Labour Party Watch

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

AutomaticEarth
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:09 am

Post by AutomaticEarth »

clv101 wrote:Surely it's up to the four candidates to make their cases, personally, themselves. Then for the electorate, one member one vote, to choose.

I hate to hear the string of talking heads on the radio 'warning' not to elect Corbyn.

It almost sounds like there are those in the Labour party or whom winning the next general election is the most important thing and their roll is the morph the party into whatever it will take to win. This is a bonkers strategy - there would be no point at all in a Labour party that simply recast itself as the Conservative party based on the evidence of the last two elections.

The point about weathervanes and signposts is particularly relevant to the Labour party just now.
Totally agree with this. If you want to align yourself with the centre right, you might as well vote for the Conservative Party.....
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

emordnilap wrote:
ideologically driven and economically illiterate austerity agenda
The problem with this analysis is that it does not align with reality. The OBR reports are produced by an independent body. There are a number of potential approaches to austerity, but it is not "economically illiterate" or even driven by an ideological demand for a small state in a global scale.

There is a rational position for Labour MPs that half a cake (ie getting power and being able to make things better) is better than no cake at all (ie not getting power, but being ideologically pure).

In any event the "anti austerity" agenda is not rational. It cannot be a rational position that government spending should never be cut.
Little John
Posts: 8704
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

johnhemming2 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
ideologically driven and economically illiterate austerity agenda
The problem with this analysis is that it does not align with reality. The OBR reports are produced by an independent body. There are a number of potential approaches to austerity, but it is not "economically illiterate" or even driven by an ideological demand for a small state in a global scale.

There is a rational position for Labour MPs that half a cake (ie getting power and being able to make things better) is better than no cake at all (ie not getting power, but being ideologically pure).

In any event the "anti austerity" agenda is not rational. It cannot be a rational position that government spending should never be cut.
F--k off

Image
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

I say again
It cannot be a rational position that government spending can never be cut
Now. You can take a view that politicians never tell the truth and that all the reports produced by government are lies. I find that surprising if you are hold the political agenda of wanting more to be nationalised.

Some reports are misleading, but on the tax agenda things are not as easy as they seem at first sight.

It doesn't matter how abusive you are. Reality is as it is.

Syriza have found this out the hard way. They thought people in the Eurozone were lying to them and found out that they were not.

I do not agree with the current governments policies more generally although there are some that I agree with.

However your analysis will not work in practice.

Lets look at the word "avoided". Tax is "avoided" when someone makes a contribution to a pension fund. It is "avoided" when an employer pays into a pension fund for an employee.

Now if you wish to stop all "avoidance" you would have to start with that.

I do support changes that have happened to stop the Starbucks and DODGY TAX AVOIDERS style avoidance. Those changes happened in the last parliament.

Details in terms of policy really matter.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

Mark Steel in the Indie. :lol:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 11466.html
The last thing Labour needs is a leader like Jeremy Corbyn who people want to vote for

Maybe they should change their election rules again, so that anyone who disagrees with Tony Blair is only allowed to stand if they promise to get fewer than eight votes.
If you look at Corbyn’s record it’s clear he just can’t win elections. In his constituency of Islington North he inherited a majority of 4,456, which is now 21,194. He’s one of the few Labour MPs whose vote increased between 2005 and 2010, when he added 5,685 to his majority. This is typical of the man, defying the official Labour policy of losing votes and getting more of them instead, just to be a rebel.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14631
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

The rise of sympathetic representatives has to be defeated at all costs! Greece is being crushed to set an example.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

emordnilap wrote:The rise of sympathetic representatives has to be
defeated at all costs! Greece is being crushed to set an example.
If they had wanted to "crush" Greece they would have chucked Greece out of the Eurozone and not done this deal (which isn't actually as yet done).
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

How can 'they' 'chuck' any nation out? Legally, that is.
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

biffvernon wrote:How can 'they' 'chuck' any nation out? Legally, that is.
by not reopening negotiations so that their banks are shuit down.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... igital-age
The Guardian view on the Labour leadership: analogue contest in a digital age

Too much of the campaigning sounds nostalgic and backward-looking. Labour needs answers for the future, not the past.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11259
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 09578.html

This is perfect. Journalist asks all 4 candidates a very simple, straight question. The three cardboard cutouts compete with each other to give the most meaningless and evasive answer, for no obvious reason. Corbyn just answers the question.

Kendall, Burnham and Cooper are archetypal examples of why normal people absolutely f*****g despise most politicians. They don't even pretend to answer questions these days. Their first instinct is to somehow get through any interview without saying anything of substance at all.

The underlying reason? The cardboard cutouts don't actually stand for anything at all. All they are trying to do is win the leadership election while saying as little as possible that actually means anything.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... membership
Jeremy Corbyn draws fire for position on Britain's EU future

The Labour leadership candidate has stated several times the EU is imperfect and needs reform, drawing criticism from rivals who demand clarity.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8821
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

UndercoverElephant wrote:Kendall, Burnham and Cooper are archetypal examples of why normal people absolutely f*****g despise most politicians. They don't even pretend to answer questions these days. Their first instinct is to somehow get through any interview without saying anything of substance at all.
Indeed, it seems crystal clear to me that very few politicians actually make any attempt to speak their minds clearly. It just makes them sound ridiculous. Pretty sad situation really.
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

clv101 wrote:Indeed, it seems crystal clear to me that very few politicians actually make any attempt to speak their minds clearly. It just makes them sound ridiculous. Pretty sad situation really.
I speak my mind on this forum and the response from a small number of posters (not you) is personal abuse.
peaceful_life
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:20 pm

Post by peaceful_life »

clv101 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Kendall, Burnham and Cooper are archetypal examples of why normal people absolutely f*****g despise most politicians. They don't even pretend to answer questions these days. Their first instinct is to somehow get through any interview without saying anything of substance at all.
Indeed, it seems crystal clear to me that very few politicians actually make any attempt to speak their minds clearly. It just makes them sound ridiculous. Pretty sad situation really.
Exercising the mind is the last thing the media requires, unless it's to regurgitate the cult party line of greed, all else will just not do, apparently, however...this facade is eroding quicker than an ice shelf.
Post Reply