Because he emboldened the bigots after calling that old woman out?
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Because he emboldened the bigots after calling that old woman out?
I agree on the voter demographic but don't agree on the political leaning conclusion. The stats that I've seen show as many left leaning ex Labour voters opting for the Brexit party during general elections than right wing ex Tory voters (it's a bit different in local elections where there is less loyalty). For all the talk of Brexit "dividing" the nation, it's actual brought some people together in another sense. Never would you have previously seen an ex-Tony Benn supporter and an ex-Margaret Thatcher supporter united under the same political banner.
Let's be honest... Anyone with half a brain can predict that a developed country isn't going to sustain a perpetual 3 - 4% annual GDP growth in perpetuity (let alone the 4.5% it would have needed to grow to maintain spend to GDP levels). During 2002 the economy had been growing at this rate for nearly a decade. To say that hindsight was required for a bit of restraint to be applied at this stage is to assume politicians have no grasp of history or reality. Hell it wasn't even restraint needed, merely increasing public service spending in line with GDP growth, rather than at twice the pace of GDP growth.
His spending from 1997 - 2002 was logical overall (although it should have been frontloaded to a greater extent). His spending from 2002 - 2005 was obscene.
Last edited:
Yea, agree with this. It's divided the nation in terms of Leave/Remain, and has fractured traditional Left/Right/Class clans.
That brutality had been there from the start, and even consolidated by the US, UK and her allies by propping up Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with the means to commit atrocities against the Iranians and Kurds and even tried to downplay/suppress them when said atrocities surfaced.
Blair was just indulging in the neoliberal obsession with selective nation-building, it had nothing to do with humanitarian concern.
what does “neoliberal obsession with selective nation building” even mean?
I'm not defending or even arguing the intent. Simply saying that Saddam needed getting rid of, and doing it was not in isolation a bad thing, whatever the stated 'reasons.'
Yet if you were to press these 'left leaning ex Labour voters' on why they want Brexit, they will largely come back with right wing rhetoric. It's about 'taking back control', the people against the establishment and as much as I hate to say it, a fair bit of anti-immigrant sentiment. There's a very clear link between austerity and rising populism... a clear failure of economic policy that has left too many people behind.
The policy was aimed at large landlords with 4 or more properties who are in effect a business, not at people who have bought or own a property as an asset for the future. This is the actual quote from McDonell: “There’s a large number of individuals or families who have bought another property as their asset for the future and we wouldn’t want to endanger that.”
It is in no way understandable how you have deducted they want to force you to sell your home under market value from that apart from if you read the right wing press headlines and not the context.
I know changing your mind is a lost cause that's not what I'm trying to do, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.
there are many businesses in the UK that hold property in the private rental sector - is it ok to take parts of their business? Businesses that pay corporation tax, stamp duty, tax on dividends and capital gains tax?
what’s wrong with having a small business?
I am at least 20 years too young to be called a boomer! In my defence, I couldn’t tell you what Alan Sugar has done in the past 20 years bar spurs and the apprentice.This post is just asking for an “ok boomer”Amstrad!!
We have an opportunity to remove the Austerity policies in 10 days. Otherwise the future of an entire generation could be wiped out.
There is no option but Labour.
There is no option but Labour.
Are you British or American or both? I thought you were from Minnesota or somewhere!
Don’t think that’s correct, off the top of my head I seem to remember Italy, Poland and Spain having troops in Iraq at one point or another.
That's because it's not "right-wing rhetoric." At least, not once you dig the political compass out.
That blue section are those nonsense arguments by the Jacob Rees Mogg and his Libertarian friends: "The EU prevents us from doing trade deals with poorer countries, which stops us getting them out of poverty." "The EU creates pointless regulations which increase the cost of doing business, making us uncompetitive and raises prices." "The EU allows uncontrolled immigration from Europe, preventing us from bringing scientists, doctors and engineers in from India, China etc".
The red section are the reasons most people actually voted for Brexit. "They're stealing our jobs". "They talk different". "They're stealing houses"
2cents is correct
Invasion phase was as above. Then once the deed was done, from 2003 onwards a huge list of countries went in to assist.
- United States (2003–09)
- United Kingdom (2003–09)
- Australia (2003–09)
- Romania (2003–09)
- Azerbaijan (2003–08)
- Kuwait (2003–08)
- Estonia (2003–09)
- El Salvador (2003–09)
- Bulgaria (2003–08)
- Moldova (2003–08)
- Albania (2003–08)
- Ukraine (2003–08)
- Denmark (2003–08)
- Czech Republic (2003–08)
- South Korea (2003–08)
- Singapore (2003–08)
- Croatia (2003–08)
- Bosnia and Herzegovina (2003–08)
- Macedonia (2003–08)
- Latvia (2003–08)
- Poland (2003–08)
- Kazakhstan (2003–08)
- Mongolia (2003–08)
- Georgia (2003–08)
- Tonga (2004–08)
- Japan (2004–08)
- Armenia (2005–08)
- Slovakia (2003–07)
- Lithuania (2003–07)
- Italy (2003–06)
- Norway (2003–06)
- Hungary (2003–05)
- Netherlands (2003–05)
- Portugal (2003–05)
- New Zealand (2003–04)
- Thailand (2003–04)
- Philippines (2003–04)
- Honduras (2003–04)
- Dominican Republic (2003–04)
- Spain (2003–04)
- Nicaragua (2003–04)
- Iceland (2003–unknown)
Which bit do you not understand specifically? The neoliberal aspect? Or the selective bit?
Did you not mean to say neo-conservative?
I've come to the conclusion that British people like suffering & being shafted in ways only allowed as part of sex masochism, word to LVG.
Why improve the rail network, broadband infrastructure, quality of living etc when we continue to wallow in misery?!
Why improve the rail network, broadband infrastructure, quality of living etc when we continue to wallow in misery?!
I don't buy that left wing people have suddenly become right wing. Likewise I don't buy the populism argument as Corbyn's manifesto is a far more populist one... It's essentially "what big spending commitments are popular, whack them in".
I think it's far more nuanced than you suggest. People see that the austerity imposed on Greece by the EU for example makes our "austerity" look like a weekend of spending with Floyd Mayweather. They see youth unemployment across the EU is crazily high. They see Russia being more active and the EU not pulling its weight within NATO. They see high tariffs on goods we don't produce inflating costs. Yes immigration is a concern but notice no party is massively banging that drum this election. They see billions leaving the country net every year, which we may get back in economic growth but other countries get that same benefit and a net neutral bill. Hell even Corbyn warned of the dangers of EU membership to socialist ideals.
It certainly isn't as simple aa "racists have left Labour and joined the Tories".
Last edited:
Absolutely.
Interesting thread. I hope some.of the anti Corbyn brigade read through all of the contradictions.
I keep telling myself to stay out of this thread as nothing good ever comes from me posting here
But you know, although we obviously don’t agree on some things and from your posts I can see how your views of the Conservative Party have been formed. It sounds like there has been some tough times in your family for which I’m sorry to hear. Believe it or not I’m not a million miles away from being a Labour voter myself.
But this post is wrong. To assume all people who are voting Conservative are ‘this’ is silly. Some people, like me, are more than likely holding their noses and voting Conservative to ensure Labour don’t win despite being previous Labour voters. I’m not voting for who I want in office, I’m voting for the party that has the best chance of keeping this current Labour Party out of office.
So yes, some of us know deep down what we are voting for indirectly but because of specific policies that affect us and our families directly, and some of the more socialist plans and ideas just find the current Labour Party unappealing. It’s not quite as simple as you’re making out in your post.
I would have just as hard a time as that caller finding a reason to admire Boris but that still doesn’t change how I’ll vote.
Labour lost me the minute they announced their proposed changes to IHT and some of the ideas aimed at landlords. Now I know they’ve apparently watered the right to buy plans in the last week or so but the fact they have this way of thinking makes me very wary of them.
As you know, I inherited my 2nd home when my own parents died. It is my family home, where I grew up and it will pretty much be my pension throughout my old age so the thought of being forced to sell it at a ‘reasonable price’ triggered a very strong inner emotion.
Effectively I would have to sell my past, my present and mine and my children’s future. How could I vote for that? Like I said, I know this has apparently been watered down but even so, it displays either a way of thinking or even worse, a lack of thinking that makes it very hard for me to want to vote Labour.
I understand they want rich people to shoulder a larger burden and want to try and improve conditions for the poor but I fall into neither category so I would expect my situation to be left pretty much alone.
That’s not to say I would be opposed to certain tax rises that are taken from my salary or even my rental income, but to take it as a lump sum from my children on my death is another thing entirely.
At each election it is a balancing act. 1) what will this mean for the country? 2) What will this mean to me and my family? For this election I am more concerned by question 2. Yes, this could be viewed as selfish, and if so, then I accept that as I view myself as largely a considerate and generous person, but do I want to help my own children as much as I can? Yes.
I have always, long before this election, viewed IHT as a spiteful tax, a cynical grab of assets that normal families have worked hard for and already been taxed on and I feel that the current levels are fine. They allow pretty average families to pass the family home down to their children and no argument in the world will convince me this is wrong.
For me, rightly or wrongly this is pretty much a one policy election and it’s not Brexit.
This is the problem though, which you acknowledge which is that basically your entire post was written from what you accept is a selfish point of view. You're meant to be voting for policies that will help this country be great, not which one will let you keep your family home at the expense of millions of other people experiencing miserable day to day lives. It should be the sum of all parts and about elevating the populace on every issue in each parties manifesto but sadly election after election it's the sum of one part and that one part is often insignificant to the well being of the rest of the nation.
I think the thing about Blair is that he had some notable foreign policy successes early on in his tenure where his interventionism paid dividends and could be seen as somewhat justifiable. Most people would recognise, for example, that intervening in Kosovo was fair game. Similarly, he was able to preside over the GFA, which had significant foreign policy implications even if it was technically a domestic move.
In certain respects I get the impression Blair saw the world in very black and white terms, and while he could be a pragmatic actor he genuinely viewed himself, his party and most of his Western allies as forces for good who had a duty to combat evil regimes and despots. In that sense, while he fundamentally differed on policy from Bush, he nevertheless saw Bush as a useful ally who he could sway and influence, someone who - even if he wasn't necessarily a good politician - wasn't an awful person. But he overestimated his influence with the US and underestimated the worst aspects of the Bush regime which, of course, have fed into Trump's presidency now.
Our involvement in Iraq probably came from Blair's fairly misguided and simplistic view of geopolitics, and a perspective that's since largely been discredited or countered with global developments. Which is ironic considering before he took power some worried he might be too soft when it came to foreign policy.
A fair chunk of British people do believe that we deserve to suffer. These are the loyal DM readers who love to wallow in bad news.
They have become either brain washed or are brain dead.
I've received far more bloody Brexit Party literature through the post than from any other party. Fuhrer Farage has invaded Wales.
Because some of us realise that all has to be paid for.
Some of us also remember when things like the railways were last nationalised, and they were a damn sight worse than they are now. A lot of people in here think nationalisation is a magic pill.
I've said this before but I'm a single child and I stand to inherit TWO houses. One in the UK and one in Australia. Both quite big - four bedroom in the UK and a villa in Australia - and quite frankly I feel that Labour's plans don't go far enough.
Safe in the knowledge that he can’t get his commie hands on that big ass villa in Oz hey Pidgy!
There was a successful intervention in Sierra Leone too wasn't there?
It makes no sense to me, there's many countries with better public services, infrastructure, facilities etc but even the attempt for us to aspire for better is basically treason.
Surely you must see there should be a better solution to the railways than what we currently have right now? I don't know how often you use them but I use them daily for commuting.
Today alone, I was delayed by 2 hours this morning & ended up missing an important client meeting as a result. If that was a rare occurrence I might be able to let it go, but at least once a week this happens to me - it's worse when I travel up north too.
Despite all this, there will a price increase on my already expensive rail fare (£5k a year) and there's no way to counter it as a consumer.
Also what happened in the past, doesn't necessarily mean it will repeat in a modern society.
Or should we just continue to wallow with inadequate services?
That info must've been redacted from the Pigeon Papers.Lord Pidge said:
I've come to think this whole debate about nationalisation vs privatisation is a complete red herring. There are successful private companies and there are dreadful ones. There are good state-run services, and there are shamefully bad ones. The ideology doesn't matter so much as the management and competency of execution.
For a glaring example, look at state schools in the UK. There are some fantastic state schools (and I was lucky enough to go to one), but there are also some absolutely shocking ones that fail the pupils who attend them. The causes of the differing outcomes between state schools isn't the funding or the political structure, which are broadly constant, but the management and local circumstances.
Could nationalising the trains make for a better service for passengers? Yes, it could. It could also become a worse service. It depends on the competency of management and the willingness of unions to go along with change without being disruptive. I believe rail fares currently make up around 75% of the funding, with state subsidy making up the other 25%. Labour has just announced it wants to cut rail fares by a third - where's that money coming from? There will be some theoretical savings for a state run service through not looking to make a profit margin (though profit has proved minimal or even negative for the franchises running UK services), but there will almost certainly be additional staffing costs as state services are typically far more likely to bend to union demands. By my reckoning, Labour would have to plow in a lot more money in state subsidy just to stand still.
Last edited:
Nobody posted the interview with the UKIP woman yet?
Here's a taster...
I urge you to track down the whole thing simply for the tone of the interviewer throughout.
Here's a taster...
I urge you to track down the whole thing simply for the tone of the interviewer throughout.
No matter how often some views are bebunked, they keep coming back.
I'm not going to write an essay, but the short version is that if a service is underfunded, it will get worse. This is generally what happens whenever we get tory governments. Those same Tories then say 'look how rubbish it is, it must be privatised'. Then the service levels may go up slightly, but the costs go up far more. Had the same expenditure been put into the railways under the nationally owned model, improvements would have been greater. It is a myth that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector.
Never noticed the 3 amendments
That this House recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; when humans and other creatures may with luck have the chance to live together again
Nobody posted the interview with the UKIP woman yet?
Here's a taster...
I urge you to track down the whole thing simply for the tone of the interviewer throughout.
'other racist parties'
Crikey, you can become an evil landlord.
Labour have to be realistic though- their manifesto is radical enough for most without actually commandeering your inherited property.
Where’s the Epstein “nonceuponatime” thread?
- Status