Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Tolls]

There is no Falklands bounce - people who say that the outcome of the Falklands conflict had no effect in 1983 just live in a different universe.

No, not no effect...just negligible.

I posted the MORI figures above. Thatcher was already on the way up before the Argentinian "scientists" set foot on South Georgia, let alone the invasion of the Falklands. Which, as I said, tied in with the economy turning the corner.

The popularity bounce had gone before '82 was out.

 

[MikeG]

.........The fact is, neither Corbyn supporters nor his detractors know what is going to happen between now and the General Election, which makes the certainty that the anti-Corbynites effuse both irritating and slightly comical.

Whilst it is clearly true that no-one knows what will happen over the next 4 years, what is also true is that history teaches us many lessons. Those lessons are the ones that your so-called "anti-Corbyn" posters in this thread are using to make predictions, and if those predictions annoy you, then could that possibly be because you don't like hearing of the lessons of history, perhaps?

 

[GlennB]

"Junior doctors: 7 in 10 to leave NHS if Hunt pushes through new contract" -
Take that with a pinch of salt, of course, but Tory plans for the NHS are threatening to be catastrophic. link

"Tory MP attacks George Osborne's tax credit plans in maiden speech " -
"We could pull our belts in. But many of the families affected by these proposed changes do not have this luxury. Choosing whether to eat or heat is not a luxury … Conservatives pride themselves on living within their means, of cutting their cloth. Bu what if there is no cloth left to cut?” link

And, of course, plans to cut these credits were strenously denied by Cameron -
" ...the specific tax credits measure was not in the Conservative party manifesto and was even specifically denied by David Cameron in a leaders’ TV election debate"

Perhaps instead of harping on Labour failings we should concentrate on the shambles that the Tories are leading us towards? No wonder people signed up in their droves to vote for Corbyn.

 

[Antony]

Whilst it is clearly true that no-one knows what will happen over the next 4 years, what is also true is that history teaches us many lessons. Those lessons are the ones that your so-called "anti-Corbyn" posters in this thread are using to make predictions, and if those predictions annoy you, then could that possibly be because you don't like hearing of the lessons of history, perhaps?

This is what is comical, because your "lessons of history" - if I understand you correctly - are that the british electorate will never vote for a "left-wing" government. The problem is that there is no objective definition of "left-wing", so your predictions don't really have a lot of substance.

 

[Antony]

No, not no effect...just negligible.

I posted the MORI figures above. Thatcher was already on the way up before the Argentinian "scientists" set foot on South Georgia, let alone the invasion of the Falklands. Which, as I said, tied in with the economy turning the corner.

The popularity bounce had gone before '82 was out.

The MORI figures don't support your assertions.

 

[Tolls]

The MORI figures don't support your assertions.

Compared to the 56 and the 59 of May and June '82, they had.

Prior to the invasion her ratings had moved from 25 in Dec '81 to 36 in Mar '82. And with the economic recovery that occurred during '82 thinking they didn't have the ability to reach the 46 level of Sep/Oct '82 (a post Falklands low) is really wishful thinking.

You see similar for the polling as well (just looking at the MORI stuff for consistency). End of '81 the Tories were -15/16 (with 27%). By Mar '82 that had become +1 (35%). And this was with the SDP/Lib boost. You also see the quick post-Falklands dip, which brought it down to +9 (42%).

The Falklands were a blip.

 

[Matthew Best]

Do you have a link to that?

I only skimmed it previously, and I think there were some subtleties in what they were measuring that I didn't take the time to understand properly.

http://www.ippr.org/juncture/learning-the-right-lessons-from-labours-2015-defeat

 

[Antony]

Compared to the 56 and the 59 of May and June '82, they had.

Prior to the invasion her ratings had moved from 25 in Dec '81 to 36 in Mar '82. And with the economic recovery that occurred during '82 thinking they didn't have the ability to reach the 46 level of Sep/Oct '82 (a post Falklands low) is really wishful thinking.

You see similar for the polling as well (just looking at the MORI stuff for consistency). End of '81 the Tories were -15/16 (with 27%). By Mar '82 that had become +1 (35%). And this was with the SDP/Lib boost. You also see the quick post-Falklands dip, which brought it down to +9 (42%).

The Falklands were a blip.

This is extremely weak, conclusion-driven reasoning. The figures show a step-change in Margaret Thatcher's ratings, before and after April 1982. There are variations in the ratings, but the variations are less than the difference in average ratings in the periods before and after the step-change. The relatively high point of March 1982 is only a single data-point, and would not be taken as significant by a serious statistician. Contrary to what you are claiming, Thatcher's ratings don't fall to what they were before the invasion, until mid-1985.

No amount of special pleading can conceal the straightforward reading of the chart, which is that the surge in Thatcher's popularity coincides with the Falklands conflict.

PS Thanks for the link, btw. It seems a useful one which I hadn't come across before.

 

[GlennB]

I doubt if Cameron et al have won many friends at home by signing up China to build a string of nuclear plants in Britain. I thought Trident was there to protect us against people like China?

The Times reports an anonymous security source as saying: “There is a big division between the money men and the security side … The Treasury is in the lead and it isn’t listening to anyone – they see China as an opportunity, but we see the threat.”

 

[jiggeryqua]

You don't remember British Leyland, do you? Anyway, to answer your question directly: I have no idea. Do you?

I do indeed remember British Leyland (was there a point attached to that?)...and a simple google search just now suggests that "analysis reveals that hidden subsidies, direct grants and tax breaks to big business amount to £3,500 a year given by each UK household". Time for them to stand on their own two feet, I reckon, and for them to shell out to support the disabled who nobody would employ in the first place.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[MikeG]

If a certain level of unemployment is necessary to a capitalist society, why punish the people who are fulfilling that necessary role? I ask that not as a communist; I am genuinely trying to work out the answer myself. Is it that there is a certain portion of the population that are lazy, and we have to punish them for that?

Who has said anything about punishing them? We certainly shouldn't be doing that. Nor, however, should we ever be in the position of removing the financial incentive to work.

 

[MikeG]

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Quoting this for posterity.

 

[Rat]

Who has said anything about punishing them? We certainly shouldn't be doing that. Nor, however, should we ever be in the position of removing the financial incentive to work.

Perhaps punish is the wrong word. There is a significant number of people who would like to work, but cannot get work. If we ignore those who do not want to work (who are often portrayed as majority for sake of making simple targets, but who are not the majority of unemployed), then why do those who are fulfilling the necessary role of the unemployed in society have to suffer?

 

[MikeG]

Who is suggesting they suffer? I'm really not following you here. I don't think there should be any great change to the way the unemployed are treated at present.

 

[Rat]

Who is suggesting they suffer? I'm really not following you here. I don't think there should be any great change to the way the unemployed are treated at present.

I can tell you that unemployed life is pretty dire. At least compared to having a reasonably decent job. That, to me, is suffering, perhaps not compared to being unemployed in some other parts of the world, but compared to people in work.

Now, I understand the requirement for an incentive to work, at least in the world we live in at the moment, so I have no idea what the solution is, but the problem I'm having is that some people are required to be unemployed, and being unemployed is, for most people, very unpleasant. Not just because of one's circumstances, but because when unemployed, one always knows that society views the unemployed as layabouts who just need to go out and get a job.

 

[Tolls]

This is extremely weak, conclusion-driven reasoning. The figures show a step-change in Margaret Thatcher's ratings, before and after April 1982. There are variations in the ratings, but the variations are less than the difference in average ratings in the periods before and after the step-change. The relatively high point of March 1982 is only a single data-point, and would not be taken as significant by a serious statistician. Contrary to what you are claiming, Thatcher's ratings don't fall to what they were before the invasion, until mid-1985.

I never said that they fell back to pre-Falklands level, I said they fell back to a level that would not have been wishful thinking back in March '82.

I said they fell back to a level that would have been expected during a period of economic recovery. An improvement in fortunes already reflected by the leap from the figures in last quarter of '81 to the figures in the first quarter of '82.

No amount of special pleading can conceal the straightforward reading of the chart, which is that the surge in Thatcher's popularity coincides with the Falklands conflict.

The surge (</David Steel>) is clear, as is the removal of that surge in the space of a couple of months (dropping 13 points).

 

[GlennB]

Who is suggesting they suffer? I'm really not following you here. I don't think there should be any great change to the way the unemployed are treated at present.

"I would make sure that the minimum wage was high enough, and reduce the dole if necessary, to make sure that the question never arose. As I said, it should be a guiding policy principle that being in work was always a better paying option than not being in work. "

The highlighted part looks like added suffering to me, if we accept that there will always be some people who want to work but can't find any.

 

[Lothian]

..., one always knows that society views the unemployed as layabouts who just need to go out and get a job.

Indeed, lazy work shy layabouts, who can't be bothered to get on a bike and cycle 200 miles south to put their steel industry skills and experience into practice, shelf stacking in Tesco* on a zero hours contract.



*Other well known zero hours employers are available.

 

[Lothian]

"I would make sure that the minimum wage was high enough, and reduce the dole if necessary, to make sure that the question never arose. As I said, it should be a guiding policy principle that being in work was always a better paying option than not being in work. "

The highlighted part looks like added suffering to me, if we accept that there will always be some people who want to work but can't find any.

Currently employers can legitimately pay people £5110 a year pre-tax for a 36 hour week.

While I believe that there should be an adequate support net for those seeking work there is no excuse for those in work to be paid less than half the amount the UK defines as the poverty line. The planned withdrawal of tax credits is criminal without a corresponding increase to the minimum wage levels.

Nigel Lawson this morning excused the tax credit withdrawal with the claim that the economy is booming and we are all getting richer. His "we" obviously doesn't include those on the minimum wage

 

[MikeG]

I can tell you that unemployed life is pretty dire.

You really don't need to. I know.

Now, I understand the requirement for an incentive to work, at least in the world we live in at the moment, so I have no idea what the solution is, but the problem I'm having is that some people are required to be unemployed, and being unemployed is, for most people, very unpleasant. Not just because of one's circumstances, but because when unemployed, one always knows that society views the unemployed as layabouts who just need to go out and get a job.

I'm not sure why you have made this point a couple of times. I don't think there is any such requirement, given the proviso that even in full-employment situations there will be a small cohort who are between jobs.

This conversation is all rather disconnected from subject of tax credits, which is where we started, and what the politicians are dealing with at the moment.