pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 17, 2023 22:03:28 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. And to state 'the bleeding obvious', the villain of the story is First Past the Post, which often forces a choice between effective voting and conscience voting. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,637
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2023 22:06:53 GMT
pjw1961If the Labour party as anticipated wins a substantial majority based on around 40% of the vote the major hurdle to the introduction of proportional representation will of course be the Labour government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 22:13:26 GMT
@isa It does perhaps jib could lend them his blue crayon Ta. As I've said before, I'm no guru when it comes to betting, but 50/1 on does look quite hopeful for LDEM in Somerton and Frome. Might tie in with my anecdotal CON poster dearth. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 22:18:13 GMT
I think some people are confused with Johnson's economic approach. It wasn't 'left wing'. It was 'spending other people's cash on whatever helps Boris Johnson'. That's why it was such an inconsistent ragtag jumble of disparate promises. A bridge here. A megastack there. Open this railway station. Close that community centre. Higher wages. Tax business to pay for the bridge. Cut benefits and workers rights (very left wing..) to pay for the tax on business. Shaft the economy. Shaft that nice looking totty in the comms office. Phwoar. I wasn't lying - it was a joke. Piffle. If polls said a majority wanted austerity, Johnson would have delivered austerity. Left wing my arse. There's left, right, centre, and Johnson's ego. Move along, and less of this foolishness. Some lefties.....Jesus wept. I am not sure that anyone has suggested that Johnson was left wing. He did,though, reject the austerity orthodoxy of Osborne et al. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 22:20:16 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. And to state 'the bleeding obvious', the villain of the story is First Past the Post, which often forces a choice between effective voting and conscience voting. Even if you are only bothered about effective voting, then a vote for Labour is open to question. The right in the party argue for the short term: I.e. vote Labour for something slightly less bad, right now. But there is the future to consider. Because at some point the Tories probably get in again, and may move things further right, and if things didn’t move very far left under Labour, things are now worse off overall. Worse, like Blair, the right in Labour might seek to lock in even more right wing stuff in the future, and marginalise the left even more. Just as the right were prepared to shaft Corbyn and let the Tories in to stop any real move left, even just to the centre, it’s not necessarily irrational for the left to risk letting in Tories now to force Labour further left in the future. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Jul 17, 2023 22:25:46 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. Indeed. The 'b's, or many of them at least, are voting to self validate their own egos. It's almost an act of religious ritual, whereas the 'a's are just trying to get change and improvement when and where they can. Can't help but see the 'b's as self indulgent and in need of growing up. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 17, 2023 22:27:53 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. Indeed. The 'b's, or many of them at least, are voting to self validate their own egos. It's almost an act of religious ritual, whereas the 'a's are just trying to get change and improvement when and where they can. Can't help but see the 'b's as self indulgent and in need of growing up. No, the right ignore the arguments of the left, caricature them as purists and argue against that. Purism aside, there are pragmatic reasons not to let the right of the party bake in some more right-wingedness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 22:28:57 GMT
pjw1961 If the Labour party as anticipated wins a substantial majority based on around 40% of the vote the major hurdle to the introduction of proportional representation will of course be the Labour government. But if LAB don't win a substantial majority in possibly 18 months time, ("events, dear boy"), and CON perform a Lazarus act, you might face an even bigger hurdle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 22:36:08 GMT
@isa It does perhaps jib could lend them his blue crayon It’s worn out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 22:39:43 GMT
Betting Odds With 3 Days to go! Selby & Ainsty: 🌹 1/8 🔺 🌳 11/2 🔻 🔶 200/1 🔻 Somerton & Frome: 🔶 1/50 - 🌳 16/1 🔻 🌹 150/1 🔻 Uxbridge & South Ruislip: 🌹 1/10 🔻 🌳 8/1 🔺 🔶 100/1 🔺 A bit of expectation management internal polling for Somerton is looking promising but odds of 50:1 On seem wildly exaggerated. Getting tighter in U&SR judging by the arrows? ULEZ factor? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 17, 2023 22:52:20 GMT
Betting Odds With 3 Days to go! Selby & Ainsty: 🌹 1/8 🔺 🌳 11/2 🔻 🔶 200/1 🔻 Somerton & Frome: 🔶 1/50 - 🌳 16/1 🔻 🌹 150/1 🔻 Uxbridge & South Ruislip: 🌹 1/10 🔻 🌳 8/1 🔺 🔶 100/1 🔺 A bit of expectation management internal polling for Somerton is looking promising but odds of 50:1 On seem wildly exaggerated. Thanks for the tip. I've laid all the favourites while only risking a pound or two. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 17, 2023 22:56:14 GMT
leftieliberal " ... but since 2015 we have seen first the Left under Corbyn doing this ..." Can you remind me of anyone on the 'Right' who was deselected or expelled during this time? Luciana Berger was driven out of the party. She's back again now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 22:58:14 GMT
And now I'm irresistibly back on the tarmac at the Casablanca airfield as Rick nobly insists that Ilsa accompanies Victor Laszlo on the flight to Lisbon before beginning his beautiful friendship with Louis. Thanks for that. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 17, 2023 23:03:22 GMT
And to state 'the bleeding obvious', the villain of the story is First Past the Post, which often forces a choice between effective voting and conscience voting. Even if you are only bothered about effective voting, then a vote for Labour is open to question. The right in the party argue for the short term: I.e. vote Labour for something slightly less bad, right now. But there is the future to consider. Because at some point the Tories probably get in again, and may move things further right, and if things didn’t move very far left under Labour, things are now worse off overall. Worse, like Blair, the right in Labour might seek to lock in even more right wing stuff in the future, and marginalise the left even more. Just as the right were prepared to shaft Corbyn and let the Tories in to stop any real move left, even just to the centre, it’s not necessarily irrational for the left to risk letting in Tories now to force Labour further left in the future. What is so unforgiveable is that Corbyn in 2017 did succeed in pushing he Overton window some way to the Left - as reflected in the policy responses of Theresa May and Johnson. Instead of building on that, Starmer has effectively colluded with the Tories under Truss and Sunak to push that Overton window back sharply to the Right. I see that as political and ideological treachery of the worst kind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2023 23:29:34 GMT
Even if you are only bothered about effective voting, then a vote for Labour is open to question. The right in the party argue for the short term: I.e. vote Labour for something slightly less bad, right now. But there is the future to consider. Because at some point the Tories probably get in again, and may move things further right, and if things didn’t move very far left under Labour, things are now worse off overall. Worse, like Blair, the right in Labour might seek to lock in even more right wing stuff in the future, and marginalise the left even more. Just as the right were prepared to shaft Corbyn and let the Tories in to stop any real move left, even just to the centre, it’s not necessarily irrational for the left to risk letting in Tories now to force Labour further left in the future. What is so unforgiveable is that Corbyn in 2017 did succeed in pushing he Overton window some way to the Left - as reflected in the policy responses of Theresa May and Johnson. Instead of building on that, Starmer has effectively colluded with the Tories under Truss and Sunak to push that Overton window back sharply to the Right. I see that as political and ideological treachery of the worst kind. Yet sadly, nobody really cares. |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Jul 18, 2023 0:56:58 GMT
I think some people are confused with Johnson's economic approach. It wasn't 'left wing'. It was 'spending other people's cash on whatever helps Boris Johnson'. That's why it was such an inconsistent ragtag jumble of disparate promises. A bridge here. A megastack there. Open this railway station. Close that community centre. Higher wages. Tax business to pay for the bridge. Cut benefits and workers rights (very left wing..) to pay for the tax on business. Shaft the economy. Shaft that nice looking totty in the comms office. Phwoar. I wasn't lying - it was a joke. Piffle. If polls said a majority wanted austerity, Johnson would have delivered austerity. Left wing my arse. There's left, right, centre, and Johnson's ego. Move along, and less of this foolishness. Some lefties.....Jesus wept. Agree that his approach was incoherent rather than interventionist. I think the other thing to note with Johnson is that, for most of his tenure, we were in the midst of a pandemic and to a large extent didn't really have much choice but to throw money at that particular problem, so a lot of spending owed much to circumstance. And of course a lot of that money was essentially squandered on dodgy contracts for chums etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Jul 18, 2023 1:09:58 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. Hmm, interesting. I read the same article and some of the discussion underneath and one of the replies that chimed with me was in response to the post you refer to. Not my words, but, as it rather neatly sums up my own views on the matter, I'm just going to lazily quote it: "It's patronising and dismissive, not to say also wrong, to assume that people who don't like the tories but don't unconditionally pledge their allegiance to labour are only doing so because of some desire to express their views which short circuits a rational understanding of the situation. It's always interesting to me that it's seen as perfectly natural that Labour should be bending over backwards and sacrificing any and all principles to pander to voters on the right. But voters on the left are conversely assumed simply owe Labour their fealty, no matter what policies they put forward. Labour can still win my vote next time. But in order to do that they have to present a set of policies that I don't find completely objectionable. If it's simply our duty to suck it up and vote Labour no matter what, rather than saying they must earn our votes, then we are exerting zero pressure on them and so we will absolutely always be presented with a lesser of two evils situation, rather than having a party offer positive reasons to vote for them. Since the tories, on the other hand, do respond to pressure from their right, this means that the supposed centre to which Labour always try to triangulate is constantly moving further to the right. This is an incredibly corrosive trend that goes beyond the result at one general election." |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 18, 2023 5:23:48 GMT
ptarmigan
There are of course alternative opinions to mine, and those of the writer I quoted, but I suspect that those on the Labour left who appear to have been cynically predisposed to Starmer from very early on in his leadership of the party, may be too keen to imagine worst case scenarios about him and his putative government.
Based, in my view, far too much on mistaking electoral positioning for an inviolable prescription for governing.
He's basically our only show in town for getting rid of this government and deserves some benefit of the doubt maybe 12 months before he lays out the party's manifesto to the electorate.
Don't get the betrayals in too early. Despair is premature. It is also corrosive and self-defeating if the objective is to evict this incredibly damaging government.
If the Tories are returned, a lot of what I hold dear about the country may be gone forever after five more years of them in office. Heartless and hopeless is their double whammy. Ruination by intent and neglect. That would not be the case with a Starmer led Labour government, however disappointing they may turn out to be.
Not many long range pots in prospect, but at least we've snookered the Tories. That'll do for me in my long range snooker frame. Less Ronnie the Rocket O'Sullivan, more Cliff Thorburn!
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 18, 2023 5:27:47 GMT
pjw1961 If the Labour party as anticipated wins a substantial majority based on around 40% of the vote the major hurdle to the introduction of proportional representation will of course be the Labour government. But if LAB don't win a substantial majority in possibly 18 months time, ("events, dear boy"), and CON perform a Lazarus act, you might face an even bigger hurdle. It might however persuade lab that being right wing is not an election winning strategy so they mnust move left. A small price to pay, perhaps for the conservative party becoming even more unpopular after yet another term. Its obvious if even under tha system which artificially keeps two existing parties in power, other parties are going to win some seats, that both parties are pretty unpopular. The only way under such a system to get change is to vote for neither of the main parties. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 18, 2023 5:52:31 GMT
Mark - you’re a good man but you took on this role and I thank you for that but part of your role surely, is to stop this crap that Danny, and I have to say even more so, Alec pulls. Please Mark, this needs dealing with. Can we be clear here precisely what crap you object to? I have no idea why the two of us, plus other contributors from time to time, should be more objectionsable than other contributors spending pages chatting about cricket, or other topics which from time to time occupy pages of this site. Covid is at least a political issue. It cost a trillion pounds which could have been spent otherwise. The returns for this in terms of health benefits were dubious at best, because covid is not really a very dangerous disease and never came up to the feared level of harm. Even members of the NHS pointed out how poor were the health benefits from so much spending. Even back in 2020 this was challeneged. Its blindingly obvious at the moment when the NHS is being starved of money, what a waste this was. Fundamentally then, I dont see that as a diversion from core subjects, this debate is no worse than others happening all the time, really less of a diversion. And so why do you find it objectionable? The logical reason has to be that actually it is NOT a diversion from the core debate here. In fact it is very much to the point that BOTH political parties engaged in this amazing waste of money, and indeed locking up the population without trial. Something which should never be repeated.
Perhaps what you really object to is simply the circumstatial evidence that Hastings had covid in winter 2019/20? Some of the evidence for which appears in every post I make? Otherwise, most of my covid posts are simply replies to Alec, which would not happen if he had not first posted an unrealistic claim about covid? I do wonder if he does this mostly, deliberately so that I will reply. I dont do this because its Alec, but because he is really the only person introducing this stuff on the board. Falsehoods should always be called out and never left to stand unchallenged, and thats what I do in all my posts. If I happen not to be here, its interesting others step into the breech to do so.
But if it isnt responding to falsehoods which you object to, then it has to be the evidence that lockdown didnt work? That if Hastings had covid winter 19/20 without much noticing, then chances are the epidemic would have gone the same way across the entire country without the massive and costly interventions. Which is what all the cumulative evidence both from the Uk and other nations where they didnt have nearly so much in terms of interventions, suggests. Is it this political embarassment you really object to?
Alternatively, if alec and myself were banned from this website, just what would be left? The cricket posts? If the goal is to make this a political forum then it isnt us who need to be banned. If you want to destroy it as a political debating forum, then it surely is.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,382
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 18, 2023 6:02:54 GMT
Blair made a huge mistake with Iraq, but reading some of the comments here I think there is some amnesia about what he did achieve by the end of his period in office
1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
2. Low mortgage rates.
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.
4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.
9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.
11. 85,000 more nurses.
12. 32,000 more doctors.
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.
15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.
16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.
18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.
19. Restored city-wide government to London.
20. Record number of students in higher education.
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.
22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.
25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.
29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.
30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.
33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
35. Banned fox hunting.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.
38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.
39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.
40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.
43. Free eye test for over 60s.
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.
45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.
46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.
47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.
48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.
49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.
50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school
Lots of talk about moving the Overton window right, but the minimum wage certainly moved it left. Looking back it's hard to remember the tory objections to it, claiming it would cause unemployment. Now it is unthinkable for any of the major parties to scrap it, indeed they compete with each other to raise it
For adults when it was introduced in 2000 it was £3.60, if it had gone up with inflation it would be £6.50, it has actually gone up to £10.42
Blair could have done better, but ignoring what Labour did achieve I don't think is helpful
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 18, 2023 6:06:30 GMT
Postcard from Lisbon. Keeping up with news from back home every now and again, I read John Harris's latest piece in the Guardian. It was a bit of well trailed angst about the poverty of ambition of Starmer. In that sense, it was neither particularly novel nor interesting and as is often the case, the comments and discussion underneath the article were far more illuminating. One comment particularly caught my eye because it encapsulated the debate we often have on this forum, especially amongst those of us loosely on the centre left part of the political spectrum. First of all the writer described two potential, but totally opposite, voting considerations for those contemplating a Labour vote. a)I want the next election to return a kinder and more equitable government and so I'll be voting for Labour or whoever is most likely to defeat the Tories in my constituency. or b) Labour's policies won't bring about the completely different kind of UK that I want, and so I don't see any reason to vote for them rather than the Tories. The writer then goes on to say that he thinks a) is self-evidently the right choice but confesses distress at hearing many whose thinking is leading them to option b). Maybe he's an avid reader of this site! He then concludes with what I thought was a very interesting bit of analysis of all this, and one that I very much agree with. He thinks the difference between the choice of the two options is a) being what he