politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where should a concerned LAB supporter direct his anger?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where should a concerned LAB supporter direct his anger?

“I want us to employ the power of government as a force for good to transform the way we deal with mental health problems right across society, and at every stage of life.”

Read the full story here

RobD

First

kle4

PB is awash with msm lies about corbyn, not evidence!

kle4

But in terms of who their anger should be directed at, the true hard lefties knows that the answer is not to restrict your anger at one target, like the Tories, or worse, Blairites, or the media, or reality, it is to increase your anger level so you can cover all of them at once.

FrancisUrquhart

Fourth - like Labour in the local elections to come?

TOPPING

FrancisUrquhart said:

Fourth - like Labour in the local elections to come?

Fifth, like Arsenal if they're lucky.

Carolus_Rex

What I take away from this article is that Mr Brind thinks (1) the Tories are horrid and (2) Corbyn is crap, but didn't we already know that?

HYUFD

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

kle4

In all seriousness, if Lab supporter means someone who supports the brand no matter what it stands for, then they should direct their anger at non-corbynites for ruining the harmony of the brand. If it means someone who supports labour values which they feel the leadership is endorsing, then they should be angry at the non-corbynites again.

If they don't feel the leadership's policies are true labour policies they should be angry at the membership for backing it, and probably leave the party until it changes tune. If they think the policies are fine but Corbyn is just bad at delivering them, then anger should be at him.

Richard_Nabavi

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

Alistair

The Wikipedia page on STV has a really very intesesting table on vote trasnfers at the 2012 Scottish Council elections as well as a count of candiates who were elected despite not being in the first round top 4 and candidates who were elected despite not being in the first round top 4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Analysis_of_results

Yorkcity

Carolus_Rex said:

What I take away from this article is that Mr Brind thinks (1) the Tories are horrid and (2) Corbyn is crap, but didn't we already know that?

Yes we did repeat and rinse Ad nauseam .

kle4

Feels like a long time since there was a pro-corbyn header. When Labour romp to a 0.5% win in the marginal of Manchester Gorton I bet even that will be portrayed as negative toward him for some reason.

HYUFD

Corbyn backs May and also has a go at Cadbury for commercialisation 'gone too far' as 'Egggate' continues
https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/849246186502574080

Yorkcity

kle4 said:

Feels like a long time since there was a pro-corbyn header. When Labour romp to a 0.5% win in the marginal of Manchester Gorton I bet even that will be portrayed as negative toward him for some reason.

True can we not get a Corbyn supporter to do a thread for the appearance of balance ?

CarlottaVance

The Labour Party has always claimed the moral high ground of British politics. The notion seems laughable today, now that Labour is a safe space for Jew-baiting bigots and Holocaust deniers of every description, but once Labour actually insisted on their moral superiority over the Tories.

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/tony-parsons-labour-party-nasty

Danny565

Richard_Nabavi said:

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

[Deleted User]

Maybe alot of the anger on the left comes from:
1. A realisation that 'more money' cannot be the answer for everything. Resources are finite. Nobody on the left ever ever seems to talk about how we can deliver more public services through efficiency. If the order of events is Input - Process - Output and you want more Output then Process needs sorting if Inputs are limited. This line of thinking probably seems very alien to you Don. But maybe not to taxpayers.
2. You've lost a culture war (or at least some battles). Labour went full SJW. You should never go full SJW. At least in a 'small c' conservative country. You lost your base.
3. What is Labour for? Who is it for? What objectives via what policies? Bleating 'nasty Tories' isn't going to persuade X million voters to stop voting Tory and vote Labour is it? What is the party (not Corbyn, the party) offering middle England?

TGOHF

Ironic that the "nasty party" is the one focusing on the Easter bunny whilst Don's party is the one banging on about Hitler and Jews.

kle4

HYUFD said:

Corbyn backs May and also has a go at Cadbury for commercialisation 'gone too far' as 'Egggate' continues
https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/849246186502574080

Corbyn backs May? Another sign she's reacting poorly. (In all fairness, some of his ideas are not terrible)

SimonStClare

Afternoon Mr Brind, It’s odd that you use the language of a 1970s Labour dinosaur and yet hate Jeremy Corbyn, you both have more in common than you think.

isam

Richard_Nabavi said:

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

I make you right Richard. Why do people stay with parties that they no longer agree with? Being angry at Tories for being Tories is so 20th century

Sunil_Prasannan

Don Brind = TORY!!!

Pulpstar

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn backs May and also has a go at Cadbury for commercialisation 'gone too far' as 'Egggate' continues
https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/849246186502574080

Corbyn backs May? Another sign she's reacting poorly. (In all fairness, some of his ideas are not terrible)

Deary me.

This is between Kraft and the National Trust. What business is it of politicians ?-

david_herdson

Richard_Nabavi said:

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

I disagree: I don't think their anger is synthetic. They genuinely do believe that the Tories are running down the country in every way, on purpose and to benefit a mythical elite. Hence, when so many people can't see this destruction, they then dismissively talk of the electorate as 'sheeple'. They are two groups with no common understanding of frame of reference.

BannedInParis

kle4 said:

Feels like a long time since there was a pro-corbyn header. When Labour romp to a 0.5% win in the marginal of Manchester Gorton I bet even that will be portrayed as negative toward him for some reason.

My response to this is broadly ...

http://i.imgur.com/ofiS5PX.gif

Fenster

Richard_Nabavi said:

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

Agree 100%. Don Brind is so blindly prejudiced it does an injustice to Political Betting.

david_herdson

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Feels like a long time since there was a pro-corbyn header. When Labour romp to a 0.5% win in the marginal of Manchester Gorton I bet even that will be portrayed as negative toward him for some reason.

True can we not get a Corbyn supporter to do a thread for the appearance of balance ?

You could ask the Labour press office but don't expect an answer before August 2018.

TGOHF

Richard_Nabavi said:

The answer to Don Brind's question is in his opening few paragraphs. He should be angry with himself, because he (like many Labour supporters) is completely off the scale of ridiculous anti-Tory prejudice - impugning the motives and integrity of politicians, like Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, who are manifestly decent people trying to do their best in dealing with a complex set of often conflicting problems. Labour needs to stop being angry and portraying its opponents as pantomine villains, and instead start thinking about what realistic alternative solutions they might offer to the problems the government faces - voters have sussed out that their anger is synthetic and destructive.

Well said Richard.

TGOHF

deleted.

david_herdson

On topic, it appears that Don thinks that the answer that Labour should give to everything is to spend more money no it. Labour needs to understand that austerity is not a lifestyle choice; it's an economic necessity. The public gets that: until Labour does they will keep losing.

Sandpit

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

Richard_Nabavi

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

kle4

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rules would not have been a problem had the MPs followed their spirit.

RoyalBlue

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

Scott_P

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

BudG

One of the main reasons Corbyn was elected as leader in the first place was that all the other candidates in the leadership election had just voted with the Tories for welfare cuts.

So it is all very well for Mr Brind to suggest that if Corbyn really cared about the poor and disavantaged he would step down and make way for someone who would give Labour a shot at winning power, but if the alternatives are Labour MP's who support welfare cuts, then even if they got into power, they would be unlikely to "undo the nasty things the Tories are doing"

david_herdson

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Pulpstar

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

HYUFD

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

williamglenn

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rules would not have been a problem had the MPs followed their spirit.

Labour MPs made exactly the same mistake as Cameron. They put a choice on the ballot with the intention that people would reject it and thereby marginalise the wing of the party represented by Corbyn.

paulbarker

This is going to sound very milky but I dont think anger is a useful reaction.
The point is that Labour has come to the end of its road, its no-ones fault. Labour was founded in response to some problems of the 1890s & its just not "fit for purpose" anymore. Both the Tory & Liberal traditions have re-invented themselves several times during Labours lifetime but Labour cant do that. Its time to "let it go".
Labour supporters can go over to The Libdems or The Greens, or they can take a long holiday from Politics & do other stuff.

notme

The cuts to PIP are of course a load of nonsense. And quickly shown to be. Certain illnesses such as depression have never really been eligible for DLA or the new PIPs. Never have been. In January there was a tribunal that ruled in fact these and other mental illnesses that had never been covered by DLA and PIPs should be covered. Of course the people who sit on the tribunal aren't the ones responsible for clearing up the gigantic hole in the usage widening eligibility would create.

The government clarified the rules and regs to make sure this widening was stopped. So the only possible cut would be to someone who was found eligible in those four weeks that the ruling of the tribunal was valid.

Sandpit

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rules would not have been a problem had the MPs followed their spirit.

Yes, the MPs who didn't understand the new system - and nominated the token old lefty as they always did before - come a close second.

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

I stand firm behind the National Trust, knowing Cadbury is owned by US megafood co Kraft troubles my soul far more.

HYUFD

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

Certainly most taxpayers will approve

TOPPING

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

[Deleted User]

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

You're too kind. Labour did deliberately open the floodgates, expressly and openly to 'rub their noses in it'. For purely partisan and ideological reasons. There have been one or two consequences that are going to take more than 7 years to clear up!
Missing the borrowing forecast by a mere £480 billion was, as you say, down to Gordo not being 'very good at his job'. (!!!) A £160 billion deficit might also take over 7 years to resolve.

Sunil_Prasannan

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

I stand firm behind the National Trust, knowing Cadbury is owned by US megafood co Kraft troubles my soul far more.

"Happy Holidays!"

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

I stand firm behind the National Trust, knowing Cadbury is owned by US megafood co Kraft troubles my soul far more.

I can't say I am too sympathetic to Kraft

rural_voter

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

I suggest exhorting people to stop having three, four or more children. The UK's vastly overcrowded, except for Powys or the Highlands.

NHS funding (% of GDP) fails to keep pace with other countries. I exclude the absurd USA which spends 17% but is full of red tape, copayments, reclaims, means testing and until recently 40 M uninsured people. Keep pace with other tax-funded systems like Canada or Scandinavia, then little cause for complaint.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

Eggstraordinary!

Sandpit

david_herdson said:

On topic, it appears that Don thinks that the answer that Labour should give to everything is to spend more money no it. Labour needs to understand that austerity is not a lifestyle choice; it's an economic necessity. The public gets that: until Labour does they will keep losing.

That's very well put.

OldKingCole

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

Certainly most taxpayers will approve

Except the ones with three or more children.

GarethoftheVale2

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

Anorak

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

Hmmm. People who already have 3+ munchkins are unaffected, and I believe the plans have been publicised for more than 9 months. Other than unfairly targeting devout Catholics, I think it's a reasonable policy. Continuing to have children while hovering at the poverty line and subjecting them to a childhood of [relative!] deprivation is IMO morally wrong.

Fenster

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

TOPPING

Fenster said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

The road to hell, an' all that...

TGOHF

paulbarker said:

This is going to sound very milky but I dont think anger is a useful reaction.
The point is that Labour has come to the end of its road, its no-ones fault. Labour was founded in response to some problems of the 1890s & its just not "fit for purpose" anymore. Both the Tory & Liberal traditions have re-invented themselves several times during Labours lifetime but Labour cant do that. Its time to "let it go".
Labour supporters can go over to The Libdems or The Greens, or they can take a long holiday from Politics & do other stuff.

There is always petty nationalism and parochialism - it's worked well for career politicians in Scotland.

Pulpstar

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

Certainly most taxpayers will approve

Except the ones with three or more children.

The people that make 'em can pay for them. They're not brought along by the stork in the night.

kle4

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rules would not have been a problem had the MPs followed their spirit.

Yes, the MPs who didn't understand the new system - and nominated the token old lefty as they always did before - come a close second.

I maintain they understood. They simply miscalculated its impact.

BudG said:

One of the main reasons Corbyn was elected as leader in the first place was that all the other candidates in the leadership election had just voted with the Tories for welfare cuts.

So it is all very well for Mr Brind to suggest that if Corbyn really cared about the poor and disavantaged he would step down and make way for someone who would give Labour a shot at winning power, but if the alternatives are Labour MP's who support welfare cuts, then even if they got into power, they would be unlikely to "undo the nasty things the Tories are doing"

Are Labour still promising to balance the books (like the Tories, presumably at some future, never to be reached date)? As that is a key issue, since Health is currently protected (if still constantly saying it is never enough) and Welfare is a big big area where cuts have to come if there is to be a balanced budget, you can only trim dead weight in other areas for so long, though even Tories have moaned over some relatively sensible discussions on level of welfare in my opinion.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/collettewalsh/status/849252493141868545

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

I'm surprised it hasn't been described as racist yet.

Anorak

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, it appears that Don thinks that the answer that Labour should give to everything is to spend more money no it. Labour needs to understand that austerity is not a lifestyle choice; it's an economic necessity. The public gets that: until Labour does they will keep losing.

That's very well put.

"when do the ten pound notes begin to bud?"

kle4

paulbarker said:

This is going to sound very milky but I dont think anger is a useful reaction.
The point is that Labour has come to the end of its road, its no-ones fault. Labour was founded in response to some problems of the 1890s & its just not "fit for purpose" anymore. Both the Tory & Liberal traditions have re-invented themselves several times during Labours lifetime but Labour cant do that. Its time to "let it go".
Labour supporters can go over to The Libdems or The Greens, or they can take a long holiday from Politics & do other stuff.

It's a brand, and one still too strong to go anywhere - even if it is purely an anti-tory core - in the absence of anyone else doing better. Hatred of opponents is on the rise again it feels (and it is hatred from plenty on the left and right) sadly.

Sandpit

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Beckett and these 34 others!

So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

Andy_JS

O/T

It looks like Lord Hayward has started posting a few comments on the VoteUK discussion forum:

http://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/9322/good-bad-night-2017-elections?page=6

kle4

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

He wants to Nationalise it...

@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn wades into the National Trust Easter egg hunt row: "It upsets me because I don’t think Cadbury’s should take over the name."

Kraft and Cadbury now have achieved the unique feat of uniting Tories, Christians and Corbynista socialists against them

An Easter miracle on par with the resurrection.

justin124

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Beckett and these 34 others!

So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

Harriet Harman is to blame for Corbyn's election - not those who nominated him. Her actions as Acting Leader in July 2015 gave him the momentum to win.

DavidL

We have a country that 8 years after the last recession is still £1bn a week away from balancing the books. We are heading towards £2trn of debt and pay more in debt interest than we do for education.

The result of this terrible situation is that we have had governments since 2010 which have had to make difficult choices that Labour in government refused to take by not having a spending review. Have they got every decision right? Of course not. Have some of the results of some of their decisions been arbitrary and unfair? Of course they have. Is it an important role of an Opposition to highlight these errors and seek to have them corrected? Damn right it is and Labour currently do a shockingly poor job.

But Don is talking beyond the day job of trying to correct the errors. He is talking about an alternative government. That requires making the kind of choices that Labour ran away from in 2009. I see absolutely no sign that they are willing to undertake or even attempt such an exercise. It is so much easier to pretend that the Tories are just wicked. Simplistic but pointless. And that is exactly what the Labour Party is today.

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Beckett and these 34 others!

So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

I wonder if Ma Beckett will retire, if she does then the Tories probably take Derby South I think.

Danny565

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

kle4

Fenster said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

My main issue with Ed M's strategy (and frankly I was not hostile to the man, he had some decent ideas) was while I felt Cameron and Osborne had failed in their aims, his approach was to say a) They had not cut as much as they said and b) they had cut too much, too fast, in essence criticising them for not cutting enough.

If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.

Pulpstar

@DavidL Labour has opposed a small tax (Lets call NI what it is) increase for self employed earning over 16k (Who pay less tax than employed people), I've also heard them committed to the triple lock and they'll no doubt oppose this child cut.
You can oppose/support these measures if you state where else you'll find the savings. But Labour just doesn't do that. Not remotely credible.

