|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 10, 2023 10:21:42 GMT
As I posted earlier held by circumstances. If they were to kick people when they are already almost on the their knees that could have serious knock-on effects at the ballot box. Sure but the amusing part is, the one party system that pretends it is something else, is by somehow changing A for B or C will change anything, you have to be either a complete idiot after a lifetime of seeing it or have some other criteria. Which makes your internet user name a little ironic, which is why I use mine. I'd agree the changes are small, but they are there. Few people want dramatic change for our history of mistakes has lead us to the most even path available. What we are reduced to is which side of the path we walk on. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 10, 2023 10:29:51 GMT
If the government's stances are not moderated or changed by democracy, then you don't have a democracy
It's fine to advocate for an elite run, autocratic technocracy, but you should be clear about this wish.
IMHO a subset of the population has become so determined to keep their preferred policies fixed in place that they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and breaking (destroying) the contract that keeps them in power
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 10, 2023 10:31:13 GMT
Firstly, who do you think you are calling people with different opinions "twats" Laughably you think you are on the moral side, and you use language like that lol. I suggest you spend some time actually researching the history of the Labour party, and the structure of it. Starmer is ignoring party democracy and behaving like a dictator. He has broke all his election pledges, he ignores local democracy and inserts his own crony candidates, and he flip flops his position not to match the democratic views of the Labour membership... but on some bizarre "we must get elected at all costs" populism... when the idiot is going to win by default anyway. I voted for Blair three times because he actually stood for something. All Starmer seems to stand for is being PM, and he is prepared to shit all over his own party and the Labour movement to get it. IMO people who can't stop themselves from throwing slime at Starmer are twats. I'm not interested in your overopinionated and clearly biased opinions on Starmer. Starmer appears keen to move towards NL type of government, with NL type policies. That's why he is "hated" by the hard left Corbynites in the Party. NL did a lot of good "for the many" that Old Labour, polishing the opposition benches could never have accomplished. The problem for Starmer's approach is IMO two fold. 1. Starmer doesn't have the flair that Blair had. 2. Because of the different background circumstances in 1997 and today, the Tories are not as vulnerable as they were back then. Do you actually bother to read what people type? I provided an argument and backed it up with evidence, so no it is not "overopinionated" lol. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Labour didn't allow a debt bubble to build up pre-financial crisis... pretty hard to argue against that graph though isn't it lol. Calling normal working people who disagree with Starmer "hard left Corbynites" is laughable. I clearly said I voted for Blair three times, and told you exactly why Starmer is nothing like him. I am critisising the real things he has done / doing. He has broken all his leadership election pledges and he is shitting all over the democratic nature of the Labour party, which is alienating him from the membership and the unions. You do understand that unions are actual people right, run democratically? The Tories are not as vulnerable as back in 1997? Are you actually insane? There is already hundreds of Tories MPs that have said they will not stand again because they know they are going to be wiped out at the next GE. People are not arguing against a Labour government, they are saying they want an actual Labour government, not whatever this is that Starmer is offering... and no that doesn't mean they want Corbyn either, because there is very limited appepitite for a Democratic Socialist agenda. The country is crying out for a proper Social Democratic party. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 10, 2023 14:07:45 GMT
IMO people who can't stop themselves from throwing slime at Starmer are twats. I'm not interested in your overopinionated and clearly biased opinions on Starmer. Starmer appears keen to move towards NL type of government, with NL type policies. That's why he is "hated" by the hard left Corbynites in the Party. NL did a lot of good "for the many" that Old Labour, polishing the opposition benches could never have accomplished. The problem for Starmer's approach is IMO two fold. 1. Starmer doesn't have the flair that Blair had. 2. Because of the different background circumstances in 1997 and today, the Tories are not as vulnerable as they were back then. Do you actually bother to read what people type? I provided an argument and backed it up with evidence, so no it is not "overopinionated" lol. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Labour didn't allow a debt bubble to build up pre-financial crisis... pretty hard to argue against that graph though isn't it lol. Calling normal working people who disagree with Starmer "hard left Corbynites" is laughable. I clearly said I voted for Blair three times, and told you exactly why Starmer is nothing like him. I am critisising the real things he has done / doing. He has broken all his leadership election pledges and he is shitting all over the democratic nature of the Labour party, which is alienating him from the membership and the unions. You do understand that unions are actual people right, run democratically? The Tories are not as vulnerable as back in 1997? Are you actually insane? There is already hundreds of Tories MPs that have said they will not stand again because they know they are going to be wiped out at the next GE. People are not arguing against a Labour government, they are saying they want an actual Labour government, not whatever this is that Starmer is offering... and no that doesn't mean they want Corbyn either, because there is very limited appepitite for a Democratic Socialist agenda. The country is crying out for a proper Social Democratic party.Nope, you introduced yours' and some others biased interpretations of the facts, putting the worst possible explanation on them. And that is what I object to. Corbynites are laughable, for Corbyn to get his way would take a revolution in the Capitalist UK. And it IS the Hard-Left (certainly not the moderate left) that have attacked Starmer claiming that he is too much like Blair and New Labour. They have attacked Starmer ever since he replaced Corbyn because he was closer to the Blair's saying "for the many not the few". Not Corbyn's heart on sleeve approach that Clem Attlee had already seriously addressed just after WWII. Starmer IS the elected leader of the Labour party. IIRC Corbynites shit all over Labour's democratic processes by attacking those MPs in their constituencies, who were not pro-Corbyn. Back in 1997 the Tories left high unemployment and major costly to correct weaknesses in the likes of the NHS AND education and had practiced a weak economic system that needed a full overhaul. Many of those who are arguing are arguing for the 'Lady Bountiful' style approach of Corbyn. Thinkers will wait and see just what Starmer is offering when his manifesto is released. Looking at the over domination of parliament by the Tories it seems obvious that the British electorate are not keen on socialism. But they did fully accept New Labour's social minded capitalism. Which is why I think that Starmer should be given every opportunity and every backing to enable him to win the next election with a decent majority, and given time if he wins to show what he can do. The alternative appears to be Old Labour continuing to spend most of their time polishing the opposition benches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2023 17:53:38 GMT
What nastiness?- the Tories have been in power for the last 13 years so how were they nasty to you? As I posted earlier held by circumstances. If they were to kick people when they are already almost on the their knees that could have serious knock-on effects at the ballot box. Indeed - they may hit their chins on the ballot box and knock themselves out. When they come round they will find that they voted labour. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 10, 2023 18:05:42 GMT
Sure but the amusing part is, the one party system that pretends it is something else, is by somehow changing A for B or C will change anything, you have to be either a complete idiot after a lifetime of seeing it or have some other criteria. Which makes your internet user name a little ironic, which is why I use mine. I'd agree the changes are small, but they are there. Few people want dramatic change for our history of mistakes has lead us to the most even path available. What we are reduced to is which side of the path we walk on. Why all the bullshit then Zany, which is constant. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 10, 2023 20:05:21 GMT
If the government's stances are not moderated or changed by democracy, then you don't have a democracy It's fine to advocate for an elite run, autocratic technocracy, but you should be clear about this wish. IMHO a subset of the population has become so determined to keep their preferred policies fixed in place that they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and breaking (destroying) the contract that keeps them in power You're full of these vague threats to democracy, but always short on detail. Loads of what you don't want, but nought of what you'd replace it with. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 10, 2023 20:11:24 GMT
IMO people who can't stop themselves from throwing slime at Starmer are twats. I'm not interested in your overopinionated and clearly biased opinions on Starmer. Starmer appears keen to move towards NL type of government, with NL type policies. That's why he is "hated" by the hard left Corbynites in the Party. NL did a lot of good "for the many" that Old Labour, polishing the opposition benches could never have accomplished. The problem for Starmer's approach is IMO two fold. 1. Starmer doesn't have the flair that Blair had. 2. Because of the different background circumstances in 1997 and today, the Tories are not as vulnerable as they were back then. Do you actually bother to read what people type? I provided an argument and backed it up with evidence, so no it is not "overopinionated" lol. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Labour didn't allow a debt bubble to build up pre-financial crisis... pretty hard to argue against that graph though isn't it lol.Calling normal working people who disagree with Starmer "hard left Corbynites" is laughable. I clearly said I voted for Blair three times, and told you exactly why Starmer is nothing like him. I am critisising the real things he has done / doing. He has broken all his leadership election pledges and he is shitting all over the democratic nature of the Labour party, which is alienating him from the membership and the unions. You do understand that unions are actual people right, run democratically? The Tories are not as vulnerable as back in 1997? Are you actually insane? There is already hundreds of Tories MPs that have said they will not stand again because they know they are going to be wiped out at the next GE. People are not arguing against a Labour government, they are saying they want an actual Labour government, not whatever this is that Starmer is offering... and no that doesn't mean they want Corbyn either, because there is very limited appepitite for a Democratic Socialist agenda. The country is crying out for a proper Social Democratic party.Not at all. Debt under New Labour remained substantially lower than under the Tories right up to the 2008 crash. The only criticism possible is that New Labour did so well they could have reduced the debt even more. Oh no! |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 10, 2023 20:14:05 GMT
I'd agree the changes are small, but they are there. Few people want dramatic change for our history of mistakes has lead us to the most even path available. What we are reduced to is which side of the path we walk on. Why all the bullshit then Zany, which is constant. I just remembered why I don't respond to you, its not because we disagree, its because you are vacuous. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 10, 2023 20:42:02 GMT
Why all the bullshit then Zany, which is constant. I just remembered why I don't respond to you, its not because we disagree, its because you are vacuous. Sticks and stones Zany, sticks and stones. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 11, 2023 2:56:39 GMT
Do you actually bother to read what people type? I provided an argument and backed it up with evidence, so no it is not "overopinionated" lol. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that Labour didn't allow a debt bubble to build up pre-financial crisis... pretty hard to argue against that graph though isn't it lol.Calling normal working people who disagree with Starmer "hard left Corbynites" is laughable. I clearly said I voted for Blair three times, and told you exactly why Starmer is nothing like him. I am critisising the real things he has done / doing. He has broken all his leadership election pledges and he is shitting all over the democratic nature of the Labour party, which is alienating him from the membership and the unions. You do understand that unions are actual people right, run democratically? The Tories are not as vulnerable as back in 1997? Are you actually insane? There is already hundreds of Tories MPs that have said they will not stand again because they know they are going to be wiped out at the next GE. People are not arguing against a Labour government, they are saying they want an actual Labour government, not whatever this is that Starmer is offering... and no that doesn't mean they want Corbyn either, because there is very limited appepitite for a Democratic Socialist agenda. The country is crying out for a proper Social Democratic party.Not at all. Debt under New Labour remained substantially lower than under the Tories right up to the 2008 crash. The only criticism possible is that New Labour did so well they could have reduced the debt even more. Oh no! Person debt, not government debt. Labour turned a blind eye to the huge rise in personal debt, and the handing out of credit and mortgages with total disregard to affordability. This left us more prone to financial damage than countries with tighter credit control. It is literally the same argument that the Tories weren't prepared for a pandemic when everybody was warning we would get one... Labour ignored all the warnings about the massive rise in high risk loans and mortgages. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 11, 2023 8:47:49 GMT
Not at all. Debt under New Labour remained substantially lower than under the Tories right up to the 2008 crash. The only criticism possible is that New Labour did so well they could have reduced the debt even more. Oh no! Person debt, not government debt. Labour turned a blind eye to the huge rise in personal debt, and the handing out of credit and mortgages with total disregard to affordability. This left us more prone to financial damage than countries with tighter credit control. It is literally the same argument that the Tories weren't prepared for a pandemic when everybody was warning we would get one... Labour ignored all the warnings about the massive rise in high risk loans and mortgages. Nope. New labour banned self assessment mortgages from the UK. Couldn't stop our banks lending in the virtually unregulated American markets. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 11, 2023 8:57:18 GMT
As I posted earlier held by circumstances. If they were to kick people when they are already almost on the their knees that could have serious knock-on effects at the ballot box. Indeed - they may hit their chins on the ballot box and knock themselves out. When they come round they will find that they voted labour. An example ^^^ of contrived nonsense, well done  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 11, 2023 9:06:41 GMT
If the government's stances are not moderated or changed by democracy, then you don't have a democracy It's fine to advocate for an elite run, autocratic technocracy, but you should be clear about this wish. IMHO a subset of the population has become so determined to keep their preferred policies fixed in place that they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and breaking (destroying) the contract that keeps them in power You're full of these vague threats to democracy, but always short on detail. Loads of what you don't want, but nought of what you'd replace it with. Democracy is more held together by an understanding (a promise) rather than a procedure. Getting your way by breaking that promise damages democracy. If you can do it to get your way, why shouldn't others? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 11, 2023 9:21:00 GMT
Not at all. Debt under New Labour remained substantially lower than under the Tories right up to the 2008 crash. The only criticism possible is that New Labour did so well they could have reduced the debt even more. Oh no! Person debt, not government debt. Labour turned a blind eye to the huge rise in personal debt, and the handing out of credit and mortgages with total disregard to affordability. This left us more prone to financial damage than countries with tighter credit control. It is literally the same argument that the Tories weren't prepared for a pandemic when everybody was warning we would get one... Labour ignored all the warnings about the massive rise in high risk loans and mortgages. The rise in home ownership was encouraged by NL, it in no way caused the international financial meltdown (IFM) which threw all previous economic plans out of the window. That was caused by a totally American cock-up which not only hit without warning but was the worst economic crisis for 60 years. Part of the problem was the deregulation in the 1980s which meant that Building Societies and Banks could do both. Your claim of "total disregard to affordability" is a piece of opinionated nonsense. Everything was based upon the money flowing into the Banks, no knew that all that money in the Banks was actually worthles until the IFM struck. |
|
