All things Labour Party

To be fair isn't the current NI power sharing thing in a bit of a delicate position? plus there is Brexit coming up which could make things worse.

If people start killing each other over there because of all this mess the Tories will get much of the blame. They called a referendum they didn't have to and lost, then they called an election for for the benefit of their party and lost their majority. **** knows how these fools are going to negotiate with the EU.

To be fair isn't the current NI power sharing thing in a bit of a delicate position? plus there is Brexit coming up which could make things worse.

 

If people start killing each other over there because of all this mess the Tories will get much of the blame. They called a referendum they didn't have to and lost, then they called an election for for the benefit of their party and lost their majority. **** knows how these fools are going to negotiate with the EU.

you are really getting a bit hysterical on this and the election thread.

I am struggling to give a sh !t about what the Irish Republic thinks of the British Governments perceived impartiality with regard to the Good Friday agreement. It will be a cold day in hell that the republican child killers and the Irish government that supported them, dictate how the UK government runs the country.

 

Throwing the Good Friday agreement under a bus? At least we aren't blowing one up...

Welcome back pal. Trust a poster of your intelligence to see the big picture.

Been a bit quiet on the Trident front: have missed your little updates and paeans to your foresight regarding how the EU is going to hell in a handbasket and Global Britain is going from strength to strength

you are really getting a bit hysterical on this and the election thread.

That's rich coming from the person who sh!ts his pants and shouts Muslim every time there is a road traffic accident.

That's rich coming from the person who sh!ts his pants and shouts Muslim every time there is a road traffic accident.

.

Really interesting comments from pinko Philip Collins on Red Box podcast today. Says that now is the time for the moderates to split from the Labour Party, but in a friendly & mutually beneficial way. Say they will work together in government or opposition but be 2 separate but linked party. His reasoning was that Corbyn can't and probably doesn't want to, move to the centre as he'll lose the idealistic newbies that he's done so well with. But if he moves left or even stays where he is , labour will lose the marginals they've just clung onto. Now before people scream that he kept the marginals anyway, Collins claims the straggly in those seats was, you can vote for me because Corbyn won't get in, and I can limit Tory power & majority. They can't claim that next time & the vote for me, you can't get Corbyn , won't work. What May work, is vote for my " new labour ' party & in coalition with Corbyns 'left Labour Party" we can water down his unpalatable policies.

I found it an incredibly interesting theory, and although doubtful it'll happen , I wonder what other think

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really interesting comments from pinko Philip Collins on Red Box podcast today. Says that now is the time for the moderates to split from the Labour Party, but in a friendly & mutually beneficial way. Say they will work together in government or opposition but be 2 separate but linked party. His reasoning was that Corbyn can't and probably doesn't want to, move to the centre as he'll lose the idealistic newbies that he's done so well with. But if he moves left or even stays where he is , labour will lose the marginals they've just clung onto. Now before people scream that he kept the marginals anyway, Collins claims the straggly in those seats was, you can vote for me because Corbyn won't get in, and I can limit Tory power & majority. They can't claim that next time & the vote for me, you can't get Corbyn , won't work. What May work, is vote for my " new labour ' party & in coalition with Corbyns 'left Labour Party" we can water down his unpalatable policies.

 

I found it an incredibly interesting theory, and although doubtful it'll happen , I wonder what other think

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if the top 5% would stomach the Tories saying 'right we are going to put up the higher rate of tax by say 3-5%, that money to be used for getting a lot more of the lower earners to not pay tax,' or other schemes, I suggest that we have had a shock of the prospect of Corbyns etc and would accept to pay a larger slice to appease the ones looking up. Iam expecting to pay a large slice more when the Corbyns come in and so would rather pay more with a Tory government avoiding the nonsense nationalisation of the rail , vat on school fees, 5% corp tax increase etc etc

Really interesting comments from pinko Philip Collins on Red Box podcast today. Says that now is the time for the moderates to split from the Labour Party, but in a friendly & mutually beneficial way. Say they will work together in government or opposition but be 2 separate but linked party. His reasoning was that Corbyn can't and probably doesn't want to, move to the centre as he'll lose the idealistic newbies that he's done so well with. But if he moves left or even stays where he is , labour will lose the marginals they've just clung onto. Now before people scream that he kept the marginals anyway, Collins claims the straggly in those seats was, you can vote for me because Corbyn won't get in, and I can limit Tory power & majority. They can't claim that next time & the vote for me, you can't get Corbyn , won't work. What May work, is vote for my " new labour ' party & in coalition with Corbyns 'left Labour Party" we can water down his unpalatable policies.

 

I found it an incredibly interesting theory, and although doubtful it'll happen , I wonder what other think

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So they just become the Liberal Democrats MK2?

I love the way everyone thinks it's the young vote that made such a massive difference when in fact it was the vast majority of anyone under 45s voted Labour.

The reasons are simple. A genuine housing crisis with so many families and younger couples unable to afford a home. Families whose kids are about to go to university don't want their kids saddled with debt and want them to afford a home of their own in the future. The chaos in the NHS, the utter chaos in schools, which again has a major impact on many U45s (and some of us old gits as well). The amount of money in the pocket decreasing and creeping inflation hitting home.

All of these things matter immensely and it's no wonder that so many turned to the left when they see it's the right that has caused much of it.

You're also missing out that so many U45s are far more socially aware than their older counterparts. Very, very many have been raised in multi-cultural Britain and are at ease with it, as they are sexual orientation amongst other things. They really don't see the world as the oldies do and that's what's flummoxed the media and the right wing in general.

Even my 15yo has become politically galvanised by the election, as have many of his friends and he's decided to join the Labour Party. My kids have always been told to make their own minds up, read, listen, understand and reach a conclusion and he's concluded that the Labour Party offer his generation a vision of the future that's inclusive whereas the tories don't.

Agree with the above.

Plus I expect the younger generation read more online and less of the Tory rags.

You're also missing out that so many U45s are far more socially aware than their older counterparts. Very, very many have been raised in multi-cultural Britain and are at ease with it, as they are sexual orientation amongst other things. They really don't see the world as the oldies do and that's what's flummoxed the media and the right wing in general.

Don't see what that's got to do with left or right wing.

Basically we all know it's the young who think they can get free stuff. When you get older toy start thinking 's##t, who's going to pay for my pension when there no money left?'

But it you look who would have got most of of the Labour manifesto. Its the 18 yr old etonian who would be 30k richer from free tuition. The 18yr old working at pound land would have had nothing.

If you put 18yr olds on the same minimum wage as 25 year olds, you're disadvantaging the people without experience.

By scrapping zero hours contracts youre screwing with students ability to earn money will at uni.

There's one thing that won the election for the left and that's the ability of sites like Novara and Canary having unchallenged articles circulating.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The only way you turn young or youngish people onto capitalism isn't by bribing them or making yourself trendy because the left will always beat you on those . The way to do it is by giving them a stake in capitalism. Making them house owners & giving them promotion opportunities. If the Tories can't get the under 40's on the property ladder & they allow them to stagnant with no pay rises or promotions , the Tories are finished long term. Tories are made up of people that capitalism works for .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only way you turn young or youngish people onto capitalism isn't by bribing them or making yourself trendy because the left will always beat you on those . The way to do it is by giving them a stake in capitalism. Making them house owners & giving them promotion opportunities. If the Tories can't get the under 40's on the property ladder & they allow them to stagnant with no pay rises or promotions , the Tories are finished long term. Tories are made up of people that capitalism works for .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not very often I agree with you but I do with that perspective. The tories need to be more One Nation and less Neo-Con.

Poor Nolan is lost in the confusion and is sucked in by the idea that the young just want free stuff when it's actually the U45s who just want a fair crack at having a home etc. He's a propagandists dream.

If the Tories can't get the under 40's on the property ladder & they allow them to stagnant with no pay rises or promotions , the Tories are finished long term.

The tories need to be more One Nation and less Neo-Con.

Agree with both. Only 20 years ago as a single bloke on slightly above average wages I bought a 3 bed flat in central Brighton with a mortgage of only two and a quarter times my salary. It was a choice between that or a one bedroom flat in Mayfair (I know, I know). The Brighton flat is now around 15 times average wages and the Mayfair one about sixty. Totally unaffordable even to most dual income couples.

We need around 2 million quality houses. Building 100,000 shoeboxes a year and slapping yourself on the back isnt going to cut it.

I'm not sure why Labour offering "free stuff" to young people is a bribe, and yet the tories reducing or holding down taxes for the very well off or very rich, or corporations so isn't also a bribe ?

I'm not sure why Labour offering "free stuff" to young people is a bribe, and yet the tories reducing or holding down taxes for the very well off or very rich, or corporations so isn't also a bribe ?

Young non-affluent people don't own many news corporations. Rich people getting richer through government policies tend to keep quiet about it.

I'm not sure why Labour offering "free stuff" to young people is a bribe, and yet the tories reducing or holding down taxes for the very well off or very rich, or corporations so isn't also a bribe ?

Because the very rich or corporations only represent a small number of votes, "young people" represent millions of votes and offering them loads of free stuff has clearly had an affect on the numbers voting for Corbyn. The problem is they are from a generation that has had little exposure to the dire consequences of socialism.

Exactly... Home ownership wouldnt be easy if you had 10% interest rates. Which wouldn't be much in a historical context, but would be massive now due to what people are used to.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

May has been a poor Prime Minister and ran a terrible campaign, but is there a single person on this forum that would want Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnel running the country?

Agree with both. Only 20 years ago as a single bloke on slightly above average wages I bought a 3 bed flat in central Brighton with a mortgage of only two and a quarter times my salary. It was a choice between that or a one bedroom flat in Mayfair (I know, I know). The Brighton flat is now around 15 times average wages and the Mayfair one about sixty. Totally unaffordable even to most dual income couples.

 

We need around 2 million quality houses. Building 100,000 shoeboxes a year and slapping yourself on the back isnt going to cut it.

Especially as those shoe boxes are way out of the price range of those that need them. In Eastleigh most of the the 2 bedroom new buildings cost more than older three bed properties.

Yes

Because the very rich or corporations only represent a small number of votes, "young people" represent millions of votes and offering them loads of free stuff has clearly had an affect on the numbers voting for Corbyn. The problem is they are from a generation that has had little exposure to the dire consequences of socialism.

And little exposure to the benefits of home ownership that earlier generations enjoyed.

2% interest rates aren't much use if you cant borrow enough money to buy a place to live.

Because the very rich or corporations only represent a small number of votes, "young people" represent millions of votes and offering them loads of free stuff has clearly had an affect on the numbers voting for Corbyn. The problem is they are from a generation that has had little exposure to the dire consequences of socialism.

Hard to argue with that. It's certainly been an interesting and reasonably successful tactic from labour to try to grab power but it won't do the country much good if they manage to succeed next time.

I watched the election campaign with my professional hat on and it was fascinating.

The youth vote was galvanised by social media campaigns, that landed blow after blow. The left put out articles that resonated with young people, who shared the message amongst their peers again and again. Then they could give themselves mutual back slaps for being so progressive, which spread the message still further. Despite much of the information being factually incorrect, it didn't matter. It worked. The young were engaging like they never have done before. The left provided a masterclass in social media electioneering.

The right went for a much more negative approach, attacking personalities, which clearly failed. They failed to get their message out in response to the left's campaign (although their message and manifesto left a lot to be desired). They failed to challenge and engage.

I have watched how the advertising industry has evolved over the last 15-20 years with digital/social taking over. Traditional media channels like direct mail, TV, radio and print have suffered immensely. Social Media has come of age and is the new kid on the block when it comes to electioneering. The influence of the press has been terminally wounded... the young don't read newspapers anymore and they certainly won't watch TV party political broadcasts..

...the next election will be won or lost online. Move over The Sun, it will be "Facebook wot won it" next time round...

And little exposure to the benefits of home ownership that earlier generations enjoyed.

 

2% interest rates aren't much use if you cant borrow enough money to buy a place to live.

True. One of the consequences of years of mass immigration.

May has been a poor Prime Minister and ran a terrible campaign, but is there a single person on this forum that would want Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnel running the country?

Yes of course there are people here who want Labour in power. Don't you look at the number of votes cast? Good to see you shoe horn in more xenophobic comments into an election thread too. You are nothing if not consistent. We would be buggered if it wasn't for immigration. And as for your buddy hypochondriac and his ridiculous comment that "socialism is dangerous" - here is a quote from a well respected broadsheet a year ago - "Capitalism eats itself when too many get left too far behind to consume its products." Just as "dangerous" as socialism it seems.

Yes of course there are people here who want Labour in power. Don't you look at the number of votes cast? Good to see you shoe horn in more xenophobic comments into an election thread too. You are nothing if not consistent. We would be buggered if it wasn't for immigration. And as for your buddy hypochondriac and his ridiculous comment that "socialism is dangerous" - here is a quote from a well respected broadsheet a year ago - "Capitalism eats itself when too many get left too far behind to consume its products." Just as "dangerous" as socialism it seems.

"capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism" Soggy 2017. Care to compare the death tolls related to both ideologies to see if your statement holds up? The West is the most developed culture that has ever existed. Capitalism undoubtedly has its problems but it is the most successful system we have and to pretend it is in any way comparable to the horrors that have been wrought by socialism is insane. Par for the course from you though.

"capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism" Soggy 2017. Care to compare the death tolls related to both ideologies to see if your statement holds up? The West is the most developed culture that has ever existed. Capitalism undoubtedly has its problems but it is the most successful system we have and to pretend it is in any way comparable to the horrors that have been wrought by socialism is insane. Par for the course from you though.

That's got to be one of the most simplistic posts ever committed to messageboardery.

Maybe tot up the human cost of imperialism and slavery before doing your sums next time?

That's got to be one of the most simplistic posts ever committed to messageboardery.

 

Maybe tot up the human cost of imperialism and slavery before doing your sums next time?

Why not take a trip to Venezuela and ask for their opinion of socialism.

"capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism" Soggy 2017. Care to compare the death tolls related to both ideologies to see if your statement holds up? The West is the most developed culture that has ever existed. Capitalism undoubtedly has its problems but it is the most successful system we have and to pretend it is in any way comparable to the horrors that have been wrought by socialism is insane. Par for the course from you though.

That is of course true, but things are forever changing. The current globalised nature of capitalism where there is little national governments can do to stop huge multinational companies making (taking) billions while nations debts rise toward the trillions can't go on for ever.

In Brexit, Trump's election and the relatively huge vote for an extremist like Corbyn we are already seeing a reaction to globalisation. IMO it's inevitably going to go pop at some point and socialism will end up picking the pieces again.

A lot of helmets throwing around the word 'socialism' without an inkling of what it means and somehow equating the Labour manifesto with Chavez's Venezuela or other radical experiments in socialism. Yeh hardcore socialists believe in having the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7

Corporatism is a bigger threat to democracy in Britain than Corbyn

I watched the election campaign with my professional hat on and it was fascinating.

 

The youth vote was galvanised by social media campaigns, that landed blow after blow. The left put out articles that resonated with young people, who shared the message amongst their peers again and again. Then they could give themselves mutual back slaps for being so progressive, which spread the message still further. Despite much of the information being factually incorrect, it didn't matter. It worked. The young were engaging like they never have done before. The left provided a masterclass in social media electioneering.

 

The right went for a much more negative approach, attacking personalities, which clearly failed. They failed to get their message out in response to the left's campaign (although their message and manifesto left a lot to be desired). They failed to challenge and engage.

 

I have watched how the advertising industry has evolved over the last 15-20 years with digital/social taking over. Traditional media channels like direct mail, TV, radio and print have suffered immensely. Social Media has come of age and is the new kid on the block when it comes to electioneering. The influence of the press has been terminally wounded... the young don't read newspapers anymore and they certainly won't watch TV party political broadcasts..

 

...the next election will be won or lost online. Move over The Sun, it will be "Facebook wot won it" next time round...

I can agree with most of that I still feel compelled to point out despite the social media master class and the failed attempt by the other side the left still lost. The right might have won the most Pyrrhic victory but they still won which suggests the newspaper reading, telly watching, "what's a tweet?" brigade are still in the majority.

I guess the big question is whether generation Facebook's politics change as they get older.

"capitalism is just as dangerous as socialism" Soggy 2017. Care to compare the death tolls related to both ideologies to see if your statement holds up? The West is the most developed culture that has ever existed. Capitalism undoubtedly has its problems but it is the most successful system we have and to pretend it is in any way comparable to the horrors that have been wrought by socialism is insane. Par for the course from you though.

Corbyn is much more like an FDR democrat than a socialist, as much as his devotees would hate that idea. He and Bernie Sanders have become politically like twins separated at birth. Both their campaigns - though they'd never say this - were aimed substantially at middle class voters. Corbyn's big ticket item was student fees - a magnet for young middle class voters. And he drew on the same economic sources as Sanders - Krugman, Stiglitz, et al., all very much in the broad church highlighting the economic and social damage done to working AND middle classes by vast wealth inequality.

Corbyn also nicked 'for the many, not the few' from the 1997 Blair manifesto.

So no, the extremist or state socialist tag doesn't fit. It's patently absurd to paint him into the same picture of state socialist mass murderers as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Or even Chavez.

What Corbyn won't be able to do is deliver his programme, but that's another question...

I watched the election campaign with my professional hat on and it was fascinating.

 

The youth vote was galvanised by social media campaigns, that landed blow after blow. The left put out articles that resonated with young people, who shared the message amongst their peers again and again. Then they could give themselves mutual back slaps for being so progressive, which spread the message still further. Despite much of the information being factually incorrect, it didn't matter. It worked. The young were engaging like they never have done before. The left provided a masterclass in social media electioneering.

 

The right went for a much more negative approach, attacking personalities, which clearly failed. They failed to get their message out in response to the left's campaign (although their message and manifesto left a lot to be desired). They failed to challenge and engage.

 

I have watched how the advertising industry has evolved over the last 15-20 years with digital/social taking over. Traditional media channels like direct mail, TV, radio and print have suffered immensely. Social Media has come of age and is the new kid on the block when it comes to electioneering. The influence of the press has been terminally wounded... the young don't read newspapers anymore and they certainly won't watch TV party political broadcasts..

 

...the next election will be won or lost online. Move over The Sun, it will be "Facebook wot won it" next time round...

Not sure it makes sense to lump the traditional media together.

Traditional newspapers may not have cut much ice. However, t's unclear whether their limited impact was due to the thoroughly negative message they were peddling or their distribution strategy. For instance I saw plenty of social media with links to guardian articles and other mainstream outlets. Social media doesn't just generate its own content; but is also a carrier for wider content. To pit one against the traditional vs the new is to misunderstand their interdependence.

Not sure we can proclaim the death of television just yet. Citing party political broadcasts is a strawman - they've never been taken seriously. By contrast, the news and leadership debates seem to have had far more traction. Interviews with the young suggest that their impression of Corbyn was great influenced by his performance in these TV formats.

The Tories problem was the content of the message, not the means of delivery.

That's got to be one of the most simplistic posts ever committed to messageboardery.

 

Maybe tot up the human cost of imperialism and slavery before doing your sums next time?

To be fair to hypo, he does come out with some corkers. If I have realised that Corbyn was going to mobilise the tanks if he had won the election I would never have voted for him! Mind you, not quite as good as his assertion that my view on Muslims is not as valid as his as I don't have any Muslim friends but his wife's uncle is an actual Muslim. Priceless. Now get back over the to the terrorist's thread and answer those questions, there's a good boy hypo.

He probably doesnt realise that youve actually been on holiday to Turkey, otherwise he wouldn't dare question your credentials.

Corbyn is much more like an FDR democrat than a socialist, as much as his devotees would hate that idea. He and Bernie Sanders have become politically like twins separated at birth. Both their campaigns - though they'd never say this - were aimed substantially at middle class voters. Corbyn's big ticket item was student fees - a magnet for young middle class voters. And he drew on the same economic sources as Sanders - Krugman, Stiglitz, et al., all very much in the broad church highlighting the economic and social damage done to working AND middle classes by vast wealth inequality.

 

Corbyn also nicked 'for the many, not the few' from the 1997 Blair manifesto.

 

So no, the extremist or state socialist tag doesn't fit. It's patently absurd to paint him into the same picture of state socialist mass murderers as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Or even Chavez.

 

What Corbyn won't be able to do is deliver his programme, but that's another question...

Not sure Sanders and Cobyn were separated at birth. Sanders was quite explicit about linking his programme to the American Dream and middle class opportunity. There were elements of this in Corbyn's campaign, though there was a stronger emphasis on public services and public sector workers -with at times a musk of clientelism.

Corbyn was most successful when he made the link between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity (tackling the latter is also a goal of New Labour and many Tories). He didn't do it consistently enough and will need to do it more if he's to convince more voters he's less a class warrior, motivated by the politics of envy than a politician interested in democratising opportunities so everyone can flourish and contribute to the economy and society.

Whether he can deliver his policies is another matter. His most successful line, by far, was ruling out tax rises for 95% of earners. Rhetorically it was brilliant, though it was also dishonest and oddly conservative. Dishonest because while the Labour manifesto was costed, it said nothing about the behavioural response of high earners and corporations to higher taxes (though some of the predictions of exodus made by the right were just as ludicrous).

And conservative because it leaves the needs-based welfare system and public services fundamentally untouched. A consequence of such a setup is those paying in the most see little out of it, which makes it hard to sell the common good argument. Over the long-term, it's unlikely to change public antipathy towards benefit claimants and leaves the system vulnerable to stricter means-testing as soon as the electoral tides shift.

Arguably Corbyn would have been more radical had he begun to make the case for contributory welfare i.e. what people get out of the system is more closely linked to what they put in. In effect, a variant of the German social democracy model. It would leave the system better funded and more popular - as something that's relevant to everyone, not just the poor. Of course, that would require a more honest debate about financing and past contributions across society, not just doubling down on milking anyone with a higher income.

To be fair to hypo, he does come out with some corkers. If I have realised that Corbyn was going to mobilise the tanks if he had won the election I would never have voted for him! Mind you, not quite as good as his assertion that my view on Muslims is not as valid as his as I don't have any Muslim friends but his wife's uncle is an actual Muslim. Priceless. Now get back over the to the terrorist's thread and answer those questions, there's a good boy hypo.

Hypo's made a fool of himself. No need to rub it in.

Socialism for the win!

Hypo's made a fool of himself. No need to rub it in.

Thanks pal but as someone who routinely embarrasses themselves on here I'm not sure you're in any position to judge.

The odious Corbyn is apportioning blame for this mornings tragic inferno already.

The man has the same reactionary populist politics as Trump. What a disgrace.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The odious Corbyn is apportioning blame for this mornings tragic inferno already.

 

The man has the same reactionary populist politics as Trump. What a disgrace.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I saw that. Any politician of whatever political persuasion trying to make points like that over something like this is pretty disgusting. Particularly so soon after the event.

The odious Corbyn is apportioning blame for this mornings tragic inferno already.

Any politician of whatever political persuasion trying to make points like that over something like this is pretty disgusting.

No. what is disgusting is that an urgent safety review report was sat on by the government for four years despite a previous fire which had killed six people. One of the ministers who failed to act is now the current PMs chief of Staff.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london/west/kensington-chelsea/government-sat-on-tower-fire-report-four-years/

No. what is disgusting is that an urgent safety review report was sat on by the government for four years despite a previous fire which had killed six people. One of the ministers who failed to act is now the current PMs chief of Staff.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london/west/kensington-chelsea/government-sat-on-tower-fire-report-four-years/

If anyone was negligent then they should be dealt with. A few hours after an event like this is not the time for political point scoring.

If anyone was negligent then they should be dealt with. A few hours after an event like this is not the time for political point scoring.

If Labour were in Government and running the local council, the Tories would be trying to score exactly the same points.

Not sure Sanders and Cobyn were separated at birth. Sanders was quite explicit about linking his programme to the American Dream and middle class opportunity. There were elements of this in Corbyn's campaign, though there was a stronger emphasis on public services and public sector workers -with at times a musk of clientelism.

 

Corbyn was most successful when he made the link between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity (tackling the latter is also a goal of New Labour and many Tories). He didn't do it consistently enough and will need to do it more if he's to convince more voters he's less a class warrior, motivated by the politics of envy than a politician interested in democratising opportunities so everyone can flourish and contribute to the economy and society.

 

Whether he can deliver his policies is another matter. His most successful line, by far, was ruling out tax rises for 95% of earners. Rhetorically it was brilliant, though it was also dishonest and oddly conservative. Dishonest because while the Labour manifesto was costed, it said nothing about the behavioural response of high earners and corporations to higher taxes (though some of the predictions made by the right were just as ludicrous).

 

And conservative because it leaves the needs-based welfare system and public services fundamentally untouched. A consequence of such a setup is those paying in the most see little out of it, which makes it hard to sell the common good argument. Over the long-term, it's unlikely to change public antipathy towards benefit claimants and leaves the system vulnerable to stricter means-testing as soon as the electoral tides shift.

 

Arguably Corbyn would have been more radical had he begun to make the case for contributory welfare i.e. what people get out of the system is more closely linked to what they put in. In effect, a variant of the German social democracy model. It would leave the system better funded and more popular - as something that's relevant everyone, not just the needy. Of course, that would require a more honest about financing and past contributions across society, not just doubling down on milking anyone on a higher income.

I agree with most of this. Good post.

No. what is disgusting is that an urgent safety review report was sat on by the government for four years despite a previous fire which had killed six people. One of the ministers who failed to act is now the current PMs chief of Staff.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london/west/kensington-chelsea/government-sat-on-tower-fire-report-four-years/

Again it's potentially quite a partisan view that a bloke who is also Vice Chairman of the National Fire Sprinkler Network is giving out. .

What needs to be looked at is why, in a building that is supposed to keep fire to the apartment effected (like the fire in the tower block in Southampton two months ago) spread to the whole building.

Experts are saying that something breached the compartmental aspects of the building.

A public inquiry needs to look into the ACTUAL causes and Then and only then heads need to roll.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk