The Labour Leadership Campaign

[ewerk 30616]

I've no idea tbh. But the question also has to be asked as to whether the railways could actually be ran more efficiently under state control. Weren't they in a mess before privatisation?

[Rayvin 5223]

They're not exactly devoid of mess now...

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Would re-nationalising actually be feasible? Genuinely haven't a clue, which is why I'm asking and I didn't want my question to appear like I was being an arse.

Pretty easy as the routes are only franchised.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31621300

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Not saying you're stupid, just that you've been caught out by your own logic. You say that the debate around the role of Labour in the crisis is over but that would mean the Tories could no longer attack Labour for it. What you argue is not possible, as soon as the subject comes up again, the discussion will happen. Which means your argument that there is no point in Labour preparing their arguments around this topic as incorrect.

 

As I said, it's not stupidity just you've been undone by your own argument. Unless you argue that the Tories won't use the economy to attack Labour.

I'm not undone at all. What I'm saying is time moves on and the electorate (ever changing), moves on.

 

Labours best line of defence would be to have something else to talk about, a better vision, exciting policies. Etc.

 

Labours poor record in government will always get dragged up by the conservatives. In 1997 the electorate were blown away even though some Tories still harped on about "the last time" labour were in power. Winter of discontent, people not getting buried etched etc.

 

In 2020 most voters will be more swayed by an exciting vision of the future than they will by something that happened 13 years previously.

[Gemmill 44894]

UNDONE! UNDONE!

[Rayvin 5223]

I'm not undone at all. What I'm saying is time moves on and the electorate (ever changing), moves on.

 

Labours best line of defence would be to have something else to talk about, a better vision, exciting policies. Etc.

 

Labours poor record in government will always get dragged up by the conservatives. In 1997 the electorate were blown away even though some Tories still harped on about "the last time" labour were in power. Winter of discontent, people not getting buried etched etc.

 

In 2020 most voters will be more swayed by an exciting vision of the future than they will by something that happened 13 years previously.

 

I agree with this, but as things stand I can't see any political party actually delivering on such a thing. Especially not the Tories. There is no vision for the future of this country, we're just winding it down now, really.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Boris, doubtful but then again he did enough to get elected to be head of one of the world's major cities. Gideon could easily appeal to enough cunts to win an election.

I think the Tories are struggling after Cameron.

 

Osborne and May are obnoxious, whilst Boris's charisma seems to be diminishing. Hopefully a good'un will emerge.

 

I quite like Jeremy hunt but so far he's a bit weak.

[Monkeys Fist 42458]

CT arguing his point

[Rayvin 5223]

[Christmas Tree 4725]

 

I agree with this, but as things stand I can't see any political party actually delivering on such a thing. Especially not the Tories. There is no vision for the future of this country, we're just winding it down now, really.

I disagree. I think we are doing ok for a tiny island having gone through Labours crash

 

We are going through a range of policies that are (unpopular with the left) putting us in a leaner position to exist and be relatively successful in this modern age.

 

If you think about the last 100-200 years, we've had a hell of a ride, but now the rest of the world is getting in on the act.

 

Sorting out the pension crisis, controlling welfare and concentrating on the economy will stand us in good stead going forward.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

CT arguing his point

Very good tubs

[Rayvin 5223]

I disagree. I think we are doing ok for a tiny island having gone through Labours crash ;)

 

We are going through a range of policies that are (unpopular with the left) putting us in a leaner position to exist and be relatively successful in this modern age.

 

If you think about the last 100-200 years, we've had a hell of a ride, but now the rest of the world is getting in on the act.

 

Sorting out the pension crisis, controlling welfare and concentrating on the economy will stand us in good stead going forward.

 

 

But do you not also think cracking down on tax avoidance, which costs us £70billion per year, should be a higher priority than controlling for £4.6billion in welfare fraud? Wouldn't that stand us in better stead going forward? That £70b could be spent on public services, investing in science and technology, putting the UK at the forefront of the information/knowledge arms race. Instead, with respect, we're playing petty politics over things only the Daily Mail gets wound up about.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Rayvin

[Gemmill 44894]

Never offer CT respect. He hasn't earned it.

[ewerk 30616]

They're not exactly devoid of mess now...

Indeed but they're not costing the tax payer much at the moment. The worst case would be that we end up heavily subsidising a failing system.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

 

 

But do you not also think cracking down on tax avoidance, which costs us £70billion per year, should be a higher priority than controlling for £4.6billion in welfare fraud? Wouldn't that stand us in better stead going forward? That £70b could be spent on public services, investing in science and technology, putting the UK at the forefront of the information/knowledge arms race. Instead, with respect, we're playing petty politics over things only the Daily Mail gets wound up about.

I do and the last government did quite a bit on that front. But to be honest, it's one of those "magic cash generator" figures that all politicians talk about but actually achieving is a lot tougher.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Never offer CT respect. He hasn't earned it.

The amount of shit I take while trying to educate you lot!

 

I've earned it.

[Gemmill 44894]

I have more respect for Hitler.

[Monkeys Fist 42458]

Did someone say Hitler?

[Rayvin 5223]

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Let's take this bit by bit.

 

Labour's biggest problem is that they haven't talked enough about 2008. They're too busy running away from it and allowing the Tories to set the narrative. Every Labour budget from 1997 till the crash was backed by the Tories, and you know as well as I do that the exact same financial catastrophe would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Labour need to be bold and honest about what happened.

 

Nationalising railways is supported by at least 70% of the country when polled. Even Tory voters show and (albeit small) majority in favour of renationalisation. Very similar numbers when it comes to energy companies. Can you not see how stupid it is that for instance the Dutch public sector can run the railways in Scotland, but our public sector can't? We're the only country in the EU that doesn't own our own national grid. We're that obsessed with privatisation.

 

You say raising income tax thresholds like it's across the board. The idea is to only raise the top rate back to 50p. You can't pretend that's not popular.

 

Scrapping tuition fees is quite popular. It's extremely hard to do, but there is absolutely no reason for the £9,000 fees with the possibility of raising to £11,500.

 

While I agree with Corbyn on Trident and NATO, I can grant that he's not on the popular side of the debate on that one.

 

As I've said a million times, Labour can either chase the over 10 million disenfranchised people who don't bother to turn out for an election and elect Corbyn, or they can continue their failed plan of trying to appeal to a couple of hundred thousand voters in marginal seats in middle England and continue to be Tory-lite, begging the question "why vote for the fake Tories when I can vote for the real thing?"

 

You argue that they risk falling into complete irrelevance if they elect Corbyn. I argue that by electing one of the other three talking heads they ensure they never recover from their current malaise.

Well said that man

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Mirror comes out for Burnham.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andy-burnham-must-next-labour-6248770

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not undone at all. What I'm saying is time moves on and the electorate (ever changing), moves on.

 

Labours best line of defence would be to have something else to talk about, a better vision, exciting policies. Etc.

 

Labours poor record in government will always get dragged up by the conservatives. In 1997 the electorate were blown away even though some Tories still harped on about "the last time" labour were in power. Winter of discontent, people not getting buried etched etc.

 

In 2020 most voters will be more swayed by an exciting vision of the future than they will by something that happened 13 years previously.

You've just undone your own argument again.

 

In 1997 no one cared about the issues relevant to the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s as the world had truly moved on.

 

Unfortunately, austerity and strict fiscal spending plans that throttle the economy will still be a massive issue in 2020 as we have now seen the exact nature of the spending plans. We knew that this government was going to enact these plans the night of the election. That's why I was able to say straight after the election that the job of labour was to address the arguments. Austerity, a policy born out of the financial crisis, will be carried through to 2020. That means that austerity will keep the issue more alive than ever before.

 

When another 5 years of European austerity has led to a decade of stagnant economic life in the UK and in Europe, a counter-narrative will be possible. Middle England got sick of the Tories economic policies in the 90s, it can get sick of them again. The closer Osbourne sticks to his stringent fiscal cuts, the more likely that people will be willing to listen to another way, much publicized by Stiglitz and Krugman etc.

 

Labour needs to get that sorted as the current economic policy guarantees that this will still be a fundamental issue in 4 years time. This is the point your missing, the Tory policy will keep this issue alive. If we see startling economic growth and a real increase in spending on essential public services then I will be wrong. That austerity policy has had 6 years and the economy is still smaller than it was in 2008. Another 4 years and we are still going to be debating whether it's right or not. The situation could not be any different to 1997.

[Howmanheyman 33236]

CT arguing his point

:lol:

[Christmas Tree 4725]

You've just undone your own argument again.

 

In 1997 no one cared about the issues relevant to the Labour Party in the 70s and 80s as the world had truly moved on.

 

Unfortunately, austerity and strict fiscal spending plans that throttle the economy will still be a massive issue in 2020 as we have now seen the exact nature of the spending plans. We knew that this government was going to enact these plans the night of the election. That's why I was able to say straight after the election that the job of labour was to address the arguments. Austerity, a policy born out of the financial crisis, will be carried through to 2020. That means that austerity will keep the issue more alive than ever before.

 

When another 5 years of European austerity has led to a decade of stagnant economic life in the UK and in Europe, a counter-narrative will be possible. Middle England got sick of the Tories economic policies in the 90s, it can get sick of them again. The closer Osbourne sticks to his stringent fiscal cuts, the more likely that people will be willing to listen to another way, much publicized by Stiglitz and Krugman etc.

 

Labour needs to get that sorted as the current economic policy guarantees that this will still be a fundamental issue in 4 years time. This is the point your missing, the Tory policy will keep this issue alive. If we see startling economic growth and a real increase in spending on essential public services then I will be wrong. That austerity policy has had 6 years and the economy is still smaller than it was in 2008. Another 4 years and we are still going to be debating whether it's right or not. The situation could not be any different to 1997.

We'll have to wait and see then.

 

By 2020 the budget is predicted to be in surplus for a start. There's also the "surplus law" to come which Labour has to back or otherwise fall into a whole new overspending trap.

 

Wages are rising, borrowing is still very low and the economy is forecast to continue at about 2.5%

 

My bottom line to this is that Labour will always come second on financial management and therefore their chances of success will rest more on promising an exciting new future. (1997).

[Gemmill 44894]

Will you fuck off with your bottom lines. Underlining all of them is the real bottom line that you don't know what you're talking about.