What is the point of Labour ?

[Jacksgranda]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Now the traitorous c**t Blunkett is flapping his jaws.  It’s like a coordinated attempt by Labour’s establishment to get the boot in.

It’s laughable that Blunkett was seen as a rebel in his early days. 

Reported for "visually impairedism".

[Detournement]

He's visibly imperialist. 

The reason all these bawbags have to cry loudly about unelectablity is because 2017 proved they are electable.

Right winger greets about left wing policies in the Telegraph. It's not exactly a shocking occurrence. 

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Reported for "visually impairedism".

There’s none so blind...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Bob is right in that you have to get power to implement your policies.

 

But getting in to power does not necessarily mean that you can't be radical. I know many have mentioned 1945 but we do have a more recent example of radical policies being carried through - the first Blair government. Those were a result, not of Blair, but as a consequence of the groundwork laid out during John Smith's leadership. Blair's second term was a missed opportunity - Labour could have implemented other radical policies but choose instead to abandon altogether any radicalism they might have had.

 

Corbyn's real issue isn't necessarily policies (even if I do disagree regards Brexit) but multifaceted.

 

Firstly a perception that he is soft on terrorists - many of us here understand why he did what he did at the time regards the IRA and Hezbollah - unfortunately most voters are not that understanding - it's always going to be brought up as a stick to beat him with.

 

Then there is the perception by some in the electorate that Labour can't afford its policies, that it can't be trusted with the economy. For older voters that will be down to their experience of Labour in the 70s - and somewhat embellished by the right wing press. But that's only a small group of voters - I think Labour aren't trusted because they not only did it in the 70's but left what was seen as an economic mess by Gordon Brown's management of the economy. I think they are also falling for the trap that the SNP fell for in their White Paper on independence - we have to remember that the Tories and their chums in the right wing media will always play the "but what will it cost" card and yet don't get challenged on the coatings of their own polices.

 

Corbyn's own leadership is also a serious concern - and in many ways suffering as May did. The failure to discipline and remove the whip from certain so-called "Labour" MPs. The fence sitting strategy on Brexit - trying to please both sides and ultimately pleasing neither - the johnny-come-lately stance regards a second EU referendum. The number of times he's had open goals yet managed to shoot himself in the foot. If McDonnell wasn't there I think he'd have gone for an election earlier - and fallen in to the trap set by the Tories.

 

If the Tories get a majority then he needs to go.

 

If he manages to get a hung Parliament i think he should seriously consider his exit strategy from leading the Labour Party - perhaps leading a minority coalition government and allowing a smooth transition to some sort of solution to Brexit where he could then go to be replaced by someone radical, but less toxic, and who has better leadership qualities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

40 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

There’s none so blind...

You've done it again! 

[pandarilla]

I'd disagree about Blair's first term as being radical.

They undoubtedly had some achievements but it was done on borrowed cash, rather than redistributing wealth. He completely embraced Thatcherism.

[dorlomin]

45 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

They undoubtedly had some achievements but it was done on borrowed cash, rather than redistributing wealth. 

Labour reduced the debt during their first term. It was classic Keynsianism: Debt should be used counter-cyclically. 

 

They also significantly raised the % of public spending to GDP. in the second and third terms. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by dorlomin

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Labour reduced the debt during their first term. It was classic Keynsianism: Debt should be used counter-cyclically. 

 

 

They also significantly raised the % of public spending to GDP. in the second and third terms. 

They reduced debt in their first term to honour their commitment to match Tory spending promises and keep the City happy. Then they deregulated the City to keep them happy again, and started the brilliant PPP's that gave it even more risk free places to place their money. 

[dorlomin]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

They reduced debt in their first term to honour their commitment to match Tory spending promises and keep the City happy.

Oh the conspiracy theories are out. 

So they were not Keynsians because our little "expert" here does not know what Keynsian economics is. And they were not making spending pledges to try to nullify public concern about Labours economic competence, but it was "too please the city". 

[pandarilla]

Labour reduced the debt during their first term. It was classic Keynsianism: Debt should be used counter-cyclically. 

 
They also significantly raised the % of public spending to GDP. in the second and third terms. 

I take my point back.

But as welshbairn said they absolutely continued the he deregulation of the city which contributed heavily to the crash.

And PFI has been a dreadful experiment.

[Jacksgranda]

10 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I take my point back.

But as welshbairn said they absolutely continued the he deregulation of the city which contributed heavily to the crash.

And PFI has been a dreadful experiment.

Horrendous

[welshbairn]

31 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Oh the conspiracy theories are out. 

So they were not Keynsians because our little "expert" here does not know what Keynsian economics is. And they were not making spending pledges to try to nullify public concern about Labours economic competence, but it was "too please the city". 

You know, capital flight, bond prices and all that? Pleasing the City.

[dorlomin]

9 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

You know, capital flight, bond prices

Oh you are a fixed income expert now. 

 

Gilts dropped pretty much during the whole Labour 3 terms. 

What shred of evidence does our fixed incomes expert have that the predominant reason for Labours fiscal strategy was not a belief in Keynsian economics and a belief they needed to calm voter concerns about Labours fiscal "prudence" (publicly stated aims) but was instead all about "appeasing the city" and preventing "capital flight"? 

The people who buy long term debt from governments tend to be the most boring, apolitical, numbers people you will find. Triple A rated debt is sought by pensions all over the world. Why would Japanese pensions funds care about anything other than their yield curve models? 

 

[welshbairn]

Fiscal prudence + yield curve models + calming voters concerns = pleasing the City. Then they sold the gold at the bottom of the market, started off the PFI's and deregulated the City. Bingo!.

 

[dorlomin]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Fiscal prudence + yield curve models + calming voters concerns = pleasing the City

Now you are just handwaving to justify your conspiracy theory. 

Virtually anything can be claimed to be "pleasing the City". 

Labour came to power with an explicitly Keynsian economics outlook (thus reducing the debt in a counter cyclic fashion), trying to address voters concerns and with a much stronger belief in the money multiplier than was fashionable. 

The idea that "capital flight" was a major motivator of economic policy is complete rot. 

And had the plan been to raise tax but keep debt level the yield curve models would not have moved. Dont cut and paste another posters words unless you know what they mean. 

[welshbairn]

Whatever. 

[pandarilla]

Now you are just handwaving to justify your conspiracy theory. 
Virtually anything can be claimed to be "pleasing the City". 
Labour came to power with an explicitly Keynsian economics outlook (thus reducing the debt in a counter cyclic fashion), trying to address voters concerns and with a much stronger belief in the money multiplier than was fashionable. 
The idea that "capital flight" was a major motivator of economic policy is complete rot. 
And had the plan been to raise tax but keep debt level the yield curve models would not have moved. Dont cut and paste another posters words unless you know what they mean. 

You're arguing over semantics.

Do you defend the PFI policy?

And do you support new labour's handling of the economy? Is that what you'd be looking to vote for?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'd disagree about Blair's first term as being radical.

They undoubtedly had some achievements but it was done on borrowed cash, rather than redistributing wealth. He completely embraced Thatcherism.

I meant certain policies were radical - minimum wage, creation of the Scottish Parliament spring to mind.

All of those were inspired by John Smith more than Blair though - which was the point I was trying to make.

The extra spending was done more in the second and third terms.

[BFTD]

Tax Credits were an idea nicked from the US, designed to ease the corporate wage burden by partially offloading it on to the taxpayer.

I'm surprised you don't remember the Daily Mail and Tories shitting the bed over it at the time, Malky. They've since come round now the benefits to them have become obvious.

[BFTD]

You should look it up, Malky. Some good material to rage at in there, should you choose to do so.