June 8th General Election

[dogmc]

Sadly, raising taxes seems to be one. (Though I don't have a problem with Corbyn's views. It's his lack of leadership that makes him unelectable.)

The tories have raised taxes and refused to rule out raising more....why is that its fiscally sound for them to do it but if Corbyn suggests it its unacceptable?

[DiegoDiego]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

Europe's worst and most-expensive rail system. 

There are many, many worse.

[Scary Bear]

There are many, many worse.

 

Out of interest, which European countries have more expensive and worse railways?

 

I just googled 'Europes worst railways'.

 

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/British-railways-worst-in-Europe

 

This one is from 2002, so things may have improved since then.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1380947/Britains-railways-worst-in-Europe.html

[Mr Heliums]

1 hour ago, dogmc said:

Is Corbyn actually a bad leader or is it the PLP and the media continually repeating the same mantra until enough of the electorate believe it.

His performance at PMQs has been dire. His tactical skills – latest example allowing the Tories free reign in calling the election – utterly absent. The Tories are rampant, and they shouldn't be. Yes, he gets an unfair hearing, but as someone who hoped he might be good, I've been really disappointed.

[Shades75]

15 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

 

Out of interest, which European countries have more expensive and worse railways?

 

I just googled 'Europes worst railways'.

 

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/British-railways-worst-in-Europe

 

This one is from 2002, so things may have improved since then.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1380947/Britains-railways-worst-in-Europe.html

Interestingly, given the pounding Humza Yousaf got when Scotrail/Abellio were not performing well, the outcome of the improvement plan he implemented didn't receive the same fanfare....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38595883

Credit where it's due.

[jmothecat]

Which of Corbyns views are unacceptable? ? The PLP and the media paint him as an extremist but time and again his detractors fail to come up with a list of these 'hard left' policies. Dread to think what would have happened if labour 'moderates' had existed post war. There would be no welfare state or NHS.
 

Mainly his foreign policy associations and beliefs and the language that he uses. What frustrates me most is that he hasn't even come up with anything that's all that radical, half of it could have come from Ed Miliband, yet despite this he still manages to say things which allow the media to treat him the way they do. A lot of what he actually says on the domestic front chimes with mainstream Labour thinking and yet associations with Iran, Sinn Fein, extremist groups like 'Stop the War' and his inability to clearly say he would shoot a terrorist who was attacking people don't sit well with middle-ground voters and many within the Labour Party. His refusal to properly condemn anti-semitism and chuck out people like Ken Livingstone speak volumes. That's just on the political front. His poor leadership, absolute lack of tactical nous, and antagonism towards the moderates make this more pronounced. The obsession that his supporters have at local level with trying to change the rules and take over CLPs to further their own faction is becoming concerning. Corbyn is hugely damaging to the party and whilst I want a Labour government and despite my misgivings about some of his views would far rather he be PM than May, but I'm not representative of the voters Labour need to be speaking to.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

His performance at PMQs has been dire. His tactical skills – latest example allowing the Tories free reign in calling the election – utterly absent. The Tories are rampant, and they shouldn't be. Yes, he gets an unfair hearing, but as someone who hoped he might be good, I've been really disappointed.

Out of interest, how often do you watch PMQs? What with it being on at lunchtime,i normally have to record it, and have been told by a few people that doing so makes me a bit weird. Maybe, in you, I've found a kindred spirit.

Or maybe,like so so many others, your basing your opinion on media reports on PMQs - including the excerpts shown by the bbc.
There's only one party leader who appears out of their depth in that arena - not Corbyn, Robertson or even Farron.

[John Lambies Doos]

Mainly his foreign policy associations and beliefs and the language that he uses. What frustrates me most is that he hasn't even come up with anything that's all that radical, half of it could have come from Ed Miliband, yet despite this he still manages to say things which allow the media to treat him the way they do. A lot of what he actually says on the domestic front chimes with mainstream Labour thinking and yet associations with Iran, Sinn Fein, extremist groups like 'Stop the War' and his inability to clearly say he would shoot a terrorist who was attacking people don't sit well with middle-ground voters and many within the Labour Party. His refusal to properly condemn anti-semitism and chuck out people like Ken Livingstone speak volumes. That's just on the political front. His poor leadership, absolute lack of tactical nous, and antagonism towards the moderates make this more pronounced. The obsession that his supporters have at local level with trying to change the rules and take over CLPs to further their own faction is becoming concerning. Corbyn is hugely damaging to the party and whilst I want a Labour government and despite my misgivings about some of his views would far rather he be PM than May, but I'm not representative of the voters Labour need to be speaking to.

How is 'stop the war' and extremist group? Genuine question

[jmothecat]

How is 'stop the war' and extremist group? Genuine question

They are an anti-west group masquerading as pacifists. These are the people who protest the west targeting Assad's forces but make no statement on Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. They are of that group who will happily condemn anything Britain or America do but won't extend that to dictatorships, socialist governments, Russia etc.

To be fair to them they weren't always like that, I think they started off as genuinely caring about anti-war issues and have an obvious emphasis on the west considering the context of the time, but now it is difficult to defend them.

[jmothecat]

Out of interest, how often do you watch PMQs? What with it being on at lunchtime,i normally have to record it, and have been told by a few people that doing so makes me a bit weird. Maybe, in you, I've found a kindred spirit.

Or maybe,like so so many others, your basing your opinion on media reports on PMQs - including the excerpts shown by the bbc.
There's only one party leader who appears out of their depth in that arena - not Corbyn, Robertson or even Farron.

You know it's on IPlayer?

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

 

They are an anti-west group masquerading as pacifists. These are the people who protest the west targeting Assad's forces but make no statement on Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. They are of that group who will happily condemn anything Britain or America do but won't extend that to dictatorships, socialist governments, Russia etc.

To be fair to them they weren't always like that, I think they started off as genuinely caring about anti-war issues and have an obvious emphasis on the west considering the context of the time, but now it is difficult to defend them.

 

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2497-stwc-statement-on-the-situation-in-syria

[SweeperDee]

[Mr Heliums]

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Out of interest, how often do you watch PMQs?

Most weeks. FMQs every week.

ETA: Though to be fair I don't watch the thing right through.

[DrewDon]

7 hours ago, dogmc said:

Dread to think what would have happened if labour 'moderates' had existed post war. There would be no welfare state or NHS.

 

To be fair, senior figures in the post-war Labour government, such as Attlee, Bevin, Morrison and Cripps (post-1945, at least), were very much the 'moderates' - or the 'Labour right' - of their day and age. They were all supportive of the welfare state and the creation of the NHS, although much of the impetus for those ideas initially originated from outwith Labour circles. 

Attlee was also enthusiastic about the creation of NATO and the UK's membership of it, the development of an independent nuclear deterrent, he removed the whip from left-wing Labour MPs on more than one occasion and openly despised communist entryism. Ideologically, he could usually be found closer to Bevin than Bevan. Cripps' 'austerity budget' of 1948 drew strong criticism from the left of the party; he introduced a wage freeze and also wasn't greatly enthusiastic about taxing the rich and wealthy, for example. Harold Laski, Labour chairman in the first year of Attlee's premiership, often bemoaned him and his government for just not being socialist or radical enough. Attlee's wife wasn't even sure that he was really a socialist. 

That is not to say that the post-war Labour government, its agenda and much of Attlee's politics wasn't generally to the left of, say, the Blair/Brown governments and New Labour - but they were operating in different times and contexts. Really, many of the proudest achievements of the post-war Labour government were delivered and supported by the 'moderates' of their day, regardless of how we view their politics in the present. If Attlee and some of his contemporaries were here now, I'm not sure they would be as enthusiastic about Corbyn and his leadership as many of his supporters might like to believe. 

[jmothecat]

To be fair, senior figures in the post-war Labour government, such as Attlee, Bevin, Morrison and Cripps (post-1945, at least), were very much the 'moderates' - or the 'Labour right' - of their day and age. They were all supportive of the welfare state and the creation of the NHS, although much of the impetus for those ideas initially originated from outwith Labour circles. 

Attlee was also enthusiastic about the creation of NATO and the UK's membership of it, the development of an independent nuclear deterrent, he removed the whip from left-wing Labour MPs on more than one occasion and openly despised communist entryism. Ideologically, he could usually be found closer to Bevin than Bevan. Cripps' 'austerity budget' of 1948 drew strong criticism from the left of the party; he introduced a wage freeze and also wasn't greatly enthusiastic about taxing the rich and wealthy, for example. Harold Laski, Labour chairman in the first year of Attlee's premiership, often bemoaned him and his government for just not being socialist or radical enough. Attlee's wife wasn't even sure that he was really a socialist. 

That is not to say that the post-war Labour government, its agenda and much of Attlee's politics wasn't generally to the left of, say, the Blair/Brown governments and New Labour - but they were operating in different times and contexts. Really, many of the proudest achievements of the post-war Labour government were delivered and supported by the 'moderates' of their day, regardless of how we view their politics in the present. If Attlee and some of his contemporaries were here now, I'm not sure they would be as enthusiastic about Corbyn and his leadership as many of his supporters might like to believe. 

I've recently read a book about Attlee (Citizen Clem, I'd recommend it) and what I found most interesting was his government's foreign policy. It was very much at odds with the modern left take on international politics.

[DrewDon]

Just now, jmothecat said:

 

I've recently read a book about Attlee (Citizen Clem, I'd recommend it) and what I found most interesting was his government's foreign policy. It was very much at odds with the modern left take on international politics.

 

I have got a copy of it, but I haven't got round to reading it yet - I'll make a start on it soon. Recently read a biography of Ernest Bevin, which probably covered many of the same topics and issues. 

[pandarilla]

It's remarkable just how much our society has shifted to the right. We're all Thatcher's weans unfortunately.

[ayrmad]

27 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

To be fair, senior figures in the post-war Labour government, such as Attlee, Bevin, Morrison and Cripps (post-1945, at least), were very much the 'moderates' - or the 'Labour right' - of their day and age. They were all supportive of the welfare state and the creation of the NHS, although much of the impetus for those ideas initially originated from outwith Labour circles. 

Attlee was also enthusiastic about the creation of NATO and the UK's membership of it, the development of an independent nuclear deterrent, he removed the whip from left-wing Labour MPs on more than one occasion and openly despised communist entryism. Ideologically, he could usually be found closer to Bevin than Bevan. Cripps' 'austerity budget' of 1948 drew strong criticism from the left of the party; he introduced a wage freeze and also wasn't greatly enthusiastic about taxing the rich and wealthy, for example. Harold Laski, Labour chairman in the first year of Attlee's premiership, often bemoaned him and his government for just not being socialist or radical enough. Attlee's wife wasn't even sure that he was really a socialist. 

That is not to say that the post-war Labour government, its agenda and much of Attlee's politics wasn't generally to the left of, say, the Blair/Brown governments and New Labour - but they were operating in different times and contexts. Really, many of the proudest achievements of the post-war Labour government were delivered and supported by the 'moderates' of their day, regardless of how we view their politics in the present. If Attlee and some of his contemporaries were here now, I'm not sure they would be as enthusiastic about Corbyn and his leadership as many of his supporters might like to believe. 

I personally don't think politics of the left or right is a good thing, balance is actually the important bit in my book, nature shows this balance at every turn.

[pandarilla]

I personally don't think politics of the left or right is a good thing, balance is actually the important bit in my book, nature shows this balance at every turn.

Balance yes, but not equal in the middle. The rich list published today shows just how far to the right we've been dragged.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

12 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

It's remarkable just how much our society has shifted to the right. We're all Thatcher's weans unfortunately.

This.

The problem is that it is not a natural shift. the centre ground of politics has been dragged too far to the right by the media and certain elements of the Tory party.