news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

26 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

A change of leadership and the introduction of mandatory deselection and a broad culling of the compromised MPs of the PLP, followed by a radical manifesto and a front footed, aggressive approach to relations with the media. Thats Labour’s only hope. Instead its bland policies, dancing to murdochs tune, bending over backwards to try to placate those who are not left wing in any sense of the word- the fast track to sub 20% in the polls. 

Corbyn’s folly was that he was too passive towards those who undermined and smeared him. Thats all. Labour just needs a ruthless Corbyn.

Tony Blair?

[mattiloy]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Tony Blair?

 

[steviewevie]

I mean, the UK is not alone here, the left is struggling everywhere. US Democrat party (yes, I know, not really left etc etc) only won because the alternative was Trump . Elsewhere across europe left parties are collapsing. You can argue because they are not left wing enough...or you could argue that these political parties set up during a unionised, industrial world are now less relevant. The only hope seems to be the Green parties, who are really fairly moderate and centrist. The Greens here took many votes from the tories as well as from labour and libdems. Being more radical and taking on the media and kicking out anyone who dares not agree with the dear leader may work and galvanize the voters, or it might just make for a much smaller and irrelevant party.

[steviewevie]

 

[squirrelarmy]

We’re in a strange situation. Lots of the swing voters think that Labour in general are far too left leaning for them to get their vote. Now with Starmer in charge, lots of the socialist/Corbynite/momentum Labour voters don’t think Starmer is Left enough so they are also put off by Labour. 
 

Seriously what is wrong with this country? Why do we hate politics in moderation, what’s wrong with having a opinion that isn’t an extreme view?

[steviewevie]

59 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

We’re in a strange situation. Lots of the swing voters think that Labour in general are far too left leaning for them to get their vote. Now with Starmer in charge, lots of the socialist/Corbynite/momentum Labour voters don’t think Starmer is Left enough so they are also put off by Labour. 
 

Seriously what is wrong with this country? Why do we hate politics in moderation, what’s wrong with having a opinion that isn’t an extreme view?

Starmer was ruthless, but ruthless against the wrong people.

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, mattiloy said:

A change of leadership and the introduction of mandatory deselection and a broad culling of the compromised MPs of the PLP, followed by a radical manifesto and a front footed, aggressive approach to relations with the media. Thats Labour’s only hope. Instead its bland policies, dancing to murdochs tune, bending over backwards to try to placate those who are not left wing in any sense of the word- the fast track to sub 20% in the polls. 

Corbyn’s folly was that he was too passive towards those who undermined and smeared him. Thats all. Labour just needs a ruthless Corbyn.

More division isn't the answer. Smeered him corbyn is responsible for his own political baggage. 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer was ruthless, but ruthless against the wrong people.

It's never wrong to be ruthless against idiots. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

14 hours ago, squirrelarmy said:

We’re in a strange situation. Lots of the swing voters think that Labour in general are far too left leaning for them to get their vote. Now with Starmer in charge, lots of the socialist/Corbynite/momentum Labour voters don’t think Starmer is Left enough so they are also put off by Labour. 
 

Seriously what is wrong with this country? Why do we hate politics in moderation, what’s wrong with having a opinion that isn’t an extreme view?

That’s only the left fwiw. The Tories will have their internal bickers but come election time they’ll fall into line and vote for their leader to be PM. That’s the main reason why the Tories dominated the 20th century and have dominated 2010 onwards. Not because the country is more right than left, but because the right coalition realises that holding their nose and voting Tory rather than splintering the vote is preferable to letting Labour in and the left coalition haven’t achieved this level of unity. 

[steviewevie]

[eFestivals]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/23/reform-electoral-system-or-keep-losing-to-tories-keir-starmer-warned?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I don't think it's that simple. People vote for an outcome and Tory voters will change how they vote to cause a similar outcome as now.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 

Because he knows the people who would be in charge of it, and isn't impressed with them. How well do you know those people.

[Ozanne]

 

[steviewevie]

This is a pretty interesting podcast interview with economist James Meadway about labour's woes....

https://play.acast.com/s/the-bunker/daily-howtosavelabour-ablueprintforawinningmachinewitheconomistjamesmeadway

[eFestivals]

4 hours ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The left coalition haven’t achieved this level of unity. 

Check out the lack of solidarity by' the hero of the left' always voting with the Tories.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Labour have tabbed Kim Leadbitter as their candidate for the Batley & Spen by-election. She is the sister of former MP Jo Cox who was member for the constituency before being assassinated by a far right nutter in 2016. Would be fitting if she gets the seat but the Conservatives are slight favourites.

[DeanoL]

On 5/22/2021 at 5:57 PM, squirrelarmy said:

Seriously what is wrong with this country? Why do we hate politics in moderation, what’s wrong with having a opinion that isn’t an extreme view?

Because it's not enough. And it's an inherently weird position.

"I want thinks to be fairer than they are at the moment, but I don't want them to be completely fair, because I want to keep some of my privilege"

And it never really works, because everyone in the middle has a different bit of privilege they're willing to give up in order to make things a bit fairer, and a different bit they absolutely won't give up. And any centre-left government will just take away privilege from a few specific groups (forcing those groups then to the right, the only ones offering to return that privilege) in order to make marginal improvements for some of the less privileged.

There's no universal middle ground.

[Fuzzy Afro]

19 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because it's not enough. And it's an inherently weird position.

"I want thinks to be fairer than they are at the moment, but I don't want them to be completely fair, because I want to keep some of my privilege"

And it never really works, because everyone in the middle has a different bit of privilege they're willing to give up in order to make things a bit fairer, and a different bit they absolutely won't give up. And any centre-left government will just take away privilege from a few specific groups (forcing those groups then to the right, the only ones offering to return that privilege) in order to make marginal improvements for some of the less privileged.

There's no universal middle ground.

However, wouldn’t you say it’s a perfectly rational position that people who work hard and are talented should be rewarded and allowed to earn a very good life for themselves and their families while also believing in a minimum standard of living and universal healthcare and education for all?

 

That should be an uncontroversial position but it seems like anyone who doesn’t believe in all out equality is a raging far right fascist. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

However, wouldn’t you say it’s a perfectly rational position that people who work hard and are talented should be rewarded and allowed to earn a very good life for themselves and their families while also believing in a minimum standard of living and universal healthcare and education for all?

Sure - but do you think the current system, or any system pursued by a Tory government, is anywhere close to rewarding those who work hard and are talented? Rather than just rewarding those whose parents are rich?

What even Corbyn was proposing was far closer to your meritocracy than what the right are offering.

[Fuzzy Afro]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Sure - but do you think the current system, or any system pursued by a Tory government, is anywhere close to rewarding those who work hard and are talented? Rather than just rewarding those whose parents are rich?

What even Corbyn was proposing was far closer to your meritocracy than what the right are offering.

Corbyn wanted to ban private schools.

 

From a “fairness” point of view, great policy.

 

However what that would lead to is overloaded class sizes and a drop in quality for everyone. One of the benefits of private education (and private healthcare) is that it reduces the burden on the state and thus allows them to increase the quality of the education available to those who haven’t opted out of the system.

 

Getting rid of private schools is the sort of overly simplistic policy that would actually hinder everyone. No one would benefit from this. 

[DeanoL]

I don't disagree that abolishing private schools is overly simplistic (same with private health). Nor do I think Corbyn's policies were well thought out. (Nor, frankly, that they went far enough). But private schools are diametrically opposed your original point of "people who work hard and are talented should be rewarded".

So then it's "people who work hard and are talented should be rewarded, but not if it causes too much disruption to the status quo, because that would be hard"

Edited May 24, 2021 by DeanoL

[DeanoL]

@Fuzzy Afro If I'm honest with you I'm probably more in favour of that sort of true meritocracy (hard work and talent is rewarded) than I am in actual socialism. But I also acknowledge that a true meritocracy is even harder than true socialism, but those two are far closer than what the Tories are doing at the moment in the UK (which I hesitate to call capitalism because it's not, the economy is nearly entirely planned now, just by self-styled "capitalists" rather than politicians)

[mcshed]

30 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Corbyn wanted to ban private schools.

 

From a “fairness” point of view, great policy.

 

However what that would lead to is overloaded class sizes and a drop in quality for everyone. One of the benefits of private education (and private healthcare) is that it reduces the burden on the state and thus allows them to increase the quality of the education available to those who haven’t opted out of the system.

 

Getting rid of private schools is the sort of overly simplistic policy that would actually hinder everyone. No one would benefit from this. 

Private schools hoover up the best teachers so they aren't teaching in the public sector. Those teachers are trained by the public sector so the private schools are also a financial drain on public education.

So whilst abolishing them immediately would put potentially disastrous pressure on the public system if they could be phased out it could be beneficial in the long run.

As you say things aren't as simple as they first look, any plan to abolish private education would be a very difficult policy to get right and there are plenty of ways that it could make things worse and it always safer to stick with the status quo as it works.

Step one though end charitable status for private schools so they can pay their fucking taxes if they're supposed to be so helpful.

[mcshed]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

That isn't actually true.   A lot of the teachers in the private sector are not the best at all and have half the job and challenges of public sector teachers - hence good results are fair easier to obtain.

I'm sure if you punted your average teacher from Harrow into a school in Barking they'd struggle with the culture shock but it's hard to argue that the higher wages in the private sector aren't a drain on talent.

[Fuzzy Afro]

46 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Private schools hoover up the best teachers so they aren't teaching in the public sector. Those teachers are trained by the public sector so the private schools are also a financial drain on public education.

So whilst abolishing them immediately would put potentially disastrous pressure on the public system if they could be phased out it could be beneficial in the long run.

As you say things aren't as simple as they first look, any plan to abolish private education would be a very difficult policy to get right and there are plenty of ways that it could make things worse and it always safer to stick with the status quo as it works.

Step one though end charitable status for private schools so they can pay their fucking taxes if they're supposed to be so helpful.

This is spot on.