Cyclefree

I was at Fountains Abbey yesterday on a glorious spring day. It is a wonderful place and well worth visiting.

In the various NT houses we visited there were Easter egg hunts. TBH I did not notice whether the word Easter was included. I found the Cadbury's logo - a lurid combination of purple and yellow far more horrible. And Cadbury's chocolate is revolting.

Labour supporters should understand that no one party has a monopoly on moral or political virtue. One offputting aspect of Labour is its self-righteousness, often loudly proclaimed in the face of actions and sayings which are repellent to many. (It was, after all, a revered Labour bigwig that called Tories "lower than vermin".)

As to the nasty things identified above, what is Labour's answer? How is extra spending to be earned? Is there any limit to what should be spent on the NHS or on education? Should the users of the service contribute at all? Should there be any limit on the services to be provided to the NHS? Should child benefit be limited in some way? Etc etc.

Simply saying that you want to help people is not enough. How you want to help them, what it will cost and how you deal with any unintended consequences need addressing too, something that Labour often seems to forget.

Is there any alternative to Corbyn who has even begun to address such issues?

MarkHopkins

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that:

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich?

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

david_herdson

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Beckett and these 34 others!

So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

It's more fun if you just blame Beckett.

rottenborough

"My answer is usually pretty brutal. If he really cared he would move on and make way for someone who would give us a shot at winning power."

Indeed. But he won't because he is stubborn, old fool.

Ishmael_Z

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

"The rich" who threaten to flounce are people on £1m a yearish. "The rich" as targeted by traditional Labour pipsqueak policies are anyone on over £30k a yearish.

dixiedean

Pulpstar said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

Then why 2, why not 1 child, or 0. What is the difference?

TOPPING

kle4 said:

Fenster said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to kens as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

My main issue with Ed M's strategy (and frankly I was not hostile to the man, he had some decent ideas) was while I felt Cameron and Osborne had failed in their aims, his approach was to say a) They had not cut as much as they said and b) they had cut too much, too fast, in essence criticising them for not cutting enough.

If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.

The country was not in the mood to hear anything apart from austerity and that is the (huge) proviso.

But many of the arguments against a massive investment plan were fallacious. A country with its own currency, and a central bank, in a super-low interest rate environment, would be insulated from much of the problems of "going bust" or suffering the lack of confidence that the Tories said it would and hence (PROVISO INSERTED HERE), there was an argument for EdM to row back on austerity, invoke Krugman, et al if necessary in support, and to outline a coherent spending and investment plan.

But he tried to do both and neither at the same time and hence there was no clear understanding of just what Lab would be in government and hence they were not given the chance by the electorate to get anywhere near power.

Danny565

MarkHopkins said:

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.

kle4

DavidL said:

We have a country that 8 years after the last recession is still £1bn a week away from balancing the books. We are heading towards £2trn of debt and pay more in debt interest than we do for education.

The result of this terrible situation is that we have had governments since 2010 which have had to make difficult choices that Labour in government refused to take by not having a spending review. Have they got every decision right? Of course not. Have some of the results of some of their decisions been arbitrary and unfair? Of course they have. Is it an important role of an Opposition to highlight these errors and seek to have them corrected? Damn right it is and Labour currently do a shockingly poor job.

But Don is talking beyond the day job of trying to correct the errors. He is talking about an alternative government. That requires making the kind of choices that Labour ran away from in 2009. I see absolutely no sign that they are willing to undertake or even attempt such an exercise. It is so much easier to pretend that the Tories are just wicked. Simplistic but pointless.

This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.

If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.

But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.

Pulpstar

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

Then why 2, why not 1 child, or 0. What is the difference?

Well personally I'd be perfectly happy with zero or one, but it might be a tricky sell - politically speaking.
Two seems a fair enough compromise.

geoffw

If the choice is between the nasty party and the incompetent party, the former gets my vote. Especially wrt Brexit.

Pulpstar

Danny565 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.

How do you "get" at that wealth though ?

Annual wealth tax to encourage productive use of assets ? It's not easy to do.

rottenborough

Telegraph:

Theresa May takes stand against Saudi regime by not wearing headscarf - ignoring Foreign Office advice


Now that's a bit more controversial than eggs.

[Deleted User]

Danny565 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.

The top 1% already pay a touch under 1/3 of all tax. They're not a limitless well from which money can be extorted. Witness the falling tax take on Stamp Duty. The Laffer Curve is not a fairy tale.

Sandpit

kle4 said:

Fenster said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

My main issue with Ed M's strategy (and frankly I was not hostile to the man, he had some decent ideas) was while I felt Cameron and Osborne had failed in their aims, his approach was to say a) They had not cut as much as they said and b) they had cut too much, too fast, in essence criticising them for not cutting enough.

If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.

But, as Fenster says, there were no cuts. Public spending rose every year in the 2010-15 Parliament, which was terribly communicated to the public because the government wanted to highlight their prudence and the opposition their austerity. Osborne's line should have been that we have to divert spending from other departments to pay for the ever increasing debt interest, but he didn't mention that often enough.

Ireland, Iceland and Spain had cuts in public spending.

Danny565

Patrick said:

Danny565 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.

The top 1% already pay a touch under 1/3 of all tax. They're not a limitless well from which money can be extorted. Witness the falling tax take on Stamp Duty. The Laffer Curve is not a fairy tale.

Yes, because the authorities turn a blind eye to them dodging tax.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

The anger should be directed at Ed Miliband and everyone involved in the Falkirk rigging scandal that led to the rule changes!

The rule change was perfectly sensible (or at least, an experiment worth trying) if its provisions had been adhered to and its rationale accepted.

Blame Margaret Beckett.

Beckett and these 34 others!

So who nominated Jeremy Corbyn?
Diane Abbott MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Rushanara Ali MP for Bethnal Green and Bow
Margaret Beckett MP for Derby South
Richard Burgon MP for Leeds East
Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central
Ronnie Campbell MP for Blyth Valley
Sarah Champion MP for Rotherham
Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North
Jo Cox MP for Batley and Spen
Neil Coyle MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham
Clive Efford MP for Eltham
Frank Field MP for Birkenhead
Louise Haigh MP for Sheffield, Heeley
Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North
Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central and Acton
Imran Hussain MP for Bradford East
Huw Irranca-Davies MP for Ogmore
Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting
David Lammy MP for Tottenham
Clive Lewis MP for Norwich South
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for Salford and Eccles
Gordon Marsden MP for Blackpool South
John McDonnell MP for Hayes and Harlington
Michael Meacher MP for Oldham West and Royton
Grahame Morris MP for Easington
Chi Onwurah MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Kate Osamor MP for Edmonton
Tulip Siddiq MP for Hampstead and Kilburn
Dennis Skinner MP for Bolsover
Cat Smith MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood
Andrew Smith MP for Oxford East
Gareth Thomas MP for Harrow West
Emily Thornberry MP for Islington South and Finsbury
Jon Trickett MP for Hemsworth
Catherine West MP for Hornsey and Wood Green

I wonder if Ma Beckett will retire, if she does then the Tories probably take Derby South I think.

That's a very good call for the 2020 election constituency markets. Beckett will be 77 at the election.

justin124

david_herdson said:

On topic, it appears that Don thinks that the answer that Labour should give to everything is to spend more money no it. Labour needs to understand that austerity is not a lifestyle choice; it's an economic necessity. The public gets that: until Labour does they will keep losing.

Many academic economists disagree and see austerity as a political choice rather than an economic necessity. The 95% of the electorate who are ignorant of Macroeconomics have been conned - though Labour bears significant responsibility for that by their failye to effectively respond post 2010.

SouthamObserver

Bloody hell ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-considers-far-reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602

RobD

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

Then why 2, why not 1 child, or 0. What is the difference?

1 or 0 means there wouldn't be enough young taxpayers paying for pensions and such.

Ishmael_Z

Danny565 said:

Patrick said:

Danny565 said:

MarkHopkins said:

Danny565 said:

GarethoftheVale2 said:

In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?

1) Borrow and spend
2) Tax and spend

In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.

If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.

The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.

We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).

The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.

Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.

What level is 'rich'?

How much would you like to take from them?

How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.

How long till we end up like Venezuela?

Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.

The top 1% already pay a touch under 1/3 of all tax. They're not a limitless well from which money can be extorted. Witness the falling tax take on Stamp Duty. The Laffer Curve is not a fairy tale.

Yes, because the authorities turn a blind eye to them dodging tax.

I am not sure that is right. But I like the way you are thinking, as will anyone else who believes that Labour's share of the vote is still unacceptably high.

kle4

Sandpit said:

kle4 said:

Fenster said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).

The difference - and I have to keep repeating this year after year - is that I don't accuse Brown and his ministers of bad faith, or being nasty, or of deliberately wanting to wreck people's lives, which is what the left repeatedly say of Conservative politicians. Just look at almost any Guardian comment article. So, no, I don't portray Labour politicians as pantomine villains, I just think they have the wrong solutions and mostly weren't very good at their jobs (with some exceptions, Alastair Darling for example).

Them's the rules: Cons = nasty; Lab = incompetent.

We must all deal with it, whatever side we're on.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.

The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.

*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.

My main issue with Ed M's strategy (and frankly I was not hostile to the man, he had some decent ideas) was while I felt Cameron and Osborne had failed in their aims, his approach was to say a) They had not cut as much as they said and b) they had cut too much, too fast, in essence criticising them for not cutting enough.

If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.

But, as Fenster says, there were no cuts. Public spending rose every year in the 2010-15 Parliament, which was terribly communicated to the public because the government wanted to highlight their prudence and the opposition their austerity. Osborne's line should have been that we have to divert spending from other departments to pay for the ever increasing debt interest, but he didn't mention that often enough.

Ireland, Iceland and Spain had cuts in public spending.

Yes I know spending rose, I was using cuts in the colloquial sense that it has been used generally with this matter. The perception has been of massive cuts.

Cyclefree

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS

Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.

It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39455078

I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.

Then why 2, why not 1 child, or 0. What is the difference?

Well personally I'd be perfectly happy with zero or one, but it might be a tricky sell - politically speaking.
Two seems a fair enough compromise.

There used to be no child benefit at all. Then it was only introduced for the second child. It's been relatively recently that it became available for all children.

To hear the wailing at any restriction on benefits which have only been relatively introduced, you'd think the government was proposing the slaughter of the first-born. It is precisely this sort of attitude - exemplified in spades over the NI proposals in the budget and Osborne's earlier attempts to limit the amount of tax relief on charitable contributions rich people could get - that hobbles our attempts to deal with the deficit and get a sustainable and fair welfare system.

The Tories are frit and go after soft targets. Labour have no answers at all. This is not going to help when the next recession comes along nor as we face life outside the EU. Before we can spend money we have to earn it. It would be good if all parties could learn this rather important lesson.

SimonStClare

rottenborough said:

Telegraph: Theresa May takes stand against Saudi regime by not wearing headscarf - ignoring Foreign Office advice

Now that's a bit more controversial than eggs.

Indeed, but EggGate is the perfect media polyfiller for a Parliamentary recess...

AlastairMeeks

My main objection to Easter eggs is that they are an outrageously expensive way of eating chocolate. Is there anything else to be bothered about?

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

Bloody hell ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-considers-far-reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602

The administration also wants to subject more visa applicants to intense security reviews and have embassies spend more time interviewing each applicant. The changes could apply to people from all over the world, including allies like France and Germany.

My visa interview was very brief. I was asked what I do, I gave a one word answer, and my visa was approved.

Pulpstar

SouthamObserver said:

Bloody hell ...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-considers-far-reaching-steps-for-extreme-vetting-1491303602

I'd best have a shave and make sure I'm not too tanned before I go to the US next