I read it as you calling me or my argument vacuous. If you are genuine in the above quote, then I apologise for my response.
Corbyn did win, what's next?
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
I read it as you calling me or my argument vacuous. If you are genuine in the above quote, then I apologise for my response.
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,107
Quite right. Those with only one foot, or worse, the deliberate, delinquent no-footed scroungers will have to get on their bikes (or trollies, such as it might be) and strive like hard-working families (or coke-snorting bankers, or freeloading MPs). There are feet out there, if you look. I didn't get where I am today.
More seriously, how much does the UK government give to businesses that ought to stand or fail without government subsidy while the 'handouts' it gives to people in need are being cut or eliminated? I appreciate that most people vote economically rather than morally, but when we voted in our feudal overlords once again it confirmed that the primal 'British Value' is still 'being a selfish, greedy ****'.
No, this is flagship policy.
How would you characterise this?
1983 Liberal-SDP manifesto is here for a proper, dispassionate, discussion of policies:
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/all83.htm
I simply do not understand the point you are trying to make.
You asked that any criticism of Corbyn be based on what he has said and done and not on stories from the 'popular press'.
I've identified some key points from his own website - widespread nationalisation, NATO, and continuing belief in the 1983 Labour election manifesto.
In the 1983 election Labour came within 3% of being pushed into third place by the SDP-Liberal Alliance, which indicates to me that the policies in the 1983 Labour election manifesto were not popular. The Falklands factor and Conservative vote share is a red herring in a discussion of the relative SDP labour vote split in that election.
This is the basis on which most criticisms of Corbyn are made - things he espouses were clearly rejected by the public in the 1980s. You may believe the criticisms are unfair, but they are based on evidence not simply prejudice.
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.
I can't let this pass without comment, because it fundamentally misunderstands or misrepresents my position. And as an aside, I'm not a Tory. If you fall ill or get old, you should be subject to the safety net of the support offered by the state system. Same with the aftermath of unemployment, although I would favour tapering that over time. The fundamental principle of always being better off if you are in full time work, however, should guide all policy in this area. Furthermore, it should be none of the government's business to subsidise people's wages. That is a ridiculous policy, as it is ridiculous to argue that the removal of the said policy is an attack on the working poor. The working poor didn't claim the absence of tax credits as an attack on them prior to its introduction by Gordon Brown, and the fuss about the removal of this stupid, idealogically-motivated payment therefore smacks of nothing more than opportunism. I would like to see some temporary short term reliefs during the transition, but the sooner we are rid of Brown's attempt to create more people grateful for and dependent upon the largess of the government, the better.
You don't remember British Leyland, do you? Anyway, to answer your question directly: I have no idea. Do you?
Using arbitrary figures - if an unemployed person received 100pw in dole, but then got a job paying 50pw, do you think the Government should refrain from subsidising their pay?
Brown's WTC is paid to people who work but have a low income. Seems like a fair principle to me. Would you prefer people refraining from work because the dole earns them more?
No, I think that's the wrong approach. 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 best way to achieve that is to pay everyone an allowance whether they are in work or not. There would be no extra allowance if you lose your job, so any pay you earn, no matter how little, would make you better off than those not working.
Of course, to raise money to pay the allowances, taxes would have to be raised: for those on average income the extra taxes would cancel out their allowance, so they would be no better off.
I read that this scheme is to be trialled in Switzerland; it will be interesting to see the outcome.
Of course, to raise money to pay the allowances, taxes would have to be raised: for those on average income the extra taxes would cancel out their allowance, so they would be no better off.
I read that this scheme is to be trialled in Switzerland; it will be interesting to see the outcome.
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
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?
Antony
Graduate Poster
"Rubbish" isn't a reasoned response. This is what I mean when I say that you talk as though your way of thinking is the only possible one.
Your posts are long on predictions, and short on substance.
Last edited:
Have a look in a mirror.
If Corbyn's platform reflects his past pronouncements, it will be the death knell for Labour. I think wiser heads will moderate Corbyn.
Oh, and I'm hardly right wing. I've voted Labor in Australia my whole life. This party, for the last 45 years anyway, have electable policies. I doubt Corbyn will.
Antony
Graduate Poster
Aber said:
My opinion, which is not "stating an absolute". It's not in the same category as statements like "the public will never vote for a left-wing party", which is the sort of terms that have corrupted the campaign against Corbyn from the beginning.
This is a Liberal-SDP document, not one produced by the SDP on its own. Of course, they could never have entered an election without a document of this sort - but it doesn't alter my point: their public face was completely without political substance.
In their first party congress, they devoted a session to debating the motion "the SDP wishes to be seen as a left-of-centre party". That's not about politics; it's about trying to manipulate the perception that others have of them.
OK let's go back to what I did say: Corbyn is being judged not by what he says, but by what others say about him. You criticise him for supporting the "failed" 1983 Labour manifesto. Your rationale for this is:
- Gerald Kaufman once described it as "the longest suicide note in history";
- other well-known figures left the Labour party and formed the SPD;
- the electorate didn't support it at the General Election.
Are you suggesting that the whole electorate that voted for Thatcher or the SDP-Libs in 1983 had previously read the Labour manifesto and made an economically-informed judgement of it? Voters don't operate like that.
They voted on perception; and perceptions can be changed. But you cannot do that if you are too scared to challenge them in the first place. That is why Corbyn has the support he has: because people see he is prepared to challenge the perceptions that have dictated policy for the last 30-odd years. We think he has a better chance than the Blairite trio who offered themselves as aspiring leaders in the summer, and a better chance than Michael Foot in 1983.
Last edited:
My view is that the only evaluation of manifestos that counts is done by the public voting on them - unless you want to suggest another way?
In other words; this time it will be different.
Why do you think that this time it will be different?
The Falklands was a blip. It really didn't play to much effect in the election at all. Thatcher's popularity had already turned the corner, with its low point in Dec 1981...a low point, note, that was still higher than Foot's barring one month in 1981. That change matches the turnaround in the economy. (MORI).
The riots (which someone mentioned) were history by the time of the Falklands, let alone by the '83 election.
So you're right, the Falklands are a complete red herring, and the massive majority gained in '83 is almost entirely down to the split of the left.
Lothian
should be banned
There are two obvious ways to deal with the problem where working does not realise enough income to live. Tax credits or raising the minimum wage. The latter has to involve less bureaucracy, and at face value is the sensible option. However it will hit the profit margin of businesses and therefore Tories and the Labour party seeking to gain business support were reluctant to take that route. Personally I think there is something morally wrong with paying huge bonuses to management as a reward for suppressing their employee's wages below the living wage.
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
It's an economic theory that lazyitis is the cause of unemployment and that there are plenty of jobs around chum. It's really just a belief in Victorian workhouse discipline. Money comes after production, not necessarily by cuts and closures. Governments can and should guarantee work to people who are willing and able to work.
I suppose unemployment was used as a method of keeping down inflation and tampering with the inflation figures. Rents are going up by 6-percent a year, and house prices even higher, yet inflation is supposed to be zero. There seems now to be a shortage of bricks for housing construction. Nobody is concerned about youth unemployment in Europe, least of all the Krauts. I think that could cause social problems in the future
Antony
Graduate Poster
My view is that the only evaluation of manifestos that counts is done by the public voting on them - unless you want to suggest another way?
In other words; this time it will be different.
Why do you think that this time it will be different?
I'm not the one making predictions. Why don't you ask the equivalent question of yourself and the rest of anti-Corbyn faction?
It's a mystery why people should think that an election held in 1983 fixes the political landscape for all time. It's a different generation and different circumstances; the current PM is no Margaret Thatcher and Jeremy Corbyn is no Michael Foot. 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.
Practically the only thing that is the same is the threat of a Labour split - but even with that the circumstances are different. There is no viable alternative leader within the Labour party and the Liberal party is a dead letter - so the prospect of a new "centre-left" alliance springing up is an unlikely one.
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.
Last edited: