2017 GE 1

[ewerk 31685]

Corbyn never stood a chance. He can't/won't play the game. His answer today about whether he'd order a drone strike to kill the ISIS leader makes perfect sense but is exactly the sort of answer you can't give on the election trail.

[Rayvin 5616]

Corbyn never stood a chance. He can't/won't play the game. His answer today about whether he'd order a drone strike to kill the ISIS leader makes perfect sense but is exactly the sort of answer you can't give on the election trail.

To be fair, this is also true. Between the press and Corbyn refusing to play the game, it's hopeless. It would be less hopeless if people weren't idiots though.

[Renton 22660]

I'm sure this will come as a surprise to no one, but I agree with this. Only caveat being that of the two I'd still prefer Blair, even if all that does is offer the acceptable face of the same coin.

 

That said, Renton is ultimately right. People don't vote for actual progress. I think this is because they're fucking stupid, he thinks it's because they're concerned about being nuked by Russia. Either way, the press dictates what is and is not acceptable to vote for, and a lack of critical thinking from people generally makes governance along the same basic trajectory very easy.

 

1) People do vote for progression, but they want evolution, not revolution. Also we are fundamentally a different society now from what we were in the 70s, the last time NJS thinks we had it right. For better or worse, people are less socialist in inclination and more individualistic. Basically more selfish. The World changes and if you can't accept that, or want to go back to some imaginary socialist nirvana of the past, be my guest. It's pure fantasy though and will never happen.

 

2) Many people are stupid. Most people support a nuclear deterrent. It's pure logical fallacy to assume there is a causal relationship here though. Giving up an independent nuclear deterrent is unprecedented. It would be a stupendously risky move with no benefit other than money saving (and even then there would be huge job losses in areas that need those jobs). Tell me if I'm wrong, but every time I have defended the nuclear deterrent, I have had no answers other than ad hom attacks and straw man statements. Perhaps it isn't the electorate being ignorant on this issue but yourselves.  

[Rayvin 5616]

1) People do vote for progression, but they want evolution, not revolution. Also we are fundamentally a different society now from what we were in the 70s, the last time NJS thinks we had it right. For better or worse, people are less socialist in inclination and more individualistic. Basically more selfish. The World changes and if you can't accept that, or want to go back to some imaginary socialist nirvana of the past, be my guest. It's pure fantasy though and will never happen.

 

2) Many people are stupid. Most people support a nuclear deterrent. It's pure logical fallacy to assume there is a causal relationship here though. Giving up an independent nuclear deterrent is unprecedented. It would be a stupendously risky move with no benefit other than money saving (and even then there would be huge job losses in areas that need those jobs). Tell me if I'm wrong, but every time I have defended the nuclear deterrent, I have had no answers other than ad hom attacks and straw man statements. Perhaps it isn't the electorate being ignorant on this issue but yourselves.

Not about to debate nukes particularly except to say that as long as the US has them, we don't need them. See almost every country in Europe.

 

On the broader point, we were transformed into an individualistic society by Thatcher. We know this. She came out and said it, in unity with Reagan who did the same in the US (albeit this was an easier sell for them). Quite why you think Thatcher's vision is now an unchallengable truth, I don't know. She broke socialism but replaced it with nothing of any actual value. Hence widespread discontent and the reality that people are less happy now than in any other time in recorded history.

[NJS 4456]

1) People do vote for progression, but they want evolution, not revolution. Also we are fundamentally a different society now from what we were in the 70s, the last time NJS thinks we had it right. For better or worse, people are less socialist in inclination and more individualistic. Basically more selfish. The World changes and if you can't accept that, or want to go back to some imaginary socialist nirvana of the past, be my guest. It's pure fantasy though and will never happen.

 

2) Many people are stupid. Most people support a nuclear deterrent. It's pure logical fallacy to assume there is a causal relationship here though. Giving up an independent nuclear deterrent is unprecedented. It would be a stupendously risky move with no benefit other than money saving (and even then there would be huge job losses in areas that need those jobs). Tell me if I'm wrong, but every time I have defended the nuclear deterrent, I have had no answers other than ad hom attacks and straw man statements. Perhaps it isn't the electorate being ignorant on this issue but yourselves.

Money would be my main argument for giving it up - I know there are moral arguments but I see them as minor.

 

If twenty, thirty or forty countries had them I could see your point regarding giving it up but as it's less than ten and apart from the other four big players, only isolated nations, I think you have to see what they mean compared to the big three (I think France are in the same boat as the UK) and also what they mean compared to other first world countries who don't seem to care about having them.

 

They won't deter Russia or China or a terrorist state who acquired them which takes me back to the them being a waste of time as they aren't fit for purpose apart from grandising. To paraphrase Frankie Boyle it would be cheaper to write "We still matter" on the moon.

 

I do realise the point you're making in that Corbyn should pander to public opinion on certain issues but if politicians have the "courage" to ignore them on things like the death penalty and until Cameron on the EU then they should have the courage to have a debate about what they are actually for. When we all realise it's an ego trip we might be able to move on.

[Renton 22660]

Not about to debate nukes particularly except to say that as long as the US has them, we don't need them. See almost every country in Europe.

 

On the broader point, we were transformed into an individualistic society by Thatcher. We know this. She came out and said it, in unity with Reagan who did the same in the US (albeit this was an easier sell for them). Quite why you think Thatcher's vision is now an unchallengable truth, I don't know. She broke socialism but replaced it with nothing of any actual value. Hence widespread discontent and the reality that people are less happy now than in any other time in recorded history.

 

So you're saying Blair, Brown, and his government were Thatcherites? Fair enough, I disagree profoundly but really have no inclination to go over old ground again. Like I said to NJS, if this is the case then give up on politics as the options are this or further right wing governments. 

[Renton 22660]

Money would be my main argument for giving it up - I know there are moral arguments but I see them as minor.

 

If twenty, thirty or forty countries had them I could see your point regarding giving it up but as it's less than ten and apart from the other four big players, only isolated nations, I think you have to see what they mean compared to the big three (I think France are in the same boat as the UK) and also what they mean compared to other first world countries who don't seem to care about having them.

 

They won't deter Russia or China or a terrorist state who acquired them which takes me back to the them being a waste of time as they aren't fit for purpose apart from grandising. To paraphrase Frankie Boyle it would be cheaper to write "We still matter" on the moon.

 

I do realise the point you're making in that Corbyn should pander to public opinion on certain issues but if politicians have the "courage" to ignore them on things like the death penalty and until Cameron on the EU then they should have the courage to have a debate about what they are actually for. When we all realise it's an ego trip we might be able to move on.

 

The reasons we have nuclear weapons is historical. Nobody can predict the future but the fact uis they have worked as a deterrent until now. I literally see no reason to give them up unilaterally, and Pandora's box is open so multi-lateral disarmament is a virtual impossibility. They are easily the most cost-effective weapons in existence. Retaining our deterrence is the logical position.

[NJS 4456]

The reasons we have nuclear weapons is historical. Nobody can predict the future but the fact uis they have worked as a deterrent until now. I literally see no reason to give them up unilaterally, and Pandora's box is open so multi-lateral disarmament is a virtual impossibility. They are easily the most cost-effective weapons in existence. Retaining our deterrence is the logical position.

Deterrence to who though?

 

I can accept their role in the cold war on a global level but I've never seen any scenario put forward that makes sense outside of that.

[NJS 4456]

So you're saying Blair, Brown, and his government were Thatcherites? Fair enough, I disagree profoundly but really have no inclination to go over old ground again. Like I said to NJS, if this is the case then give up on politics as the options are this or further right wing governments.

The fact that they didn't right any of her wrongs means though I wouldn't consider them Thatcherites (though Blair speaks fondly of her), they can't be considered even left of centre.

[Meenzer 15905]

Can we just agree to describe the Blair government as a Labour-Tory coalition? Seems like that's the overall impact it had, and everyone was left broadly unsatisfied no matter which side you belong to. Proper coalition in other words.

[Rayvin 5616]

So you're saying Blair, Brown, and his government were Thatcherites? Fair enough, I disagree profoundly but really have no inclination to go over old ground again. Like I said to NJS, if this is the case then give up on politics as the options are this or further right wing governments.

Thatcherite as a term for describing general UK policies, no. Thatcherite in terms of its real name, Neoliberalism - yes.

 

And I have more or less given up on it. Still pisses me off though. But, people are not prepared to step up to the challenge of bettering themselves at the end of the day.

[adios 717]

Deterrence to who though?

 

I can accept their role in the cold war on a global level but I've never seen any scenario put forward that makes sense outside of that.

A Russia/China emboldened by future American isolationism.

[ewerk 31685]

Also, how on earth is Corbyn supposed to back the renewal of Trident in a Labour manifesto given his will known opposition to it?

 

And given that John McDonnell was telling us months ago that Labour were on an election footing, why didn't they have a manifesto ready to go?

[Dr Gloom 22757]

Privatisations/ no renationalisations? Check

Involving private finance and crippling the NHS with the debt? Check

Encouraging a property bubble ensuring the poor struggle? Check

Laissez-faire attitude to regulation bordering on worship of the city? Check

Not one of Thatchers crimes corrected? Check

Happy to sell arms to butchers? Check

ATOS? Check

 

Yeah achievements - not one thing Major or Cameron wouldn't have done.

He was operating from the centre ground, particularly compared to previous labour governments but he wasn't a Tory. I didn't agree with Iraq or light touch banking regulation but let's not forget the following:

 

Minimum Wage

Devolution for Scoland & Wales

Good Friday agreement

Freedom of Information Act

Human Rights Act

Independent Bank of England

Civil partnerships

Reduced Child Poverty

Huge investment in education

Huge investment in NHS (+25% increase in real terms)

Banning fox-hunting - would a tory ever do that?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098]

He was operating from the centre ground, particularly compared to previous labour governments but he wasn't a Tory. I didn't agree with Iraq or light touch banking regulation but let's not forget the following:

 

Minimum Wage

Devolution for Scoland & Wales

Good Friday agreement

Freedom of Information Act

Human Rights Act

Independent Bank of England

Civil partnerships

Reduced Child Poverty

Huge investment in education

Huge investment in NHS (+25% increase in real terms)

Banning fox-hunting - would a tory ever do that?

 

These two however have saddled the NHS and local governments with huge debts disproportionate to the work carried out. Also in Scotland at least if Government had paid the builders direct they could have clawed back huge amounts of the cost due to the shoddy workmanship carried out. However because of the way they were financed they have badly built schools and no way of recuperating for the cost.

[NJS 4456]

He was operating from the centre ground, particularly compared to previous labour governments but he wasn't a Tory. I didn't agree with Iraq or light touch banking regulation but let's not forget the following:

 

Minimum Wage

Devolution for Scoland & Wales

Good Friday agreement

Freedom of Information Act

Human Rights Act

Independent Bank of England

Civil partnerships

Reduced Child Poverty

Huge investment in education

Huge investment in NHS (+25% increase in real terms)

Banning fox-hunting - would a tory ever do that?

Some fair points though I would say civil partnerships were bottled because of Blair's religiosity and fox-hunting didn't go far enough.

 

Some were a natural result of a booming economy which being honest, we were heading for under Major - Brown didn't stimulate that growth through policy.

 

I would admit the minimum wage wouldn't have happened under a tory government but I also feel it hasn't been enforced well enough.

 

Also the groundwork for the good Friday agreement was done under Major as well - fair play to both of them.

Edited April 24, 2017 by NJS

[Renton 22660]

These two however have saddled the NHS and local governments with huge debts disproportionate to the work carried out. Also in Scotland at least if Government had paid the builders direct they could have clawed back huge amounts of the cost due to the shoddy workmanship carried out. However because of the way they were financed they have badly built schools and no way of recuperating for the cost.

Aye, definitely the same or worse as a Thatcher government then.

 

I've said it before but the claim the NHS is crippled due to PFI is simply untrue except for some individual trusts. The new infrastructure had to be paid from somewhere. I work in a shiny PFI building which every day saves lives. It wouldn't have been built under a conservative government. The 2% out of the budget to cover its build and maintenance is reasonable imo.

 

I just find this jaundiced viewpoint "they're all the same" tired and dishonest. If people feel like that, stop moaning about May because you're saying in effect it will always be like that.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098]

Aye, definitely the same or worse as a Thatcher government then.

 

I've said it before but the claim the NHS is crippled due to PFI is simply untrue except for some individual trusts. The new infrastructure had to be paid from somewhere. I work in a shiny PFI building which every day saves lives. It wouldn't have been built under a conservative government. The 2% out of the budget to cover its build and maintenance is reasonable imo.

 

I just find this jaundiced viewpoint "they're all the same" tired and dishonest. If people feel like that, stop moaning about May because you're saying in effect it will always be like that.

Except  never said they are all the same, I just think people like to gloss over the whole PFI thing when they shouldn't. I won't be voting Tory, Labour, Ukip or Libdem.

[ewerk 31685]

I think we'd all be in shock if you weren't voting SNP. It'd be a betrayal of your adopted nationality.

[Rayvin 5616]

Aye, definitely the same or worse as a Thatcher government then.

 

I've said it before but the claim the NHS is crippled due to PFI is simply untrue except for some individual trusts. The new infrastructure had to be paid from somewhere. I work in a shiny PFI building which every day saves lives. It wouldn't have been built under a conservative government. The 2% out of the budget to cover its build and maintenance is reasonable imo.

 

I just find this jaundiced viewpoint "they're all the same" tired and dishonest. If people feel like that, stop moaning about May because you're saying in effect it will always be like that.

 

Why would that be a reason not to moan about it? I would say that scenario would be one of the most compelling reasons to complain, frankly.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Rayvin

[ewerk 31685]

Because it's a waste of time if you feel that you're never going to get anything but the same in charge.

[NJS 4456]

Because it's a waste of time if you feel that you're never going to get anything but the same in charge.

There is a jaundiced view I've had in the past that the way this country is set up with the entrenched establishment filled with inherited money and a cowed senior civil service that true change is impossible.

 

I suppose that lends itself to a view of optimistic change through evolutionary stages rather than short term results.

 

I think it was either HF or Chez who pointed out that the problem is you need the centre to get elected but then have to keep them happy to stay in power which limits the changes you could make.

 

Without a sea change leftwards which is unlikely maybe an NL type government is the best we can hope for - depressing.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098]

Someone I think it was in the Guardian wrote that we can't expect much in the way of change when everyone in government, in journalism, in the civil service and in the think tanks all did the same course at the same university reading the same books and being steered towards the same conclusion.

[Dr Gloom 22757]

I think if you look back over the past 40-50 years you'd have to say it's the only hope for progressive politics. Win an election by reaching out to the middle England then try to positively lives once power is secured. He tories are masters at it. Cameron did a great job at presenting his eco-friendly, big society, hug a hoodie image to win an election. Then we all saw the lurch to the right once in power.

[Rayvin 5616]

There is a jaundiced view I've had in the past that the way this country is set up with the entrenched establishment filled with inherited money and a cowed senior civil service that true change is impossible.

 

I suppose that lends itself to a view of optimistic change through evolutionary stages rather than short term results.

 

I think it was either HF or Chez who pointed out that the problem is you need the centre to get elected but then have to keep them happy to stay in power which limits the changes you could make.

 

Without a sea change leftwards which is unlikely maybe an NL type government is the best we can hope for - depressing.

 

Yep. Dunno why the inconsistencies and failures of the system shouldn't be pointed out at every available opportunity though. Especially when the self same system has us Brexiting. And has the yanks in the clutches of an absolute headcase.