|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 18:22:56 GMT
The press has gaslighted us over Corbyn for years....if you look at what he has ACTUALLY achieved it is remarkable.When Boris Johnson recently announced that he is NOT cutting corporation tax as it would “save £6 billion” I gasped....do the Tories not believe that cutting taxes on business raises MORE money? Austerity is rolled back...who do you think we have to thank for that? I always get quite grumpy when people are critical of Corbyn - he knows facts and history. He is principled. He talks sense even when it would be easier not to. He is stubborn but if you look at Brexit he has listened and the party has moved but he has not thrown out democracy like the Lib Dems because he is right - if we ignore half the country it will create division (and I say this as a fervent remainder!) Why do you think he is in politics? Do you think he will leave and do the circuit of after dinner speaking, or get a well paid job with a bank afterwards? No. Read the manifesto. They have asked experts. The policy starts from belief and principle. For example they have abolished the Marriage Allowance that the Conservatives brought in as it discriminates against couples who are not married. My brother has been with his partners for 15 years and raised 2 children but he’s not allowed to claim as his relationship is seen as second rate? His front bench is class and yes, I include Diane Abbott in this as if you look back she warned about Windrush and her occasional slips with numbers are treated far more harshly than the Conservatives. Who would you rather have involved in the Brexit negotiations? Kier Stammer or those idiots we sent who hadn’t a clue about detail? I haven’t really met many people who deny that the Labour manifesto contains good ideas (even the borrowing to invest as interest rates are so low and it wouldn’t be out of line with other developed countries). People do doubt they could actually achieve it all...as we have lost faith in things being run well (private and public companies) but isn’t it better to have a go, properly to fix society? What is the choice if we don’t...my children will be in a world where things get worse and society gets ever more hateful. My annoyance with Corbyn is not with his policies, although they are certainly to the left of my own. It is that he is unelectable. Sure, he has been treated appallingly by the press, and the reasons for that are nothing short of sinister. But the fact remains that he is unelectable and deeply unpopular. His refusal to stand down and the party's refusal to appoint a more unifying leader for the greater good is a disgrace. We can moan about how unfair it all is, but it's not going to win an election. Given the state we find ourselves in, this election should be an open goal for an even half credible opposition party. The scale of their failure during this election campaign is unprecedented. I'll eat my words if Labour manage to deprive the Tories a majority, but I'm not hopeful. Also, Labour is a wasted vote in my constituency, so I'll be voting (ex Tory a***hole candidate) Lib Dem through gritted teeth no doubt. I don't agree with the (ludicrous) idea of revoking Article 50 or many of their other policies but I can find major issues with all their manifestos. I'll be swallowing down sick in the voting booth, regardless. THIS! Couldn't have said it any better myself. Though I really don't think I can bring myself to vote for Lib Dems. Labour is a wasted vote in my constituency too! I might just spoil my vote. I'm truly lost. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 18:23:56 GMT
Labour is being kept out of power by its ideologues who so want a hard left government, that all of the good things a touch of moderation would bring to it are not acceptable to their cause. On the other hand, the Conservatives have been similarly changed by entryists, so that they are also prepared to destroy the country in pursuit of their hard right and libertarian goals. So, do I vote for a party that I disagree on half their policies to stop a party who I agree with much less? Maybe the whole country needs to burn to bring it back to its senses. I think in Europe Labour’s policies would not be considered hard left! They are really not that radical. Plus the way our voting system works a Labour Government is hardly likely to get a majority these days (Scotland has seen to that). So the REAL question is....do you want Boris Johnson to get a large majority with unfettered power? Because it’s right there, in his manifesto....the Voter ID that would suppress voting and the “have a look at the courts” as they don’t think judicial review should be used on Government.....have a look if you don’t believe me. So short answer....do anything you can to stop the far Right. In general in Europe, Social Democracy is seen as soft left and socialism hard left, I thought the current Labour leadership were avowedly socialist? Look beneath the leadership and at activists, there really is a large cadre that goes well beyond the soft left there as well. A fair amount of policy is just ridiculous, the WASPI policy to take one example. Giving money to (often well enough) pensioners and taking it away from the young? What on earth is happening there? On Conservative policy I know full well how awful it is, but there cannot be left to just two opposite options, one not as bad as the other, if the country is not to fall into further chaos. Having failed catastrophically in the eighties in a similar way to this, the Labour party made necessary changes to ensure that the right were kept out of power for over a decade. I've seen this retreat to purity in Labour before and I see it now and it leads to nowhere. The eighties took Kinnock taking on the entryists but now they are in charge so that's unlikely to happen any time soon. They really do prefer purist opposition to the compromises needed to have power. The scary thing is that the rigid ideologues of both these parties are not prone to changing. That's the bug in ideology, it always comes first. This is why I'm afraid that we will suffer before anyone can do anything about it. In a way that suffering is going to be necessary, the only way that ideology can be defeated is by failure taking root and people being made to suffer that failure. Whether that is the wasteland of a No Deal or Botched Quick Fix Brexit or the failure of an economy and the resultant chaos affecting inflation, pay, employment and civil cohesion. We may need it, so buckle up. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 30, 2019 18:38:48 GMT
I don’t think I’m left wing. I went to a girls Direct Grant school in Manchester, then Oxford University (at the same time as all those awful Bully boys but a much poorer college!) and then did teacher training, again at Oxford University. I taught for a year in a local comprehensive but left as I got depressed at all the cuts (late 80s) - even the paper for photocopying was rationed- and went into presenting market research and then marketing for Unilever. I bought an ex-council house as soon as I had my first job after university (I think probably 80% of my friends did the same) and life was very easy (think booming 80s)
My family didn’t give me money (they were not rich) so I have not inherited wealth but the property market is bizarre....the last house we bought for £135,000 24 years ago is now worth probably half a million. My first house in 1986 (2 bed ex-council house) was £36,500. So I have just acquired wealth from owning something...it’s like a Ponzi scheme.
I had free education, including university, free dentistry, cheap housing, a well paid job.
Why do people who have so much begrudge paying a little more to help other people?
I don’t think I’m Left wing. I just wonder what has happened to other people - where did all the compassion go?
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Nov 30, 2019 18:42:44 GMT
The press has gaslighted us over Corbyn for years....if you look at what he has ACTUALLY achieved it is remarkable.When Boris Johnson recently announced that he is NOT cutting corporation tax as it would “save £6 billion” I gasped....do the Tories not believe that cutting taxes on business raises MORE money? Austerity is rolled back...who do you think we have to thank for that? I always get quite grumpy when people are critical of Corbyn - he knows facts and history. He is principled. He talks sense even when it would be easier not to. He is stubborn but if you look at Brexit he has listened and the party has moved but he has not thrown out democracy like the Lib Dems because he is right - if we ignore half the country it will create division (and I say this as a fervent remainder!) Why do you think he is in politics? Do you think he will leave and do the circuit of after dinner speaking, or get a well paid job with a bank afterwards? No. Read the manifesto. They have asked experts. The policy starts from belief and principle. For example they have abolished the Marriage Allowance that the Conservatives brought in as it discriminates against couples who are not married. My brother has been with his partners for 15 years and raised 2 children but he’s not allowed to claim as his relationship is seen as second rate? His front bench is class and yes, I include Diane Abbott in this as if you look back she warned about Windrush and her occasional slips with numbers are treated far more harshly than the Conservatives. Who would you rather have involved in the Brexit negotiations? Kier Stammer or those idiots we sent who hadn’t a clue about detail? I haven’t really met many people who deny that the Labour manifesto contains good ideas (even the borrowing to invest as interest rates are so low and it wouldn’t be out of line with other developed countries). People do doubt they could actually achieve it all...as we have lost faith in things being run well (private and public companies) but isn’t it better to have a go, properly to fix society? What is the choice if we don’t...my children will be in a world where things get worse and society gets ever more hateful. My annoyance with Corbyn is not with his policies, although they are certainly to the left of my own. It is that he is unelectable. Sure, he has been treated appallingly by the press, and the reasons for that are nothing short of sinister. But the fact remains that he is unelectable and deeply unpopular. His refusal to stand down and the party's refusal to appoint a more unifying leader for the greater good is a disgrace. We can moan about how unfair it all is, but it's not going to win an election. Given the state we find ourselves in, this election should be an open goal for an even half credible opposition party. The scale of their failure during this election campaign is unprecedented. I'll eat my words if Labour manage to deprive the Tories a majority, but I'm not hopeful. Also, Labour is a wasted vote in my constituency, so I'll be voting (ex Tory a***hole candidate) Lib Dem through gritted teeth no doubt. I don't agree with the (ludicrous) idea of revoking Article 50 or many of their other policies but I can find major issues with all their manifestos. I'll be swallowing down sick in the voting booth, regardless. Surely he'll only continue to be unelectable if people like yourself allow that to sway your thinking? Fair enough if you disagree with his policies but if everyone doesn't vote for him just because they think it's an unlikely thing then surely that's a self-fulfilling prophecy? |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Nov 30, 2019 18:54:09 GMT
I don’t think I’m Left wing. I just wonder what has happened to other people - where did all the compassion go? I suppose that's probably how I feel.
Where did the compassion and empathy go?
The lack of willingness to understand not all people had the same life chances, the same educational help?
When did wilful ignorance become a badge of honour for the property-owning middle class?
I despair at the eagerness to judge based on entitlement.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 30, 2019 18:54:35 GMT
Strange how we consider the Labour policies as hard left when in fact they would be considered centrist in most other European countries.
Nationalisation
Common throughout Europe and ironic we are happy for state ownership in rail and power only if these are other European and Chinese state owned entities.
Investment
The investment Labour are proposing as a % of GDP would bring us to the median value on a World scale.
Taxation
Business and Personal taxation at similar rates to most European Countries if we introduce the rises in the Labour manifesto.
(Remember even when the goddess known as Thatcher was in power our equivalent to the 40% rate was 60%)
It all comes down to the type of Country you want to live in
One who cares and provides the support for those less fortunate with a well funded health service, welfare state and public services we can all take advantage of from libraries, sports fields, public lavatories and public transport as good as London in all areas...,....
One which has limited state intervention but god forbid you fall on hard times, (>60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to health costs) You may have more money in your pocket and enjoy living in your gated community insulating yourself from the cba. (most cba are there despite their best efforts, opportunity is not equal and we cannot all be winners)
I am willing to pay more tax and cut back on some of my conspicuous consumption for these services as I believe we have a duty of care to the less fortunate which any one of us can become in an instant as we traverse this lottery called life and move from individualism to community.
Going back to an earlier post, we are happy subsidising sweat shop employers through in-work benefits the business equivalent of cba but as soon as we want to help the less fortunate (cba) this is a waste of money and they should just get a job so we can pay their employers instead.
Again back to a previous post, evaluate where your biases come from, confirm them, question them, why do you hold them, are the foundation facts true, only once we all use the greatest tool of enlightenment the internet can we find our own truth making sure you do not go to the usual sites to limit the impact of confirmatory bias and the way you phrase your question which can influence the answer you are get.
Labour are not radical only different to the UK paradigm of the last 50 years and when they were radical they gave us the NHS and the Welfare State.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 19:05:26 GMT
The equation isn't, sadly, just about compassion. I think most people here want to do all they can for those in need but compassion without power is worthless and compassion with power but lacking in deliverability and sustainability is next to worthless. The fear of most isn't to do with not wanting this shared end result, it's about making it stick. Not for a few years, but for a decade or more.
Neil, you are right, but we have the population we have and you can see how many, quite possibly a majority, are not in tune with that. In power shifts can be made, that's the nature of power (and how Conservatives have pushed more and more people to the right).
Regarding the post war Attlee government, it had six years and did a lot. Only the post war consensus made the changes stick, however (and that was a close run thing at times). I doubt the present Conservative party would be as amenable to any radical changes made if they are back in power in five or so years.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 30, 2019 19:06:02 GMT
“A fair amount of policy is just ridiculous, the WASPI policy to take one example. Giving money to (often well enough) pensioners and taking it away from the young? What on earth is happening there? On Conservative policy I know full well how awful it is, but there cannot be left to just two opposite options, one not as bad as the other, if the country is not to fall into further chaos. “
Labour are right- 5 years notice of a major change is not enough. This was theft pure and simple. I am younger (born 1963) so I have had 19 years notice so that’s fair enough. And If these women are rich then they will pay tax. Labour are not about taking all the rich people’s money. They are about fairness and justice and balance. If they can change the goalposts for these women at such notice what it to stop them doing the same thing to YOU next time?
“Having failed catastrophically in the eighties in a similar way to this, the Labour party made necessary changes to ensure that the right were kept out of power for over a decade. I've seen this retreat to purity in Labour before and I see it now and it leads to nowhere. The eighties took Kinnock taking on the entryists but now they are in charge so that's unlikely to happen any time soon. They really do prefer purist opposition to the compromises needed to have power.“
And gave us Tory-lite Tony Blair. Hmmmm. The city continued on it’s merry way, the house prices kept going up....I don’t remember much council house building (perhaps I missed that?) I do remember hospital PFI building programmes that have now saddled hospitals with huge debts? In those days it felt like there was no-one to vote for except the Liberal Democrat’s and we all know how that ended.
New Labour were not the answer. They were an attempt to side-step the structural issues of our country to make themselves electable. I’ll give you that they were far better than this Government but it’s a low bar.
I think Corbyn is electable. Whether people will is another matter. But radical change is needed in this country. Tinkering round the edges isn’t going to do it. They said we couldn’t build houses after the war and setting up free medical care was folly. But we did it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 19:17:37 GMT
And gave us Tory-lite Tony Blair. And that, in a nutshell, is why Labour is failing. Blair did far more for the poorest and disadvantaged than any PM since Wilson. He did that by being Prime Minister rather than as leader of the opposition. He kept that going for three elections (despite going mad over foreign policy.....if only 9/11 hadn't happened under his watch). Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith (sadly), Brown, Miliband, Corbyn (so far, once) all failed in their main task. None of them ever got elected because they didn't adapt to the electorate they were needing to convince. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 30, 2019 21:01:07 GMT
And gave us Tory-lite Tony Blair. And that, in a nutshell, is why Labour is failing. Blair did far more for the poorest and disadvantaged than any PM since Wilson. He did that by being Prime Minister rather than as leader of the opposition. He kept that going for three elections (despite going mad over foreign policy.....if only 9/11 hadn't happened under his watch). Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith (sadly), Brown, Miliband, Corbyn (so far, once) all failed in their main task. None of them ever got elected because they didn't adapt to the electorate they were needing to convince. My point was that Blair, while putting on a sticking plaster, only ended up making the economy etc etc worse. So the housing market overheated, capitalism ran unchecked and the rich got richer (without it trickling down). He gave lots of tax credits that I am sure brought children out of poverty but did he make our economy and society fit for the people following on? He didn’t exactly tackle the city did he? Or housing? Or sustainable reform of the NHS? I know a lot of it was good but at the end of the day he had a chance to change things (workers on boards, transaction taxes, not hiding wealth in offshore accounts, talk about community partnerships, sustainable living, looking at industrial problems of the North, better transport links..... As for compromise I give you Nick Clegg. I actually think Corbyn has been more successful than all the labour leaders I have known as he is moving how young people feel about society. I may be wrong but the young people I know are far more politically involved and actually follow up their beliefs more than our generation. My daughter is vegan as she believes it will help save the world (I mean, it might not but you have to admire her commitment and she’s not alone) The Conservatives have also been criminally stupid. Bedroom tax anyone (with no smaller properties to go to). Universal credit (with a computer and/or a smart phone needed on a nearly daily basis when lots of poor people do not have these). Paying Universal credit to husband unless wife request it is split (she’s not exactly going to do this if in abusive relationship). 2 child limit on Family allowance. Free nursery places that underfund nurseries so much they go out of business. Tuition fees for Uni with the repayment threshold changed in the House of Commons debate so that they cost the same to the Government as when they were £3000 a year. New pension rules that mean we don’t have enough doctors. Ok now I need to go and lie down.... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 22:06:16 GMT
And that, in a nutshell, is why Labour is failing. Blair did far more for the poorest and disadvantaged than any PM since Wilson. He did that by being Prime Minister rather than as leader of the opposition. He kept that going for three elections (despite going mad over foreign policy.....if only 9/11 hadn't happened under his watch). Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith (sadly), Brown, Miliband, Corbyn (so far, once) all failed in their main task. None of them ever got elected because they didn't adapt to the electorate they were needing to convince. My point was that Blair, while putting on a sticking plaster, only ended up making the economy etc etc worse. So the housing market overheated, capitalism ran unchecked and the rich got richer (without it trickling down). He gave lots of tax credits that I am sure brought children out of poverty but did he make our economy and society fit for the people following on? He didn’t exactly tackle the city did he? Or housing? Or sustainable reform of the NHS? I know a lot of it was good but at the end of the day he had a chance to change things (workers on boards, transaction taxes, not hiding wealth in offshore accounts, talk about community partnerships, sustainable living, looking at industrial problems of the North, better transport links..... As for compromise I give you Nick Clegg. I actually think Corbyn has been more successful than all the labour leaders I have known as he is moving how young people feel about society. I may be wrong but the young people I know are far more politically involved and actually follow up their beliefs more than our generation. My daughter is vegan as she believes it will help save the world (I mean, it might not but you have to admire her commitment and she’s not alone) The Conservatives have also been criminally stupid. Bedroom tax anyone (with no smaller properties to go to). Universal credit (with a computer and/or a smart phone needed on a nearly daily basis when lots of poor people do not have these). Paying Universal credit to husband unless wife request it is split (she’s not exactly going to do this if in abusive relationship). 2 child limit on Family allowance. Free nursery places that underfund nurseries so much they go out of business. Tuition fees for Uni with the repayment threshold changed in the House of Commons debate so that they cost the same to the Government as when they were £3000 a year. New pension rules that mean we don’t have enough doctors. Ok now I need to go and lie down.... So you prefer opposition then, because that's what your position is going to get you. Useless, powerless, sterile opposition. Principles are not going to help those who need food banks, lofty ideals won't cut waiting lists for those whose operations are being cancelled. Blair did blow too much in certain areas at the expense of others but the overall travel was ten times better than what we have now. People like Blair and Clegg should be seen as positives yet the second division politicians running Labour now see them as collaborators. Corbyn has been a failure, he has done nothing. He has talked about what he would do but talk is of no use to anyone. He looks likely to fail again, too, unless there's a massive turnaround in less than two weeks. Clegg did well, very well in fact, in the circumstances. With barely 10% of MPs of those in power they managed to soften the Conservatives and get through a fair amount of their own ideas, so (as figures show) as soon as the Conservatives got in power on their own things would start to go rapidly downhill. I will still probably lend my vote, as millions of others will, but it's getting difficult to do. Blair knew something else, as well, which this shower have completely lost control of. Don't fight opposition parties in unhelpful battles, you need them to help you. Blair kept in power whilst allowing Lib Dems to penetrate right into Conservative heartland seats. The incontinent vitriol against that same opposition in 2015 meant that Miliband lost badly, in 2019 they may look as though they are about to make that same error. Incapable of compromise, brainless in who they make enemies of. That's a pathway to failure. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Nov 30, 2019 22:15:06 GMT
You don’t have to be in power to change politics - I think Corbyn is winning the arguments and that may lead to a change of direction in the long term. I mean, it obviously helps if you are in power but the alternative is to change public opinion. After all I give you Nigel Farage. A politician who has never been an MP but has changed the course of the whole country. He didn’t have to be in power to do that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 23:05:16 GMT
You don’t have to be in power to change politics - I think Corbyn is winning the arguments and that may lead to a change of direction in the long term. I mean, it obviously helps if you are in power but the alternative is to change public opinion. After all I give you Nigel Farage. A politician who has never been an MP but has changed the course of the whole country. He didn’t have to be in power to do that. Farage has not changed the country, Conservative anti-Europeans have. Farage has sniped from the domestic sidelines (whilst taking European money) but he's essentially a pressure group, akin to the Greens. They raise issues but they don't legislate. If Labour remains as a pressure group it will die, and deserve to do so. Mainstream political parties are there to govern and, if they don't, they must be replaced by ones that do. We don't have enough time to leave things for the long term. You don't change people's lives by having good arguments. This is at the root of Labour's failure. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 1, 2019 14:53:40 GMT
Labour HQ believes there's nothing more to squeeze from the Lib Dems - the last 13%-14% or so won't budge - so all energy now goes to 60-ish key marginals and the northern Leave seats. The messaging has changed.
With over 3 million first-time voters and perhaps 70% of those leaning towards Labour, it's guesswork as to where we are. Professional pollsters continue to pretend they have a clue. Best guess is we're approaching minority Gov territory. Again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 2:06:24 GMT
And gave us Tory-lite Tony Blair. And that, in a nutshell, is why Labour is failing. Blair did far more for the poorest and disadvantaged than any PM since Wilson. He did that by being Prime Minister rather than as leader of the opposition. He kept that going for three elections (despite going mad over foreign policy.....if only 9/11 hadn't happened under his watch). Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith (sadly), Brown, Miliband, Corbyn (so far, once) all failed in their main task. None of them ever got elected because they didn't adapt to the electorate they were needing to convince. Callaghan should have called an election in Autumn 1978 and might have had a good chance of winning. Michael Foot would never have won an election as Leader of the Opposition but would have been an effective PM in my opinion if he had been chosen in place of Callaghan when Wilson resigned and might have then won an election as sitting PM. John Smith sadly died in office but would likely have won 1997 election so I'd take him out of this list. Incredible to think that in nearly 75 years only 3 men have won and election for the Labour Party whilst Conservative Party have had 8 people if we count Theresa remaining PM but not getting a majority. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 2:08:10 GMT
Labour HQ believes there's nothing more to squeeze from the Lib Dems - the last 13%-14% or so won't budge - so all energy now goes to 60-ish key marginals and the northern Leave seats. The messaging has changed. With over 3 million first-time voters and perhaps 70% of those leaning towards Labour, it's guesswork as to where we are. Professional pollsters continue to pretend they have a clue. Best guess is we're approaching minority Gov territory. Again! The betting sites now have the Lib Dems as likely to get under 20 seats compared to over 30 a few weeks ago, so that could make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 8:14:02 GMT
The way I see it is Blair moved Labour towards the centre and Cameron did the same in order to win. It makes each party more palatable and as a country I think we are starting to sit more in the middle.
The overall problem is that Corbyn and Boris are of the more extreme position of their parties and imo the public isn’t interested in a hard left or hard right.... and the Lib Dems have reinvented themselves back into a hard central left position which - Brexit stance aside - quite appeals.
No one represents the majority of the country. The Tories might win a small majority, but gone are the days of a decent sweep. It’s all very well trying to represent your party, but when all leaders put their party’s position above one the majority of the country actually wants, you end up with 2019 politics.
I think we’ll end up with a small Tory majority and hopefully Labour will realise Corbyn just can’t win and a hard left position just doesn’t work. They need to regroup and rethink.
I still blame this entire mess on Labour - including Brexit - as David Miliband was such an obvious party leader and could have beaten Cameron and stopped his second term. I mean why anyone thought Ed could lead is beyond me. I wouldn’t have followed him out of a bloody hedge maze.
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Dec 2, 2019 9:26:48 GMT
I'm not sure I'd go as far as blaming the entire mess on Labour. We must give the Tories credit where it's due(!) but they really have made some catastrophic decisions and not choosing David Miliband was the first of them.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 2, 2019 10:05:26 GMT
People don’t really dislike Labour policies (on the whole). They worry it will bankrupt the county and suggest you are naive and the only way to help the poor is to have jobs and industry. They are not wrong, but if you read the labour manifesto it is about investing in Industry as well and many of their policies are already things industry is thinking about. The Conservatives have been sneaky in the recent past - they talk about cutting back and balancing the books as we all understand that concept from our household budgeting. But.......
How many people in this country understand Quantitive Easing (spoiler alert, I’m one of those who knows what it is)? The Conservative party just printed extra 💴....and I mean lots of it. Yes, we can print however much money we like extra. What did they do with it? Hmmmm......they wanted to increase investment to create jobs.....so they bought company bonds....lots of them. Even I get a bit lost at this point ( and I have a maths degree) but do you think the money the Government gave companies increased investment or increased profits and shareholder returns? Feel free to explain further if you can!
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 2, 2019 11:04:21 GMT
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 2, 2019 11:43:42 GMT
Quantitative easing the greatest financial con of all, print your way out of your financial commitments,
Agree, what remains unexplained is the impact on the economy and people’s lives with the billions of extra money injected into the economy and the increase of the national debt by £800b.
The amount of money injected into the economy proposed by Labour is nowhere near the money that has evaporated from the treasury in the last nine years.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 2, 2019 13:05:59 GMT
Electing the ‘wrong’ brother was all about the unions wasn’t it? They still provide the bulk of the dosh to Labour. What makes you think, guys above, that the unions will not continue to have that influence? And as I think they will, how will Labour get of its current position, if it wants to and I see no sign of that.
|
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 2, 2019 15:50:06 GMT
Electing the ‘wrong’ brother was all about the unions wasn’t it? They still provide the bulk of the dosh to Labour. What makes you think, guys above, that the unions will not continue to have that influence? And as I think they will, how will Labour get of its current position, if it wants to and I see no sign of that. Article below admittedly not exactly up to date as 2018....but most current membership from Wiki in 2019 485,000 Labour - 53% full, 27% union affiliated, 20% registered supporters. 191,000 Conservatives 120,845 Lib Dems www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/22/labour-coffers-make-party-richest-in-britainAnd I think a good deal of the Conservative money may have Russian fingerprints on it? Russia report anyone? |
|
5,064 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 2, 2019 16:54:52 GMT
Corbyn is basing his economy on Northern Europe, or Scandinavia to be more precise, where people do pay more tax, services are a lot better and actually the people are much happier and content.
This isn't championed by out right wing media, who are mainly self employed and therefore set themselves up as a business and pay little tax as they are a corporation (and pay as such) and claim the vast amount of their VAT back.
Why should a Nurse or Teacher pay up to 50% (including National Insurance) and then VAT, whilst someone else pays nothing of the sort?
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 2, 2019 18:20:13 GMT
And gave us Tory-lite Tony Blair. And that, in a nutshell, is why Labour is failing. Blair did far more for the poorest and disadvantaged than any PM since Wilson. He did that by being Prime Minister rather than as leader of the opposition. He kept that going for three elections (despite going mad over foreign policy.....if only 9/11 hadn't happened under his watch). Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, Smith (sadly), Brown, Miliband, Corbyn (so far, once) all failed in their main task. None of them ever got elected because they didn't adapt to the electorate they were needing to convince. This, I'll take opposition and my principles every time if it means not selling out to Rupert Murdoch |
|
