• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - Election 2015

ceptimus said:
The BBC are sucking up to the Conservatives
Click to expand...
Of course they are. They always suck up to who is in power. That's why they were totally biased about the Scottish referendum too. And why they supported Tony Blair.

Just shows we can't have publicly funded media doesn't it. We should leave it to trusty private business. I am sure that's where you're going with this.
 
Last edited:
Keep it civil, please. Politics and politeness may not always be easy bedfellows, but see if you can disagree (and even agree) without falling foul of your Membership Agreements. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
My comment was meant to be humorous rather than conspiracy. The BBC have always tended to lean left if anything - I think those on the left grudgingly acknowledge that.

At least it acts as some counterweight to the overwhelmingly right-leaning newspapers and blatantly right wing Sky/Fox.

I would hate to see the BBC having to go even more commercial than it already is, but the licence fee is now an anachronism. It would be better to acknowledge that the licence fee is just like any other regressive tax and fund the the BBC instead from general taxation - which is somewhat more progressive.

Anyway, IMO, Prescott has always been an incoherently-blithering gasbag. Tony Blair gave him a high-sounding title to keep the left wing of his party and the unions mollified but Prescott was never allowed to actually do much besides make a fool of himself on the TV and radio. The Today Program probably invited him on more out of inertia and laziness than anything more sinister.
 
Last edited:
Rum said:
Why does Labour continue to insist on sending John Prescott out to speak for them. He was on Today this morning and James Naughtie was being relatively gentle with him, but all we got from Prescott was garbled incomplete badly phrased replies, apparent evasions and a complete inability to express what the Labour party need to be doing right now. It was almost embarrassing.
Click to expand...


I know that many others have addressed this before me, but I'd say that the main reasons why Prescott has kept popping up since the election are these: Prescott is now a loose cannon within the Labour Party. He has no formal role within either UK politics or the Labour party any more (he's no longer on the Labour National Executive Committee, and isn't even a Privy Councillor any longer). He takes the Labour whip in the Lords, but that's something of a minor matter in the grander scheme of things.

He would love to be involved in something important (e.g. he tried and failed to be the Police Commissioner for Humberside, and I have little doubt that he'll run for elected Mayor of Hull if the post ever gets created). Therefore he's very keen to keep his public profile high. And there's nobody within the Labour Party who has the power, authority or ability to shut him up.

And from the media's side, having John Prescott as a guest in the wake of the election is a mouth-watering proposition. Why? 1) You're assured of getting juicy quotes from him - he's usually outspoken, often controversial, and occasionally sensational; 2) he's undoubtedly being seen as a person who might provide a perspective on Labour's poor performance in the election (and on the election in general) from an interesting and different position - in particular, he will have words to say on why he think Labour got it so badly wrong in 2015, and where the party should go now; 3) even though it's often overlooked, he was a very big beast within the Labour Party - and, by extension, within the UK Government - between 1997 and 2010: he held important offices of state as well as the DPMship, and was an important component of the New Labour project. He also is extremely recognisable and identifiable by most of the population of the UK, and the media know that many more people will want to hear what Prescott has to say than (for example) Jack Straw or Alistair Darling.


And that, in a (very large!) nutshell, is why Prescott probably keeps popping up in the media at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
A similar logic applies to cutting the defined but unfunded benefits of public and private sector workers (private sector workers have seen bigger cuts in such pension benefits). The promises made were unfair to the unborn.
Click to expand...

Public sector pensions were traditionally more generous to make up for lower wages compared to the private sector. Private sector pensions have now been screwed, so public sector ones should be, as well? Simply declaring it "unfair to the unborn" seems an arse-about-face attitude to where the problem actually was.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I know that many others have addressed this before me, but I'd say that the main reasons why Prescott has kept popping up since the election are these: Prescott is now a loose cannon within the Labour Party. He has no formal role within either UK politics or the Labour party any more (he's no longer on the Labour National Executive Committee, and isn't even a Privy Councillor any longer). He takes the Labour whip in the Lords, but that's something of a minor matter in the grander scheme of things.

He would love to be involved in something important (e.g. he tried and failed to be the Police Commissioner for Humberside, and I have little doubt that he'll run for elected Mayor of Hull if the post ever gets created). Therefore he's very keen to keep his public profile high. And there's nobody within the Labour Party who has the power, authority or ability to shut him up.

And from the media's side, having John Prescott as a guest in the wake of the election is a mouth-watering proposition. Why? 1) You're assured of getting juicy quotes from him - he's usually outspoken, often controversial, and occasionally sensational; 2) he's undoubtedly being seen as a person who might provide a perspective on Labour's poor performance in the election (and on the election in general) from an interesting and different position - in particular, he will have words to say on why he think Labour got it so badly wrong in 2015, and where the party should go now; 3) even though it's often overlooked, he was a very big beast within the Labour Party - and, by extension, within the UK Government - between 1997 and 2010: he held important offices of state as well as the DPMship, and was an important component of the New Labour project. He also is extremely recognisable and identifiable by most of the population of the UK, and the media know that many more people will want to hear what Prescott has to say than (for example) Jack Straw or Alistair Darling.


And that, in a (very large!) nutshell, is why Prescott probably keeps popping up in the media at the moment.
Click to expand...

One also reads that he was the go-between, peace maker and lubricant between the Brown and Blair camps during some really nasty infighting. It is hard to imagine that given his somewhat confrontational and blustery manner.
 
LondonJohn said:
And that, in a (very large!) nutshell, is why Prescott probably keeps popping up in the media at the moment.
Click to expand...

It's a shame then that

ceptimus said:
Prescott has always been an incoherently-blithering gasbag.
Click to expand...

His "working class man done good" schtick wore thin long ago, the media are giving Labour plenty of rope to hang themselves further it seems. Not that they need a lot of help.

Is it really too much to ask to have a credible opposition? Labour are in disarray, see also the LibDems and the SNP are too few in number in the commons to make much of a difference.

On paper DC got into office with a very narrow majority, in practise it's going to be a very big one.

I'm very happy Labour didn't get into power, but any time one party has too much power for too long on either side things tend to go badly.
 
Francesca R said:
I don't think so I think that is precisely where the problem was.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that you believe that state and public sector pensions are unsustainable based on the fact that people are living longer, so they must be radically reformed, which is no doubt a very easy belief for someone who will presumably not have to rely on either.

There does not, though, seem to be much difference when it comes to private sector pension provision, where we see a pattern of reduced returns compared to what was promised, or else certain schemes being closed to new entrants. That seems to be exactly the same inter-generational "unfairness" that you apply to the state and public sector pension provision.
 
When I was in the military they changed the pensions schemes. But those applied only to those joining after the changes came into effect. This is the only fair way to do it. You do not sign a public sector worker up with a promise then renege on it and expect everyone to lie down and take it. Mainly because the private sector pensions are screwed up and we are all supposed to be "in it together".

I found a rather interesting piece not too long ago. It said that contrary to what you would think, the public sector in 1997, when Labour took over, was pretty much the same size as when they left power. They created more jobs in the private sector than the public, yet this has become a boogeyman for many of the right wing dingos I speak with. I must look it out and see if I am remembering correctly.
 
funk de fino said:
I found a rather interesting piece not too long ago. It said that contrary to what you would think, the public sector in 1997, when Labour took over, was pretty much the same size as when they left power.
Click to expand...
Not as measured by public spending as a fraction of economic output--Annex table 25, as above. That was 38.3% of GDP in 1997 and 47.5% in 2010. About one third of the increase happened prior to 2008.
 
Information Analyst said:
There does not, though, seem to be much difference when it comes to private sector pension provision, where we see a pattern of reduced returns compared to what was promised, or else certain schemes being closed to new entrants. That seems to be exactly the same inter-generational "unfairness" that you apply to the state and public sector pension provision.
Click to expand...
IMO it would be less inter-generationally unfair to scale back previously promised benefits over and above that.
 
Looking back, I think what cost Labour the election was a combination of factors:

1) Ed Miliband's lack of charisma and "staying power" as a viable alternative to the Tories.
2) Labour's reluctance to form a coalition with the SNP and Greens from the Get-go. Combined, they may very well have won 2015.
3) Over-Reliance on Social Media/Internet. This isn't "lol young people are lazy!" but more of an "ooh shiny!" attitude to emerging and maturing technologies that to be honest, we've only now started to comprehend where we go in that regard (but that's for another thread). They naively assumed that #votelabour or #labour2015 would translate automatically into votes.
4) Building on point no. 3, the working population has shifted away from physical labour where people are more likely to be computer programmers or office workers than factory workers, and those professions would hardly consider themselves "working class".

Where they go from here? I don't know, but one thing that will cost them 2020, is trying to rely on the Neil Kinnock model of labour.
 
Last edited:
On the dimension of "If you were promised something, then the promise should be honoured, if you were not promised anything then there is nothing to honour" then yes it is unfair to break promises that were made in order to make greater benefit available to those who were not promised anything (because they were not present when past promises were made)

On the dimension of "the give/get ratio of contributions to benefits should be stable across generations and not become highly skewed by exogenous changes in longevity, fertility, investment returns and insurance risk" then it is unfair to honour prior promises even though the same promises were not made to younger generations. And it was unfair ex-post to have made those prior promises in the first place.

YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom