would make sense.

 

[theferret]

Mate. Everyone hates the woke Twitter mobs. In many ways they are very right wing (much race and gender ideology is basically individualism and lacks any class analysis) and certainly bigoted and fascist. I hate that they self identify as left wing.

I think Labour have a real problem finding talent outside the activist pool.

The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.

There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.