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 (2,219 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:
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM
Steve K
Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
;D

Wasn't he Gas privatisation though?
Yes, and how we laughed when Cedric Brown CEO of BG voted himself a 800% pay increase at the heigh of the 90's recession!
Well dammit man, make a stand and go somewhere else and get your gas. :P
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:56 PM
Tigger
Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM
Steve K
Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes, and how we laughed when Cedric Brown CEO of BG voted himself a 800% pay increase at the heigh of the 90's recession!
Well dammit man, make a stand and go somewhere else and get your gas. :P
I don't use gas, I'm heavily into renewables ........ ;-)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 05:21 PM
Pro Veritas
Aug 16 2015, 04:53 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfailing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
Well you have no proof that there is no truth in the allegations. And it is for Corbyn to defend himself.

The allegations have been made and the questions asked, is he big enough to answer them ?
Can one prove a negative?, I am not taking Mr Corbyns side here, but I certainly see no evidence of him being anti semitic.
How much do you know about the man ? Have you checked his history ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:12 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 05:21 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfailing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
Can one prove a negative?, I am not taking Mr Corbyns side here, but I certainly see no evidence of him being anti semitic.
How much do you know about the man ? Have you checked his history ?
How much do I know about you or Jog or anyone else for that matter, I am not a private detective, I take people at their word and from my own observations....so, please tell me, what do YOU know about him and how did you find that information?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 16 2015, 06:18 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 05:11 PM
Nonsense
Aug 16 2015, 12:36 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"democracy" yes, BUT you miss the point. Things improved massively under Attlee but Tory propaganda won the election of 1951.
Silly comments count for nothing. I never claimed that everything in the garden was lovely. My point from the start is the massive improvements made that made life for so many people so much better. That is planet earth, you must visit us some day. :)

You didn't mention unemployment, I did, and I did so for obvious reasons, reasons that appear to have gone over your head.

So you do not understand the poverty levels that existed before WWII. Well that figures. Suicides rose under Thatcher. For all the damage she did she did not quite manage to take us back to pre-war Britain.

So while you accept the reality of having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for a sick child before WWII, you are unable to extrapolate that into understanding that many people were seriously poor and were living on the breadline in those days. A situation that created a lot of emotional uncertainty that would lay down the foundations of high levels of suicide.
"So while you accept the reality of having to choose between food on the table or a doctor for a sick child before WWII, you are unable to extrapolate that into understanding that many people were seriously poor and were living on the breadline in those days".

You talk a lot of tripe C-too,I specifically mentioned about food-medicine for that very reason,which should have been patently obvious to you.

I lived through that period,I understand it completely, because I experienced it,whereas people born after the welfare state came into being are either ignorant about it,don't care about it or were the lucky one's.

Let me say that everything I have was paid for by blood,sweat & tears over many years.

When I was a youngster before 1948,I experienced not just the hunger of poverty,but living off jumble sale cast off's,the additional hunger of having to pay for the doctor with the quack remedies, then starving for the whole of the following week,in order to pay for those dubious 'medicines',those were the norm in our family.
Frequent episodes of German Measles, Chicken Pox,Mumps etc through the years 1946-9 when the winters were particularly cold was coped with by sleeping under a 'Great Coat' of an uncle's.

We had years of 'Spam with everything', my parents would say that Saturday was the day of 'fasting', when really,it was a euphemism for an empty larder, mouldy bread with half eaten cheese by mice or dripping on bread was part of the 'luxuries' of daily life.

We had as much ice indoors as outside,even though I live on the south coast where I was born,the curtains stuck to the icy windows.

Ironically, bananas,oranges,or other foreign fruit was immeasurably fresher than the chilled compost displayed under artificial lighting that passes itself of as 'fruit' on our supermarket shelves today,the problem was in affording it as an extra to the 'rationed' foods.
Ao, I can assure you C-too, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, one doesn't need to be born up north to be poor.
When I reflect on it,I would have been better off had I been in a Dr Barnado's home,but there you go, that's life.

It's because of my experience of the failure's of 'Labour' politics to deliver significant progress in living standards for those without,by raising the wages of those worse off,rather than increasing state benefits that benefit the middle classes more,that's why I would never,ever vote 'Labour'.
Well, you jumped down my throat when I posted that if the people who were suffering the poverty that existed before WWII were brought into todays world, they would think they were in paradise. Then you give a detailed account of pre-war poverty that backed up my point.

I introduced the problems of malnutrition and the conflict between food on the table or a doctor for the child into our exchange.

NL did introduce the minimum wage, tax credits that increased take home pay. And they took 1.6 million people out of relative poverty.

We live in a capitalist country, a government that attempted to dictate high wage levels would not last ten minutes because the Tory propaganda machine would make mincemeat out of such a government.



Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:51 PM
Affa
Aug 16 2015, 09:35 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 08:39 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep

I don't imagine there are very many of the top earners having to bend their back very much - unless it is in some high class bordello, and likely not even then. Do you?

You must pick up the D Mail content reading RJD here.

I am my own man Affa, I speak as I find as my wife will tell, she thinks that I have no diplomacy in me, I think differently, best to say it as you see it and take the flak, it has done me no harm as name calling cannot hurt me.
Does that mean you are perfect (or think that you are perfect) and incapable of making mistakes in your assessment of the country ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 11:18 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:12 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfailing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
How much do you know about the man ? Have you checked his history ?
How much do I know about you or Jog or anyone else for that matter, I am not a private detective, I take people at their word and from my own observations....so, please tell me, what do YOU know about him and how did you find that information?
He appears to be anti the current Israel government and for that I would say good

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-palestine/

But he is accused of being overly friendly with anti semitic terrorist elements and he really does have to answer some questions there. He is said to have referred to “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah" when hosting them in Westminster and if true he should be ashamed

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 16 2015, 11:46 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 11:18 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:12 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfailing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
How much do I know about you or Jog or anyone else for that matter, I am not a private detective, I take people at their word and from my own observations....so, please tell me, what do YOU know about him and how did you find that information?
He appears to be anti the current Israel government and for that I would say good

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-palestine/

But he is accused of being overly friendly with anti semitic terrorist elements and he really does have to answer some questions there. He is said to have referred to “our friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah" when hosting them in Westminster and if true he should be ashamed

Am I right in stating that HAMAS is still considered by the democratic counties of this world and the UN as a terrorist organisation, if so, why is anyone backing them?
Edited by Rich, Aug 17 2015, 12:14 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:42 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:51 PM
Affa
Aug 16 2015, 09:35 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I am my own man Affa, I speak as I find as my wife will tell, she thinks that I have no diplomacy in me, I think differently, best to say it as you see it and take the flak, it has done me no harm as name calling cannot hurt me.
Does that mean you are perfect (or think that you are perfect) and incapable of making mistakes in your assessment of the country ?
No, not at all it merely means that I am not afraid to say what I feel to anyone and everyone and I am not a bigot either, I always consider another persons opinion before I give my own, sometimes I find it best just to keep my gob shut, but, that is life, I daresay everyone on this forum could cite the same.....it's no big deal really.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jeremy Corbyn must be thanking his lucky stars that New Labour's Gordon Brown has intervened against him. This is further proof that Corbyn has the momentum. Brown just put the last nail in New Labour.
Morning Star
Edited by Heinrich, Aug 17 2015, 08:04 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 11:18 PM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:12 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 07:24 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepfailing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in anti-Semitic rhetoric."
How much do you know about the man ? Have you checked his history ?
How much do I know about you or Jog or anyone else for that matter, I am not a private detective, I take people at their word and from my own observations....so, please tell me, what do YOU know about him and how did you find that information?
You said you see no evidence that Corbyn was anti-Semitic, That's why I enquired as to how much you know about the man.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 17 2015, 06:55 AM
Jeremy Corbyn must be thanking his lucky stars that New Labour's Gordon Brown has intervened against him. This is further proof that Corbyn has the momentum. Brown just put the last nail in Old Labour.
Morning Star
Since 1951 Old Labour has had 40 years in opposition and 11 years in office. New Labour had 10 good years in office and 13 years overall.

Ed-the-gone got dumped along with his Old Labour approach. Corbyn would probably get more votes than Ed, that should not be too difficult. But Corbyn/Old Labour would guarantee Labour would remain in opposition for as long as he leads the party. And rightly so IMO.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 17 2015, 12:20 AM
C-too
Aug 16 2015, 11:42 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:51 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Does that mean you are perfect (or think that you are perfect) and incapable of making mistakes in your assessment of the country ?
No, not at all it merely means that I am not afraid to say what I feel to anyone and everyone and I am not a bigot either, I always consider another persons opinion before I give my own, sometimes I find it best just to keep my gob shut, but, that is life, I daresay everyone on this forum could cite the same.....it's no big deal really.
Strong opinions are still only opinions, they are often based upon emotional feelings. I think opinions are little more than stepping stones towards greater understanding.

I suspect that few pensioners have exactly the same strong opinions they once owned as teenagers.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
---- "Electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would be a backward move that risks creating a one-governing-party state dominated by the Conservatives, David Miliband has warned." ----
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 17 2015, 06:55 AM
Jeremy Corbyn must be thanking his lucky stars that New Labour's Gordon Brown has intervened against him. This is further proof that Corbyn has the momentum. Brown just put the last nail in New Labour.
Morning Star
You can add David Miliband to that list now too.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 17 2015, 03:54 PM
Heinrich
Aug 17 2015, 06:55 AM
Jeremy Corbyn must be thanking his lucky stars that New Labour's Gordon Brown has intervened against him. This is further proof that Corbyn has the momentum. Brown just put the last nail in New Labour.
Morning Star
You can add David Miliband to that list now too.
Actually, Ed Miliband was a sacrificial lamb. He attempted to shift gear and shake-off New Labour but he did not go far enough or fast enough because the party had already been ruined over two decades. His Cabinet was full of New Labour people and there were too many New Labour on his backbenches. New Labour continued to fester and so they lost Scotland. That was a big price to pay not to rock the listing boat. English Labour voters stayed away from the polls. Perhaps it needed this shock for Jeremy Corbyn to emerge to put life back into the corpus delicti.
Edited by Heinrich, Aug 17 2015, 04:05 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 02:42 PM
---- "Electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would be a backward move that risks creating a one-governing-party state dominated by the Conservatives, David Miliband has warned." ----
Considering that the Labour party leadership contenders,with the exception of Corbyn are all 'light' Tories,it is not too difficult to judge that we are already in a 'one-party-state'.

The divisions in the Labour party have been there since WW2,the 'right wing' of that party are 'Tories' by nature,if not in name,that's why the electorate have now given up on them.

The right wingers are\have been effectively,a 'Trojan Horse' within Labour's ranks,that came to maturity under BLAIR,to my mind, only Wilson was true to the party values of Labour since Attlee.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 02:42 PM
---- "Electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would be a backward move that risks creating a one-governing-party state dominated by the Conservatives, David Miliband has warned." ----
I do not believe he will win C-too. I think Burnham will win. Its against the opinion polls I know, but those generally politically aware are in the majority with activists, and they will do what is best for the long term interest's of the party.

I hope I am wrong of course, for Corbyn, though making politics interesting , and gives false hope to many, a straw to clutch at, can never win an election IMO.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM
Steve K
Aug 16 2015, 09:32 PM
Rich
Aug 16 2015, 09:04 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
;D

Wasn't he Gas privatisation though?
Yes, and how we laughed when Cedric Brown CEO of BG voted himself a 800% pay increase at the heigh of the 90's recession!
CEOs of companies listed on the stock market are elected by their shareholders ,most of the shares held by financial institutions, and their remuneration decided by a ballot of the shareholders. They are expected to perform and their employment sen as just another investment. They are in a competitive market and the best seen as a valuable commodity Our government pays big bucks to the CEO of the bank of England and he is seen as value for money.
Can I point out that entertainment loveys who can offer little but act or sing, can earn, and do earn if earn is the right word, a great deal more than CEOs. Hoe much does Lewis Hamilton earn from endorsements alone for driving a racing car?
Its all about market forces at work, and they get paid what people are willing to pay, and, BTW its the ordinary man in the street that are willing to pay what is asked to watch these entertainers at work and gives them their millions.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 17 2015, 04:15 PM
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 02:42 PM
---- "Electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would be a backward move that risks creating a one-governing-party state dominated by the Conservatives, David Miliband has warned." ----
Considering that the Labour party leadership contenders,with the exception of Corbyn are all 'light' Tories,it is not too difficult to judge that we are already in a 'one-party-state'.

The divisions in the Labour party have been there since WW2,the 'right wing' of that party are 'Tories' by nature,if not in name,that's why the electorate have now given up on them.

The right wingers are\have been effectively,a 'Trojan Horse' within Labour's ranks,that came to maturity under BLAIR,to my mind, only Wilson was true to the party values of Labour since Attlee.
Please put your bias away and look at the reality. Here are some examples that show that you are mistaken.

During the 18 years of Conservative administration;
1, State schools were run down through lack of funding. While the minority schools in Thatcher's state schools that were "Grant Maintained" received proper funding.
NL abolished the 'Grant Maintained' system, they fully funded state schools and introduced a programme of fully equipped new schools and refurbished schools.
2. Thatcher's ideological method of running society saw millions of people fall into the relative poverty area of income.
NL took 1.6 million people out of relative poverty.
3. The NHS inherited by New Labour had large waiting lists and a waiting time of up to 18 months for operation.
New Labour greatly reduced to as low as 18 weeks!

Perhaps you would tell me who suffered most when school funding was too low ?
And who gained most when schools were given a financial uplift, and dilapidated exercise books were replaced by computers ?

Was an increase in relative poverty acceptable ? And is a decrease of 1.6 million the same as the Tory approach ?

Who suffered most when we had long waiting lists and long waiting times for operations on the NHS ?

The propaganda that NL are Tory lite, is designed to mislead decent people into thinking it is a fact, it isn't. What New Labour is not, is a left wing party. But that does not mean the are in any way Tories.


The realisation of the need for change came after 18 years of Old Labour opposition, mostly under the nastiest, most callous piece of Tory-ism that in no way can be described as New Labour.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 07:07 PM
The propaganda that NL are Tory lite, is designed to mislead decent people into thinking it is a fact, it isn't. What New Labour is not, is a left wing party. But that does not mean the are in any way Tories.
Labour's core principles are based on left-wing economic policies.

A "Labour" party that is centre-right on economics just isn't Labour, and in fact is Tory-Lite.

You are the ONLY person I know of that proclaims that NuLab wasn't Tory-Lite; because everyone else knows for a fact they were.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
New Labour was not Tory Lite

now you've got two
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 17 2015, 07:30 PM
New Labour was not Tory Lite

Well as the saying goes if it can swim, fly and quack you know exactly what it is!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Aug 17 2015, 08:26 PM
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.




Well thats what they said..but there again Cameron is claiming to be the party of working class now.
Not pragmatism but cynicism . To misquote Bob Monkhouse 'The secret of success in Politics is sincerity…… Once you can fake that, you've got it made'
Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 08:55 PM
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 08:26 PM
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.




Well thats what they said..but there again Cameron is claiming to be the party of working class now.
Not pragmatism but cynicism . To misquote Bob Monkhouse 'The secret of success in Politics is sincerity…… Once you can fake that, you've got it made'
I won't disagree with that, but advise that before making judgements it is wiser to examine the true record ........... and that for Blair is rising living standards, the NMW, and Public services restored to a standard that was lost.
Now do the same for Cameron ....... falling living standards, a below inflation wage freeze, and public services under attack and declining.

No contest really, is it ..... Blair delivered much on his inclusiveness, Cameron has done the opposite - reneged.
Edited by Affa, Aug 17 2015, 10:38 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Aug 17 2015, 10:21 PM
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 08:55 PM
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 08:26 PM
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.




Well thats what they said..but there again Cameron is claiming to be the party of working class now.
Not pragmatism but cynicism . To misquote Bob Monkhouse 'The secret of success in Politics is sincerity…… Once you can fake that, you've got it made'
I won't disagree with that, but advise that before making erronious judgements it is wiser to examine the true record ........... and that for Blair is rising living standards, the NMW, and Public services restored to a standard that was lost.
Now do the same for Cameron ....... falling living standards, a below inflation wage freeze, and public services under attack and declining.

No contest really, is it ..... Blair delivered on his inclusiveness, Cameron has done the opposite - reneged.


Maybe but..Blair inherited an ( arguably) rising economy from the Tories and Cameron inherited a tanked one.
Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 10:21 PM
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 08:55 PM
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 08:26 PM
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.




Well thats what they said..but there again Cameron is claiming to be the party of working class now.
Not pragmatism but cynicism . To misquote Bob Monkhouse 'The secret of success in Politics is sincerity…… Once you can fake that, you've got it made'
I won't disagree with that, but advise that before making judgements it is wiser to examine the true record ........... and that for Blair is rising living standards, the NMW, and Public services restored to a standard that was lost.
Now do the same for Cameron ....... falling living standards, a below inflation wage freeze, and public services under attack and declining.

No contest really, is it ..... Blair delivered much on his inclusiveness, Cameron has done the opposite - reneged.
Well, my living standards have risen during a coalition administration and have further improved since may.....as usual, I speak as I find.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 07:07 PM
Nonsense
Aug 17 2015, 04:15 PM
C-too
Aug 17 2015, 02:42 PM
---- "Electing Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader would be a backward move that risks creating a one-governing-party state dominated by the Conservatives, David Miliband has warned." ----
Considering that the Labour party leadership contenders,with the exception of Corbyn are all 'light' Tories,it is not too difficult to judge that we are already in a 'one-party-state'.

The divisions in the Labour party have been there since WW2,the 'right wing' of that party are 'Tories' by nature,if not in name,that's why the electorate have now given up on them.

The right wingers are\have been effectively,a 'Trojan Horse' within Labour's ranks,that came to maturity under BLAIR,to my mind, only Wilson was true to the party values of Labour since Attlee.
Please put your bias away and look at the reality. Here are some examples that show that you are mistaken.

During the 18 years of Conservative administration;
1, State schools were run down through lack of funding. While the minority schools in Thatcher's state schools that were "Grant Maintained" received proper funding.
NL abolished the 'Grant Maintained' system, they fully funded state schools and introduced a programme of fully equipped new schools and refurbished schools.
2. Thatcher's ideological method of running society saw millions of people fall into the relative poverty area of income.
NL took 1.6 million people out of relative poverty.
3. The NHS inherited by New Labour had large waiting lists and a waiting time of up to 18 months for operation.
New Labour greatly reduced to as low as 18 weeks!

Perhaps you would tell me who suffered most when school funding was too low ?
And who gained most when schools were given a financial uplift, and dilapidated exercise books were replaced by computers ?

Was an increase in relative poverty acceptable ? And is a decrease of 1.6 million the same as the Tory approach ?

Who suffered most when we had long waiting lists and long waiting times for operations on the NHS ?

The propaganda that NL are Tory lite, is designed to mislead decent people into thinking it is a fact, it isn't. What New Labour is not, is a left wing party. But that does not mean the are in any way Tories.


The realisation of the need for change came after 18 years of Old Labour opposition, mostly under the nastiest, most callous piece of Tory-ism that in no way can be described as New Labour.
"Please put your bias away and look at the reality. Here are some examples that show that you are mistaken".

In no way am I biased,the reality is,from looking at your post,is that it's you who are biased,in which case I take little notice of your protestation to the contrary.

The fact is,I think that all parties are as bad as each other,how one construes that as being 'biased' is beyond me.

1, "State schools were run down through lack of funding. While the minority schools in Thatcher's state schools that were "Grant Maintained" received proper funding".

New Labour's response to that was to introduce a 'windfall tax' on the newly privatised utility companies,that were undervalued at flotation & were making excessive profits arising from the flotation that continue today.

It was that 'windfall tax' that funded the education budget capital spending program,paid for, NOT by the utility companies,but by their customers,from whom the utility companies would have passed on the cost of that tax.

The lesson is,beware of Labour Chancellors bearing gifts,it will cost you dear, just like the 'Warm Front' Scheme in pushing prices ever higher for gas & electricity.

The Tories do not do public spending, because it means higher taxes,I'm not saying that Labour were wrong to spend the money, what is highly questionable is, how the money is raised to pay for it.

2. "Thatcher's ideological method of running society saw millions of people fall into the relative poverty area of income".

As is the case with CAMERON's Tories.
Of course,Gordon BROWN's 'welfare reforms' were,like the Tories now, intended to,"make work pay",yet, with mass unfettered immigration,over 1 MILLION public sector jobs were allocated to MIGRANTS, displacing the indiginous youngsters from the opportunity to work,leaving them entirely dependent on the 'welfare state'.

3." The NHS inherited by New Labour had large waiting lists and a waiting time of up to 18 months for operation.
New Labour greatly reduced to as low as 18 weeks!".

Indeed they did,but using 'targets' is political interference & when that happens distortions in clinical priorities occur.
Of course,their NHS policy was a financial disaster,hospital deficits were rising exponentially each year,with the consequent injection of additional money being required.

Then we have the not too little matter of PFI, an unmitigated disaster that only a Chancellor who was content to sell off part of our national reserves in the form of gold could do & which generations of patients-taxpayers will have to endure the burden of.

"Perhaps you would tell me who suffered most when school funding was too low" ?

Obviously it was the children & the country.

The same as with the NHS,with the patients paying the price.

"And who gained most when schools were given a financial uplift, and dilapidated exercise books were replaced by computers" ?

The teachers gained most, BROWN's first budget(spending round-2 years after the election) increased MP's pay, ALL public sector workers,including civil servants,hospital staff,the legal 'profession',teachers,Social Security staff etc.

Those pay\salary increases were literally unfunded by any productivity increases,giving effect to future spending cuts or tax increases,in other words, the reality of Labour economics.
Those 'computers' were not funded by the government, they were paid for by the public,who were given 'vouchers' (that paid for the computers)when they spent money in Tesco's & O.S software was by a somewhat smelly deal with Bill GATES.

"Was an increase in relative poverty acceptable ? And is a decrease of 1.6 million the same as the Tory approach "?

Government's cause increases in poverty,as do changes in one's circumstances,do I find increasing poverty acceptable, NO,but then, show me a government that hasn't caused it.

Government's spend from taxes raised, someone receives that money through transfer, others forfeit money through paying taxes,as indeed we all do,it's called, "robbing Peter to pay Paul".

"And is a decrease of 1.6 million the same as the Tory approach "?

Within the timeframe of NL's last period in office,I would question that statement, it's probably true that children of around that number were taken out of poverty through government spending,which raises questions of policy.

For the Tories, they are NOT a party that has any social empathy whatsoever, all that matters to them is lower taxation through lower public spending, with one exception, as long as those whom the Tories support are receiving that public money.

In other words, they are hypocrites who excercise double-standards, one for them, another set of standards for the rest,it's the 'Tory' syndrome of, "Them & Us".

"The propaganda that NL are Tory lite, is designed to mislead decent people into thinking it is a fact, it isn't. What New Labour is not, is a left wing party. But that does not mean the are in any way Tories".

Unfortunately, it's not 'propaganda',there is a concensus amongst the public,more solid than a mere perception,that they are 'Tory-Lite', hence,in large measure why the public deserted them at the 2010-2015 elections.

People knew that NL were 'elitist',that they are exactly what they accuse others of being, such as 'bigots',with Gordon BROWN displaying his own 'bigotry' over an ordinary 'Labour' voters concerns about immigration.

On numerous occasions BROWN was saying that he would 'listen' to the public,but he never did,it was just for the media to get out of his face for the day.

"The realisation of the need for change came after 18 years of Old Labour opposition, mostly under the nastiest, most callous piece of Tory-ism that in no way can be described as New Labour".

The very same realisation after 13 years of New Labour in power,arguably under one of the 'nastiest' 'Labour' administrations that I can recall.

The 'problem' with 'Labour' is it's 'right wing',the best Labour administrations were from leaders on the 'left' of that party, they were the truly radical & progressive leaders.

You will no doubt disagree with that & more. !(0)!
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 17 2015, 11:42 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Aug 17 2015, 10:47 PM
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 10:21 PM
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 08:55 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I won't disagree with that, but advise that before making judgements it is wiser to examine the true record ........... and that for Blair is rising living standards, the NMW, and Public services restored to a standard that was lost.
Now do the same for Cameron ....... falling living standards, a below inflation wage freeze, and public services under attack and declining.

No contest really, is it ..... Blair delivered much on his inclusiveness, Cameron has done the opposite - reneged.
Well, my living standards have risen during a coalition administration and have further improved since may.....as usual, I speak as I find.


I'm all right Jack eh? Or as me old mother used to say 'sod you Jack, I'm all right' .
Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 11:11 PM
Rich
Aug 17 2015, 10:47 PM
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 10:21 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Well, my living standards have risen during a coalition administration and have further improved since may.....as usual, I speak as I find.


I'm all right Jack eh? Or as me old mother used to say 'sod you Jack, I'm all right' .
Why do you use such a stupid retort? I am merely telling how it is for me, I have no idea how others are faring.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Aug 17 2015, 11:15 PM
gansao
Aug 17 2015, 11:11 PM
Rich
Aug 17 2015, 10:47 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


I'm all right Jack eh? Or as me old mother used to say 'sod you Jack, I'm all right' .
Why do you use such a stupid retort? I am merely telling how it is for me, I have no idea how others are faring.


Exactly !clp!
Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 17 2015, 10:47 PM
Well, my living standards have risen during a coalition administration and have further improved since may.....as usual, I speak as I find.
Only after having fallen over the last five years - have they returned yet to pre-coalition status,, and if so indicate why this happened NOW?

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 11:54 PM
Rich
Aug 17 2015, 10:47 PM
Well, my living standards have risen during a coalition administration and have further improved since may.....as usual, I speak as I find.
Only after having fallen over the last five years - have they returned yet to pre-coalition status,, and if so indicate why this happened NOW?

I am afraid to say that not being an economist of any note and despite my wages being reduced by 10K, I have no answer for you, we still find ourselves able to keep our heads above the water and have enough left over to save a bit and have single days holidays, we are looking at a day out in September to the Guernsey food festival, my good lady is manipulating figures to see if it can become a reality.

http://www.visitguernsey.com/food-festival
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 17 2015, 08:26 PM
New Labour under Blair can be labelled in one term only that adequately describes its policies .... Pragmatism!
It gave way to the Establishment and attempted to adhere to its core values, serving the working class i.e, by 'not' attacking business, but working with it.
Called the 'Third Way' it meant inclusiveness instead of conflict, a proper 'We' party instead of 'Us & Them'.


:thumbsup:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
1, "State schools were run down through lack of funding. While the minority schools in Thatcher's state schools that were "Grant Maintained" received proper funding".
---------------------------
New Labour's response to that was to introduce a 'windfall tax' on the newly privatised utility companies,that were undervalued at flotation & were making excessive profits arising from the flotation that continue today.
It was that 'windfall tax' that funded the education budget capital spending program,paid for, NOT by the utility companies,but by their customers,from whom the utility companies would have passed on the cost of that tax.
The lesson is,beware of Labour Chancellors bearing gifts,it will cost you dear, just like the 'Warm Front' Scheme in pushing prices ever higher for gas & electricity.
The Tories do not do public spending, because it means higher taxes,I'm not saying that Labour were wrong to spend the money, what is highly questionable is, how the money is raised to pay for it.
The point I was making is that New Labour were not Tory-lite, as you posted, they were very different to the Tories.
If anything your comment proves my point.

Edited by C-too, Aug 18 2015, 07:25 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
2. "Thatcher's ideological method of running society saw millions of people fall into the relative poverty area of income".
-----------------------
As is the case with CAMERON's Tories.
Of course,Gordon BROWN's 'welfare reforms' were,like the Tories now, intended to,"make work pay",yet, with mass unfettered immigration,over 1 MILLION public sector jobs were allocated to MIGRANTS, displacing the indiginous youngsters from the opportunity to work,leaving them entirely dependent on the 'welfare state'.
in 2006 unemployment was 1.4 million. the lowest for some 25 years. Low unemployment under NL, high unemployment under the Tories is the point I make, showing NL and the Tories to be very different.
Immigration is an EU membership problem.


Edited by C-too, Aug 18 2015, 07:55 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
3." The NHS inherited by New Labour had large waiting lists and a waiting time of up to 18 months for operation.
New Labour greatly reduced to as low as 18 weeks!".
-------------------
Indeed they did,but using 'targets' is political interference & when that happens distortions in clinical priorities occur.
Of course,their NHS policy was a financial disaster,hospital deficits were rising exponentially each year,with the consequent injection of additional money being required.
It may well be the case that an imperfect NHS continued to be, but people were treated much quicker under NL than under 18 years of Tory administration. Two very different parties with different priorities.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
3." The NHS inherited by New Labour had large waiting lists and a waiting time of up to 18 months for operation.
New Labour greatly reduced to as low as 18 weeks!".
--------------------
Then we have the not too little matter of PFI, an unmitigated disaster that only a Chancellor who was content to sell off part of our national reserves in the form of gold could do & which generations of patients-taxpayers will have to endure the burden of.
Ploughing through the propaganda against PFIs is difficult for many people, as it was for myself until a saw a Select Committee meeting of the political channel on Sky TV.
Both the Tory minister and the Labour MP agreed that some of the early PFIs were a bad deal for the taxpayer, and should be re-negotiated. All schools PFIs were a good deal for the taxpayer.
The figures quoted for PFIs include 30 years of ground and Building maintenance. This makes it difficult to see the difference between a non-PFI cost compared to a PFI cost. In any case only the difference between the two different costs should be used in any debate on PFIs.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.

REALITY CHECK; 'New Labour' have now lost TWO elections in a row,they may well lose with CORBYN as leader, but, the 'alternatives' have a PROVEN record of losing TWO elections,a THIRD election lost by them is more than a 'possibility', it's practically a given.
New Labour, or more correctly, the international financial meltdown lost the election for NL in 2010.
Old Labour Ed-the-gone lost the last election. Left wing Corbyn WOULD lose the next election.
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