RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

That is pretty fucked up. I'm not disagreeing, but it is fucked up. The great dumbing-down continues apace. FML.

I think it's pretty essential that the new leader is beyond reproach, but that's clearly not enough. I would hope that it isn't too hard to find several baggage-free candidates to choose between. (I mean it's not like it's the Tories ).

Which Tyler wrote:And so it begins

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... -1-6425258
Tory MP calls for social care insurance for 'those who can afford it'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48611.html
Boris Johnson could ditch promise to protect workers' rights and environmental protections after Brexit, No 10 suggests

I fear to read the news. There are things I really don't want to find out about.

But I guess I will need to keep myself informed, however painful it is.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
What does Davey stand for, though?

I'd rather someone with a vision rather than another career fucking politician.

That's been the problem since Thatcher, really: career politicians.

I may be ideologically opposite to her, but at least she had a plan and a vision and stuck to it!

BoJo only has himself, Swinson had nothing, Farron just wanted to be Israel Folau, Cameron didn't care for anything, Clegg had no vision other than power...

Useless, all of them. At least Corbyn has had an ideology, even if it's been badly implemented.

We could do with less ideology in our politics.

Really? I disagree. I think people should have a vision. When they have a vision and work toward that vision, their actions make sense.

And if you don't agree with that vision...don't vote for them.

The vision of BJ, Trump, etc., is simply POWER! They just want power and are willing to sacrifice anything and everyone around them to get it and hold it.

They don't care about the consequences for the little man. And even more the little woman.

If they're ideologically driven, those things are writ large in their actions.

In response to Mikey, I want to see politicians who have an aim in mind, clearly state that aim, and their policy decisions are obviously tied to that aim.

Thatcher was one. I disagreed with her vision but I can admire her for sticking to it. Since then we've been plagued by career politicians who only want power. They only care about winning elections: Blair, Cameron, BJ, May...

Can anyone say what their principle was? The only one who had a principle was Brown and he got hounded out for making mistakes that snowballed because of outside influences.

We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

That is pretty fucked up. I'm not disagreeing, but it is fucked up. The great dumbing-down continues apace. FML.

I think it's pretty essential that the new leader is beyond reproach, but that's clearly not enough. I would hope that it isn't too hard to find several baggage-free candidates to choose between. (I mean it's not like it's the Tories ).

Then start cloning and engineering personalities for the political class.

10.45 tonight, ITV

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

onlynameleft wrote:
RL-B makes Corbyn look like Thatcher. I used to work with her. She spent all her day trying to persuade the secretaries to do less work. She used to be Jake Berry’s trainee.

She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
She might appeal to Momentum, but I don't see her having much appeal to the wider electorate. Perhaps less baggage than Corbyn but otherwise not much difference.

I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

You make a meme.

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

You make a meme.

Elitist scum

Stom wrote:

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

You make a meme.

Elitist scum

Is that the meme, or just what you think of morepork? Or both?

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think "less baggage than Corbyn" is a) a low bar to trip over and b) a fairly major thing. I'd say having a candidate who is beyond reproach and with nothing that the papers/social media can latch onto is almost more important than their political stance.

Puja

I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I was thinking that it might disprove the theory that the UK is ready for Corbyn brand socialism if the face changed.

Personally I feel Labour needs to tack towards the centre. Nothing wrong with being left of centre but not into anti-capitalist trench Corbyn and McDonnell dug for themselves.

How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

morepork wrote:Jesus, it’s nothing to do with correctness, it’s habit formed of growing up where I grew up. I am not making a fucking statement over and above extending good wishes to you in this enforced break from the monotony of work.

Otherwise known as a holiday.

No trigger intended... Merry Christmas for cryin out loud!

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We obviously have a completely different idea of what ideology is and what it leads to. I’d say ideology is a strongly held belief that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, is still held as the best and only way. See ERG with no deal Brexit or Corbynomics with all must be treated the same.
A vision is great and very necessary but, for me, it’s not ideology and it must be pragmatic.
I’m not totally opposed to people wanting power for power’s sake. In the US it’s not worked well but in the UK there are plenty who would argue that those not listened to in decades are now getting what they have asked for due to Boris coveting no10. Assuming Bozza is true to his word.

Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Quantum computing, essentially the skilled office jobs will now vanish as once did the manual jobs.

And UBI certainly has its opponents, but in an age of globalisation and ever increasing automation do you want the main lefty party to talk about free broadband or UBI ? Actually for my money they should all have been talking about UBI, whether pro or con

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
How do you educate the masses that anti capitalism and anti neo capitalism are not the same thing... especially when the papers want to preserve neo capitalism.

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Why shouldn't the media talk about anti-capitalism when McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor after all, has raised it?

I think the jury is still out on UBI. Its clear that something needs to happen to provide a safety net with increased automation, equally it needs to be affordable and experience has shown that who one category of jobs becomes obsolete, others emerge.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Is Corbynomics a thing? Let alone a specific ideology? Isn't it just an approach that's more left-wing than anything seen in the UK since 1979?

I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Tell them not to get too excited one way or t'other. The qubit is poised to change the world that's only scratched the surface of automation and globalisation. And leading on from that one might wonder why the supposed party of socialism went the entire campaign not talking about UBI

How is the qubit going to change anything? I'm afraid it's waay too abstract for me.

And UBI...does it work? It's quite unpopular in the UK, no?

Why shouldn't the media talk about anti-capitalism when McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor after all, has raised it?

I think the jury is still out on UBI. Its clear that something needs to happen to provide a safety net with increased automation, equally it needs to be affordable and experience has shown that who one category of jobs becomes obsolete, others emerge.

Whilst yes historically we have always created new roles this might be a little different. I've got a (part time project) role that's currently looking just at cryptography and try regulation in delivery of Fintech, and where the new technologies might go is astonishing. We'll be able to automate huge additional chunks of legal services, accountancy services, regulation and compliance, christ even the banks as we know them might be gone shortly.

But we will still be creating wealth

So UBI might not be the solution, but it's a conversation we should be having now anyway given some of the inequalities in society, and it's more important again when that inequality might be about to spread much further into the middle classes. And certainly I don't see the point in being a centre, centre-left, or left leaning party and having nothing to say about UBI, you could be anti but you should be setting out what the alternative is and why that will lead to better outcomes, but to ignore it and then blather on about free broadband isn't even pissing on the margins

Also on this theme we should be talking about globalisation and automation. I'm not joking above when I say the banks days might be numbered, so too starting at the end of the road are currencies and even governments as we know them. The genie is not going back in the bottle on all this, so there's no point in Trump or Brexit populism harking on about a golden age that never even existed, we've got to look forwards, and have some idea how society is going to manage the change.

On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
I actually agreed with RLB on that: there's no such thing.

His policies are pretty standard.

I don't think you can call them any other names than just generic socialist policies with a touch of insanity.

Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Digby wrote:On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

You just made me laugh in the middle of my office. Thanks for the weird looks.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Well if a fully paid up Corbynite says so...
Given the huge success that was our economy in the 70’s, it can only be ideology that would want to take us back there.
Corbyn’s policies are rooted in ideology. From public sector always greater than private sector to equal provision for all.
When the above leads to policies such as incredibly successful academies and free schools being brought back under local govt control, free broadband for all and £20k+ reimbursements for WASPIs earning six figures, ideology can be the only reason.
The tax levels stated within Labour’s manifesto may be pretty standard by European standards, if on the higher side, but how they are levied and where the supposed increased take is prioritised aren’t.

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.