Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Labour Leadership Contest; merged thread
Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:02 PM (2,225 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid, Who is left to lead them? The BBC has been attacking UKIP and Farrage for days, but at least they have a leader. Labour are in a state of uncertainty, and we do need a good opposition in the HOC,
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 07:46 PM
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 07:17 PM
Affa,I think that you owe an apology to Steve K.

Look at the graph AGAIN. etc



As indicated by the GRAPH post 1979, the graph RISES, indicating INCREASING INEQUALITY.
8-)

I agree with all you say barring the need to apologise ........ you state what I have been saying, and what Steve fails to acknowledge. The graph even shows that in Labour's second term inequality was in decline.
Steve has called this inequality as having a 'socialist' consequence, a product of Labour policy - he couldn't be more wrong.
Yes it decreased in their second term but we weren't looking at that were we.

Over the 13 years of Labour, inequality increased and that increase is true even if you exclude 2008/9 and 2009/10


You also seem to have made up out of thin air an alleged statement by me that this was "as having a 'socialist' consequence" No I didn't. This is what I said

"First: 13 years of Labour actually made the income inequality worse. It shows what happens when you pursue unimaginative socialist policies of treat symptoms and ignore root causes. You may take many or even most out of gut wrenching poverty but you actually increase social inequality."

So it was not socialism I was attacking but people being thick about implementing it. Now I realise that this may require some intelligence to understand that but I had always credited you with having that

So come on Affa why won't you fess up and apologise for launching a hopelessly false attack on me?
Edited by Steve K, Aug 5 2015, 08:09 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 11:53 AM
C-too
Aug 5 2015, 11:08 AM
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 11:01 AM
I'd expect better under a government truly committed to social justice. It just seems that Labour go for symptom treating rather than real action that will have enduring benefit

Interesting to see whose government has the overwhelmingly best record on disposable income divide. John Major's :rubchin:
There will be different opinions on how best to deal with the economic problems of the low paid, we have seen Brown's way of dealing with it. With 20/20 hindsight how might you have dealt with it ?

With the callousness of the Thatcher government as a starting point, I wouldn't think it would be too difficult for Major to improve things.

Yes the staggering rise in Gini under Thatcher was appalling. She was the 'Queen of Greed is good' and the Baroness of 'Whatever you can get is OK by me no matter who gets hurt'

To your question: what would I have done?

First some background and then my manifesto:

I believe that in times where our standard of living depends so much on world trade in goods and food we are going to have to accept that worldwide standards of living will and should equalise more. Put bluntly our days as a G8 or even G20 economy are numbered. But that transition does not have to be painful and certainly not levelled most on the poor or by reducing UK living standards.

IMHO we have some fundamental faults we have to correct, in particular order:

- a Welfare system is good but to implement it just as a safety net level imposes 100% or higher marginal net tax rates on those who try to better themselves by working where and when they can.

I would lower the safety net and taper the benefit erosion for working. I would not have a benefit cap per se but I would end the more kids = bigger free house and more money system.

- we have to stop using 1950s models of employment, step back and look at the reality of what the workforce and employer collective does. It takes people off or reduces their burden on the state, it increases social engagement for many, it makes money for employees, employers and shareholders and it net benefits UK ltd. Why on earth would be want to burden that with taxes and especially those that discourage employment and encourage retail in imported goods? Why on earth would we give tax rebates to those that implement redundancies?

I would raise VAT to its highest net collectable level (~30% for most, 10% for basics), end employers NI, reduce corporation tax to lowest in the EU, end most corporation tax exemptions and instead allow employers to remove their net redundancy liability from taxable bottom line. I would then end the lower tax rates for share dividends over £100 a year.

- I would introduce a wealth tax by ending the cap on council tax, ensuring that capital gains on shareholdings was paid at full income tax rates and requiring shares and other assets of significant value to be fully taxed on death (ie no inheritance tax exemption would apply to luxuries, company ownership, gold, supercars etc)

- I would combine NI and income tax but (to encourage job creating talent to stay in the UK) with a maximum rate of 45%. I would increase the old age tax allowance to compensate most pensioners and the basic tax allowance to the current NMW

- I would CUT the NMW but see welfare and incentives to work above. I would bar jobs below 2/3 of the so called living wage from EU migrants and bar any employer with an average wage below the so called living wage from receiving government contracts and then link MPs salaries to the incomes of the bottom 10% of the working age population.


There you go, throw bricks at that
Thanks for your list.

I was thinking more in terms of what you might have done during NL's first nine years in office, especially how you might have ensured that the low paid and the dependent would benefit economically at a time when the rich were getting very much richer.

We are now in a very different ball game and some things that may not have been acceptable then, will be acceptable now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well imho a government with that majority could and should have done all those then
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
Why?

You know you have made false accusations about me. You brought Thatcher into this for some irrelevant reason seeing as the discussion was about 1997 to 2010. I don't have to respond to that line at all

You have a choice: apologise for false attacks or you will have painted yourself into a corner

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:34 PM
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
Why?

You know you have made false accusations about me. You brought Thatcher into this for some irrelevant reason seeing as the discussion was about 1997 to 2010. I don't have to respond to that line at all

You have a choice: apologise for false attacks or you will have painted yourself into a corner

You reserve your criticism for failure of the Blair government to correct this admitted disproportionate situation and refuse to criticise those that created the injustice.

A consequence of which was a quadrupling of the welfare bill, and is in fact at the root of why we have this huge problem today ....... and why the deficit is where it is at.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:34 PM
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
Why?

You know you have made false accusations about me. You brought Thatcher into this for some irrelevant reason seeing as the discussion was about 1997 to 2010. I don't have to respond to that line at all

You have a choice: apologise for false attacks or you will have painted yourself into a corner

What has happened about the discussion on the Labour leadership contest? It s natural to wander off on other tangents, but this has gone too far IMO
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
So Affa you started the unprovoked insults in post 502, continued in posts 509, 545, 548 and 550

You then started your falsehood based attack on me in post 531 with further falsehoods in posts 545 and 548

And you still refuse to apologise even when another said you were wrong and should apologise.

You had your chance but we now know you're just a shabby liar that isn't man enough to admit his errors.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I know; lets divert the topic off the lousy wealth gap and discuss off topic avoidance issues instead.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 5 2015, 09:50 PM
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:34 PM
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
Why?

You know you have made false accusations about me. You brought Thatcher into this for some irrelevant reason seeing as the discussion was about 1997 to 2010. I don't have to respond to that line at all

You have a choice: apologise for false attacks or you will have painted yourself into a corner

What has happened about the discussion on the Labour leadership contest? It s natural to wander off on other tangents, but this has gone too far IMO
The point at hand is that I have said only those candidates that acknowledge the errors of 2002-7 can be credible and indeed those that refuse to address the failures of Labour 1997-2010 to reduce social inequality must be doomed to be failures. Affa has decided such comments have to be responded to with unprovoked insults and lies.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 10:03 PM
So Affa you started the unprovoked insults in post 502, continued in posts 509, 545, 548 and 550

You then started your falsehood based attack on me in post 531 with further falsehoods in posts 545 and 548

And you still refuse to apologise even when another said you were wrong and should apologise.

You had your chance but we now know you're just a shabby liar that isn't man enough to admit his errors.
Not like you to be grammatically and factually incorrect as you are here, but it is very like you to be petulant.

Edited by Affa, Aug 5 2015, 10:30 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 07:46 PM
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 07:17 PM
Affa,I think that you owe an apology to Steve K.

Look at the graph AGAIN. etc



As indicated by the GRAPH post 1979, the graph RISES, indicating INCREASING INEQUALITY.
8-)

I agree with all you say barring the need to apologise ........ you state what I have been saying, and what Steve fails to acknowledge. The graph even shows that in Labour's second term inequality was in decline.
Steve has called this inequality as having a 'socialist' consequence, a product of Labour policy - he couldn't be more wrong.
"On the LEFT HAND SIDE of the graph chart,there is an arrow indicating increasing\decreasing equality according to the direction or LEVEL of the graph for the particular period, 'inequality' INCREASES when the graph RISES & DECREASES when the graph is LOWER".


Seeing as you edited out the relevant part of my post,which confirms the correctness of Steve K's post,I reiterate that what I stated before,"I think that you owe Steve K an apology".

Anyone can make the mistake of not fully reading a source used in one's post,there's nothing to be ashamed in admitting one's fallibility,after all, we are all human,being 'imperfect' even on just one occasion, apologising when the need arises is the gentlemanly thing to do & reflects positively on the person concerned.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 5 2015, 10:44 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 10:43 PM
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 07:46 PM
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 07:17 PM
Affa,I think that you owe an apology to Steve K.

Look at the graph AGAIN. etc



As indicated by the GRAPH post 1979, the graph RISES, indicating INCREASING INEQUALITY.
8-)

I agree with all you say barring the need to apologise ........ you state what I have been saying, and what Steve fails to acknowledge. The graph even shows that in Labour's second term inequality was in decline.
Steve has called this inequality as having a 'socialist' consequence, a product of Labour policy - he couldn't be more wrong.
"On the LEFT HAND SIDE of the graph chart,there is an arrow indicating increasing\decreasing equality according to the direction or LEVEL of the graph for the particular period, 'inequality' INCREASES when the graph RISES & DECREASES when the graph is LOWER".


Seeing as you edited out the relevant part of my post,which confirms the correctness of Steve K's post,I reiterate that what I stated before,"I think that you owe Steve K an apology".

Anyone can make the mistake of not fully reading a source used in one's post,there's nothing to be ashamed in admitting one's fallibility,after all, we are all human,being 'imperfect' even on just one occasion, apologising when the need arises is the gentlemanly thing to do & reflects positively on the person concerned.
Here is your comment in full.
Quote:
 

Affa,I think that you owe an apology to Steve K.

Look at the graph AGAIN.

On the LEFT HAND SIDE of the graph chart,there is an arrow indicating increasing\decreasing equality according to the direction or LEVEL of the graph for the particular period, 'inequality' INCREASES when the graph RISES & DECREASES when the graph is LOWER.

As indicated by the GRAPH post 1979, the graph RISES, indicating INCREASING INEQUALITY.
8-)


I reiterate that I disagree with none of it except the request to apologise for being correct! Throughout I have maintained that the criticism of the Blair government 'for not correcting this injustice' ignores the party that created the injustice ..... and consequently many of the major issues of difficultly we endure today.

As for you misconstruing what has been said, and causing you to make such a delightful admission of Conservative mismanagement I do sympathise .... so much so that contradictory to my earlier comment I will indeed apologise to Steve for both directly and indirectly making him look foolish. None of which has been my intention.




Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
You've used false accounts of other's posts, diversions and unprovoked insults Affa. You were the one that started the call for apologies. You're the one that needs to apologise. Seems you're neither man nor honest enough. Everyone knows now

Thanks Nonsense for trying but suggest just ignore his folly now
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
I would have thought that increasing poverty for more people was an established factor resulting from 'Tory' government's.

Conversely, most 'Labour' opposition periods are noted for that party flagging up the 'poverty' factor.

The 'probelm' is, whenever the 'Labour' Party has been elected following those periods, their policies have failed to redress that poverty.

To put it another way, the issue is just fodder for Labour in it's game of playing politics in order to aquire votes & power.

Once they gain power, the first policy implemented is always an increase in MP's pay, followed by job & pay increases in the Public Sector.

In the game of ping pong politics,' Labour' pays the increases(without saying where the resources to do so come from) & the Tories do the 'cuts' to 'reward' their tax avoiding supporters no matter what the effect is on income disparities-earned or unearned.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
An interesting analysis of Corbyn's ideas here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Printing money, old school nationalisation, neutered defence and give aways on welfare. Seems he can't remember the 1970s and how all that was a complete and utter disaster.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 11:20 PM
I would have thought that increasing poverty for more people was an established factor resulting from 'Tory' government's. . . .
Well yes usually but the surprising (well to me it was) point is that under Major (1990 to 1997) real income inequality closed. Not by salaries closing (that got worse) but benefits and taxation changes.

Thatcher was a horror show though.

Edit Aug 6th. Here are the Gini figures so all can judge the records. IMHO the third column (disposable income inequality) is the most key

Posted Image
Edited by Steve K, Aug 6 2015, 10:20 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 10:04 PM
I know; lets divert the topic off the lousy wealth gap and discuss off topic avoidance issues instead.


Why not start a new thread and post something with substance rather than emotionally driven innuendo for once. Love to see such from you. Why is it only a few regular Posters ever start the really interesting debates that have life and rarely a Usual? I wonder.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 11:31 PM
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 11:20 PM
I would have thought that increasing poverty for more people was an established factor resulting from 'Tory' government's. . . .
Well yes usually but the surprising (well to me it was) point is that under Major (1990 to 1997) real income inequality closed. Not by salaries closing (that got worse) but benefits and taxation changes.

Thatcher was a horror show though.
At the end of the day,the ability to change taxes or benefits is an important tool to spread wealth around,of course we know that en-route the money gets 'diverted' elsewhere.

There has been a recent recognition,that even Milliband understood,which was that the same thing could\should be achieved by employers paying higher wages,rather than through higher taxes financing the burden of benefits.
It's not that the general level of benefits is too high,rather that there are too many benefits,with too many people receiving them in whatever form they are.

That,(higher wages)if successfully implemented would save £Billions for the government,but,as usual, it's sleight of hand, as the taxpayer,in the form of the consumer,would end up paying higher prices for it in the abscense of higher productivity.

That being the case,one must ask,why did government ever get into the business of subsidising low wages,when the taxpayer still ends up paying the bill through higher taxes to pay for the ensuing benefits.

I think that politicians are only just beginning to understand the squaring of the circle, if only Milliband knew that within the Labour Party, then,it's a start,but,a lesson likely to be quickly forgotten by them.

As I remember it, by the time Major was P.M, he was changing the landscape from the Thatcherite way,doing a 'Blair' 'Third Way',AKA 'Back to Basics' in Major's eyes & the slow recovery from recession was happening under Major.
The problem with economic outlook changing through policy, is that the 'benefits' tend to be very slow,too slow for the electoral cycle,so that by time they are fully apparent, there is a new government in power.

Because of increasing migration,I don't see how productivity can increase,unless people are laid off,putting prices up is a slow death for any business,but,when government's print money(Q.E),it lubricates the system when it would otherwise grind to a halt,but, it's just putting off the day of reckoning when foreign investors pull the plug on financing our living beyond our means.

Sadly, the policy direction, services,house price bubble,etc are not conducive to,or an alternative to making 'real' goods or services for export in order to offset the foreign investors money that can be pulled at any time.

As I see it, people never really understand the current situation,it's not until you look back on it in the decades ahead that they will see just how it actually was & judge it at that point.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 6 2015, 09:52 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Maybe ^

A lot of our problems derive from Joe Average wanting to buy cheap goods and food produced overseas by those on pittance wages but somehow having a much much higher wage themselves. It just isn't stable and after 3 decades of historically high unemployment, to keep beating up employers really isn't the solution.

That's the nettle a real Labour leader needs to grasp
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 11:09 PM
You've used false accounts of other's posts, diversions and unprovoked insults Affa. You were the one that started the call for apologies. You're the one that needs to apologise. Seems you're neither man nor honest enough. Everyone knows now

Thanks Nonsense for trying but suggest just ignore his folly now
Be specific.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 11:20 PM
Affa
Aug 5 2015, 09:19 PM
I'm still waiting for Steve to acknowledge that wealth inequality started and accelerated under the Tories, and continued increasing throughout their entire governance, including under John Major.
I would have thought that increasing poverty for more people was an established factor resulting from 'Tory' government's.

Conversely, most 'Labour' opposition periods are noted for that party flagging up the 'poverty' factor.

The 'probelm' is, whenever the 'Labour' Party has been elected following those periods, their policies have failed to redress that poverty.

To put it another way, the issue is just fodder for Labour in it's game of playing politics in order to aquire votes & power.

Once they gain power, the first policy implemented is always an increase in MP's pay, followed by job & pay increases in the Public Sector.

In the game of ping pong politics,' Labour' pays the increases(without saying where the resources to do so come from) & the Tories do the 'cuts' to 'reward' their tax avoiding supporters no matter what the effect is on income disparities-earned or unearned.
Look at the chart again .... Labour have addressed the wealth disparity issue. There is no better demonstration of this than on page 11 of Steve's link
here
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 6 2015, 10:09 AM
Maybe ^

A lot of our problems derive from Joe Average wanting to buy cheap goods and food produced overseas by those on pittance wages but somehow having a much much higher wage themselves. It just isn't stable and after 3 decades of historically high unemployment, to keep beating up employers really isn't the solution.

That's the nettle a real Labour leader needs to grasp
Right-wing claptrap ...... it's always the Plebs fault.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 6 2015, 10:39 AM
Steve K
Aug 6 2015, 10:09 AM
Maybe ^

A lot of our problems derive from Joe Average wanting to buy cheap goods and food produced overseas by those on pittance wages but somehow having a much much higher wage themselves. It just isn't stable and after 3 decades of historically high unemployment, to keep beating up employers really isn't the solution.

That's the nettle a real Labour leader needs to grasp
Right-wing claptrap ...... it's always the Plebs fault.


Another good counter argument lucidly expressed {sigh} or is it left wing claptrap and their usual means of countering things they disagree with.?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 6 2015, 09:49 AM
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 11:31 PM
Nonsense
Aug 5 2015, 11:20 PM
I would have thought that increasing poverty for more people was an established factor resulting from 'Tory' government's. . . .
Well yes usually but the surprising (well to me it was) point is that under Major (1990 to 1997) real income inequality closed. Not by salaries closing (that got worse) but benefits and taxation changes.

Thatcher was a horror show though.
At the end of the day,the ability to change taxes or benefits is an important tool to spread wealth around,of course we know that en-route the money gets 'diverted' elsewhere.

There has been a recent recognition,that even Milliband understood,which was that the same thing could\should be achieved by employers paying higher wages,rather than through higher taxes financing the burden of benefits.
It's not that the general level of benefits is too high,rather that there are too many benefits,with too many people receiving them in whatever form they are.

That,(higher wages)if successfully implemented would save £Billions for the government,but,as usual, it's sleight of hand, as the taxpayer,in the form of the consumer,would end up paying higher prices for it in the abscense of higher productivity.

That being the case,one must ask,why did government ever get into the business of subsidising low wages,when the taxpayer still ends up paying the bill through higher taxes to pay for the ensuing benefits.

I think that politicians are only just beginning to understand the squaring of the circle, if only Milliband knew that within the Labour Party, then,it's a start,but,a lesson likely to be quickly forgotten by them.

As I remember it, by the time Major was P.M, he was changing the landscape from the Thatcherite way,doing a 'Blair' 'Third Way',AKA 'Back to Basics' in Major's eyes & the slow recovery from recession was happening under Major.
The problem with economic outlook changing through policy, is that the 'benefits' tend to be very slow,too slow for the electoral cycle,so that by time they are fully apparent, there is a new government in power.

Because of increasing migration,I don't see how productivity can increase,unless people are laid off,putting prices up is a slow death for any business,but,when government's print money(Q.E),it lubricates the system when it would otherwise grind to a halt,but, it's just putting off the day of reckoning when foreign investors pull the plug on financing our living beyond our means.

Sadly, the policy direction, services,house price bubble,etc are not conducive to,or an alternative to making 'real' goods or services for export in order to offset the foreign investors money that can be pulled at any time.

As I see it, people never really understand the current situation,it's not until you look back on it in the decades ahead that they will see just how it actually was & judge it at that point.

In essence the cause of this wealth disparity issue does lie with 'productivity' at its root.
It is not that productivity was lost, but the very opposite. Advances in technology made manufacturing highly productive and did away with many of the labour orientated practices that were the traditional employment route. Business embraced technology, did away with man power and kept all the productivity gains to itself .....
Edited by Affa, Aug 6 2015, 10:50 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The above post of mine adequately explains away Steve's claptrap.
Owl take note.

Edited by Affa, Aug 6 2015, 11:03 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:15 PM
Well imho a government with that majority could and should have done all those then
Those who were without hindsight saw an economy that appeared to be working well, I recall the Japanese taking a closer look at the UK economy, I recall the Germans showing an interest in buying the UK Stock Market. I do not recall any serious call for a change in the fundamental structure of the economy.
There was, I believe, a belief that Thatcher's economic set-up had cracked the problem of the UK, now minus much of the skilled work production, earning a living in the world. I recall comments like, we can export low skilled work, and its problems (presumably strikes and unrest), to cheap labour countries.

IMO, Thatcher's economic system was like a steam roller, and similar to nationalisation, it took a watershed for it to change direction. A process we are now in.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 6 2015, 10:46 AM
Affa
Aug 6 2015, 10:39 AM
Steve K
Aug 6 2015, 10:09 AM
Maybe ^

A lot of our problems derive from Joe Average wanting to buy cheap goods and food produced overseas by those on pittance wages but somehow having a much much higher wage themselves. It just isn't stable and after 3 decades of historically high unemployment, to keep beating up employers really isn't the solution.

That's the nettle a real Labour leader needs to grasp
Right-wing claptrap ...... it's always the Plebs fault.


Another good counter argument lucidly expressed {sigh} or is it left wing claptrap and their usual means of countering things they disagree with.?
!clp! !clp! !clp! !clp! !clp! !clp! !clp! !clp!
Edited by Ewill, Aug 6 2015, 01:36 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Is there still a Labour party?..if so, why would anyone apply for leadership of this dead duck!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 6 2015, 01:45 PM
Is there still a Labour party?..if so, why would anyone apply for leadership of this dead duck!
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.

In short, we shouldn't allow the knob-heads to continue unopposed. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 6 2015, 10:46 AM
Affa
Aug 6 2015, 10:39 AM
Steve K
Aug 6 2015, 10:09 AM
Maybe ^

A lot of our problems derive from Joe Average wanting to buy cheap goods and food produced overseas by those on pittance wages but somehow having a much much higher wage themselves. It just isn't stable and after 3 decades of historically high unemployment, to keep beating up employers really isn't the solution.

That's the nettle a real Labour leader needs to grasp
Right-wing claptrap ...... it's always the Plebs fault.


Another good counter argument lucidly expressed {sigh} or is it left wing claptrap and their usual means of countering things they disagree with.?
I think the Tory party, minus its put-downs and insinuations would be at a loss about what to say and do.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:15 PM
Well imho a government with that majority could and should have done all those then
Those who were without hindsight saw an economy that appeared to be working well, I recall the Japanese taking a closer look at the UK economy, I recall the Germans showing an interest in buying the UK Stock Market. I do not recall any serious call for a change in the fundamental structure of the economy.
There was, I believe, a belief that Thatcher's economic set-up had cracked the problem of the UK, now minus much of the skilled work production, earning a living in the world. I recall comments like, we can export low skilled work, and its problems (presumably strikes and unrest), to cheap labour countries.

IMO, Thatcher's economic system was like a steam roller, and similar to nationalisation, it took a watershed for it to change direction. A process we are now in.
Funny how those changes brought about increases in manufacturing added value, but it took NL to oversee the destruction of those gains plus the same amount again. It was inevitable that low skilled work would leave high cost industrialised countries. You cannot sell wooden clothes pegs manufactured in Coventry on a Worldwide basis. We lost the advantages that existed post WW2 before 1979 in much of our mechanical engineering manufacturing sector which was a good sector to mop up many low value jobs. The Trade Unions saw to that and now we reap the benefits of their political games. Electronics is highly automated and there is little labour content in the manufacturing processes. We still are a major supplier of chemicals and pharms. The future is in high value high quality product production that is designed here in the UK, however, that will not clear the unemployment queues where the pool appears inexhaustible. As for achieving the objectives of higher added value with high quality products where is the surplus of skilled labour? Not here in the UK and that is why we will have to be selective with immigration. We need to attract our share of educated and skilled workers, the Americans and Germans are already out hunting.

The Health sector appears to be in for a lot of investment World wide and the UK and USA dominate medical physics research. We need to stop the Germans and Dutch who appear to be focussed on picking the winners from such research and prioritise Made in the UK. Yep research funded by TAxpayers should belong to them.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
marybrown
Aug 6 2015, 01:45 PM
Is there still a Labour party?..if so, why would anyone apply for leadership of this dead duck!
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.

In short, we shouldn't allow the knob-heads to continue unopposed. ;D
My god..Ed Milliband did more damage to Labour than Michael Foot!!

And his brother ''Sir Dingle foot!''.. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 6 2015, 02:39 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
marybrown
Aug 6 2015, 01:45 PM
Is there still a Labour party?..if so, why would anyone apply for leadership of this dead duck!
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.

In short, we shouldn't allow the knob-heads to continue unopposed. ;D
My god..Ed Milliband did more damage to Labour than Michael Foot!!

And his brother ''Sir Dingle foot!''.. ;D
Yes I agree. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Aug 6 2015, 02:38 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 12:11 PM
Steve K
Aug 5 2015, 09:15 PM
Well imho a government with that majority could and should have done all those then
Those who were without hindsight saw an economy that appeared to be working well, I recall the Japanese taking a closer look at the UK economy, I recall the Germans showing an interest in buying the UK Stock Market. I do not recall any serious call for a change in the fundamental structure of the economy.
There was, I believe, a belief that Thatcher's economic set-up had cracked the problem of the UK, now minus much of the skilled work production, earning a living in the world. I recall comments like, we can export low skilled work, and its problems (presumably strikes and unrest), to cheap labour countries.

IMO, Thatcher's economic system was like a steam roller, and similar to nationalisation, it took a watershed for it to change direction. A process we are now in.
Funny how those changes brought about increases in manufacturing added value, but it took NL to oversee the destruction of those gains plus the same amount again. It was inevitable that low skilled work would leave high cost industrialised countries. You cannot sell wooden clothes pegs manufactured in Coventry on a Worldwide basis. We lost the advantages that existed post WW2 before 1979 in much of our mechanical engineering manufacturing sector which was a good sector to mop up many low value jobs. The Trade Unions saw to that and now we reap the benefits of their political games. Electronics is highly automated and there is little labour content in the manufacturing processes. We still are a major supplier of chemicals and pharms. The future is in high value high quality product production that is designed here in the UK, however, that will not clear the unemployment queues where the pool appears inexhaustible. As for achieving the objectives of higher added value with high quality products where is the surplus of skilled labour? Not here in the UK and that is why we will have to be selective with immigration. We need to attract our share of educated and skilled workers, the Americans and Germans are already out hunting.

The Health sector appears to be in for a lot of investment World wide and the UK and USA dominate medical physics research. We need to stop the Germans and Dutch who appear to be focussed on picking the winners from such research and prioritise Made in the UK. Yep research funded by TAxpayers should belong to them.

You have an ability to distort reality, even after your nonsense has been clarified and explained to you. :facepalm:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.
Labour are, of course, reaping what they sowed here.

Had they supported electoral reform we would no longer be stuck in the rut of a dysfunctional two-party system.

Voters have moved beyond that paradigm, hence the increased support for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, The Greens etc.

However, Labour betrayed its socialist principles and sought to maintain the broken status quo of FPTP, and it looks increasingly like they'll not manage to obtain that first place anytime soon.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:44 PM
RJD
Aug 6 2015, 02:38 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 12:11 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Funny how those changes brought about increases in manufacturing added value, but it took NL to oversee the destruction of those gains plus the same amount again. It was inevitable that low skilled work would leave high cost industrialised countries. You cannot sell wooden clothes pegs manufactured in Coventry on a Worldwide basis. We lost the advantages that existed post WW2 before 1979 in much of our mechanical engineering manufacturing sector which was a good sector to mop up many low value jobs. The Trade Unions saw to that and now we reap the benefits of their political games. Electronics is highly automated and there is little labour content in the manufacturing processes. We still are a major supplier of chemicals and pharms. The future is in high value high quality product production that is designed here in the UK, however, that will not clear the unemployment queues where the pool appears inexhaustible. As for achieving the objectives of higher added value with high quality products where is the surplus of skilled labour? Not here in the UK and that is why we will have to be selective with immigration. We need to attract our share of educated and skilled workers, the Americans and Germans are already out hunting.

The Health sector appears to be in for a lot of investment World wide and the UK and USA dominate medical physics research. We need to stop the Germans and Dutch who appear to be focussed on picking the winners from such research and prioritise Made in the UK. Yep research funded by TAxpayers should belong to them.

You have an ability to distort reality, even after your nonsense has been clarified and explained to you. :facepalm:
Best you level that charge against those who made the claims wrt to manufacturing added value, namely Fullfact.
I am sure that you though every action taken by such Unions was fully justified, so I will not even bother to attempt to educate you as to the facts.
I no longer consider you worth the bother, you are a lost cause.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 6 2015, 02:46 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.
Labour are, of course, reaping what they sowed here.

Had they supported electoral reform we would no longer be stuck in the rut of a dysfunctional two-party system.

Voters have moved beyond that paradigm, hence the increased support for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, The Greens etc.

However, Labour betrayed its socialist principles and sought to maintain the broken status quo of FPTP, and it looks increasingly like they'll not manage to obtain that first place anytime soon.

All The Best

Proof if needed that the Labour party (and the TU movement) have conceded and become part of the Establishment - that only exists as it does (influentially speaking) because of this system which near guarantees the said status quo.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 6 2015, 02:46 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.
Labour are, of course, reaping what they sowed here.

Had they supported electoral reform we would no longer be stuck in the rut of a dysfunctional two-party system.

Voters have moved beyond that paradigm, hence the increased support for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, The Greens etc.

However, Labour betrayed its socialist principles and sought to maintain the broken status quo of FPTP, and it looks increasingly like they'll not manage to obtain that first place anytime soon.

All The Best
"Had they supported electoral reform we would no longer be stuck in the rut of a dysfunctional two-party system".

A not insignificant factor in 'Labour's' demise is New Labour's devolution policy,policy was devolved from Westminster with the result that the devolved assemblies gained their power through their electorate.

This resulted in the Westminster clique concentrating even more power centrally to themselves,thus they had more 'free' time in which to pass laws that were only going to exacerbate the divisions in society & the country.

An example is the Scottish assembly,along with the SNP's rout of the Labour party in Scotland & I see no devolved assembly having any mutual interest with the Westminster sect.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 6 2015, 02:46 PM
C-too
Aug 6 2015, 02:34 PM
Until an opposition to the party and politics that dominated the UK during its economic demise in the 20th century, I guess Labour will have to have a leader and do its bit as an opposition party.
Labour are, of course, reaping what they sowed here.

Had they supported electoral reform we would no longer be stuck in the rut of a dysfunctional two-party system.

Voters have moved beyond that paradigm, hence the increased support for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, The Greens etc.

However, Labour betrayed its socialist principles and sought to maintain the broken status quo of FPTP, and it looks increasingly like they'll not manage to obtain that first place anytime soon.

All The Best
I have a preference for the FPTP system, IMO the main parties are a coalition of different people with different political opinions but who have many political opinions in common. Thus they come together to form an opposition, to take the country in a particular direction.

There is no system that will accommodate all the different political opinions.

The biggest single problem with British politics is the political bias in the media and in newspapers in particular. Until that is corrected we will not get full value from our politicians. That fact will not change just by changing the political system.

And yes, Labour will face a gigantic uphill battle to get elected, just as they did back in the 80s and 90s.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic