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 (2,218 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:
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 17 2015, 07:16 PM
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
New Labour working within the reality of what appears to be a healthy economy but does so for the "benefit of the many" carries with it the basic differences between Labour and the Tories.
As far as I'm aware, even Clem Attlee didn't change the fundamental capitalist economy of the country. So IMO, Labour have always worked with capitalism for the benefit of the many.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
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.
Terrible times Affa ,people starving , bodies lying in the streets, others unable to run their cars, pay their mortgages, or go on holiday and six months waiting time to see a Doctor. and another 4 1/2 years of this government to run. Doesn't apply to you though or the others with the sane attitude on this board does it?
If you believe what you post you will believe anything.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 08:54 AM
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.
The bottom line is that most people are satisfied with the service they receive from the NHS today. What went before is irrelevant, and we need to move on to the present. Governing a country is an evolutionary process
Do cheer up and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 09:11 AM
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.
OK but a big issue of PFI was that successive governments used it to distort the public accounts by moving liabilities off the current account into later years
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 07:24 AM
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.

I would not for one minute disagree with your comment's about the Tories starving education,health & a host of other area's of necessary funds in a country recognised for the way that it treats the 'unfortunate'.
What must also be understood is both how the economy unwinds- recovers over the economic cycles & how government's deal with public spending during those cyclical periods.

I know that Labour spend the money BEFORE collecting it, the Tories collect it before spending it,although it's the methodology of collection & spending that's important.

Under CAMERON, he has used the cuts in welfare, to fund projects to get people into work,thus using their own 'benefit' money for the purpose & not out of general taxation.
It has a double purpose though,one is to cut welfare cost, the other to reduce the welfare state in it's scope of operations.

Under Labour,it always starts with good intentions, but ends up as a basket case.

I look at the system this way, there are TWO 'states', there's the 'welfare state' & there's the 'wealthfare state'.

Under the former, the Tories are introducing a 'cap' on the total amount of 'welfare' under a single benefit,called 'Universal Credit',pegged at £23K,but expected to reduce to £20K per household.
Now, for 'fairness','consistency', the Tories should extend that principle to the 'wealthfare state' side,by cutting out ALL tax breaks,additional pension reliefs,savings reliefs etc, so that people earning above £23K get absolutely no tax free allowances on any income & that ALL income is taxed at source.

In return,when,both the deficit - national debt is paid off, income tax should be abolished with V.A.T being the sole tax,HMRC would be solely responsible for enforcement of that tax with absolute power to enforce & prosecute those practicing avoidance with unlimited fines\ imprisonment on first offence.

V.A.T is known to have substantial loopholes,as well as many ways of avoidance,these are not insoluble problems,infact,it should be far easier resource wise, to close the gaps.

V.A.T would be a fairer method of collecting taxes,because it is 'green', it is 'fairer',because those who spend more, pay more taxes, to the benefit of all,even the hoarder of money,eventually has to pay their share.

In my opinion, no government has created a 'fair' taxation or 'benefit' system,the Tories are thinking of 'merging' National Insurance with income tax, that is completely WRONG, it's purpose in doing so, is to disconnect government decisions on welfare spending, from the 'entitlement' to it, by those who pay that 'insurance'.

Once that is accomplished, the Tories(and Labour)will 'adjust' Universal Credit, state pensions,health access etc to their hearts content,until it the welfare state has withered & died.

That is,IMHO their aim,they will allow,like Labour unfettered immigration, until the resources of the welfare state are under such a burden that it is no longer sustainable ,it's the same approach as the 'Blue Badge' scheme that the Tories used to curtail, flood the system to overload,with public disquite about 'abuse', then use that as propaganda to destroy or reduce entitlement.

I do not think it necessary to expand on the Tory attitudes\policies towards the second type,that is the people within the 'wealthfare' category,it's generally understood that they favour this latter group by turning a 'blind eye' to their tax evasion, the contributions they pay to the Tory party & the reciprocal tax breaks that they receive by way of return from Tory Chancellors.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 18 2015, 02:04 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 18 2015, 12:00 AM
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
Guernsey food festival looks nice...and very expensive!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 17 2015, 04:52 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!
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.
I doubt it takes much talent to run a bank into colossal debt while the CEO has it made for life plus a Knighthood or Lordship. Talent indeed.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 18 2015, 12:14 PM
Tytoalba
Aug 17 2015, 04:52 PM
Tigger
Aug 16 2015, 09:44 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
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.
I doubt it takes much talent to run a bank into colossal debt while the CEO has it made for life plus a Knighthood or Lordship. Talent indeed.
Your cup is always half empty isn't it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
If New Labour is dead, then Labour is dead.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
As well as being IRA friendly..
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 02:08 PM
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.
If New Labour is dead, then Labour is dead.
Well they can always go back to wearing flat caps and shoving ferrets down their trousers..

https://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=black+pudding+bertha

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 New Labour.
Morning Star
Do you think the socialist Morning Star is any less politically biased than the Tory press ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 18 2015, 02:16 PM
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 02:08 PM
Cymru
Aug 17 2015, 03:54 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepMorning Star
If New Labour is dead, then Labour is dead.
Well they can always go back to wearing flat caps and shoving ferrets down their trousers..

https://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=black+pudding+bertha

;D !jk!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 18 2015, 10:11 AM
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 08:54 AM
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.
The bottom line is that most people are satisfied with the service they receive from the NHS today. What went before is irrelevant, and we need to move on to the present. Governing a country is an evolutionary process
Do cheer up and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

I don't blame you for wanting to ignore the awfulness of the NHS mess left by the Tories after 18 years of their administration. By all means sweep the dirt under the carpet if it makes you feel a little better, it won't change the reality. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
I know that Labour spend the money BEFORE collecting it, the Tories collect it before spending it,although it's the methodology of collection & spending that's important.

Under CAMERON, he has used the cuts in welfare, to fund projects to get people into work,thus using their own 'benefit' money for the purpose & not out of general taxation.
It has a double purpose though,one is to cut welfare cost, the other to reduce the welfare state in it's scope of operations.

Under Labour,it always starts with good intentions, but ends up as a basket case.
Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect. Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt. It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare. A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment.

Deficit to GDP inherited from the Tories in 1997 was 43%, (and that was despite the financial starving of the NHS and schools). Deficit to GDP in 2006 was 36%.
The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown. A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today.
Attlee left an expanding, export led economy and full employment in 1951.
The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time.
Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover.
The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974.

Tory propaganda works hard to deceive people on these issues.

Back later.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 18 2015, 10:19 AM
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 09:11 AM
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.
OK but a big issue of PFI was that successive governments used it to distort the public accounts by moving liabilities off the current account into later years.
I have seen, some years back, two different claims on PFIs on/off balance sheet. One claimed 60% the other claimed 33% was on balance sheet.

I view PFIs a bit like I do a mortgage, in that it is spread over thirty years with 'inflation' reducing the cost over time. Not sure if that is a justifiable view.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 03:17 PM
I have seen, some years back, two different claims on PFIs on/off balance sheet. One claimed 60% the other claimed 33% was on balance sheet.

I view PFIs a bit like I do a mortgage, in that it is spread over thirty years with 'inflation' reducing the cost over time. Not sure if that is a justifiable view.
It's certainly a way of looking at it. But the problem is if you keep buying public projects with mortgages then you build up an increasing liability.

An easy well informed read on PPI is the official brief http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06007/SN06007.pdf

That reveals a liability 2015 on of over £230B which is a staggering number. However much of that is running costs so the actual liability moved off books is well under £100B

But here's a key flaw in PFI. By transferring the cash investment to the private sector they inevitably have to borrow the money and pass the costs on. Now why would the private sector be able to borrow cheaper than governments? Answer: they wouldn't so PPI has guaranteed fat profits for the money lenders at taxpayer expense. Dumb
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 18 2015, 02:10 PM
Cymru
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
As well as being IRA friendly..
No more or less than John Major, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton or Ian Paisley.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 18 2015, 05:03 PM
marybrown
Aug 18 2015, 02:10 PM
Cymru
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
As well as being IRA friendly..
No more or less than John Major, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton or Ian Paisley.
Are you sure ?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 02:56 PM
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
I know that Labour spend the money BEFORE collecting it, the Tories collect it before spending it,although it's the methodology of collection & spending that's important.

Under CAMERON, he has used the cuts in welfare, to fund projects to get people into work,thus using their own 'benefit' money for the purpose & not out of general taxation.
It has a double purpose though,one is to cut welfare cost, the other to reduce the welfare state in it's scope of operations.

Under Labour,it always starts with good intentions, but ends up as a basket case.
Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect. Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt. It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare. A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment.

Deficit to GDP inherited from the Tories in 1997 was 43%, (and that was despite the financial starving of the NHS and schools). Deficit to GDP in 2006 was 36%.
The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown. A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today.
Attlee left an expanding, export led economy and full employment in 1951.
The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time.
Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover.
The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974.

Tory propaganda works hard to deceive people on these issues.

Back later.
"Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect".

From 'your' pov they may be, but, NOT from mine.

"Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt".

INCORRECT-

'Welfare' cuts are to cut the DEFICIT.

"It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare".

TRUE.

"A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment".

That is secondary to the primary purpose of 'hiring-firing' at the cheapest possible cost to the employer.


"The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown".

You are swallowing your own propaganda,deficits are down to individual countries, not some globalised phenomena that you are describing,which are economic 'knock-on' effects effecting already unbalanced budgets.

The 'NET' Debt-GDP % in 1997 was 40.5(ONS),reaching the lowest ratio in 2001@30.3%,rising inexorably(how disengenuous of you to quote 2006-when the following years to 2010 happened) 2007-44%, 2008-145% of GDP, 2009-148.2% & 2010(general election year) 142.6% GDP.

There is nothing like FACTS to debunk the myths.

"A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today".

As mentioned above, individual countries managing\mismanaging their own budgets, NOT to be excused by events elsewhere that affect each country differently.
As has been mentioned, New Labour failed to bank the money in the good years,look no further.


"The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time".

I will not excuse the outcome of the Tory years,save to say that their legacy had been years of inflationary turmoil, the 'Labour' government begging the IMF for a bailout,leading the Tories to get ideologically infatuated with 'Monetarism' , a consequence of 'Labour's' disastrous handling of the economy ,of which James Callaghan introduced stringent cuts,including to the NHS.

"Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover".

In spite of Macmillan's "never had it so good" dictum,which applied,as usual, to the 'haves',the ensuing building boom,although needed,was not the economic prescription that the country needed,consequently,by the time Wilson won in 1964,years of moribund economic activity had taken it's toll,which is why Wilson gave his,"White heat of technology" speech & Tony BENN's embracing Concorde, a name signifying co-operation (concordat)with France on building it.

WILSON was, like CORBYN's challenge today, a "breath of fresh air" for the time.

"The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974".

Really, as I remember, rubbish piling high in all our streets & roads.

The unions were running the country, NOT the government & if things were so bright why do you think the people threw Labour out of office for the period 1979-1997?

See you later. !jk!


Edited by Nonsense, Aug 18 2015, 09:45 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 14 2015, 11:24 AM
As an interested observer of Labour's travails, I might be expected to relish the demise of a once great party, but I am not. We need an active opposition, and the electorate needs a clear choice between the two main philosophies of conservatism and Labour. And like it or not, Corbyn is Labour, while the rest of his opponents are, by comparison, carpetbaggers willing to trade any principles they might once have had, to fit the prevailing wind. In a field of mediocrity, Corbyn stands out. He speaks what he believes, and there are still a lot of like minded Labour supporters out there who were never seduced by Blair, and his "new Labour" confidence trick.

Perhaps "old" Labour is what we need right now, as an alterative to rampant right wing conservatism, Cameron style. For, as always happens, the pendulum will swing against them in due course, and if the only alternative is a party that has sold its core ethics in a scrabble for the middle ground, and has become conservative lite...well, plus ca change, as they say. Would Corbyn be such a disaster as the media would have us believe? Why should it be considered impossible for a nationalised industry to be run with the efficiency of a private business? Why should we not own the core industries, such as rail, power generation and the like? Whatever happens in the forthcoming election for Labour leader, it will be interesting to see how the pieces fall. Would the Blairites really quit the party and start their own? Would senior party members refuse shadow cabinet jobs if offered? Somehow I doubt it.

We live in interesting times!
Nice post Albe. You summarized the situation very well.

I would prefer the option of a Socialist party in a GE. If they are not elected then so be it. Better to remain true to your principles than change to grab power. Andy Burnham is making me laugh louder each day. Now he'd accept Corbyn as a shadow minister if he wins! Is there nothing he won't do to become leader!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 18 2015, 02:10 PM
Cymru
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
As well as being IRA friendly..
Tony Blair initiated behind the scenes good friday talks.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 07:06 AM
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:
Sorry Ctoo, but to me, inclusiveness means listening to popular opinion, leading Politicians of all hues appear to be as deaf as a post.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 18 2015, 06:23 PM
marybrown
Aug 18 2015, 02:10 PM
Cymru
Aug 16 2015, 04:58 PM
He can't be an anti-Semite as some of his best friends are Arab.
As well as being IRA friendly..
Tony Blair initiated behind the scenes good friday talks.
That was his job

Corbyn cosying up to terrorists was to affect being alternative for self image and generally create trouble
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 03:17 PM

I view PFIs a bit like I do a mortgage, in that it is spread over thirty years with 'inflation' reducing the cost over time. Not sure if that is a justifiable view.
In a decade or so the Nation will own £bns of PFI structures, assets paid for by you and me with our taxes.
I wonder how long these assets will remain in public ownership ..... or sold off under privatisation at a fraction of their worth?
My bet is that plans are already laid for the future asset stripping we have come to expect from economically incompetent government.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 18 2015, 06:37 PM

Corbyn cosying up to terrorists was to affect being alternative for self image and generally create trouble
Either that or he's smarter than you give him credit for.

He opposed apartheid long before the UK establishment.
He was talking to the IRA long before the UK establishment.

Maybe he's just smarter than the UK establishment.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 18 2015, 06:45 PM
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 03:17 PM

I view PFIs a bit like I do a mortgage, in that it is spread over thirty years with 'inflation' reducing the cost over time. Not sure if that is a justifiable view.
In a decade or so the Nation will own £bns of PFI structures, assets paid for by you and me with our taxes.
I wonder how long these assets will remain in public ownership ..... or sold off under privatisation at a fraction of their worth?
My bet is that plans are already laid for the future asset stripping we have come to expect from economically incompetent government.

Well, the hospital PFI contract at the hospital (psychiatric) where I work is under PFI control for 30 years and that ends in 2033, after that the site is handed over to the NHS, lock, stock and barrel and the public sector is then responsible for it's maintenance, catering and cleaning, the hospital cost £43 million to build and earns the PFI £2million per annum thereby giving the PFI an overall profit of £17 million over the course of 30 years.

What state the superstructure of the site will be in by then is anybody's guess as it was "thrown up" in record time and has already been altered many times from it's original design.

The PFI' guarantee of plant and equipment for the buildings was for 12 years, that ends on 1st March next year, after that then the PFI's SPV (special purpose vehicle) which is part owned by the NHS, is liable for any repairs and replacement and they will not want their profit to be eaten into, they may even sell on the remaining years of the contract.
Edited by Rich, Aug 18 2015, 07:30 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jeremy Corbyn is the curator of the future. His rivals are chasing an impossible dream

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

Probably the best article on Corbyn I have read yet.

The Blairites say that Labour can't win from the left, that it has to emulate its opponents and occupy the centre ground to appeal to their voters, but why would these voters vote for a Labour Party half-hearted in its commitment to their ideology when they can vote for the party that is fully committed to them, i.e. the Conservatives?

The Blairites say that going back to an ideology which the voters rejected 30 years ago won't win Labour the next election, but Thatcher went back to an ideology the voters had rejected in the early 1900s and won three elections, so why can't Corbyn?
Edited by Cymru, Aug 18 2015, 07:41 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Cymru
Aug 18 2015, 07:41 PM
Jeremy Corbyn is the curator of the future. His rivals are chasing an impossible dream

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

Probably the best article on Corbyn I have read yet.

The Blairites say that Labour can't win from the left, that it has to emulate its opponents and occupy the centre ground to appeal to their voters, but why would these voters vote for a Labour Party half-hearted in its commitment to their ideology when they can vote for the party that is fully committed to them, i.e. the Conservatives?

The Blairites say that going back to an ideology which the voters rejected 30 years ago won't win Labour the next election, but Thatcher went back to an ideology the voters had rejected in the early 1900s and won three elections, so why can't Corbyn?



Well I have posted ( other peoples) observations that the ordinary citizens of the UK ( and other countries) have real grievances regarding stagnating wages, exporting industry, lack of work security and housing shortages ( amongst others) and one would expect them to look to labour( and thus more left wing orientated) organisations for the answers ie trade unions/Labour party. They did, and very successfully , did this in the past.
However in the past few years it was the far right wing UKIP that seemed to attract so many of them.
UKIP was and is a party of fear and loathing. Our problems the fault of other people and what we need to do is disengage with them.
Farage peddled this crap in the disguise of an avuncular man of the people , yet when one scratched the surface of UKIP politics, it reeks of racism and Xenophobia and wants to lead us into a far right neo liberal future.
Now there is a collectivist politician who proposes...not despising( then privatising) public services but embracing them. He proposes a fairer society,not one resigned to a neo liberal fate. No wonder Tory lite hates him.
Tory proper hates him too but they know that Corbyn will not be an immediate threat to them...but in the mid to long term....

Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 18 2015, 07:03 PM
Steve K
Aug 18 2015, 06:37 PM

Corbyn cosying up to terrorists was to affect being alternative for self image and generally create trouble
Either that or he's smarter than you give him credit for.

He opposed apartheid long before the UK establishment.
He was talking to the IRA long before the UK establishment.

Maybe he's just smarter than the UK establishment.

All The Best
Corbyn was in short trousers when the establishment threw SA out of the Commonwealth?

Please get your dates right
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Boxter
May 16 2015, 04:23 PM
Major Sinic
May 16 2015, 01:58 PM
Boxter
May 16 2015, 01:53 PM
Personally I thought the day I heard Chukka "accidentally" referring to his leader as David Milliband, I had him down right there as throwing his hat into the ring to replace his actual leader some stage in the future. What about Kate Hoey, now there's a lady with her head screwed on.
I quite agree with you; an outstanding and active constituency MP, never featured in the expenses scandal, very principled and never intimidated by the Labour whips and a woman of immense integrity. One of the few, the very few, Labour MPs I would be proud to have as my MP. A couple of hundred more like her and Labour's problems would soon be resolved.
And a bluff Ulsterwoman to boot noone will mess her around
That is a fact, she speaks her mind and folks know where they stand with her.......much like Mr Corbyn really.


I think she is a nice lady, a good politician and I like the "lilt" in her accent.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 18 2015, 08:28 PM
Pro Veritas
Aug 18 2015, 07:03 PM
Steve K
Aug 18 2015, 06:37 PM

Corbyn cosying up to terrorists was to affect being alternative for self image and generally create trouble
Either that or he's smarter than you give him credit for.

He opposed apartheid long before the UK establishment.
He was talking to the IRA long before the UK establishment.

Maybe he's just smarter than the UK establishment.

All The Best
Corbyn was in short trousers when the establishment threw SA out of the Commonwealth?

Please get your dates right
Regardless of your very obvious fact, independence was demanded and given......the rest is history, the UK cannot be blamed for the state and situation of previous commonwealth nations/countries that wished to govern themselves.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Aug 16 2015, 07:06 AM
Jeremy Corbyn asked to prove he is not an enemy of Jews
The Jewish Chronicle of London has put seven questions to Jeremy Corbyn and says he must answer them in full or else "be regarded from the day of his election as an enemy of Britain’s Jewish community".
The Jewish Chronicle
I would put these people on my Ignore List if I were Jeremy Corbyn.
It looks like the Jewish Chronicle does not speak for all Jews as it claims. Dozens of prominent British Jews sent an open letter to the self-appointed organ of Jewry condemning it for its smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. “Your assertion that your attack on Jeremy Corbyn is supported by ‘the vast majority of British Jews’ is without foundation,” said the letter.
Morning Star
They go on to claim correctly, "You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong." HA HA We all know that type and well done to those progressive Jewish voices who have washed their hands of the attempted character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn by British Zionists.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Boxter
May 16 2015, 01:18 PM
The Scots rejected the Labour party because it wasnt left wing enough whilst the English rejected the Labour party because they were spooked that that kind of Leftism was about to take control over a Labour government if they elected one - more or less the opposite reasons to the Scots. If you can find a leader who can square that circle then Labour has a chance. Glad im UKIP!!
I think UKIP could, in the right circumstances, inflict the same sort of troubles for the Conservative party that the Scots have inflicted on Labour.

Roll on the destruction of the Conservative party. ;D
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
gee4444
Aug 18 2015, 06:07 PM
Alberich
Aug 14 2015, 11:24 AM
As an interested observer of Labour's travails, I might be expected to relish the demise of a once great party, but I am not. We need an active opposition, and the electorate needs a clear choice between the two main philosophies of conservatism and Labour. And like it or not, Corbyn is Labour, while the rest of his opponents are, by comparison, carpetbaggers willing to trade any principles they might once have had, to fit the prevailing wind. In a field of mediocrity, Corbyn stands out. He speaks what he believes, and there are still a lot of like minded Labour supporters out there who were never seduced by Blair, and his "new Labour" confidence trick.

Perhaps "old" Labour is what we need right now, as an alterative to rampant right wing conservatism, Cameron style. For, as always happens, the pendulum will swing against them in due course, and if the only alternative is a party that has sold its core ethics in a scrabble for the middle ground, and has become conservative lite...well, plus ca change, as they say. Would Corbyn be such a disaster as the media would have us believe? Why should it be considered impossible for a nationalised industry to be run with the efficiency of a private business? Why should we not own the core industries, such as rail, power generation and the like? Whatever happens in the forthcoming election for Labour leader, it will be interesting to see how the pieces fall. Would the Blairites really quit the party and start their own? Would senior party members refuse shadow cabinet jobs if offered? Somehow I doubt it.

We live in interesting times!
Nice post Albe. You summarized the situation very well.

I would prefer the option of a Socialist party in a GE. If they are not elected then so be it. Better to remain true to your principles than change to grab power. Andy Burnham is making me laugh louder each day. Now he'd accept Corbyn as a shadow minister if he wins! Is there nothing he won't do to become leader!
I too think Albe has made an excellent post.

As Albe, I feel we need old labour in order to offer a choice; a proper alternative. I don't mean one ruled by the unions, I mean one in control of vital commodities (rail and power were cited by Albe). I agree that they should be able to be run by the state as efficiently as the private sector, but without the need for excessive wages for upper management and no shareholders to please. Any profits to lead to lower prices or ploughed back into the economy for the good of all rather than the few. There are lots of things the private sector can do to earn a crust without taking these on as well.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 18 2015, 05:59 PM
C-too
Aug 18 2015, 02:56 PM
Quote:
 
Nonsense.
I know that Labour spend the money BEFORE collecting it, the Tories collect it before spending it,although it's the methodology of collection & spending that's important.

Under CAMERON, he has used the cuts in welfare, to fund projects to get people into work,thus using their own 'benefit' money for the purpose & not out of general taxation.
It has a double purpose though,one is to cut welfare cost, the other to reduce the welfare state in it's scope of operations.
Under Labour,it always starts with good intentions, but ends up as a basket case.
Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect. Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt. It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare. A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment.
Deficit to GDP inherited from the Tories in 1997 was 43%, (and that was despite the financial starving of the NHS and schools). Deficit to GDP in 2006 was 36%.
The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown. A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today.
Attlee left an expanding, export led economy and full employment in 1951.
The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time.
Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover.
The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974.
Tory propaganda works hard to deceive people on these issues.

Back later.
"Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect".
From 'your' pov they may be, but, NOT from mine.
"Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt".
INCORRECT-
'Welfare' cuts are to cut the DEFICIT.
"It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare".
TRUE.
"A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment".
That is secondary to the primary purpose of 'hiring-firing' at the cheapest possible cost to the employer.

"The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown".
You are swallowing your own propaganda,deficits are down to individual countries, not some globalised phenomena that you are describing,which are economic 'knock-on' effects effecting already unbalanced budgets.

The 'NET' Debt-GDP % in 1997 was 40.5(ONS),reaching the lowest ratio in 2001@30.3%,rising inexorably(how disengenuous of you to quote 2006-when the following years to 2010 happened) 2007-44%, 2008-145% of GDP, 2009-148.2% & 2010(general election year) 142.6% GDP.
There is nothing like FACTS to debunk the myths.

"A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today".
As mentioned above, individual countries managing\mismanaging their own budgets, NOT to be excused by events elsewhere that affect each country differently.
As has been mentioned, New Labour failed to bank the money in the good years,look no further.

"The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time".
I will not excuse the outcome of the Tory years,save to say that their legacy had been years of inflationary turmoil, the 'Labour' government begging the IMF for a bailout,leading the Tories to get ideologically infatuated with 'Monetarism' , a consequence of 'Labour's' disastrous handling of the economy ,of which James Callaghan introduced stringent cuts,including to the NHS.

"Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover".
In spite of Macmillan's "never had it so good" dictum,which applied,as usual, to the 'haves',the ensuing building boom,although needed,was not the economic prescription that the country needed,consequently,by the time Wilson won in 1964,years of moribund economic activity had taken it's toll,which is why Wilson gave his,"White heat of technology" speech & Tony BENN's embracing Concorde, a name signifying co-operation (concordat)with France on building it.

WILSON was, like CORBYN's challenge today, a "breath of fresh air" for the time.

"The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974".
Really, as I remember, rubbish piling high in all our streets & roads.
The unions were running the country, NOT the government & if things were so bright why do you think the people threw Labour out of office for the period 1979-1997?
See you later. !jk!

The increase in the deficit adds to the national debt.

It's still a fact that part time work and ZHCs have been used to reduce unemployment.

Look at all the graphs for the period from 1997 to 2010. They all show that debt and deficit took off in 2008. i.e. at the time the international financial meltdown occurred. (Do you understand what happened to cause the international financial meltdown and how it inevitably "hit the UK hardest" IMF ?)

As far as I'm aware Deficit, not Debt, was 43% of GDP in 1997. Even if it was 40.5% that does not change the gist of my post.
2006 was the last year not to be affected by the meltdown, that's why I referred to 2006. The slide into the meltdown took place in 2007.
2008 was the beginning of a very expensive fight, despite a loss of income, to stop a recession turning into a depression. NL did not cause the international meltdown and the meltdown years do not represent NL's preferred policies.
The UK economy was based upon a Deregulation/Financial Services/Free Market system as introduced in the 1980s. The UK was referred to as the "Bankers to the World" to suggest an international financial meltdown would not have a massive affect upon the UK economy is simply wrong.

NL were fixing the roof while the sun shined, remember the mess of the NHS and school school buildings and equipment ? Remember how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer along with both the huge increase in the numbers falling into relative poverty and the huge increase in the numbers claiming Incapacity Benefit ? All inherited from the Tories in 1997.

The 13 years of Tory administration 1951 to 1964 saw the Tory government go cap-in-hand to the IMF on three occasions, and as I posted earlier they handed the second largest trading deficit ever recorded at that time, to the incoming Labour government. The Tories, NOT Labour did big damage to the economy which dogged the economy right up to the world recession of the early 1970s.
When Labour went to the IMF in 1976 they picked up on the plans already laid down by Heath's government. All this information has been backed up with the facts and the sources quite recently on this forum.
The country was economically deep in the mire when Callaghan made his cuts, he had no option but to cut. It was North Sea Oil, of which Thatcher at one time was exporting 80% of production, (before she privatised our oil) that helped to rescue the UK economy.

Referring to the condition of the streets is not addressing the improvement in the economy by 1979.
Callaghan negotiated a 5% wage limit agreement with the TUC. It was discontented workers who indulged in unofficial and or wild cat strikes, not the unions.

I didn't say things were that bright, but I do not have one single iota of doubt that the Tory propaganda machine threw Labour out and kept them out, just as in the 1951/1964 period.

Edited by C-too, Aug 19 2015, 09:05 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 18 2015, 07:41 PM
Jeremy Corbyn is the curator of the future. His rivals are chasing an impossible dream

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

Probably the best article on Corbyn I have read yet.

The Blairites say that Labour can't win from the left, that it has to emulate its opponents and occupy the centre ground to appeal to their voters, but why would these voters vote for a Labour Party half-hearted in its commitment to their ideology when they can vote for the party that is fully committed to them, i.e. the Conservatives?

The Blairites say that going back to an ideology which the voters rejected 30 years ago won't win Labour the next election, but Thatcher went back to an ideology the voters had rejected in the early 1900s and won three elections, so why can't Corbyn?
;D I didn't get far into the article before it became obvious that the author is seriously biased. There is little point in reading such a subjective article and no point in being influenced by it.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The word on the ground is that Jeremy Corbyn will not be allowed to win

I state this information as a Labour Party member, but the information has come from a Mr William James Kirkbride, who is a Labour councillor in Whitehaven and an official of the party.

This is what William has written in a Labour Party forum :

"EF, if he fails on the 50% its over, if he does then the PLP will remove him"

" Its not a plot, its using the party rules"

"Mark, JC will not be allowed to win"

" The PLP require 20% to start a ballot of the PLP. That is 44 members, at this moment the papers would be signed by 87"

"Mr Deville, after the removal of JC the party will conduct a purge in the same fashion that Lord Kinnock did"

"Calling elected members of the Labour Party, secret Tories is bringing the party into disrepute. Those people will be removed"

"These sites are being inspected as we type, all who have involved themselves in attacks on elected members of the house will see what happens when JC is gone"

"I will not discuss the matter until Sept 15th. By then JC will already have broken the story"

"JC already knows that the PLP will seek a fresh leadership election should he get more than the 50%"

This is on one hand rather sad, but on the other hand it could be exciting times ahead, another realignment of the left and a purge of the old antique socialists holding Labour back, there might actually be another 1997 style landslide in 2020.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Well if they do stab a propective labour orientated leader in the back then the least the 'Labour' party should do is change its name. Liberal democrat is taken
The attack against Corbyn is based on ' what might be' and the resignation of the old timers that the UKs race to the bottom is inevitable. There is a gutlessness within the so called labour party and the knicker wetters who pretend to support it( and its aims ie a political party oriented towards advancement of fairer society) that is quite sickening.
Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

krugerman
Aug 19 2015, 11:34 AM
The word on the ground is that Jeremy Corbyn will not be allowed to win

I state this information as a Labour Party member, but the information has come from a Mr William James Kirkbride, who is a Labour councillor in Whitehaven and an official of the party.

This is what William has written in a Labour Party forum :

"EF, if he fails on the 50% its over, if he does then the PLP will remove him"

" Its not a plot, its using the party rules"

"Mark, JC will not be allowed to win"

" The PLP require 20% to start a ballot of the PLP. That is 44 members, at this moment the papers would be signed by 87"

"Mr Deville, after the removal of JC the party will conduct a purge in the same fashion that Lord Kinnock did"

"Calling elected members of the Labour Party, secret Tories is bringing the party into disrepute. Those people will be removed"

"These sites are being inspected as we type, all who have involved themselves in attacks on elected members of the house will see what happens when JC is gone"

"I will not discuss the matter until Sept 15th. By then JC will already have broken the story"

"JC already knows that the PLP will seek a fresh leadership election should he get more than the 50%"

This is on one hand rather sad, but on the other hand it could be exciting times ahead, another realignment of the left and a purge of the old antique socialists holding Labour back, there might actually be another 1997 style landslide in 2020.


Yup. We might get another Tory government that calls itself Labour.
Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic