Re: Labour won't win...
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:50 pm
What exactly is decent about Corbyn?
How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?Mellsblue wrote:Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.Zhivago wrote:But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.Mellsblue wrote: I wouldn't say Corbyn's subs v Cameron's aircraft carriers is a fair comparison. One was/is ideological bollocks the other was a poor decision that was the result of a list of poor decisions. One saddles us with a generations worth of white elephants, the other a few years worth.
Corbyn may think he has the interests of the majority at heart but that doesn't mean that his ideas are best for the interests of the majority. A lot of what he thinks is ideological bollocks that doesn't really have any base in leading a major party, let alone a leading nation. It's all very good for fringe meetings of those still living in the 70's, and I've no doubt it's well intentioned, but it's no good if you want to lead a modern, open nation. Particularly, if that nation is naturally right of centre.
And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.
Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.
-Lowest expenses of all parliamentariansEugene Wrayburn wrote:What exactly is decent about Corbyn?
I don't hate him. I find him much the same as most other politicians. He lies when it furthers his aims. He spins no less than anyone else. His calls for unity are calls for others to agree with him or shut up. It is not remotely surprising that the MP for Islington has the lowest expenses.Zhivago wrote:-Lowest expenses of all parliamentariansEugene Wrayburn wrote:What exactly is decent about Corbyn?
-Campaigns tirelessly for those in society with the least voice, but most need
-Usually gives a straight answer when asked a question
-Not out for self-aggrandisement, like most other politicians
What has he done that makes you hate him so much?
You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.Zhivago wrote:How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?Mellsblue wrote:Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.Zhivago wrote:
But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.
And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.
Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.
If the Tory decision had been to go ahead with th carriers and it bother with planes at alll, I would agree. It was a risky decision , verging on daft, but not as ludicrous as corbyns tribent plan.Zhivago wrote:I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.Sandydragon wrote:To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.Zhivago wrote:
That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.
I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.
But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.
He does interviews all the time. When was the last time a Tory ever gave a straight answer? Brexit means Brexit for example. Laughable.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Just to add, straight answer to a straight question? What utter nonsense. He'll be won't even do interviews
That was Thornberry anyway, and I don't think she's too bright. But that was using the example of Japan anyway, so it's not necessarily quite as daft as it seems on the face of it, although it wouldn't be the choice i'd make either.Sandydragon wrote:If the Tory decision had been to go ahead with th carriers and it bother with planes at alll, I would agree. It was a risky decision , verging on daft, but not as ludicrous as corbyns tribent plan.Zhivago wrote:I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.Sandydragon wrote: To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.
I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.
But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.
I think Corbin does genuinely care about people. It he is not a leader and he is in a role where his failings are magnified.
Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.Mellsblue wrote:You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.Zhivago wrote:How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?Mellsblue wrote: Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.
Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.
All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.Zhivago wrote:Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.Mellsblue wrote:You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.Zhivago wrote:
How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.
If you're asking for a personal view, I think that natural monopolies, such as rail services, should not be privately owned. They should be publically owned because at least then there isn't a profit overhead that increases costs. The benefits of competition and a free market that usually underlie the preference for private ownership, are not present in a natural monopoly. This goes too for other natural monopolies.Mellsblue wrote:All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.Zhivago wrote:Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.Mellsblue wrote: You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.
I'd agree with most of that. As things stand I don't think the privatisation of the railways has been done satisfactorily as they are monopolies. It still has its pluses as investment is not at the whim of central government who can raid the railway budget for a more headline grabbing initiative. The railways suffered for years because of this. Under the present system of one operator per route my ideal solution would be a ring fenced budget under public ownership. Albeit, there would be stringent oversight demanding value for money. There are formative plans to run competing franchises on the same lines and this should be the end game.Zhivago wrote:If you're asking for a personal view, I think that natural monopolies, such as rail services, should not be privately owned. They should be publically owned because at least then there isn't a profit overhead that increases costs. The benefits of competition and a free market that usually underlie the preference for private ownership, are not present in a natural monopoly. This goes too for other natural monopolies.Mellsblue wrote:All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.Zhivago wrote:
Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.
But I'd take it even further. I generally see profit extraction by owners as detrimental to the running of a business - just look at the shennanigans of some of our worst capitalists - Green and Ashley. They are asset stripping, profit extracting sociopaths, who hide their ill-gained wealth offshore. Take the recent purchase of Agent Provocateur, gone into pre-pack administration so as to practically defraud the creditors. That's no way to run a business, and it's purely due to the profit motive, and some of the more despicable practices available to people with no scruples.
Top post. My face went from complete confusion/bemusement to guffawing in the space of three sentences. Good work.Stones of granite wrote:Did anyone see the complete filleting of Phillip Hammond and Theresa May by Jeremy Corbyn at PMQ yesterday over the budget fiasco and the resulting £2b black hole?
No, neither did I.
Utterly, utterly useless.
Of course, it's the Tory media to blame for the fact that Corbyn can't muster any opposition to a 2nd rate Government.
Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.cashead wrote:Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.
Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.
lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.Mellsblue wrote:Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.cashead wrote:Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.
Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.
Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.
If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.Banquo wrote:lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.Mellsblue wrote:Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.cashead wrote:Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.
Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.
Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.
I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.Banquo wrote:lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.Mellsblue wrote:Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.cashead wrote:Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.
Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.
Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.
He'd only end up shooting himself in the foot.Stones of granite wrote:If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.Banquo wrote:lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.Mellsblue wrote: Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.
Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.
Mellsblue wrote:He'd only end up shooting himself in the foot.Stones of granite wrote:If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.Banquo wrote: lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.
The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.Mellsblue wrote:I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.Banquo wrote:lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.Mellsblue wrote: Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.
Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.
If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.
Yep. I said to my long suffering wife over the weekend that I never thought I'd see the day a Conservative govt would be vilified over raising taxes, especially one that hits the higher earners the hardest. Just goes to prove that the real official opposition is the governments slim majority.Digby wrote:The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.Mellsblue wrote:I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.Banquo wrote: lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.
If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.
Yes, May has a lot more to fear behind her as it were...plus when Sturgeon, not even at Westminster, can be more effective in wrong footing the govt than the real opposition, its a sorry state of affairsMellsblue wrote:Yep. I said to my long suffering wife over the weekend that I never thought I'd see the day a Conservative govt would be vilified over raising taxes, especially one that hits the higher earners the hardest. Just goes to prove that the real official opposition is the governments slim majority.Digby wrote:The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.Mellsblue wrote: I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.
If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.