FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Should labour move more to the centre left?
Should labour move more to the centre left?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good "Like someone said. It's up to them. If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories. | |||
| |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good "Problem with shifting towards the centre is it makes it easier to get elected but nothing really changes. To unify the party, he's got to get the balance right. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way." I think you inadvertently nailed an important point. The right wing thrive on splitting the working class and the vast majority of the ordinary people in this country. This creates views like yours suggesting that "minorities" are being fought for. Aside from the richest few, we are all in the same boat. It's the classic haves Vs the have nots. The "have-nots" vastly outnumber the "haves". So their only strategy is to divide us. Which they have done, and it's been extremely effective. In your instance the "minorites" are part of the working class. In anycase, they were so successful that we ended up with brexit and a more divided society than ever before. A huge and lasting victory for the establishment and the right wing. I don't see any way back for the "left" in my lifetime. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way." I agree to some extent. There are still many forms of racism in this country and they need to be addressed. However, I concede that the working class was divided: North and South. Labour's intentions read well in the capital but not well up north where people felt abandon by the party, particularly on leaving the EU. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I think you inadvertently nailed an important point. The right wing thrive on splitting the working class and the vast majority of the ordinary people in this country. This creates views like yours suggesting that "minorities" are being fought for. Aside from the richest few, we are all in the same boat. It's the classic haves Vs the have nots. The "have-nots" vastly outnumber the "haves". So their only strategy is to divide us. Which they have done, and it's been extremely effective. In your instance the "minorites" are part of the working class. In anycase, they were so successful that we ended up with brexit and a more divided society than ever before. A huge and lasting victory for the establishment and the right wing. I don't see any way back for the "left" in my lifetime." True. The right wing just waited for their moment and exploited it brilliantly. Minorities are part of the working class. But not all working class parties are considered minorities, at least by the left wing parties and some modern liberals. For example, a couple of months back, a tweet was trending. I don't really remember the exact words or who tweeted it. It went along the lines of "Even if you are from a poor family and you don't have a job, if you are a white male, you are privileged". I understand her point. But when you see someone who is struggling to put food on the plate and call him privileged, is he really going to look at history, learn about colonisation and try to understand her point of view? He is just going to ask all of them to fuck off and vote for a party that at least acts like it has sympathies for him. And then you had labour party MP sharing a tweet that victims of grooming gangs should shut up, for the sake of diversity. Almost all the victims here are from care homes. Again, the poorer class. Right wing parties latched on to it. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I agree to some extent. There are still many forms of racism in this country and they need to be addressed. However, I concede that the working class was divided: North and South. Labour's intentions read well in the capital but not well up north where people felt abandon by the party, particularly on leaving the EU. " Racism exists. It has to be addressed. But there is a difference between fighting for the rights of minorities and trying to appease the minorities. How a person like Naz Shah is still in the party after re-tweeting that vile statement is just unbelievable. When a party does stuff like that, even the legitimate concerns they raise will be easily pushed over and laughed at. And then they removed Trevor Phillips from the party  | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I think you inadvertently nailed an important point. The right wing thrive on splitting the working class and the vast majority of the ordinary people in this country. This creates views like yours suggesting that "minorities" are being fought for. Aside from the richest few, we are all in the same boat. It's the classic haves Vs the have nots. The "have-nots" vastly outnumber the "haves". So their only strategy is to divide us. Which they have done, and it's been extremely effective. In your instance the "minorites" are part of the working class. In anycase, they were so successful that we ended up with brexit and a more divided society than ever before. A huge and lasting victory for the establishment and the right wing. I don't see any way back for the "left" in my lifetime. True. The right wing just waited for their moment and exploited it brilliantly. Minorities are part of the working class. But not all working class parties are considered minorities, at least by the left wing parties and some modern liberals. For example, a couple of months back, a tweet was trending. I don't really remember the exact words or who tweeted it. It went along the lines of "Even if you are from a poor family and you don't have a job, if you are a white male, you are privileged". I understand her point. But when you see someone who is struggling to put food on the plate and call him privileged, is he really going to look at history, learn about colonisation and try to understand her point of view? He is just going to ask all of them to fuck off and vote for a party that at least acts like it has sympathies for him. And then you had labour party MP sharing a tweet that victims of grooming gangs should shut up, for the sake of diversity. Almost all the victims here are from care homes. Again, the poorer class. Right wing parties latched on to it. " Right so more examples of splitting the working classes. Doesn't matter where it comes from really. The result is the same. And the right have been working on this for years and years. It's not a new thing that has been jumped on. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I think you inadvertently nailed an important point. The right wing thrive on splitting the working class and the vast majority of the ordinary people in this country. This creates views like yours suggesting that "minorities" are being fought for. Aside from the richest few, we are all in the same boat. It's the classic haves Vs the have nots. The "have-nots" vastly outnumber the "haves". So their only strategy is to divide us. Which they have done, and it's been extremely effective. In your instance the "minorites" are part of the working class. In anycase, they were so successful that we ended up with brexit and a more divided society than ever before. A huge and lasting victory for the establishment and the right wing. I don't see any way back for the "left" in my lifetime. True. The right wing just waited for their moment and exploited it brilliantly. Minorities are part of the working class. But not all working class parties are considered minorities, at least by the left wing parties and some modern liberals. For example, a couple of months back, a tweet was trending. I don't really remember the exact words or who tweeted it. It went along the lines of "Even if you are from a poor family and you don't have a job, if you are a white male, you are privileged". I understand her point. But when you see someone who is struggling to put food on the plate and call him privileged, is he really going to look at history, learn about colonisation and try to understand her point of view? He is just going to ask all of them to fuck off and vote for a party that at least acts like it has sympathies for him. And then you had labour party MP sharing a tweet that victims of grooming gangs should shut up, for the sake of diversity. Almost all the victims here are from care homes. Again, the poorer class. Right wing parties latched on to it. Right so more examples of splitting the working classes. Doesn't matter where it comes from really. The result is the same. And the right have been working on this for years and years. It's not a new thing that has been jumped on. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I agree to some extent. There are still many forms of racism in this country and they need to be addressed. However, I concede that the working class was divided: North and South. Labour's intentions read well in the capital but not well up north where people felt abandon by the party, particularly on leaving the EU. Racism exists. It has to be addressed. But there is a difference between fighting for the rights of minorities and trying to appease the minorities. How a person like Naz Shah is still in the party after re-tweeting that vile statement is just unbelievable. When a party does stuff like that, even the legitimate concerns they raise will be easily pushed over and laughed at. And then they removed Trevor Phillips from the party
Of course, I remember that tweet and I condemn it. I don't think it's a case of appeasing but come to terms with the right diversity within the UK. There's still a massive sense of entitlement with some people and we need to be aware of our community and reach out, not remain in such rigid groups when our country's myriad of issues affect us all in some shape or form."*rich diversity. typo   | |||
"It eally wouldn't have mattered which one of the three had won the leadeship contest, none of them willbe anle to lead the party to an election victory, for the simple reason that they are still not listening to the electorate and have still failed to understand why they have lost the last 4 elections. Kier is a remainer and would have us rejoin the EU - something which is completely at odds with the majority of Labour voters" The majority of seats lost were Leave seats. | |||
"It eally wouldn't have mattered which one of the three had won the leadeship contest, none of them willbe anle to lead the party to an election victory, for the simple reason that they are still not listening to the electorate and have still failed to understand why they have lost the last 4 elections. Kier is a remainer and would have us rejoin the EU - something which is completely at odds with the majority of Labour voters" Ah ha. So why aren't the electorate interested? That's the more important question to me. Instead of being Labour to the centre ground. Why aren't the electorate interested in a real alternative offering real changes. To me, that's a much more interesting point. I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed for us on the EU. There's no one who is suggesting we actually rejoin? | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
"how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ? | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I agree to some extent. There are still many forms of racism in this country and they need to be addressed. However, I concede that the working class was divided: North and South. Labour's intentions read well in the capital but not well up north where people felt abandon by the party, particularly on leaving the EU. Racism exists. It has to be addressed. But there is a difference between fighting for the rights of minorities and trying to appease the minorities. How a person like Naz Shah is still in the party after re-tweeting that vile statement is just unbelievable. When a party does stuff like that, even the legitimate concerns they raise will be easily pushed over and laughed at. And then they removed Trevor Phillips from the party
Of course, I remember that tweet and I condemn it. I don't think it's a case of appeasing but come to terms with the right diversity within the UK. There's still a massive sense of entitlement with some people and we need to be aware of our community and reach out, not remain in such rigid groups when our country's myriad of issues affect us all in some shape or form.
*rich diversity.
typo "She should have asked the media and politicians to shut up. Asking rpe victims to shut up so that diversity can be preserved, is appeasement. And labour party kicking Sarah Champion and Trevor Phillips but doing nothing about Naz Shah is appeasement. I will give you another example of labour trying to appease minorities, this time not including white people. Before the last GE was announced, labour party made a statement about Kashmir. They said that Kashmir should be given the right to self determination. I am from India and I actually don't think self determination for Kashmir is not that simple and straightforward. But still I was impressed by the party because they were bold enough to make a statement that could actually alienate most of the Indian voters. And then, the general elections were announced. I got some forward messages from some of my Indian friends about how the labour party is pro-Pakistani and Indians should not vote for them. It was even published in the news. Within a couple of days, they did a U-turn and made a statement that it is a bilateral matter between the two countries and they don't have any opinions about it. Result? Now the Pakistani voters got pissed of with them and voted for some random candidates. Indians already made up their minds against voting for them. Here, they tries to appease both Hindus and Muslims and lost both the vote banks. I personally lost all the respect I had for them there. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?"I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2? I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people. Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't. In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way. I agree to some extent. There are still many forms of racism in this country and they need to be addressed. However, I concede that the working class was divided: North and South. Labour's intentions read well in the capital but not well up north where people felt abandon by the party, particularly on leaving the EU. Racism exists. It has to be addressed. But there is a difference between fighting for the rights of minorities and trying to appease the minorities. How a person like Naz Shah is still in the party after re-tweeting that vile statement is just unbelievable. When a party does stuff like that, even the legitimate concerns they raise will be easily pushed over and laughed at. And then they removed Trevor Phillips from the party
Of course, I remember that tweet and I condemn it. I don't think it's a case of appeasing but come to terms with the right diversity within the UK. There's still a massive sense of entitlement with some people and we need to be aware of our community and reach out, not remain in such rigid groups when our country's myriad of issues affect us all in some shape or form.
*rich diversity.
typo
She should have asked the media and politicians to shut up. Asking rpe victims to shut up so that diversity can be preserved, is appeasement. And labour party kicking Sarah Champion and Trevor Phillips but doing nothing about Naz Shah is appeasement.
I will give you another example of labour trying to appease minorities, this time not including white people.
Before the last GE was announced, labour party made a statement about Kashmir. They said that Kashmir should be given the right to self determination. I am from India and I actually don't think self determination for Kashmir is not that simple and straightforward. But still I was impressed by the party because they were bold enough to make a statement that could actually alienate most of the Indian voters. And then, the general elections were announced. I got some forward messages from some of my Indian friends about how the labour party is pro-Pakistani and Indians should not vote for them. It was even published in the news.
Within a couple of days, they did a U-turn and made a statement that it is a bilateral matter between the two countries and they don't have any opinions about it. Result? Now the Pakistani voters got pissed of with them and voted for some random candidates. Indians already made up their minds against voting for them. Here, they tries to appease both Hindus and Muslims and lost both the vote banks. I personally lost all the respect I had for them there.
"As you pointed out, it's not as simple and straight forward but the initial statement was made. I appreciate that there is some level of appeasement here but they tried. The problem you have is that the protest vote waters out. Plus, the Conservatives have a massive Islamophobia problem (which is not documented enough) so whilst the vote may be lost, where does it go? | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible."It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively. Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
"Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks. But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point. | |||
"Earlier, left wing parties were supposed to be pro working class and right wing parties were pro rich. Then the left wing parties thought it was clever if they could increase their vote base by claiming to fight for minorities, which created problems which they never expected. This is not just specific to labour party. It has been happening with many left wing parties around the world. The problem with this approach is that different minorities have different culture and priorities. Some minorities have problems between themselves. It is hard to appease all the groups at the same time. Some of the very minorities the parties claimed to support, turned against them. In the pursuit of appeasing the minorities, they also lost some working class votes. Maybe they should just change their stance from fighting for minorities back to fighting for the working class. Stopping the use of racism card and blaming white privilege for every fucking thing would go a long way." | |||
"It eally wouldn't have mattered which one of the three had won the leadeship contest, none of them willbe anle to lead the party to an election victory, for the simple reason that they are still not listening to the electorate and have still failed to understand why they have lost the last 4 elections. Kier is a remainer and would have us rejoin the EU - something which is completely at odds with the majority of Labour voters Ah ha. So why aren't the electorate interested? That's the more important question to me. Instead of being Labour to the centre ground. Why aren't the electorate interested in a real alternative offering real changes. To me, that's a much more interesting point. I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed for us on the EU. There's no one who is suggesting we actually rejoin? " Starmer's stance on the EU is irrevilent and he know it.He is no fool and believe he will be more pragmatic.Now he is leader the hard left in the party are not important,it is the electorate you need to impress not a couple of thousand pseudo terrorist because that is what the so called hard left are,it might take time but once they realise they have no control they can drift off and form there own little joke party a bit like the national front,the comparison is intentional. | |||
"It eally wouldn't have mattered which one of the three had won the leadeship contest, none of them willbe anle to lead the party to an election victory, for the simple reason that they are still not listening to the electorate and have still failed to understand why they have lost the last 4 elections. Kier is a remainer and would have us rejoin the EU - something which is completely at odds with the majority of Labour voters Ah ha. So why aren't the electorate interested? That's the more important question to me. Instead of being Labour to the centre ground. Why aren't the electorate interested in a real alternative offering real changes. To me, that's a much more interesting point. I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed for us on the EU. There's no one who is suggesting we actually rejoin? Starmer's stance on the EU is irrevilent and he know it.He is no fool and believe he will be more pragmatic.Now he is leader the hard left in the party are not important,it is the electorate you need to impress not a couple of thousand pseudo terrorist because that is what the so called hard left are,it might take time but once they realise they have no control they can drift off and form there own little joke party a bit like the national front,the comparison is intentional." This for me is a great example of where we've ended up now. Anyone who wants any kind of positive change is labelled "hard left" and "pseudo terrorist". The right have been so effective splitting the working class that a party that would have actually helped people like you, and totally daemonised in your eyes. Their job is done, the propaganda worked. Facts and information become completely irrelevant. I keep going back to the point that watering down the politics to some center middle ground is pointless. So what if they get elected? Won't make any difference. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point. "Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left. They just want what we have now just better run. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run. "Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world. That's the real question. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question."When it comes to politics fairness is a point view . One mans fair is another’s injustice. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
"But even that is too simplistic an explanation. If you take the bulk of the policies proposed by the Corbyn leadership team, and take them "unlabled" to the public. The vast majority of people, like the bulk of the policies. It's the marketing of Labour, by non-labour mostly, that is the issue. When people say things like "hard-left" it scares the electorate. Yet when looked without alarming labels most of the proposals were mostly only slightly left of center. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
But even that is too simplistic an explanation.
If you take the bulk of the policies proposed by the Corbyn leadership team, and take them "unlabled" to the public. The vast majority of people, like the bulk of the policies.
It's the marketing of Labour, by non-labour mostly, that is the issue. When people say things like "hard-left" it scares the electorate. Yet when looked without alarming labels most of the proposals were mostly only slightly left of center.
"People are ultimately scared of change. That's why the conservatives win: the politics are regressive. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question.
When it comes to politics fairness is a point view .
One mans fair is another’s injustice. "I don't think that's true. It's all about control and propaganda. Those that have all the power are desperate to cling on to it and strengthen it. Anyone who proposes and real change is destroyed. IE Corbyn. Look at the studies done on the smear campaigns against him. Look at what people who posted on this very thread still (wrongly) believe. And he wasn't even that radical. He basically just wanted corporations to pay their tax and for less austerity on the poorest people on society. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run. "Problem is that's not what they're getting. they haven't for the last decade. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question."so now yr saying millions of ppl who voted diffrent to you are apathetic to what’s going on in the UK and rest of world reminds me of yr brexit posts lol | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question. so now yr saying millions of ppl who voted diffrent to you are apathetic to what’s going on in the UK and rest of world reminds me of yr brexit posts lol"huh? This is nothing to do with people voting differently to me, have you been following the thread? Brexit? what now? What do you think the problem is? | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. " I'm extremely sceptical about this "information", it sounds a like like the kind of rhubarb the Daily Mail thrives on. | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. " As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? | |||
| |||
"Believe what you want the capital flight would have been massive. Why would you wait around for over 50% income tax. God knows how much corporation tax rise? He made it very clear he wanted to unprecedented spending and companies where going to pay for it. " I think you're giving more excellent examples of how successfully ingrained the propganda against Labour have been for the last few years. It's well documented. I don't know if you're just here for the craic or if you're genuinely willing to learn. But here is an interesting article about this exact thing. https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-campaign-to-stop-corbyn-smears-racism-and-censorship/ | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it?" He also promised more nurses along with privatising major industries. Amongst other things. Don’t get me wrong if you said 1% increase for more money in the NHS. No problem not one complaint for me. It was the very long list of expenditure and how he intended to fund it. That put a lot of people off. Would you vote for something that would conceivably cost you personally thousands of pounds. | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? He also promised more nurses along with privatising major industries. Amongst other things. Don’t get me wrong if you said 1% increase for more money in the NHS. No problem not one complaint for me. It was the very long list of expenditure and how he intended to fund it. That put a lot of people off. Would you vote for something that would conceivably cost you personally thousands of pounds. " In fairness. Millions of people voted for Brexit which is way more certain to cost everyone thousands of pounds. Get the propaganda right and people will vote for anything you tell them too, completely disregarding information and facts. | |||
"Believe what you want the capital flight would have been massive. Why would you wait around for over 50% income tax. God knows how much corporation tax rise? He made it very clear he wanted to unprecedented spending and companies where going to pay for it. I think you're giving more excellent examples of how successfully ingrained the propganda against Labour have been for the last few years. It's well documented. I don't know if you're just here for the craic or if you're genuinely willing to learn. But here is an interesting article about this exact thing. https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-campaign-to-stop-corbyn-smears-racism-and-censorship/ " You seem to have drank the momentum Elixer of everything will be all right. McDonald even admitted companies would have to make the moral decision to stay or go. Also that his policies would create a run on the pound. Which of those sounds good to you! | |||
"Believe what you want the capital flight would have been massive. Why would you wait around for over 50% income tax. God knows how much corporation tax rise? He made it very clear he wanted to unprecedented spending and companies where going to pay for it. I think you're giving more excellent examples of how successfully ingrained the propganda against Labour have been for the last few years. It's well documented. I don't know if you're just here for the craic or if you're genuinely willing to learn. But here is an interesting article about this exact thing. https://www.medialens.org/2019/the-campaign-to-stop-corbyn-smears-racism-and-censorship/ You seem to have drank the momentum Elixer of everything will be all right. McDonald even admitted companies would have to make the moral decision to stay or go. Also that his policies would create a run on the pound. Which of those sounds good to you!" Ah I see you're too far gone for a reasoned discussion. Laters. | |||
" As you pointed out, it's not as simple and straight forward but the initial statement was made. I appreciate that there is some level of appeasement here but they tried. The problem you have is that the protest vote waters out. Plus, the Conservatives have a massive Islamophobia problem (which is not documented enough) so whilst the vote may be lost, where does it go? " Indians naturally voted for conservatives. With Muslims, I am not sure. I know that some pro Kashmiri groups were campaigning for independent candidates who supported their views. As I said, it is hard to retain this vote bank. There were protests in Birmingham by Muslim parents against LGBT education and Labour MP's couldn't even open their mouths on this matter. Because both the groups with opposing views belong to their vote bank and they cannot alienate anyone. This is the flaw in their philosophy and I don't see them overcoming it. | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? He also promised more nurses along with privatising major industries. Amongst other things. Don’t get me wrong if you said 1% increase for more money in the NHS. No problem not one complaint for me. It was the very long list of expenditure and how he intended to fund it. That put a lot of people off. Would you vote for something that would conceivably cost you personally thousands of pounds. " Well that's the problem: we talk about how great a nation we are but when our "personal pot" might be affected, we're like "don't care about the neighbours." And while there's no magic money tree, this government always find tons of cash somehow so I'm definitely not buying the "we haven't got the money" line and you shouldn't either. | |||
" Ah I see you're too far gone for a reasoned discussion. Laters. " I think we will have to agree that we clearly have totally different political beliefs. Luckily we don’t have to agree we both have our own vote. I genuinely don’t want to get in a fight. Back to swinging and perving I’m sure we can agree on that | |||
" Ah I see you're too far gone for a reasoned discussion. Laters. I think we will have to agree that we clearly have totally different political beliefs. Luckily we don’t have to agree we both have our own vote. I genuinely don’t want to get in a fight. Back to swinging and perving I’m sure we can agree on that "Fair enough. No ill will. I am not a labour supporter though. Nevermind momentum. If you (as in all of us) take a step back and read some analysis like the stuff I posted. You may see the points I am trying to get at. | |||
" As you pointed out, it's not as simple and straight forward but the initial statement was made. I appreciate that there is some level of appeasement here but they tried. The problem you have is that the protest vote waters out. Plus, the Conservatives have a massive Islamophobia problem (which is not documented enough) so whilst the vote may be lost, where does it go? Indians naturally voted for conservatives. With Muslims, I am not sure. I know that some pro Kashmiri groups were campaigning for independent candidates who supported their views. As I said, it is hard to retain this vote bank. There were protests in Birmingham by Muslim parents against LGBT education and Labour MP's couldn't even open their mouths on this matter. Because both the groups with opposing views belong to their vote bank and they cannot alienate anyone. This is the flaw in their philosophy and I don't see them overcoming it." I've got a book to recommend to you: The Good Immirgrant. It can be done. It means bringing people together and addressing cultural issues. The reason the Conservatives don't have this problem is they don't have to focus on it so don't care, their hard right core of voters will turnout regardless. So you won't see true change until you tackle race and how it's tied to class. | |||
| |||
| |||
" As you pointed out, it's not as simple and straight forward but the initial statement was made. I appreciate that there is some level of appeasement here but they tried. The problem you have is that the protest vote waters out. Plus, the Conservatives have a massive Islamophobia problem (which is not documented enough) so whilst the vote may be lost, where does it go? Indians naturally voted for conservatives. With Muslims, I am not sure. I know that some pro Kashmiri groups were campaigning for independent candidates who supported their views. As I said, it is hard to retain this vote bank. There were protests in Birmingham by Muslim parents against LGBT education and Labour MP's couldn't even open their mouths on this matter. Because both the groups with opposing views belong to their vote bank and they cannot alienate anyone. This is the flaw in their philosophy and I don't see them overcoming it. I've got a book to recommend to you: The Good Immirgrant. It can be done. It means bringing people together and addressing cultural issues. The reason the Conservatives don't have this problem is they don't have to focus on it so don't care, their hard right core of voters will turnout regardless. So you won't see true change until you tackle race and how it's tied to class. " Sounds like an interesting read. I will try to get it | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? He also promised more nurses along with privatising major industries. Amongst other things. Don’t get me wrong if you said 1% increase for more money in the NHS. No problem not one complaint for me. It was the very long list of expenditure and how he intended to fund it. That put a lot of people off. Would you vote for something that would conceivably cost you personally thousands of pounds. Well that's the problem: we talk about how great a nation we are but when our "personal pot" might be affected, we're like "don't care about the neighbours." And while there's no magic money tree, this government always find tons of cash somehow so I'm definitely not buying the "we haven't got the money" line and you shouldn't either." Isn't that the reason why communism fails? Humans are selfish in nature. Given a choice between themselves and others, they will always choose themselves and their own families over others. Expecting a huge society to work and sacrifice for each other is next to impossible. Corbyn also mentioned that the government is showing that it has money now. How can he compare emergency funding with the money that you can spend every year? And the country will have to compensate for this expenditure in the upcoming years. The government's job is to create a society where someone who is motivated to succeed can succeed. After that, it is upto the individuals to work hard and work smart to grow in their lives. Corbyn's idea of giving out freebies never works. It only makes people more lazy. Also, the rich are already paying close to 45% tax if you include NI. If you increase that, they will just invest in another country. Companies have multiple share holders they need to answer to. It is only profit that drives them to invest. Even the hard workers who earn more money on a monthly basis will lose their motivation to work harder if they end up paying most of what they earn in taxes. | |||
| |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. " Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. | |||
| |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else." It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness! | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!"Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population. As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440 And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled. I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding. I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that. | |||
" Which communist state didn't fail" Pick any current communist country. I'm not arguing it's a good system of government. Just that it's much more complex than "failed because people are greedy". | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that."But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal. Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling. So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you. | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that.
But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal.
Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling.
So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you."The right wing party in Sweden hasn't won yet. But going by popularity ratings, they came out of nowhere to be a popular party. The Nordic model is sustainable as long as you have a smaller population where most capable individuals are working. Hostile environment is there, yes. Windrush scandal was bad. Then so was the grooming gang scandal and the increase in sexual assaults in Sweden. Not all immigrants are bad. The problem is with the way the respective countries handled when these kind of crimes happened. The police in the UK knew about grooming gangs and still did not act because they were afraid of being called racists. When the left wing parties create such a hostile environment where you can't even complain when immigrants commit such horrible crimes, people will automatically turn to the right wing. That's what happened in the UK. In Sweden, proportion of ethnicity in sexual assault convictions was released which pointed hands at immigration. And what was the government's response to solve the problem? They told they would not release ethnicity based crime reports after that. So what do you expect the people to do? They will obviously vote for right wing parties. People did not support right wing parties because they are racist or 'hostile'. They did it because the left wing parties let them down. "Services we all benefit from" These services can keep running only if majority of people are employed and pay taxes. Majority of people can work only if they have job opportunities. They will get job opportunities only if there are businesses running. High taxation will send the businesses away and lead to a cascading effect and eventually the government will have even lower budget than it had with lower tax. It's like a chicken and egg problem. When was the last time a big industry tried to set up a new factory/office in Sweden? And I didn't say I want to hold on to all my cash. I am saying I already pay enough tax. I am willing to pay for healthcare and education for the society. But free broadband? It is not a fundamental need. This is where socialism should stop. Anything more and you only give people reason to slack off. The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from? | |||
"l The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from? " I'm afraid you're just showing you don't know a lot about the subject. As a starter you can put 'alternatives to austerity', or something similar, into Google and see a huge amount of discussion, ideas, research. A large number of economists disagree that austerity is a good approach. We have austerity because it fits with Tory ideology | |||
"l The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from? I'm afraid you're just showing you don't know a lot about the subject. As a starter you can put 'alternatives to austerity', or something similar, into Google and see a huge amount of discussion, ideas, research. A large number of economists disagree that austerity is a good approach. We have austerity because it fits with Tory ideology " In the internet, if you search alcohol is good for health, you will find plenty of articles claiming that. For every economist who claims that austerity was bad move, there is also another economist who claims that it is the only viable option. Unfortunately, there is no way you can verify any of these claims. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good "LABOUR need to move rite to top of the roof n jump off ... boris is doing a top job | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
LABOUR need to move rite to top of the roof n jump off ... boris is doing a top job "Are you Boris logged on from the hospital bed? | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that.
But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal.
Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling.
So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you.
The right wing party in Sweden hasn't won yet. But going by popularity ratings, they came out of nowhere to be a popular party. The Nordic model is sustainable as long as you have a smaller population where most capable individuals are working.
Hostile environment is there, yes. Windrush scandal was bad. Then so was the grooming gang scandal and the increase in sexual assaults in Sweden. Not all immigrants are bad. The problem is with the way the respective countries handled when these kind of crimes happened. The police in the UK knew about grooming gangs and still did not act because they were afraid of being called racists. When the left wing parties create such a hostile environment where you can't even complain when immigrants commit such horrible crimes, people will automatically turn to the right wing. That's what happened in the UK. In Sweden, proportion of ethnicity in sexual assault convictions was released which pointed hands at immigration. And what was the government's response to solve the problem? They told they would not release ethnicity based crime reports after that. So what do you expect the people to do? They will obviously vote for right wing parties. People did not support right wing parties because they are racist or 'hostile'. They did it because the left wing parties let them down.
"Services we all benefit from" These services can keep running only if majority of people are employed and pay taxes. Majority of people can work only if they have job opportunities. They will get job opportunities only if there are businesses running. High taxation will send the businesses away and lead to a cascading effect and eventually the government will have even lower budget than it had with lower tax. It's like a chicken and egg problem. When was the last time a big industry tried to set up a new factory/office in Sweden?
And I didn't say I want to hold on to all my cash. I am saying I already pay enough tax. I am willing to pay for healthcare and education for the society. But free broadband? It is not a fundamental need. This is where socialism should stop. Anything more and you only give people reason to slack off.
The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from? "So the model is sustainable so why not give it a go. We had so many brexiteers talking about recreating a Norway+ or Canada style model but we can't entertain Sweden's because we might have to put our hand in our pocket? Rotherham was horrific and my heart goes out to those girls as some scars don't heal. A crime is a crime and the police should have acted. The police force has an institutional problem with racism. Remember Stephen Lawerence? The police are there to uphold the law, the courts then carry out the order. Police and public relations need to improve, not shy away for fear of scrutiny. Businesses must pay tax. I'd have no problem promoting lower taxes for businesses if they were genuinely paying their fair share. We both know that many don't. You don't have to admit this of course but to say otherwise would be laughable. Look, not all people can work themselves out of poverty. If that were true, we'd all be rich. It's as much about opportunity as it is about endeavour. A team is only as strong as its weakest link so we'll have to agree to disagree here. And as free broadband, how would most apply for jobs? Yes, you could do off your phone but how painstaking is that. You could go to the libraries and use their PCs...though many have been closed down (austerity). It not fundamental I agree but it's about resources and having access to them to better yourself. Austerity was a choice, not a necessity. The reality is that this country hasn't achieved anything of note because the current government didn't invest in the opportunity. | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that.
But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal.
Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling.
So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you.
The right wing party in Sweden hasn't won yet. But going by popularity ratings, they came out of nowhere to be a popular party. The Nordic model is sustainable as long as you have a smaller population where most capable individuals are working.
Hostile environment is there, yes. Windrush scandal was bad. Then so was the grooming gang scandal and the increase in sexual assaults in Sweden. Not all immigrants are bad. The problem is with the way the respective countries handled when these kind of crimes happened. The police in the UK knew about grooming gangs and still did not act because they were afraid of being called racists. When the left wing parties create such a hostile environment where you can't even complain when immigrants commit such horrible crimes, people will automatically turn to the right wing. That's what happened in the UK. In Sweden, proportion of ethnicity in sexual assault convictions was released which pointed hands at immigration. And what was the government's response to solve the problem? They told they would not release ethnicity based crime reports after that. So what do you expect the people to do? They will obviously vote for right wing parties. People did not support right wing parties because they are racist or 'hostile'. They did it because the left wing parties let them down.
"Services we all benefit from" These services can keep running only if majority of people are employed and pay taxes. Majority of people can work only if they have job opportunities. They will get job opportunities only if there are businesses running. High taxation will send the businesses away and lead to a cascading effect and eventually the government will have even lower budget than it had with lower tax. It's like a chicken and egg problem. When was the last time a big industry tried to set up a new factory/office in Sweden?
And I didn't say I want to hold on to all my cash. I am saying I already pay enough tax. I am willing to pay for healthcare and education for the society. But free broadband? It is not a fundamental need. This is where socialism should stop. Anything more and you only give people reason to slack off.
The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from?
So the model is sustainable so why not give it a go. We had so many brexiteers talking about recreating a Norway+ or Canada style model but we can't entertain Sweden's because we might have to put our hand in our pocket?
Rotherham was horrific and my heart goes out to those girls as some scars don't heal. A crime is a crime and the police should have acted. The police force has an institutional problem with racism. Remember Stephen Lawerence? The police are there to uphold the law, the courts then carry out the order. Police and public relations need to improve, not shy away for fear of scrutiny.
Businesses must pay tax. I'd have no problem promoting lower taxes for businesses if they were genuinely paying their fair share. We both know that many don't. You don't have to admit this of course but to say otherwise would be laughable.
Look, not all people can work themselves out of poverty. If that were true, we'd all be rich. It's as much about opportunity as it is about endeavour. A team is only as strong as its weakest link so we'll have to agree to disagree here.
And as free broadband, how would most apply for jobs? Yes, you could do off your phone but how painstaking is that. You could go to the libraries and use their PCs...though many have been closed down (austerity). It not fundamental I agree but it's about resources and having access to them to better yourself.
Austerity was a choice, not a necessity. The reality is that this country hasn't achieved anything of note because the current government didn't invest in the opportunity.
"Brexiters wanted Norway/Canada model of trade deal. Not social welfare. Police should not shy away from the fear of scrutiny. Even politicians who spoke out about the gangs were suspended by the labour party. How do you expect police to take action on it without fear? Business evading taxes is not just a UK phenomenon. You think business owner in Sweden are saints? By increasing the tax on businesses, you only add more pressure on people who pay the right taxes while tax evaders still keep evading them. Not all people can work themselves out of poverty? Everyone can. But some just won't. Free education is an opportunity for you to work yourself out of poverty. If someone is motivated enough to work their way up their life, they can. I have seen both types of people. One group focusing on learning. They build up their career and then have their share of fun in their lives. The other group not giving a damn about any of it. They spend most of the time having fun. Then grow up and blame the government for having screwed up their lives. This has even happened to some spoilt rich students. I have seen them grow up and lose all the money their earlier generations have earned and are struggling to put food on the plate. So yes. It is upto the individual to do something with their lives. If they manage to screw, it is mostly upto them. By that broadband argument, everything is useful in some or other way. You have enough free internet available to get your work done. Closure of libraries was wrong. I don't think running a library would really take that much of budget. But I am a member of the British library myself. I have hardly seen that place being used to the full capacity. Even during weekends, there is enough space. And from what I hear from others, even libraries around their places are empty, most of the time. So the people who are affected by poverty are not really interested in using a library. But once you give them a broadband connection, they are going to get enlightened and use it for constructive purposes? | |||
| |||
"What type of change do you reckon they will do in order to move to the centre left will they keep or drop some of its policys or add to it?" Labours policies are already centre left. If they want to change the perception of this false notion of them being "far left". Then that's what they need to do. | |||
"What type of change do you reckon they will do in order to move to the centre left will they keep or drop some of its policys or add to it?" Probably avoid any policy that requires a major tax restructure. Also avoid rocking the economic boat too much. I guess ultimately working with what we have got me restructure how the moe y we have now is spent towards more left leaning policies. | |||
"What type of change do you reckon they will do in order to move to the centre left will they keep or drop some of its policys or add to it? Labours policies are already centre left. If they want to change the perception of this false notion of them being "far left". Then that's what they need to do. " The defenition of 'far left'in this country. Seems to be social justice. I think he will gradually move them into the centre but this may split the party.He has a big job on his hands. | |||
"What type of change do you reckon they will do in order to move to the centre left will they keep or drop some of its policys or add to it? Labours policies are already centre left. If they want to change the perception of this false notion of them being "far left". Then that's what they need to do. The defenition of 'far left'in this country. Seems to be social justice. I think he will gradually move them into the centre but this may split the party.He has a big job on his hands." Personally, I think the benefits of a centre labour government over a Tory government are so minimal that it's not worth the hassle. | |||
"What type of change do you reckon they will do in order to move to the centre left will they keep or drop some of its policys or add to it? Labours policies are already centre left. If they want to change the perception of this false notion of them being "far left". Then that's what they need to do. The defenition of 'far left'in this country. Seems to be social justice. I think he will gradually move them into the centre but this may split the party.He has a big job on his hands. Personally, I think the benefits of a centre labour government over a Tory government are so minimal that it's not worth the hassle. " I agree..personally I thought Corbyn would have mentored a young left leaning protege but sadly it didnt happen. I really liked the one up in Durham but she lost her seat. | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that.
But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal.
Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling.
So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you.
The right wing party in Sweden hasn't won yet. But going by popularity ratings, they came out of nowhere to be a popular party. The Nordic model is sustainable as long as you have a smaller population where most capable individuals are working.
Hostile environment is there, yes. Windrush scandal was bad. Then so was the grooming gang scandal and the increase in sexual assaults in Sweden. Not all immigrants are bad. The problem is with the way the respective countries handled when these kind of crimes happened. The police in the UK knew about grooming gangs and still did not act because they were afraid of being called racists. When the left wing parties create such a hostile environment where you can't even complain when immigrants commit such horrible crimes, people will automatically turn to the right wing. That's what happened in the UK. In Sweden, proportion of ethnicity in sexual assault convictions was released which pointed hands at immigration. And what was the government's response to solve the problem? They told they would not release ethnicity based crime reports after that. So what do you expect the people to do? They will obviously vote for right wing parties. People did not support right wing parties because they are racist or 'hostile'. They did it because the left wing parties let them down.
"Services we all benefit from" These services can keep running only if majority of people are employed and pay taxes. Majority of people can work only if they have job opportunities. They will get job opportunities only if there are businesses running. High taxation will send the businesses away and lead to a cascading effect and eventually the government will have even lower budget than it had with lower tax. It's like a chicken and egg problem. When was the last time a big industry tried to set up a new factory/office in Sweden?
And I didn't say I want to hold on to all my cash. I am saying I already pay enough tax. I am willing to pay for healthcare and education for the society. But free broadband? It is not a fundamental need. This is where socialism should stop. Anything more and you only give people reason to slack off.
The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from?
So the model is sustainable so why not give it a go. We had so many brexiteers talking about recreating a Norway+ or Canada style model but we can't entertain Sweden's because we might have to put our hand in our pocket?
Rotherham was horrific and my heart goes out to those girls as some scars don't heal. A crime is a crime and the police should have acted. The police force has an institutional problem with racism. Remember Stephen Lawerence? The police are there to uphold the law, the courts then carry out the order. Police and public relations need to improve, not shy away for fear of scrutiny.
Businesses must pay tax. I'd have no problem promoting lower taxes for businesses if they were genuinely paying their fair share. We both know that many don't. You don't have to admit this of course but to say otherwise would be laughable.
Look, not all people can work themselves out of poverty. If that were true, we'd all be rich. It's as much about opportunity as it is about endeavour. A team is only as strong as its weakest link so we'll have to agree to disagree here.
And as free broadband, how would most apply for jobs? Yes, you could do off your phone but how painstaking is that. You could go to the libraries and use their PCs...though many have been closed down (austerity). It not fundamental I agree but it's about resources and having access to them to better yourself.
Austerity was a choice, not a necessity. The reality is that this country hasn't achieved anything of note because the current government didn't invest in the opportunity.
Brexiters wanted Norway/Canada model of trade deal. Not social welfare.
Police should not shy away from the fear of scrutiny. Even politicians who spoke out about the gangs were suspended by the labour party. How do you expect police to take action on it without fear?
Business evading taxes is not just a UK phenomenon. You think business owner in Sweden are saints? By increasing the tax on businesses, you only add more pressure on people who pay the right taxes while tax evaders still keep evading them.
Not all people can work themselves out of poverty? Everyone can. But some just won't. Free education is an opportunity for you to work yourself out of poverty. If someone is motivated enough to work their way up their life, they can. I have seen both types of people. One group focusing on learning. They build up their career and then have their share of fun in their lives. The other group not giving a damn about any of it. They spend most of the time having fun. Then grow up and blame the government for having screwed up their lives. This has even happened to some spoilt rich students. I have seen them grow up and lose all the money their earlier generations have earned and are struggling to put food on the plate. So yes. It is upto the individual to do something with their lives. If they manage to screw, it is mostly upto them.
By that broadband argument, everything is useful in some or other way. You have enough free internet available to get your work done. Closure of libraries was wrong. I don't think running a library would really take that much of budget. But I am a member of the British library myself. I have hardly seen that place being used to the full capacity. Even during weekends, there is enough space. And from what I hear from others, even libraries around their places are empty, most of the time. So the people who are affected by poverty are not really interested in using a library. But once you give them a broadband connection, they are going to get enlightened and use it for constructive purposes?"And trade isn't business? Some employers were just as fearful of the implications of Brexit as they were of paying more taxes. If taxes are paid by businesses to government and then spent, it comes back to the country in some shape or form. How the the country then spend the money is up to them. Because that's the police's job. A dangerous one and the police have my respect but that is their job. Plus, gangs are a social issue that England's failing horribly on. Scotland addressed the issue and saw a decrease in stabbings and gang-related culture. Many papers ran editorials on this if you're interested. It's not a UK phenomenon, you're right. It shouldn't happen anywhere! You're right again: the pressure shouldn't be on honest taxpayers, the pressure should be on the evaders by clamping down on loopholes in the system and holding businesses to account.It's all well and good talking about making this country better when you're making a conscious effort not to pay into it. That's simply a moral issue. Education is free and as you pointed out there are many types of people and we're all different. We're not all going to be as quick as Usain Bolt, as clever as Bill Gates or as entrepreneurial as Richard Branson but we can try and emulate. The truth is some need more support than others. Every child deserves the best possible start and your parents' income shouldn't dictate that even though it does. University fees shouldn't be as high as they are. Doing this, you deter some of the best minds simply because they can't afford it. Many have to work through schooling which hinders studying. Are they not working hard enough? But you need somewhere to go and Libraries are not just for reading, they can double up as resource centres for people to up-skill. My argument is if you make it available then people will use it. The libraries are also so a communal space that can help communities thrive by keeping people up to date. With everything going online, it would help to have somewhere to go, talk to someone face to face and then go away empowered. It's not about giving up on people, you help them be as good as they can be. | |||
"Some communist states don't fail. And those that do have multiple reasonings. Not just the greedy people thing. No one, in my lifetime, has run on a communist platform here. But I personally think that most people do see value in society, healthcare for everyone, support for the elderly, disabled, orphaned children etc. Which communist state didn't fail? I agree with free healthcare, education and care for elderlies. That's as far as it gets. These things work because they give the basic necessities that a motivated person will need to work hard and lead a decent life. Anything over that, like free broadband, free electricity etc is asking for trouble. It may work if it is done within their budget. If the idea is to increase the tax so that everyone can get internet, the tax payers will just fuck off somewhere else. It's not communism, It's democratic socialism and you can find many examples of it...like Sweden. Taxes are a little higher but the money is pumped straight back into the country for the nation's use. It is selfishness, plain and simple. We've always been a country of keeping up with the Jones' but it's been to the detriment of many(if you're saying I'm fine right now: I'm happy for you and thanks for proving my point ) and don't get me started on tax avoidance and evasion. The biggest gripe I have is complaining about paying tax that you plan to avoid paying anyway! The ultimate in selfishness!
Expected that someone will throw the Scandinavian model in the argument. Sweden didn't participate in any of the world wars. A small population, combined with economic advantage due to abstinence from war left them with lot of money. They built a great social welfare infrastructure with the help of that. People there paid less taxes compared to rest of Europe at that point of time. Then slowly it became unsustainable and they had to increase taxes to keep it all running and now they pay more taxes than anyone. Companies like IKEA moved out because of taxation. And UK has 6.5 times higher population.
As a comparison, UK's per capita GDP is 39,720 USD. The same for Sweden is 53,440
And even there, the right wing party Swedish Democrats who were virtually nothing in their political landscape earlier are on track to win next elections. They launched themselves into the landscape with the refugee crisis. People are apparently not happy about others coming in and taking money out of the pot which they filled.
I come from an Indian state where they give free food, annual cash during a _estival, televisions and laptops. Result? Some people just stopped going to work. Most companies had to get workers from other states. Alcoholism increased. The state is debt ridden because new companies don't come to our state anymore and existing companies stopped expanding.
I was not born in a rich family. I had to work hard to reach where I am. Going by the proverb on fish. I am willing to pay taxes as long as it is used to teach someone how to fish. But I am not going to pay taxes for someone to sit at home and eat the fish unless the person is too old or too young or physically incapable. If reaping rewards for my own hard work is called selfishness, I am glad to be called that.
But have the right touched that system in Sweden? No because it works. As far as the refugees notion, that's par for most right leaning voters whether they care to admit it or not. It's how we ended up with the "hostile environment" and the Windrush Scandal.
Also, we're not paying taxes predominantly for people sitting on their arse, they go (or they should) into our services that we all benefit from. Also, it's funny you should mention the young, the old and the physically incapable as Tory-led austerity has hit all three of those groups the hardest, Social Care (considered unskilled work by Priti Patel) has been cut back which has left the elderly and disabled struggling.
So you care for those people clearly but want to hold on to all your hard earn cash? Feel for you.
The right wing party in Sweden hasn't won yet. But going by popularity ratings, they came out of nowhere to be a popular party. The Nordic model is sustainable as long as you have a smaller population where most capable individuals are working.
Hostile environment is there, yes. Windrush scandal was bad. Then so was the grooming gang scandal and the increase in sexual assaults in Sweden. Not all immigrants are bad. The problem is with the way the respective countries handled when these kind of crimes happened. The police in the UK knew about grooming gangs and still did not act because they were afraid of being called racists. When the left wing parties create such a hostile environment where you can't even complain when immigrants commit such horrible crimes, people will automatically turn to the right wing. That's what happened in the UK. In Sweden, proportion of ethnicity in sexual assault convictions was released which pointed hands at immigration. And what was the government's response to solve the problem? They told they would not release ethnicity based crime reports after that. So what do you expect the people to do? They will obviously vote for right wing parties. People did not support right wing parties because they are racist or 'hostile'. They did it because the left wing parties let them down.
"Services we all benefit from" These services can keep running only if majority of people are employed and pay taxes. Majority of people can work only if they have job opportunities. They will get job opportunities only if there are businesses running. High taxation will send the businesses away and lead to a cascading effect and eventually the government will have even lower budget than it had with lower tax. It's like a chicken and egg problem. When was the last time a big industry tried to set up a new factory/office in Sweden?
And I didn't say I want to hold on to all my cash. I am saying I already pay enough tax. I am willing to pay for healthcare and education for the society. But free broadband? It is not a fundamental need. This is where socialism should stop. Anything more and you only give people reason to slack off.
The UK was one of the worst hit during recession. What more did you expect other than austerity? Where did you expect the money to come from?
So the model is sustainable so why not give it a go. We had so many brexiteers talking about recreating a Norway+ or Canada style model but we can't entertain Sweden's because we might have to put our hand in our pocket?
Rotherham was horrific and my heart goes out to those girls as some scars don't heal. A crime is a crime and the police should have acted. The police force has an institutional problem with racism. Remember Stephen Lawerence? The police are there to uphold the law, the courts then carry out the order. Police and public relations need to improve, not shy away for fear of scrutiny.
Businesses must pay tax. I'd have no problem promoting lower taxes for businesses if they were genuinely paying their fair share. We both know that many don't. You don't have to admit this of course but to say otherwise would be laughable.
Look, not all people can work themselves out of poverty. If that were true, we'd all be rich. It's as much about opportunity as it is about endeavour. A team is only as strong as its weakest link so we'll have to agree to disagree here.
And as free broadband, how would most apply for jobs? Yes, you could do off your phone but how painstaking is that. You could go to the libraries and use their PCs...though many have been closed down (austerity). It not fundamental I agree but it's about resources and having access to them to better yourself.
Austerity was a choice, not a necessity. The reality is that this country hasn't achieved anything of note because the current government didn't invest in the opportunity.
Brexiters wanted Norway/Canada model of trade deal. Not social welfare.
Police should not shy away from the fear of scrutiny. Even politicians who spoke out about the gangs were suspended by the labour party. How do you expect police to take action on it without fear?
Business evading taxes is not just a UK phenomenon. You think business owner in Sweden are saints? By increasing the tax on businesses, you only add more pressure on people who pay the right taxes while tax evaders still keep evading them.
Not all people can work themselves out of poverty? Everyone can. But some just won't. Free education is an opportunity for you to work yourself out of poverty. If someone is motivated enough to work their way up their life, they can. I have seen both types of people. One group focusing on learning. They build up their career and then have their share of fun in their lives. The other group not giving a damn about any of it. They spend most of the time having fun. Then grow up and blame the government for having screwed up their lives. This has even happened to some spoilt rich students. I have seen them grow up and lose all the money their earlier generations have earned and are struggling to put food on the plate. So yes. It is upto the individual to do something with their lives. If they manage to screw, it is mostly upto them.
By that broadband argument, everything is useful in some or other way. You have enough free internet available to get your work done. Closure of libraries was wrong. I don't think running a library would really take that much of budget. But I am a member of the British library myself. I have hardly seen that place being used to the full capacity. Even during weekends, there is enough space. And from what I hear from others, even libraries around their places are empty, most of the time. So the people who are affected by poverty are not really interested in using a library. But once you give them a broadband connection, they are going to get enlightened and use it for constructive purposes?"Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. | |||
" And trade isn't business? Some employers were just as fearful of the implications of Brexit as they were of paying more taxes. If taxes are paid by businesses to government and then spent, it comes back to the country in some shape or form. How the the country then spend the money is up to them. Because that's the police's job. A dangerous one and the police have my respect but that is their job. Plus, gangs are a social issue that England's failing horribly on. Scotland addressed the issue and saw a decrease in stabbings and gang-related culture. Many papers ran editorials on this if you're interested. It's not a UK phenomenon, you're right. It shouldn't happen anywhere! You're right again: the pressure shouldn't be on honest taxpayers, the pressure should be on the evaders by clamping down on loopholes in the system and holding businesses to account.It's all well and good talking about making this country better when you're making a conscious effort not to pay into it. That's simply a moral issue. Education is free and as you pointed out there are many types of people and we're all different. We're not all going to be as quick as Usain Bolt, as clever as Bill Gates or as entrepreneurial as Richard Branson but we can try and emulate. The truth is some need more support than others. Every child deserves the best possible start and your parents' income shouldn't dictate that even though it does. University fees shouldn't be as high as they are. Doing this, you deter some of the best minds simply because they can't afford it. Many have to work through schooling which hinders studying. Are they not working hard enough? But you need somewhere to go and Libraries are not just for reading, they can double up as resource centres for people to up-skill. My argument is if you make it available then people will use it. The libraries are also so a communal space that can help communities thrive by keeping people up to date. With everything going online, it would help to have somewhere to go, talk to someone face to face and then go away empowered. It's not about giving up on people, you help them be as good as they can be. " Brexit does affect the companies and could possibly cause some of them to leave. Agreed. So does higher taxation. How can the police perform their job without fear when even politicians get kicked out if the party for speaking about the gangs? University fees shouldn't be high. I agree on that. Some do work through schooling and it does hinder them. But those cases are far and between. Genetic advantage is overrated(Read Sapiens by Yuval Noah). You don't have to be Usain Bolt or Bill Gates to get a decent life together. From my childhood, if I look at the ones who made it to a good job and the ones who are still struggling with their lives, it is not the kids who had to do other work to survive, who are struggling in their lives. In fact, most kids who did work in the side while going to school are now in a good position. They are mostly sincere and hard working people. They understood the value of hard work. The ones who messed up in their lives are mostly the ones who formed gangs at a young age, didn't give a damn about exams and thought it was great fun to skip classes. I am yet to see a single person who was serious about studies but still failed in their lives. It's the unruly ones in schools who have a messed up lives now. Obviously, they can't accept that they screwed up their lives. Most of them are out there blaming the rich, the government and the society for how their lives got messed up. My point is that social welfare is good. You give good education and good healthcare. I am also in favour of reducing University fees for the poor. But that is where it stops. The rich kids obviously have a headstart over others. With a good free education system, you give everyone a chance to do well in life. In the end, it's the attitude that matters. It is not about capability. Libraries are great places. But even the remaining libraries in the UK seem to be deserted most of the time. Why is that? Kids who are coming there are mostly there because the school gave an assignment that specifically asked them to do something in the library. | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le." I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband. | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband." What about just closing tax loopholes and making people pay the tax they're supposed to. That will also cause people to leave. Personally I don't care, if they're not contributing anyway. Good riddance. Free boardband. I'm not saying I support it. But it costs way less than say Trident. And you could argue much more useful. (I picked trident as an example, there's lots more wasted cash, at least broadband would help people). | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband." The uk is much better but the dice is still loaded. As for libraries the option to use them has (almost) gone completely. I've been in libraries and seen them quite busy. It was unnecessary but fully in line with their ideology. I thought the broadband idea was visionary and with an electorate with half a brain would have been a vote winner. | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband. What about just closing tax loopholes and making people pay the tax they're supposed to. That will also cause people to leave. Personally I don't care, if they're not contributing anyway. Good riddance. Free boardband. I'm not saying I support it. But it costs way less than say Trident. And you could argue much more useful. (I picked trident as an example, there's lots more wasted cash, at least broadband would help people)." But..but they employ people and wouldnt do business here anymore. Yeah I can judt see Amazon and Starbucks fucking off. | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband. What about just closing tax loopholes and making people pay the tax they're supposed to. That will also cause people to leave. Personally I don't care, if they're not contributing anyway. Good riddance. Free boardband. I'm not saying I support it. But it costs way less than say Trident. And you could argue much more useful. (I picked trident as an example, there's lots more wasted cash, at least broadband would help people). But..but they employ people and wouldnt do business here anymore. Yeah I can judt see Amazon and Starbucks fucking off." Aight. The right wing don't seem the mind the business exodus caused by brexit. But suddenly don't want businesses to leave if we expect them to pay tax. | |||
" Everyone can work themselves out of poverty but some people get much more of a head start than. Here and in America the game is fairly much loaded since the day you are born. You think closing libraries was fine because they were not always full? You make a really big sweeping generalisation there about poor peop le. I think the UK is much better than the US in that aspect. At least you get free healthcare here and public schools are relatively much better here. I am against closing of libraries. I am a member of a library myself. OP claimed that it is a place where poor students can have access to internet. But from my visits to libraries, that is hardly the case. Being not full is one thing. Being totally deserted is another. Except the famous ones like British library, most others have been close to empty when I visited. Even the people who visit are mostly grown adults. I hardly see school children there. My argument was about taxing the people even more. I feel that the tax slabs in the UK are sufficient enough. For anyone with the right attitude, free education along with food in schools is good enough to get them going in their life. Taxing the working people more so that you can give more free stuff like broadband to everyone does not work. Even the Nordic countries do not give free broadband. What about just closing tax loopholes and making people pay the tax they're supposed to. That will also cause people to leave. Personally I don't care, if they're not contributing anyway. Good riddance. Free boardband. I'm not saying I support it. But it costs way less than say Trident. And you could argue much more useful. (I picked trident as an example, there's lots more wasted cash, at least broadband would help people). But..but they employ people and wouldnt do business here anymore. Yeah I can judt see Amazon and Starbucks fucking off. Aight. The right wing don't seem the mind the business exodus caused by brexit. But suddenly don't want businesses to leave if we expect them to pay tax. " 1.7 billion avoided in tax last year. | |||
" Brexit does affect the companies and could possibly cause some of them to leave. Agreed. So does higher taxation. How can the police perform their job without fear when even politicians get kicked out if the party for speaking about the gangs? University fees shouldn't be high. I agree on that. Some do work through schooling and it does hinder them. But those cases are far and between. Genetic advantage is overrated(Read Sapiens by Yuval Noah). You don't have to be Usain Bolt or Bill Gates to get a decent life together. From my childhood, if I look at the ones who made it to a good job and the ones who are still struggling with their lives, it is not the kids who had to do other work to survive, who are struggling in their lives. In fact, most kids who did work in the side while going to school are now in a good position. They are mostly sincere and hard working people. They understood the value of hard work. The ones who messed up in their lives are mostly the ones who formed gangs at a young age, didn't give a damn about exams and thought it was great fun to skip classes. I am yet to see a single person who was serious about studies but still failed in their lives. It's the unruly ones in schools who have a messed up lives now. Obviously, they can't accept that they screwed up their lives. Most of them are out there blaming the rich, the government and the society for how their lives got messed up. My point is that social welfare is good. You give good education and good healthcare. I am also in favour of reducing University fees for the poor. But that is where it stops. The rich kids obviously have a headstart over others. With a good free education system, you give everyone a chance to do well in life. In the end, it's the attitude that matters. It is not about capability. Libraries are great places. But even the remaining libraries in the UK seem to be deserted most of the time. Why is that? Kids who are coming there are mostly there because the school gave an assignment that specifically asked them to do something in the library." I think we've reached some common ground on that top issue but differ in strategy. With the policing issue, as I've said before, It's part of the job. As much as I have respect for the police, they've failed the public a number of times through misuse of power or negligence. for example Hillsborough and Stephen Lawerence's murder. Plus, distrust comes from institutional racism within the ranks. It's a difficult position but I have friends who are officers and they know what they signed up for and they don't ask for sympathy but work on their relationship with the communities they protect. They signed up to make a difference to all of society, not just a choice few and they act according to law. Also, politicians get pulled up when they talk about gangs because they're complaining about gangs but ignoring the social issues that help breed these gangs in the 1st place. You can't close down youth provisions in communities like youth clubs (austerity) and have parents working longer hours via two jobs and then wonder how you end up with gangs. As I touched on earlier, Scotland tackled this issue head on and saw a positive impact. so the big question is why haven't our government followed suit? I use the Bolt, Gates, Branson example to highlight that we are different(Though I'll look up that book. Thanks.) and our attitudes are also different. For every person that bunks, you have a person that is the 1st to arrive at class and last to leave. Demonising people for other people's actions doesn't solve that. It's part of the reason why schools are a mess now. Our social welfare can be miles better! As mentioned, you can't cut back on public resources and provisions and then wonder how parents are stressed and kids are acting up. It's all cause and effect. Libraries are empty because we need to re-invent them, not close them. Before many of them closed, they were running mother-toddler sessions and other small clubs which cost little or nothing to attend. The government saw that as a waste instead of thinking of ways to utilise them. Regressive thinking. | |||
| |||
" Brexit does affect the companies and could possibly cause some of them to leave. Agreed. So does higher taxation. How can the police perform their job without fear when even politicians get kicked out if the party for speaking about the gangs? University fees shouldn't be high. I agree on that. Some do work through schooling and it does hinder them. But those cases are far and between. Genetic advantage is overrated(Read Sapiens by Yuval Noah). You don't have to be Usain Bolt or Bill Gates to get a decent life together. From my childhood, if I look at the ones who made it to a good job and the ones who are still struggling with their lives, it is not the kids who had to do other work to survive, who are struggling in their lives. In fact, most kids who did work in the side while going to school are now in a good position. They are mostly sincere and hard working people. They understood the value of hard work. The ones who messed up in their lives are mostly the ones who formed gangs at a young age, didn't give a damn about exams and thought it was great fun to skip classes. I am yet to see a single person who was serious about studies but still failed in their lives. It's the unruly ones in schools who have a messed up lives now. Obviously, they can't accept that they screwed up their lives. Most of them are out there blaming the rich, the government and the society for how their lives got messed up. My point is that social welfare is good. You give good education and good healthcare. I am also in favour of reducing University fees for the poor. But that is where it stops. The rich kids obviously have a headstart over others. With a good free education system, you give everyone a chance to do well in life. In the end, it's the attitude that matters. It is not about capability. Libraries are great places. But even the remaining libraries in the UK seem to be deserted most of the time. Why is that? Kids who are coming there are mostly there because the school gave an assignment that specifically asked them to do something in the library. I think we've reached some common ground on that top issue but differ in strategy. With the policing issue, as I've said before, It's part of the job. As much as I have respect for the police, they've failed the public a number of times through misuse of power or negligence. for example Hillsborough and Stephen Lawerence's murder. Plus, distrust comes from institutional racism within the ranks. It's a difficult position but I have friends who are officers and they know what they signed up for and they don't ask for sympathy but work on their relationship with the communities they protect. They signed up to make a difference to all of society, not just a choice few and they act according to law. Also, politicians get pulled up when they talk about gangs because they're complaining about gangs but ignoring the social issues that help breed these gangs in the 1st place. You can't close down youth provisions in communities like youth clubs (austerity) and have parents working longer hours via two jobs and then wonder how you end up with gangs. As I touched on earlier, Scotland tackled this issue head on and saw a positive impact. so the big question is why haven't our government followed suit? I use the Bolt, Gates, Branson example to highlight that we are different(Though I'll look up that book. Thanks.) and our attitudes are also different. For every person that bunks, you have a person that is the 1st to arrive at class and last to leave. Demonising people for other people's actions doesn't solve that. It's part of the reason why schools are a mess now. Our social welfare can be miles better! As mentioned, you can't cut back on public resources and provisions and then wonder how parents are stressed and kids are acting up. It's all cause and effect. Libraries are empty because we need to re-invent them, not close them. Before many of them closed, they were running mother-toddler sessions and other small clubs which cost little or nothing to attend. The government saw that as a waste instead of thinking of ways to utilise them. Regressive thinking." True. We both want same things. But our strategies are different. And I don't think there is a single strategy that will solve all the problems. Nice debating with you though | |||
"The problem with the concept of the 'centre' is that it's not a fixed position, it's relative to the others. It would remain approximately at the same place if the other parties didn't shift theirs - and the right have shifted much more to the right over recent years. In other words, assuming that the left had stayed at their same spot, the centre then becomes a place that would formerly have been in the right-wing area. If you don't have an absolute place that is always the centre, you thus get a spot where you could continue to move towards that is ever further away from where you would be naturally comfortable at. You'd be a reactive party but your reactive stance would just keep you as a victim of whatever the opposite party wanted - they would remain as the controllers of whatever your position got to be. They'd take 2 steps right, you'd take 1 or 2 steps right too, to regain the centre spot. It's a vicious circle, leaving the left as a puppet being constantly pulled to the spot that the right gets them in to. Corbyns party wasn't particularly left-wing, compared to the left-wingers of some years ago. It could just be perceived as left when looking at that very moment in time only, when the right-wingers had jumped much to the right. Both sides do take some positions that aren't traditionally in their domains - Cameron implementing marriage equality, for example. I'm uncertain where the centre is just now, though it's probably a fairly horrible spot. I think the parties need to clarify their identities, based on their values, which would have priorities. There are outside bodies and influences that can cause these to be adjusted - some of these bodies hold a lot of power and demand satisfaction, in order for their support to continue. A good leader won't be dictatorial as standard but would be collaborative, whilst influential. The people need to understand how the party's values impact on their future lives, rather than merely being given vague concepts. Starmer appears to be intelligent and to have sufficient rigour in his thinking that he can see what should practically be done in order to shift reality, based on principles. We need a strong opposition party at all times, for the benefit of the people. I hope that he manages to help achieve this. " I agree. Centre-based politics right now are minefield. It's should be about practicality, not ideology. | |||
" True. We both want same things. But our strategies are different. And I don't think there is a single strategy that will solve all the problems. Nice debating with you though "Likewise. I think it's possible to discuss these things without getting nasty while learning something at the same time. | |||
| |||
"I do think labour will be pulled towards the centre but he seems to be playing his cards very close to his chest." I have that feeling but we'll wait and see. | |||
"I do think labour will be pulled towards the centre but he seems to be playing his cards very close to his chest." It's an interesting time. He's fairly pragmatic and I'm wondering if he's just biding his time, whilst he invests time into ensuring that his MPs are better consulted and briefed, before the rest of the world gets to be. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question."I don't think the problem is that the people don't want a fairer society. I think the problem is that most people want a society where they feel that they and their family will be better of. If the society is also fairer as well then so much the better. Labour's problem is two fold in that they have failed to convince the majority of people that they and their family would actually be better off under a Labour government and failed to convince the people that society would actually be any fairer under a Labour government. The message most people got from Labour wasn't that it was in favour of a fairer society but more that it was in favour of switching the balance of power away from the middle classes and more towards the working classes. That message was bound to fail in a society that considers itself predominantly middle class. Even those people that, on moral grounds, would be willing to see themselves slightly worse off if it lead to a fairer society don't believe that just switching the balance of power away from the middle classes to the working classes would actually lead to a fairer society, just a different society possibly just as unfair but with them (the middle classes) be the losers. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question.
I don't think the problem is that the people don't want a fairer society. I think the problem is that most people want a society where they feel that they and their family will be better of. If the society is also fairer as well then so much the better. Labour's problem is two fold in that they have failed to convince the majority of people that they and their family would actually be better off under a Labour government and failed to convince the people that society would actually be any fairer under a Labour government. The message most people got from Labour wasn't that it was in favour of a fairer society but more that it was in favour of switching the balance of power away from the middle classes and more towards the working classes. That message was bound to fail in a society that considers itself predominantly middle class. Even those people that, on moral grounds, would be willing to see themselves slightly worse off if it lead to a fairer society don't believe that just switching the balance of power away from the middle classes to the working classes would actually lead to a fairer society, just a different society possibly just as unfair but with them (the middle classes) be the losers.
"I thought that was a very interesting post. There is still an element of the electorate being easily persuaded though. Just look at Brexit, ordinary people will be worse off, there are no tangible benefits, yet with the correct funding, it was easy to get people to vote against their own interests. I'm not suggesting that Labour should go down the propaganda route. But I get your point that a lot of people voting for the perception that they will be better off, rather than in favour of a fairer society. | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it?" The average pay for a registered nurse in the UK is £25,000 pa The lowest pay scale starts at just over £21,000 pa. The highest pay scale is just under £40,000 pa. I'm making no judgement on this just simply providing the information so people can judge for themselves if nurses are under payed, over payed or payed about right. | |||
| |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? The average pay for a registered nurse in the UK is £25,000 pa The lowest pay scale starts at just over £21,000 pa. The highest pay scale is just under £40,000 pa. I'm making no judgement on this just simply providing the information so people can judge for themselves if nurses are under payed, over payed or payed about right. " What that doesnt give us, is how many are in each bracket. Progress through the grades appears to be a slow journey. Which leaves most nurses below the national average of 30k | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? The average pay for a registered nurse in the UK is £25,000 pa The lowest pay scale starts at just over £21,000 pa. The highest pay scale is just under £40,000 pa. I'm making no judgement on this just simply providing the information so people can judge for themselves if nurses are under payed, over payed or payed about right. What that doesnt give us, is how many are in each bracket. Progress through the grades appears to be a slow journey. Which leaves most nurses below the national average of 30k" There was a 6 year pay freeze so The pay has stagnated. Even after it was lifted we got 1% Not sure what the nurses got. | |||
"I have to disagree his policies would have abused people like myself who work hard to build a company. For perspective I had a meeting with my accountants the day after the last GE he showed me plan he was going to give everyone of his clients if Corbyn had won. It advised moving all assets and wealth out of the country. He works for major firm a lot of money would have been jumping ship very quickly. As recent events have shown, we all work hard. I don't know your income but it probably safe to say you wouldn't be homeless after those plans. But it might have meant a pay rise for our nurses. Wouldn't that be worth it? The average pay for a registered nurse in the UK is £25,000 pa The lowest pay scale starts at just over £21,000 pa. The highest pay scale is just under £40,000 pa. I'm making no judgement on this just simply providing the information so people can judge for themselves if nurses are under payed, over payed or payed about right. What that doesnt give us, is how many are in each bracket. Progress through the grades appears to be a slow journey. Which leaves most nurses below the national average of 30k" National average is 25k isn't it? | |||
| |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Like someone said. It's up to them.
If they're more to the centre, the mainstream press might allow them to be more electable. But then so what? They won't facilitate any real change in government. Just look at New Labour under Blair. They were so shit that they were basically Tories.
how many GE did new labour under Blair win ? would you just want labour to be an opposition party forever then ?
I don't know how many they won with Blair without looking it up. 2?
I don't really care which party it is in power as long as they act in the interest of the people.
Looking at the voting record, very few Tories do. And Blair's government certainly didn't.
In my opinion the system is fixed to keep those at the top, at the top. So any real positive change is nigh on impossible.
It was three...and the only person in the party to do so consecutively.
Problem is we obsess about winning. Blair is a winner but he ultimately gave rise to Cameron. There's very little to separate the two.
Yeah for sure. Okay three. Thanks.
But yeah what's the point. If they just keep the status quo and as basically as bad as the Tories, then I don't see any point.
Surely by admitting that to get elected you need to go to the centre ground. It is admittting that the majority of the country don’t actually want a massive change to the left.
They just want what we have now just better run.
Yes. Exactly. And why don't they want a fairer society. Why are the electorate so apathetic to everything going on in the UK and in the world.
That's the real question.
I don't think the problem is that the people don't want a fairer society. I think the problem is that most people want a society where they feel that they and their family will be better of. If the society is also fairer as well then so much the better. Labour's problem is two fold in that they have failed to convince the majority of people that they and their family would actually be better off under a Labour government and failed to convince the people that society would actually be any fairer under a Labour government. The message most people got from Labour wasn't that it was in favour of a fairer society but more that it was in favour of switching the balance of power away from the middle classes and more towards the working classes. That message was bound to fail in a society that considers itself predominantly middle class. Even those people that, on moral grounds, would be willing to see themselves slightly worse off if it lead to a fairer society don't believe that just switching the balance of power away from the middle classes to the working classes would actually lead to a fairer society, just a different society possibly just as unfair but with them (the middle classes) be the losers.
I thought that was a very interesting post. There is still an element of the electorate being easily persuaded though. Just look at Brexit, ordinary people will be worse off, there are no tangible benefits, yet with the correct funding, it was easy to get people to vote against their own interests.
I'm not suggesting that Labour should go down the propaganda route.
But I get your point that a lot of people voting for the perception that they will be better off, rather than in favour of a fairer society. "The point is that most people would vote for a party that they believed would make them and their families better of, and also create a fairer society. Quite a lot of people would vote a party that might make them personally slightly less well of (although not too much) if it meant a better and fairer society. I don't think there's many who would vote for a party even if they believed it might make them personally slightly better off if it meant we were going to be living a worse and more unfair society. However I'm absolutely sure that there's very few people who would vote for a party that they believed was not only going to make them and there families worse of but also result in a society that would be no better and no fairer and quite possibly less so of both. So the question to ask is, if most people wouldn't vote for a party that was likely to both make them poorer and create a less fair society why did so many people vote Tory last time? The answer to that question is in the question itself. And on this occasion with quite a lot of people, especially those worried about BREXIT, it wasn't that they believed the Tories were going to make them personally better off nor that the Tories were going to create a better and fairer society but that they feared that a Corbyn Labour government would leave them even more worse off and wouldn't achieve a fairer or better society either. | |||
| |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off." Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. " Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board." Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle." I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills." It's no comfort that those who voted for brexit in the north or other areas that were left behind. Will be amongst the worse effected. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. It's no comfort that those who voted for brexit in the north or other areas that were left behind. Will be amongst the worse effected. " I've got very little sympathy if I'm honest | |||
| |||
"I don't think 'centre left' means that there will be no meaningful change and that the status quo would merely be maintained. I believe that a centrist party that can balance ethics and pragmatism would be the most consistent progressive option for society. Indeed, historically, core left or core right parties, despite achieving great success in one specific area or another, are by their polar nature unable to sustain positive impacts in the long term." I'm not sure. Last time we had a centre left government they were basically Tories in disguise. I'm not saying things won't be better. Of course they would be, I'm just skeptical that the change would be minimal, and token. The governments priorities should be 1. Dealing with COVID-19 2. Minimising the damage caused by brexit 3. Fighting climate change. Tories only half care about one of these issues. A centrist government might claim to care about them all. But I can't see them taking enough action to make meaningful change. | |||
"I don't think 'centre left' means that there will be no meaningful change and that the status quo would merely be maintained. I believe that a centrist party that can balance ethics and pragmatism would be the most consistent progressive option for society. Indeed, historically, core left or core right parties, despite achieving great success in one specific area or another, are by their polar nature unable to sustain positive impacts in the long term." But the liberals and that new party. What were they called change uk?hardly troubled the polls I think as a country..especially post Brexit. The country has lurched to the right. And I'd say the only core left gmnt we have had was the post ww2 one..and They built the NHS. | |||
"I don't think 'centre left' means that there will be no meaningful change and that the status quo would merely be maintained. I believe that a centrist party that can balance ethics and pragmatism would be the most consistent progressive option for society. Indeed, historically, core left or core right parties, despite achieving great success in one specific area or another, are by their polar nature unable to sustain positive impacts in the long term. I'm not sure. Last time we had a centre left government they were basically Tories in disguise. I'm not saying things won't be better. Of course they would be, I'm just skeptical that the change would be minimal, and token. The governments priorities should be 1. Dealing with COVID-19 2. Minimising the damage caused by brexit 3. Fighting climate change. Tories only half care about one of these issues. A centrist government might claim to care about them all. But I can't see them taking enough action to make meaningful change. " I wouldnt say blairs gmnt was anywhere near the left but as a result I think they pushed the Tories further right. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. It's no comfort that those who voted for brexit in the north or other areas that were left behind. Will be amongst the worse effected. " One of Labour's problems was that many traditional Labour voters are a lot more nationalist than most Labour Party members would like to believe. If Labour want to chase that vote that's their choice but I think the Conservatives are probably better placed to pick that vote up. The other voters Labour lost were the social democrats and liberals. That's the vote that in December was more worried of Corbyn's Labour than they were of Johnson's BREXIT and IMHO is the vote Labour can, should and, if it does, could possibly win next time with. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. It's no comfort that those who voted for brexit in the north or other areas that were left behind. Will be amongst the worse effected. One of Labour's problems was that many traditional Labour voters are a lot more nationalist than most Labour Party members would like to believe. If Labour want to chase that vote that's their choice but I think the Conservatives are probably better placed to pick that vote up. The other voters Labour lost were the social democrats and liberals. That's the vote that in December was more worried of Corbyn's Labour than they were of Johnson's BREXIT and IMHO is the vote Labour can, should and, if it does, could possibly win next time with." Interesting point about nationalism. I'd never thought about that angle before. | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. It's no comfort that those who voted for brexit in the north or other areas that were left behind. Will be amongst the worse effected. One of Labour's problems was that many traditional Labour voters are a lot more nationalist than most Labour Party members would like to believe. If Labour want to chase that vote that's their choice but I think the Conservatives are probably better placed to pick that vote up. The other voters Labour lost were the social democrats and liberals. That's the vote that in December was more worried of Corbyn's Labour than they were of Johnson's BREXIT and IMHO is the vote Labour can, should and, if it does, could possibly win next time with." Yep very true about the nationalism..and brexit played on that. | |||
| |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills." In every poll since the 70's immigration has been the top two issue. So the solution was to open the borders with blair being the first to mass migration , up to 500 k a year. These polls have been diluted for 45 years or until "they are no longer the number 1 issue" They never listened to the people and never will. Globalism is here and here to stay. Only nationalism is the barrier between that and total government control. Reap what you sow leftists | |||
"Do people look at it that way?I always thought people tended to vote for a party that would benefit themselves and their family rather than society as a whole. But then people voted for Brexit probally aware it would actually make them financially worse off. Whilst I don't really understand why there are a lot of people who really believe that, in the long run, BREXIT will make the whole country better off. With regards to why people vote the way they do I think that most people vote on compromise of what they believe is best for themselves personally and the country as a whole. It's a fundamentally flawed argument to say that people shouldn't vote for what they believe would make themselves and their families better off and only vote for what will make other people better off. If most people vote for what they believe will make themselves better off then we should end up with a government that most people believe is actually going to make most people better off. If they did otherwise then we'd end up with a government that most people believed was going to make most people worse off. The lesson Labour needs to learn and learn pretty quickly is that more people believed, even with BREXIT, that they personally and the country would be better off with the Conservatives than they would be with Labour, even with free high speed broadband. Re brexit I think it will make us substantially words off but only time will tell Yeah I get that argument about voting. Labour have a very,very hard task.they tried to move the party to the centre left,were it should be and where pilloried on all sides,including it's own party. However under Corbyn it did buy into a mostly young,passionate base who had had enough of labour pandering to middle England and wanted a return to socialist values.There was a map showing what the country would have looked like if the vote had been just the under 25's and it was almost totally blue. I said before the problem for him now is to keep that core on board. Let's just knock the brexit nonsence on the head. It's already cost the UK economy billions. It's cost more than the total payments made too the EU since the start. There is no "no one knows" argument. We do know. Sure, the future is uncertain, things will look different in 50 years time. Those projecting that by then, we could be back to where we are no, have no idea. It's too far ahead. But what we do know, is that we're starting 2 miles back from where we would have been in the proverbial race. I assume that maybe labour lost their cross section of support that were leave voters? Maybe there are some on here who can confirm? As brexit slowly slides this country into obscurity and poverty for those most vulnerable in society. Maybe there will be a renewed interest in a centre party. But then I maintain, what's the point. Any improvements will be so marginal that it's not worth the struggle. I agree about Brexit but it's done now. They lost a massive amount of support in the north..in areas which had been economically left behind.Even areas which had been decimated by thatcherism voted solidly for johnson.Look at the interviews around the time and almost everyone blamed immigrants and fell for the lie that Brexit is some sort of magic cure for all our ills. In every poll since the 70's immigration has been the top two issue. So the solution was to open the borders with blair being the first to mass migration , up to 500 k a year. These polls have been diluted for 45 years or until "they are no longer the number 1 issue" They never listened to the people and never will. Globalism is here and here to stay. Only nationalism is the barrier between that and total government control. Reap what you sow leftists " Do you genuinely believe this or are you just saying the most whacky stuff you can think of? | |||
"Momentum, their far left social justice warriors, guardian and the media won't let them move centre. They will push more and more left until socialism and then communism is acceptable. Watch this space. " What media exactly? What is unacceptable about socialism? | |||
"Momentum, their far left social justice warriors, guardian and the media won't let them move centre. They will push more and more left until socialism and then communism is acceptable. Watch this space. " the Guardian is left of centre, hardly far left at all. I don't think you really understand what actual communism would look like if you think the Guardian is pushing it. Also 'the media'? the media is majority right wing in this country. Right wingers sure do love to portray themselves as victims. | |||
"Momentum, their far left social justice warriors, guardian and the media won't let them move centre. They will push more and more left until socialism and then communism is acceptable. Watch this space. the Guardian is left of centre, hardly far left at all. I don't think you really understand what actual communism would look like if you think the Guardian is pushing it. Also 'the media'? the media is majority right wing in this country. Right wingers sure do love to portray themselves as victims. " Interesting that the term "social justice warriors" is used scornfully. As if social justice is a terrible thing to fight for. | |||
"Momentum, their far left social justice warriors, guardian and the media won't let them move centre. They will push more and more left until socialism and then communism is acceptable. Watch this space. the Guardian is left of centre, hardly far left at all. I don't think you really understand what actual communism would look like if you think the Guardian is pushing it. Also 'the media'? the media is majority right wing in this country. Right wingers sure do love to portray themselves as victims. Interesting that the term "social justice warriors" is used scornfully. As if social justice is a terrible thing to fight for. " Just like do gooders | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good "Labour lost badly, due to sitting on the fence over brexit. The last election no one cared about political promises, only about brexit. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Labour lost badly, due to sitting on the fence over brexit.
The last election no one cared about political promises, only about brexit."That about sums it up. Almost a unique, one off event. The electoral balance will be reset again for the next one. It'll be interesting to see what happens to those traditional Labour seats that went blue. | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Labour lost badly, due to sitting on the fence over brexit.
The last election no one cared about political promises, only about brexit."If they would have chosen 1 side or another They would have got demolished. They were in a no win situation. | |||
| |||
| |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party" Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on. | |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on." Labour are a nothing party now. Their only redeeming quality is that they're not as shit as their Tories. | |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on. Labour are a nothing party now. Their only redeeming quality is that they're not as shit as their Tories." If they are nothing now what where they under Corbyn lol? | |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on. Labour are a nothing party now. Their only redeeming quality is that they're not as shit as their Tories.If they are nothing now what where they under Corbyn lol?" They offered a change. | |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on. Labour are a nothing party now. Their only redeeming quality is that they're not as shit as their Tories.If they are nothing now what where they under Corbyn lol?" A genuine alternative to greed? | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Labour lost badly, due to sitting on the fence over brexit.
The last election no one cared about political promises, only about brexit.
If they would have chosen 1 side or another They would have got demolished.
They were in a no win situation."they got a battering anyone so really should of gone one way or the other never know if they had been a remain party may have picked up some lib dem votes.them not chiising one side or another prob cist em more votes as the lost remain and leave votes | |||
"looks like kier isnt learning naz shah minister for community cohesion lol the same woman who thinks abused kids should keep quiet for the sake of diversity.looks like it gona be more of the same whoever is tunning the labour party Lol. So this is the hill the labour party wants to die on. Labour are a nothing party now. Their only redeeming quality is that they're not as shit as their Tories.If they are nothing now what where they under Corbyn lol? A genuine alternative to greed?" Your very inocent | |||
"I think that to win more they have to change abit and with keir as the new labour leader I think that he is the man to do it he also said that he wanted a change which is good
Labour lost badly, due to sitting on the fence over brexit.
The last election no one cared about political promises, only about brexit.
If they would have chosen 1 side or another They would have got demolished.
They were in a no win situation.
they got a battering anyone so really should of gone one way or the other never know if they had been a remain party may have picked up some lib dem votes.them not chiising one side or another prob cist em more votes as the lost remain and leave votes"If they went remain..they would have lost the red wall which they did If they went leave they would have lost the remain vote They decided to let the people choose and still lost. | |||