calls an " instrumental account of voting" whereby people such as himself (and me) cast their vote to help achieve some outcome, even if they simply see it as the least worst outcome and those who go for option b) indulging in an "expressive account of voting". Whereby they cast their vote to say, often to themselves, something about their own views. Hmm, interesting. I read the same article and some of the discussion underneath and one of the replies that chimed with me was in response to the post you refer to. Not my words, but, as it rather neatly sums up my own views on the matter, I'm just going to lazily quote it: "It's patronising and dismissive, not to say also wrong, to assume that people who don't like the tories but don't unconditionally pledge their allegiance to labour are only doing so because of some desire to express their views which short circuits a rational understanding of the situation. It's always interesting to me that it's seen as perfectly natural that Labour should be bending over backwards and sacrificing any and all principles to pander to voters on the right. But voters on the left are conversely assumed simply owe Labour their fealty, no matter what policies they put forward. Labour can still win my vote next time. But in order to do that they have to present a set of policies that I don't find completely objectionable. If it's simply our duty to suck it up and vote Labour no matter what, rather than saying they must earn our votes, then we are exerting zero pressure on them and so we will absolutely always be presented with a lesser of two evils situation, rather than having a party offer positive reasons to vote for them. Since the tories, on the other hand, do respond to pressure from their right, this means that the supposed centre to which Labour always try to triangulate is constantly moving further to the right. This is an incredibly corrosive trend that goes beyond the result at one general election." Would it not be politically rather interesting if despite the growing detestation of this string of conservative governments, essentially the same people are re-elected and essentially labour also rejected by the voters? |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 18, 2023 6:46:00 GMT
crossbat11. I have a feeling that the ming vase Starmer was so carefully carrying has already slipped and smashed. I don't understand how these policy announcements seem to be being made without any reference to any policy making process within the party. The keeping of the two child cap, the watering down of the green new deal, the announcement of the non-abolition of the anti-demonstration legislation. Oh yes I will almost certainly hold my nose and vote Labour, but, I have resigned my membership and can no longer defend the policy shifts. If I lived in Bristol West I would be seriously considering voting Green, if I lived in Wales, like wb61 Plaid would be very tempting. I am trying to say in my roundabout and rather non-analytical way, that Labour need to find a backbone and commit to something concrete and stick to it or the softening of the support in the polls could become a real movement.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 18, 2023 6:55:51 GMT
Blair made a huge mistake with Iraq, but reading some of the comments here I think there is some amnesia about what he did achieve by the end of his period in office 1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s. ....... 50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school Lots of talk about moving the Overton window right, but the minimum wage certainly moved it left. Looking back it's hard to remember the tory objections to it, claiming it would cause unemployment. Now it is unthinkable for any of the major parties to scrap it, indeed they compete with each other to raise it For adults when it was introduced in 2000 it was £3.60, if it had gone up with inflation it would be £6.50, it has actually gone up to £10.42. Blair could have done better, but ignoring what Labour did achieve I don't think is helpful The minimum wage had to rise. Con had not choice but to continue this, because they largely ended the labour policy of tax credits to subsidise poorly paid industries, plus having a policy of cutting off immigration, or indeed pressure for immigration, from unfilled poorly paid jobs. However, the minimum wage remains a very basic floor on wages. Approximately £20,000 a year, the first call upon it is £2500 in tax to the government. How is that justifiable for a minimum wage? One set of googled numbers suggests £1800 as the average cost of food per person used at home, and another £500 eating out. Each household averages 2.3 people, so if we are assuming one wage to support a household, that totals £5300. Then energy. The figures start to get complicated here because it depends how big your home is. And thats another problem itself, because what is an acceptable size of home for one person or this average household? I'd suggest a minimum of two bedrooms, and really three bedrooms, two reception would be a reasonable allocation (so lets compromise on 4 rooms). That is a big flat or decent, not starter, small house. What level of housing should count as minimum accommodation as well as minimum wage? The energy providers seem to use three sizes of home as examples costing £1400, £2000, £2800. So lets take the average defined as for 2-3 people, another £2000. Half that original wage is now gone.
Average deposit required to buy a home £44,000. HOC report says 2/3 of first time buyers are in the top 40% of incomes. Most common deposit size was 20% of property value, so that would be about £220,000 total. That would just buy you a two bed flat here (3 rooms), but Hastings has long been pretty cheap for the SE of England. That might currently cost about £1000 per month, so oh dear, we seem to have already run out of income. Average rents similar annual cost, though probably that average is based on a set of rather smaller properties, leaving out the ones people with sufficient income consider acceptable as living space.
Minimum wage is nowhere near enough for one person working to support a couple. I seem to remember a recent story that eg a nurses wage of £30,000 was expected by parliamentarians to be the second, lower, income in a viable household.
So, while it is a good thing minimum wage doubled, it remains utterly inadequate. It rising had more to do with it being self evidently ridiculouosly low. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,382
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 18, 2023 6:57:28 GMT
Some discussion yesterday about whether Johnson was more left wing economically than Starmer
Johnson was a very good publicist he announces new bridges, tunnels hospitals etc, but never carries through
Got lost in other things yesterday, but the latest on Johnson's 'new 40 hospitals'
Basically it was a complete sham of a claim and there was never going to be 40 new hospitals
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 18, 2023 7:08:35 GMT
Blair made a huge mistake with Iraq, but reading some of the comments here I think there is some amnesia about what he did achieve by the end of his period in office 1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s. 2. Low mortgage rates. 3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52. 4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales. 5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent. 6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools. 7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18. 8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled. 9. Employment is at its highest level ever. 10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries. 11. 85,000 more nurses. 12. 32,000 more doctors. 13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards. 14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament. 15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly. 16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time. 17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice. 18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year. 19. Restored city-wide government to London. 20. Record number of students in higher education. 21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997. 22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres. 23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s. 25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland. 27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants. 28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday. 29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty. 30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty. 31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents. 32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships. 33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard. 34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997. 35. Banned fox hunting. 36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution. 37. Free TV licences for over-75s. 38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals. 39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70. 40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s. 41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work. 42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started. 43. Free eye test for over 60s. 44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships. 45. Free entry to national museums and galleries. 46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled. 47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000. 48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent. 49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds. 50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school Lots of talk about moving the Overton window right, but the minimum wage certainly moved it left. Looking back it's hard to remember the tory objections to it, claiming it would cause unemployment. Now it is unthinkable for any of the major parties to scrap it, indeed they compete with each other to raise it For adults when it was introduced in 2000 it was £3.60, if it had gone up with inflation it would be £6.50, it has actually gone up to £10.42 Blair could have done better, but ignoring what Labour did achieve I don't think is helpful That’s an ok list if you’re a Liberal, but the problems with it have been pointed out numerous times before esp. on the old board: it preserves the growing inequality. This is why Liberalism got rejected in the first place and why they had to gaslight the fuck out of things and take over Labour. Despite the fact that the Liberals were promoting the welfare state and Keynes came along to come up with a method to save capitalism, Liberals still couldn’t get a lot of traction. Because despite all the sticking plasters, it still allows inequality to grow. Hence, stoking house prices and cutting CGT, abandoning a policy of good jobs for all, allowing the private sector to take the mick with utility prices, and instead introducing more privatisation so that increasingly schools and health will be subject to such issues leaves us in a situation of growing inequality. And sets things up for Tories to do more of it. As it happens, even if the Liberals on here don’t get it, it looks like Starmer might possibly understand at least some of the problem, when he talks about the need for good jobs in industry etc., and the need for a lot more houses. It’s just that he’s done so many u-turns it’s hard to know if he really means it. What is it about the Liberal policies that keeps you from voting for them? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 18, 2023 7:08:59 GMT
Blair made a huge mistake with Iraq, but reading some of the comments here I think there is some amnesia about what he did achieve by the end of his period in office 1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s. 2. Low mortgage rates. 3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52. 4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales. 5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent. 6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools. 7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18. 8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled. 9. Employment is at its highest level ever. 10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries. 11. 85,000 more nurses. 12. 32,000 more doctors. 13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards. 14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament. 15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly. 16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time. 17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice. 18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year. 19. Restored city-wide government to London. 20. Record number of students in higher education. 21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997. 22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres. 23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission. 24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s. 25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland. 27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants. 28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday. 29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty. 30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty. 31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents. 32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships. 33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard. 34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997. 35. Banned fox hunting. 36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution. 37. Free TV licences for over-75s. 38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals. 39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70. 40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s. 41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work. 42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started. 43. Free eye test for over 60s. 44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships. 45. Free entry to national museums and galleries. 46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled. 47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000. 48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent. 49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds. 50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school Lots of talk about moving the Overton window right, but the minimum wage certainly moved it left. Looking back it's hard to remember the tory objections to it, claiming it would cause unemployment. Now it is unthinkable for any of the major parties to scrap it, indeed they compete with each other to raise it For adults when it was introduced in 2000 it was £3.60, if it had gone up with inflation it would be £6.50, it has actually gone up to £10.42 Blair could have done better, but ignoring what Labour did achieve I don't think is helpful That’s an ok list if you’re a Liberal, but the problems with it have been pointed out numerous times before esp. on the old board: it preserves the growing inequality. This is why Liberalism got rejected in the first place and why they had to gaslight the fuck out of things and take over Labour. Despite the fact that the Liberals were promoting the welfare state and Keynes came along to come up with a method to save capitalism, Liberals still couldn’t get a lot of traction. Because despite all the sticking plasters, it still allows inequality to grow. It’s the Liberalism of a hundred years ago, updated with some Third Way American liberalism, and with added centralism. Hence, stoking house prices and cutting CGT, abandoning a policy of good jobs for all, allowing the private sector to take the mick with utility prices, and instead introducing more privatisation so that increasingly schools and health will be subject to such issues leaves us in a situation of growing inequality. If wages struggle and there is more zero hours and utility bills and house prices keep rising then people keep getting worse off. Doing a winter fuel payment is presented as a positive when in fact it’s a means to paper over the fact that you are letting utility bills rise untenably, and buying boomers off in the process. Same with minimum wage: a sticking plaster to paper over how you are letting wages stagnate. A policy of full employment pulls wages up anyway. People used to be able to bring a family up on a single wage whereas now women are trapped with their partners as can’t afford to live alone, and if someone gets ill, big problem. And sets things up for Tories to do more of the inequality. As it happens, even if the Liberals on here don’t get it, it looks like Starmer might possibly understand at least some of the problem, when he talks about the need for good jobs in industry etc., and the need for a lot more houses. It’s just that he’s done so many u-turns it’s hard to know if he really means it. What is it about the Liberal policies that keeps you from voting for them Neil? Or any of the Blair supporters? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,382
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 18, 2023 7:15:16 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w'That’s an ok list if you’re a Liberal' Well I suppose that's an improvement to some thinking he was the heir to Thatcher
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 18, 2023 7:16:57 GMT
Houe of lords passes government immigration bill.
That is quite extraordinary since it made so many changes to the bill first time round. Have these people all been locked in the cellars of the lords, a trick I seem to recall tudor monarchs used to pass legislation? Or does it really mean these people never had any intention of blocking the legislation? It was all a pretense?
The lords plainly always intended to pass the legislation because it is better for labour's prospects that they did.
Why? because if it works, labour want to do it too. And if it doesnt work, then they want it to be seen to have failed before the election.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,703
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 18, 2023 7:21:40 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w 'That’s an ok list if you’re a Liberal' Well I suppose that's an improvement to some thinking he was the heir to Thatcher Thatcher thought so! It was interesting recently to see people talking about Tory leaders. There are quite a few on the right of Labour who seem quite ok with Thatcher, Cameron and Heath. Which isn’t such a surprise, being as they were economically quite Liberal, were pro-EU too, though Thatcher cooled near the end. There are quite a few who would prefer Thatcher to Foot and Corbyn and were ok with the SDP doing their bit to usher in Thatcherism. They don’t complain about the right wingers who resigned to sabotage Corbyn. Anyway, what have you got against Lib Dem policies? . |
|
