I agree completely with that , and I think that's the way politics is moving in the UK ?? I don't think the electorate is wanting the constant extremes that dominated the 70s and 80s , people are fed up with extreme left or right views , no European country has benefitted from extreme left or right parties .
People do want social justice , but also a balanced and well run economy , in a nutshell people probably feel that Labour are not to be trusted with the economy and Tories not to be trusted to care for people and services , I think both parties need to change that perception and be more rounded with their policies , we as taxpayers and citizens want everything that is best for the country .
I think the Scottish Parliament seems a fair and modern way to benefit the whole electorate ( of Scotland ) and whenever I listen to Scottish politcans on QT they are more passionate , yet fair and sensible , I hope the SNP performs well and looks after its electorate now it's a majority rather than a " protest vote " and doesn't become blasé like the mainstream parties .
I think the Conservative " win " was a shock though despite its small majority , I think Labour has to become a middle party though if it hopes to re elected , and Conseratives need to become more middle and socially aware if they hope to stay in ! Lurching to the left with Corbyn will keep the Tories in , any extreme policies that affect the global market we live in will see companies up sticks causing unemployment and no investment , which will leave the country unable to improve social care and more fairness .
I can't see Labour gaining back its lost voters to the SNP unless the SNP does something stupid , it has to go for " middle " England and Corbyn is not that !!
Perhaps the SNP did well because of they were the only true left wing party and were anti austerity.
The one thing no one seems to pick up on is that the majority of voters haven't a clue about policies of the parties and go on personalities Michael Foot was probably the most able politician of his generation and Ed Milliband is also an astute politician however on the charisma scale they were both lacking and most people could not imagine either as P.M. Coorbyn on the other hand does have something and despite the attempts of the establishment to belittle him he does seem to be the one people want to hear in particular the young who had lost faith and interest in politicians.I would love to see him in a leaders debate.
The one thing no one seems to pick up on is that the majority of voters haven't a clue about policies of the parties and go on personalities Michael Foot was probably the most able politician of his generation and Ed Milliband is also an astute politician however on the charisma scale they were both lacking and most people could not imagine either as P.M. Coorbyn on the other hand does have something and despite the attempts of the establishment to belittle him he does seem to be the one people want to hear in particular the young who had lost faith and interest in politicians.I would love to see him in a leaders debate.
Imo, Jeremy Corbyn is saying what people want to hear and he's being economical with the truth... but that's nowt new, don't they all.?
He wants to renationalise the railways and have us go back to deep coal mining.
Network rail has been renationalised in all but name, the Tories just can't stomach having it referred to, as being nationalised, but they sure like shifting failed private debt onto the public debt accounts.
I think, when he talks about renationalising the railways, most people expect that it means everything to do with the railways, i.e.: the track, freight, maintenance, signalling, coaches, stations, overhead cables, embankments and even the flower pots on the station platforms, a new British Rail mark 2.
Let's have it under one umbrella, let's cut the bureaucracy, the competition and all these crazy fares differences., Let's get all these different sections all able to communicate under one umbrella, with an ethos of serving the paying public and providing a far better service.
He (Corbyn) could wait and not renew the franchise as they expire, but that will take a few years, probably the best part of ten years....prior to privatisation, we (the people) owned all the rolling stock and now all the rolling stock in the UK is on lease from the leasing companies, such as investment banks.
If I want to travel to Doncaster from my local station, I travel on a 30 year old 'Pacer' train that Northern Rail are running, which were re- kitted out and dumped on the folks up North ....usually it's a one coach pacer most of the day, they may put two carriage pacers on at peak times.
It's only a short journey to Doncaster, but having once travelled for an hour to Leeds and Lincoln on these dilapidated boneshakers, it felt like my spine had been re aligned by the time I arrived.
And now the promises made by Cameron and his towel folding side kick, Osborne, of their Northern powerhouse is just a complete load of poo. The Tories told us to put up with the pacers for a few years, now he's gone back on his word and 'it's on hold'....any promised trains will be the 'sprinter trains' dumped on us from the London Underground.
When I travel on the trains in Spain, paying ticket prices that don't require a heart surgeon to be on stand-by, and then I come back to these basic, filthy 'buses on a bogie', it makes me wonder, where did it all go wrong.?
It's quite simple really...a lack of investment from the governments and the Tory ideology of selling anything that isn't nailed down.
But this is all pie in the sky, because it won't happen, and the reason why it won't happen, is because of this.....
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131217IPR31103/html/Fourth-Railway-Pack-lifting-market-entry-barriers-to-improve-passenger-services
Corbyn cannot follow through any of his sound bites regarding the railways, unless we are out of the EU....and from what I've read, he doesn't have any plans to do that.
RENFE has been forced to segregate into four companies with their respective governing bodies and management, the freight side has already got private companies operating, and if you travel on the long distance trains, the on-board services are provided by the private firm Ferrovial.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/reform-to-encourage-competition.html
RENFE (along with the AE part of AENA) are in debt.
Quite a while ago now, I read somewhere, that an EU Directive said that you couldn't put it back into the public sector, once it has been opened up to competition.
Something triggered my grey matter about that, because most people around here asked "why was the East Coast line, which had been put back into the public sector for 5 years, making a profit every year and was ranked 5th out of 19 in a 'Which' survey"......( after privatisation had failed)......Despite public protests and the general consensus of those who travelled regularly on the line and who wanted it to remain. Why was it put back into the hands of the private sector?
I can only think of two reasons.
1.The government had to comply with the EU Directive and get it back into the private sector ASAP, otherwise it was in breach of the Directive.
2. Tory ideology that doesn't allow them to accept that some public services can be profitable.
Sanji x
He wants to renationalise the railways and have us go back to deep coal mining.
Network rail has been renationalised in all but name, the Tories just can't stomach having it referred to, as being nationalised, but they sure like shifting failed private debt onto the public debt accounts.
I think, when he talks about renationalising the railways, most people expect that it means everything to do with the railways, i.e.: the track, freight, maintenance, signalling, coaches, stations, overhead cables, embankments and even the flower pots on the station platforms, a new British Rail mark 2.
Let's have it under one umbrella, let's cut the bureaucracy, the competition and all these crazy fares differences., Let's get all these different sections all able to communicate under one umbrella, with an ethos of serving the paying public and providing a far better service.
He (Corbyn) could wait and not renew the franchise as they expire, but that will take a few years, probably the best part of ten years....prior to privatisation, we (the people) owned all the rolling stock and now all the rolling stock in the UK is on lease from the leasing companies, such as investment banks.
If I want to travel to Doncaster from my local station, I travel on a 30 year old 'Pacer' train that Northern Rail are running, which were re- kitted out and dumped on the folks up North ....usually it's a one coach pacer most of the day, they may put two carriage pacers on at peak times.
It's only a short journey to Doncaster, but having once travelled for an hour to Leeds and Lincoln on these dilapidated boneshakers, it felt like my spine had been re aligned by the time I arrived.
And now the promises made by Cameron and his towel folding side kick, Osborne, of their Northern powerhouse is just a complete load of poo. The Tories told us to put up with the pacers for a few years, now he's gone back on his word and 'it's on hold'....any promised trains will be the 'sprinter trains' dumped on us from the London Underground.
When I travel on the trains in Spain, paying ticket prices that don't require a heart surgeon to be on stand-by, and then I come back to these basic, filthy 'buses on a bogie', it makes me wonder, where did it all go wrong.?
It's quite simple really...a lack of investment from the governments and the Tory ideology of selling anything that isn't nailed down.
But this is all pie in the sky, because it won't happen, and the reason why it won't happen, is because of this.....
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131217IPR31103/html/Fourth-Railway-Pack-lifting-market-entry-barriers-to-improve-passenger-services
Corbyn cannot follow through any of his sound bites regarding the railways, unless we are out of the EU....and from what I've read, he doesn't have any plans to do that.
RENFE has been forced to segregate into four companies with their respective governing bodies and management, the freight side has already got private companies operating, and if you travel on the long distance trains, the on-board services are provided by the private firm Ferrovial.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/policy/single-view/view/reform-to-encourage-competition.html
RENFE (along with the AE part of AENA) are in debt.
Quite a while ago now, I read somewhere, that an EU Directive said that you couldn't put it back into the public sector, once it has been opened up to competition.
Something triggered my grey matter about that, because most people around here asked "why was the East Coast line, which had been put back into the public sector for 5 years, making a profit every year and was ranked 5th out of 19 in a 'Which' survey"......( after privatisation had failed)......Despite public protests and the general consensus of those who travelled regularly on the line and who wanted it to remain. Why was it put back into the hands of the private sector?
I can only think of two reasons.
1.The government had to comply with the EU Directive and get it back into the private sector ASAP, otherwise it was in breach of the Directive.
2. Tory ideology that doesn't allow them to accept that some public services can be profitable.
Sanji x
-
Edited by
Sanji
2015-08-26 16:57:23
Opening coal mines where possible?
He's talking about deep coal mining and I'd like to ask him, how he's going to do that.?
By 1992/3, most of the UK's pits were closed, they'd been capped off and apart from a memorial wheel or statue, there were no signs that they'd ever been there, but apart from the few large working pits, bought by private investors, there were 31 pits that had been mothballed and under the directions of Heseltine, tons of concrete were poured down the shafts of 21 of them, which meant they also were gone for good....so at best, Corbyn is looking at the possibility of 10 coal mines throughout the UK, and that's assuming that they have been maintained, and they have the coal reserves to make them economically viable.
Until that point of Heseltine's mischief or lack of foresight, there had been a skeleton staff who kept the pumps going. Once the pumps are stopped, the mine is lost forever and that's definitely the end of it, because apart from filling up with methane gas, they fill up with water rapidly.
Most of the 'super pits' in the Selby coalfield were extracting coal from under the North sea and unless they've been secretly maintained, the sea will have claimed them back now.
They left equipment down those pits that cost millions....hundreds of thousands of pounds for one item of machinery alone, equipment that is possibly rendered useless today.
So, apart from the astronomical amount of money involved, if it were possible, and because of the 'Clean Air Act' and the tariffs levied on the industry, which means today they will have to use carbon capture technology, which actually we invented and the Germans are using similar technology today for their coal fired power stations.
The lack of investment in the primary carbon capture technology, which I don't know too much about, apart from reading that 'The plan for coal' was to take the environmental concerns out of the coal and using something called snufflers, the 'waste' could be disposed of by storing under the sea bed. So, I'd like to ask him one question, if this pipe dream ever came about.....
Just who does he think is going to work down these mines.? Maybe all those on zero-hour contracts, work share programmes or those finding work for 16 hours a week and having it classed as full- time work?
My late father went down the mine at 14 years old, walking waist deep in water and using a pick and shovel. By the time Thatcher closed the mines, they were using high tech machinery and computers, and the days of poisoned lungs were gone long before the mines were closed.
So, it's not a place for a 14 year old, although they might employ 14 year olds in Columbia from where we are importing the inferior coal we use these days.
I believe it's said that it only takes a generation to lose a particular skill set - whether that's steel, welding, shipbuilding, mining etc.
Most so called artisan skills require long apprenticeships with learning continuing on the job until you retire.
Whereas a job as the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires a PPE degree, a bit of data entry and a few years towel folding.
Judging by the success of the current incumbent, anybody could have a crack at it.
Not sure I'd trust to travel in a submarine that had been welded by someone with the same length of experience as Mr Osborne.
Most of those involved with the miner's strike of 1984/5, they are either dead or old men.
No, sorry, Jeremy is not the awaited messiah, he's just giving out sound bites hoping to raise memories of the good old days before Industries were deliberately run down, the banking mafia unleashed, North Sea oil money squandered on mass unemployment, state assets sold off to foreigners and that money squandered too.
We've had politicians, over several generations and of all parties, who have behaved so appallingly, incompetently and with such devastating consequences for those involved, and the country in general....And at the end of it all, we still have no coherent energy policy today.
Why do we continue to put up with them.?
Jaysus, I could scream.
Sanji x
Edited to correct a couple of typo errors that were bugging me.
He's talking about deep coal mining and I'd like to ask him, how he's going to do that.?
By 1992/3, most of the UK's pits were closed, they'd been capped off and apart from a memorial wheel or statue, there were no signs that they'd ever been there, but apart from the few large working pits, bought by private investors, there were 31 pits that had been mothballed and under the directions of Heseltine, tons of concrete were poured down the shafts of 21 of them, which meant they also were gone for good....so at best, Corbyn is looking at the possibility of 10 coal mines throughout the UK, and that's assuming that they have been maintained, and they have the coal reserves to make them economically viable.
Until that point of Heseltine's mischief or lack of foresight, there had been a skeleton staff who kept the pumps going. Once the pumps are stopped, the mine is lost forever and that's definitely the end of it, because apart from filling up with methane gas, they fill up with water rapidly.
Most of the 'super pits' in the Selby coalfield were extracting coal from under the North sea and unless they've been secretly maintained, the sea will have claimed them back now.
They left equipment down those pits that cost millions....hundreds of thousands of pounds for one item of machinery alone, equipment that is possibly rendered useless today.
So, apart from the astronomical amount of money involved, if it were possible, and because of the 'Clean Air Act' and the tariffs levied on the industry, which means today they will have to use carbon capture technology, which actually we invented and the Germans are using similar technology today for their coal fired power stations.
The lack of investment in the primary carbon capture technology, which I don't know too much about, apart from reading that 'The plan for coal' was to take the environmental concerns out of the coal and using something called snufflers, the 'waste' could be disposed of by storing under the sea bed. So, I'd like to ask him one question, if this pipe dream ever came about.....
Just who does he think is going to work down these mines.? Maybe all those on zero-hour contracts, work share programmes or those finding work for 16 hours a week and having it classed as full- time work?
My late father went down the mine at 14 years old, walking waist deep in water and using a pick and shovel. By the time Thatcher closed the mines, they were using high tech machinery and computers, and the days of poisoned lungs were gone long before the mines were closed.
So, it's not a place for a 14 year old, although they might employ 14 year olds in Columbia from where we are importing the inferior coal we use these days.
I believe it's said that it only takes a generation to lose a particular skill set - whether that's steel, welding, shipbuilding, mining etc.
Most so called artisan skills require long apprenticeships with learning continuing on the job until you retire.
Whereas a job as the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires a PPE degree, a bit of data entry and a few years towel folding.
Judging by the success of the current incumbent, anybody could have a crack at it.
Not sure I'd trust to travel in a submarine that had been welded by someone with the same length of experience as Mr Osborne.
Most of those involved with the miner's strike of 1984/5, they are either dead or old men.
No, sorry, Jeremy is not the awaited messiah, he's just giving out sound bites hoping to raise memories of the good old days before Industries were deliberately run down, the banking mafia unleashed, North Sea oil money squandered on mass unemployment, state assets sold off to foreigners and that money squandered too.
We've had politicians, over several generations and of all parties, who have behaved so appallingly, incompetently and with such devastating consequences for those involved, and the country in general....And at the end of it all, we still have no coherent energy policy today.
Why do we continue to put up with them.?
Jaysus, I could scream.
Sanji x
Edited to correct a couple of typo errors that were bugging me.
-
Edited by
Sanji
2015-09-13 11:42:58
Just a few points Sanji, Thatcher did not close the mines, it was Scargill.
The new mineworkers would be new immigrants, no Brits would do the job these days.
Osborne seems to be doing a better job than Brown or Healey or Callahan or Darling.
Mrs Thatcher was the best peace time PM we have been lucky to have had.
Up the revolution #corbynforleader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The new mineworkers would be new immigrants, no Brits would do the job these days.
Osborne seems to be doing a better job than Brown or Healey or Callahan or Darling.
Mrs Thatcher was the best peace time PM we have been lucky to have had.
Up the revolution #corbynforleader!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your memory is playing tricks on you Qman because the Mliners' Strike of 1984/5 started in response to the McGregor programme of pit closures as ordered by the Thatcher Government. Yes, Scargill's strategy was flawed but the Government was determined to go ahead with a series of closures and break the power of the NUM. it had increased the coal stockpiled at the power generators in advance of then provoking the strike.
It was payback time for the strikes in 1972, 74 and 81 when the NUM was led by Joe Gormley. It wouldn't have mattered who was leading the NUM - the pits were going to be closed. The Nottingham miners declared UDM from the NUM and formed the UDM and continued working throughout the strike but fat lot of good it did them. Their pits were closed around them just like all the other major coalfields because it was cheaper to import coal to keep the power stations running.
As for Thatcher being the best peace time PM, I guess that depends on what you think of her legacy. Presiding over the closing down of our three major heavy industries - mining, steelmaking and shipbuilding. Creating the current crisis in social housing so that the majority of people who cannot afford to buy have to rent from private landlords and the rest of us have to subsidise those landlords to the tune of in excess of £20billions per year. Doubling the rate of VAT to pay for income tax cuts for the better off. Giving away countless billions in tax relief on pension contributions for higher earners but which paved the way for the mis-selling scandals which followed. As I said before, I was ine of the people who benefitted from some of these policies but millions were left far worse off. So not the greatest peacetime PM in my book.
SM
It was payback time for the strikes in 1972, 74 and 81 when the NUM was led by Joe Gormley. It wouldn't have mattered who was leading the NUM - the pits were going to be closed. The Nottingham miners declared UDM from the NUM and formed the UDM and continued working throughout the strike but fat lot of good it did them. Their pits were closed around them just like all the other major coalfields because it was cheaper to import coal to keep the power stations running.
As for Thatcher being the best peace time PM, I guess that depends on what you think of her legacy. Presiding over the closing down of our three major heavy industries - mining, steelmaking and shipbuilding. Creating the current crisis in social housing so that the majority of people who cannot afford to buy have to rent from private landlords and the rest of us have to subsidise those landlords to the tune of in excess of £20billions per year. Doubling the rate of VAT to pay for income tax cuts for the better off. Giving away countless billions in tax relief on pension contributions for higher earners but which paved the way for the mis-selling scandals which followed. As I said before, I was ine of the people who benefitted from some of these policies but millions were left far worse off. So not the greatest peacetime PM in my book.
SM
From an earlier post , I don't think the SNP are true left wing , many of their policies seem normal and mainstream to me , for me true left wing is nationalisation and nuclear disarmament , and I don't think they are really popular with the " middle voters "
Labour has forgotten its main policies that working class and even middle class voters feel important , it's no good them banging on about nationalisation , as the most important are the health service , the economy and tax are what matters to the majority of voters , and Labour did not make those policies clear enough in the last election and the SNP did so it gained a lot of voters from them and along with a bit of nationalism it swept the board .
I think voters found it hard to trust Labour , just on a simple thing like tax , the Tories have increased the personal allowance so workers on minimum wage ( 30 hours per week ) will pay no income tax , I remember Brown scrapping the 10% tax to help low pay workers and the lower personal allowances meant they did pay income tax , and yes the Tories also lowered the top rate from 50 to 45 % , but for most of its ,last term in government labour had a top rate of 40% , so who's helping the high paid and the low paid ? This type of thing does matter to the electorate
I don't think Ed Miliband was or is astute , chasing a few votes having a chat in Russell Brand's kitchen was ludicrous and desperate . As for Michael Foot being the most able of his era is not the point , one of my best teachers at school was incredible , he didnt get to be headmaster though , all I and probably most others remember about him was turning up to the Cenotaph in a scruffy duffle coat ! Perhaps we all missed his genius because who is going to vote for a PM who does that ?
It's good to hear that Corbyn is appealing to the young , hopefully better than Burnham to the female voters ??
( he doesn't think it's time for a female Labour leader ) also he would serve in a Corbyn cabinet , but then , the next day not ? He thinks its not right to attack Corbyn , but the next day he attacks him !! So if we want a decisive leader or potential PM he's not looking too good .
News that 10% of the members votes will not count because they are " fake " is disturbing , they've uncovered 400 conservative voters , and 1900 Greens in their members and loads who aren't even on the electoral register , the whole thing is a joke and it could be even worse after the result .
Labour has forgotten its main policies that working class and even middle class voters feel important , it's no good them banging on about nationalisation , as the most important are the health service , the economy and tax are what matters to the majority of voters , and Labour did not make those policies clear enough in the last election and the SNP did so it gained a lot of voters from them and along with a bit of nationalism it swept the board .
I think voters found it hard to trust Labour , just on a simple thing like tax , the Tories have increased the personal allowance so workers on minimum wage ( 30 hours per week ) will pay no income tax , I remember Brown scrapping the 10% tax to help low pay workers and the lower personal allowances meant they did pay income tax , and yes the Tories also lowered the top rate from 50 to 45 % , but for most of its ,last term in government labour had a top rate of 40% , so who's helping the high paid and the low paid ? This type of thing does matter to the electorate
I don't think Ed Miliband was or is astute , chasing a few votes having a chat in Russell Brand's kitchen was ludicrous and desperate . As for Michael Foot being the most able of his era is not the point , one of my best teachers at school was incredible , he didnt get to be headmaster though , all I and probably most others remember about him was turning up to the Cenotaph in a scruffy duffle coat ! Perhaps we all missed his genius because who is going to vote for a PM who does that ?
It's good to hear that Corbyn is appealing to the young , hopefully better than Burnham to the female voters ??
( he doesn't think it's time for a female Labour leader ) also he would serve in a Corbyn cabinet , but then , the next day not ? He thinks its not right to attack Corbyn , but the next day he attacks him !! So if we want a decisive leader or potential PM he's not looking too good .
News that 10% of the members votes will not count because they are " fake " is disturbing , they've uncovered 400 conservative voters , and 1900 Greens in their members and loads who aren't even on the electoral register , the whole thing is a joke and it could be even worse after the result .
andy66 wrote:
As for Michael Foot being the most able of his era is not the point , one of my best teachers at school was incredible , he didnt get to be headmaster though , all I and probably most others remember about him was turning up to the Cenotaph in a scruffy duffle coat ! Perhaps we all missed his genius because who is going to vote for a PM who does that ?
Heaven help us if the electorate is so shallow that it really does not only decide who to vote for on the basis of what people wear but does so on inaccurate memories of what they actually wore in the first place! Duffle coat? Where was the hood? The toggles and leather loops? Yes, it wasn't the black crombie style overcoat that the rest of them were wearing - even Margaret Thatcher wore as close as she could get to the politicians uniform for these events - but it was neither the duffle coat you seem to think you can remember him wearing nor the donkey jacket that some people ridiculed him for supposedly wearing.
http://www.phm.org.uk/our-collection/michael-foots-donkey-jacket/
As for what are 'true' leftwing policies then you need to look beyond the caricatures as well. People up here voted for more collectivist, redistributive solutions to our current social problems, which are at the heart of 'true' leftwing politicies. They boil down to reducing the inequalities between richest and poorest and that is what people up here voted for, even if it means higher rates of personal taxation, and which Labour seems to have forgotten but Jeremy Corbin's young supporters have warmed to. Leftwing policies are not all about nationalisation and disarmament - they are about looking after the weakest in our society and recognising our mutual obligations to each other to ensure that happens. They are about not exploiting the weak for our own ends.
They are about the values that used to characterise the post-war Welfare state but which all the current main English parties have forgotten about and eroded but the Conservatives most of all. Starting with Margaret Thatcher they encouraged the idea that it was really OK to take an 'I'm all right, Jack, and devil take the hindmost' attitude and forget about the cost that others paid for lower rates of tax for higher earners etc.
SM
No it's not that the electorate are so shallow , but style and image and presentation are important , and I think all politicians who want to appear and appeal to the public take notice that this is necessary .
Even Nicola Sturgeon who is a hard hitting , feisty politician portrays a softer image in the way she dresses , for gods sake they dont just roll up on telly wearjng what they want , they are " styled " and the publics perception of how people appear and act is very important , we're voting for a PM , and Ed was awkward and cringeworthy at times , and that's going to affect the total vote by a small margin , it's not that we decide who will be PM by the way they dress , but it has a bearing on our total perception of how we think they will perform in the job .
And this fixation with Thatcher , if she was so appalling and destructive , why 3 terms and enough goodwill to create a 4th for another leader who was a bit boring and " grey " what the hell was the opposition doing to allow that , if their policies were so more fair and caring why weren't people going for that ?
People seem to remember very easily things to blame on Thatcher , but never a word about how Labour has failed , never an outrage about their failed economic credibility , why is they can't beat these damn Tories who are so useless and unfair ? It should be easy ? Why don't people get it ?
Why dont people find these " values " important , they do seem reasonable , do you think British people dont care about the weakest , are we inhumane ?
We all get one vote each , it's not like the rich get more to keep things as they are ,
Sma , you can ridicule me if you like and even call me shallow if you think , but I'm not going to give my vote to a man who will represent my country who can't eat a sandwich properly and looks extremely awkward throwing a few coppers to someone begging in the street , if he was caring and was true left wing as you describe , he would have chatted to that person , not just have thrown a few coins whilst looking away . Not forgetting Mr Brown's bigot moment either !! Mmm caring , sharing and equality ???
I'm sure Cameron leaving his kid in the pub was embarrassing too !
Even Nicola Sturgeon who is a hard hitting , feisty politician portrays a softer image in the way she dresses , for gods sake they dont just roll up on telly wearjng what they want , they are " styled " and the publics perception of how people appear and act is very important , we're voting for a PM , and Ed was awkward and cringeworthy at times , and that's going to affect the total vote by a small margin , it's not that we decide who will be PM by the way they dress , but it has a bearing on our total perception of how we think they will perform in the job .
And this fixation with Thatcher , if she was so appalling and destructive , why 3 terms and enough goodwill to create a 4th for another leader who was a bit boring and " grey " what the hell was the opposition doing to allow that , if their policies were so more fair and caring why weren't people going for that ?
People seem to remember very easily things to blame on Thatcher , but never a word about how Labour has failed , never an outrage about their failed economic credibility , why is they can't beat these damn Tories who are so useless and unfair ? It should be easy ? Why don't people get it ?
Why dont people find these " values " important , they do seem reasonable , do you think British people dont care about the weakest , are we inhumane ?
We all get one vote each , it's not like the rich get more to keep things as they are ,
Sma , you can ridicule me if you like and even call me shallow if you think , but I'm not going to give my vote to a man who will represent my country who can't eat a sandwich properly and looks extremely awkward throwing a few coppers to someone begging in the street , if he was caring and was true left wing as you describe , he would have chatted to that person , not just have thrown a few coins whilst looking away . Not forgetting Mr Brown's bigot moment either !! Mmm caring , sharing and equality ???
I'm sure Cameron leaving his kid in the pub was embarrassing too !
Andy I don't live or vote North of the border but I am sure the SNPs policy is to scrap Trident which could be considered left wing along with their anti austerity views .
With regards to Michael Foot and the infamous donkey jacket as it was depicted by the right wing press, in fact an expensive short overcoat and he was complemented on his attire by the Queen Mother.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html
Another view may be that it would be a good thing to turn up in work wear to remember as the majority of the cannon fodder in war are the young working class it would also be a tribute to the home workers who kept the factories and mines running. and who also paid with their lives.
With regards to Michael Foot and the infamous donkey jacket as it was depicted by the right wing press, in fact an expensive short overcoat and he was complemented on his attire by the Queen Mother.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html
Another view may be that it would be a good thing to turn up in work wear to remember as the majority of the cannon fodder in war are the young working class it would also be a tribute to the home workers who kept the factories and mines running. and who also paid with their lives.
It's the middle voters that have decided the election results in recent times , a successful party will go for the middle ground , people don't want extreme left or right , it's as simple as that , it's fine for the financially and intellectually rich to have either their right or left views , but the majority of the British electorate are in jobs earning around £10 an hour or less and they will eventually choose a government who represents what is important to them and can provide them with as little tax as possible and an economy that is controlled , thats not self centred and not caring but simply what people expect , they don't really give a monkeys which company is running a particular railway line , unless they use it everyday !!
Scrapping trident is not really that important to most people in comparison as whether the NHS is being run well or how much take home pay is . They are real issues that affect working class people .
Nice to see so much research on Michael Foot's attire
What annoys me is a working class party that is meant to represent working class people not representing them properly , when it had power it taxed them more than the current lot and let the top earners off with 40% ( except the last year ) and then called them bigoted if it didnt agree with its ideals and principles , why should the average person trust them ??
Scrapping trident is not really that important to most people in comparison as whether the NHS is being run well or how much take home pay is . They are real issues that affect working class people .
Nice to see so much research on Michael Foot's attire
What annoys me is a working class party that is meant to represent working class people not representing them properly , when it had power it taxed them more than the current lot and let the top earners off with 40% ( except the last year ) and then called them bigoted if it didnt agree with its ideals and principles , why should the average person trust them ??
Andy66 for reasons I have already explained, one can never assume that just because a party has the majority of the seats in the commons that the majority of voters voted for them and in fact at every election she contested, the majority of the electorate did vote for someone other than Margaret Thatcher to be PM in that they voted for the candidates from other parties - in fact all of the post-war PMs have polled less than 50% of the votes cast. The paradox is that her share of the vote actually declined in 1983 from 1979 despite the number of Tory seats increasing and hence her majority in 1983. And it continued to decline in 1987. It's often assumed that winning the Falklands War won her the election but her share of the total vote went down.
I am assuming that you do not live in an area that underwent drastic economic decline in the 1980s as a result of her policies because if you did, you would get why I and others who do not regard her as the best thing to happen to this country. I saw too many communities have the life blood sucked out of them to ever see her in a positive light. And that legacy is still having an effect today including on our current housing crisis.
I'd be interested in knowing the data source for your comment that the majority of the electorate earn less than £10 per hour because if that was the case then the national average for hourly earnings would also be below £10 per hour. However, the ONS data puts it at £13.60 for men and £12.24 for women in 2013 so if hourly earnings for the majority are now below £10 then things are definitely getting worse rather than better for the majority of people and the Conservatives can no more be trusted with the economy than Labour.
Finally, you seem to be mistaking me for a Labour Party supporter - I'm not. I resigned my membership in 1994 when Clause 4 was abolished and New Labour finally abandoned its commitment to bettering the lot of working people and decided to become Torylite. You might be right that this is what secured Blair his victory in 1997 but New Labour was not the Party I had joined. Should Jeremy Corbyn win the leadership election, I would seriously consider rejoining but unlike many others I haven't rejoined or registered in order to be able to vote for him but prefer to wait and see whether the New Labour project will be ditched. Though there is a good chance that even if I had tried to do so my application would have been rejected if they are going on past canvassing records - I've never made a secret of the fact that as long as the New Labour agenda was being pursued they couldn't count on my vote. Not that I would have been in a minority up here after the debacle in May!
And, yes, nickmacuk scrapping Trident is SNP policy. Scrapping Trident would have its effect on the economy of Scotland because the submarine base is a source of money for the local economy but it didn't seem to put people up here off voting for them in May.
SM
I am assuming that you do not live in an area that underwent drastic economic decline in the 1980s as a result of her policies because if you did, you would get why I and others who do not regard her as the best thing to happen to this country. I saw too many communities have the life blood sucked out of them to ever see her in a positive light. And that legacy is still having an effect today including on our current housing crisis.
I'd be interested in knowing the data source for your comment that the majority of the electorate earn less than £10 per hour because if that was the case then the national average for hourly earnings would also be below £10 per hour. However, the ONS data puts it at £13.60 for men and £12.24 for women in 2013 so if hourly earnings for the majority are now below £10 then things are definitely getting worse rather than better for the majority of people and the Conservatives can no more be trusted with the economy than Labour.
Finally, you seem to be mistaking me for a Labour Party supporter - I'm not. I resigned my membership in 1994 when Clause 4 was abolished and New Labour finally abandoned its commitment to bettering the lot of working people and decided to become Torylite. You might be right that this is what secured Blair his victory in 1997 but New Labour was not the Party I had joined. Should Jeremy Corbyn win the leadership election, I would seriously consider rejoining but unlike many others I haven't rejoined or registered in order to be able to vote for him but prefer to wait and see whether the New Labour project will be ditched. Though there is a good chance that even if I had tried to do so my application would have been rejected if they are going on past canvassing records - I've never made a secret of the fact that as long as the New Labour agenda was being pursued they couldn't count on my vote. Not that I would have been in a minority up here after the debacle in May!
And, yes, nickmacuk scrapping Trident is SNP policy. Scrapping Trident would have its effect on the economy of Scotland because the submarine base is a source of money for the local economy but it didn't seem to put people up here off voting for them in May.
SM
SMa , I have never been a member of any party and have no set in stone allegiance to any either , I did say in an earlier post that I've voted for all 3 mainstream parties over the years , so im very much a floating voter !! I don't follow a particular party because my dad etc always voted for xxxx I suppose many Tory and Labour voters do ??
I guess a lot of people will be going to see their boss tomorrow to ask for a pay rise to get an " average wage " then ? Why are politicians banging on about paying people a living wage that is less than £10 an hour if the average is around £13 ! ?
No I don't live in an area that suffered mass unemployment in the early 80s , I left school when UB40 sang 1 in 10 which was more accurately about 1 in 8 , but didnt sound so catchy ? But always remember my dad coming home in the 1970s having to find another job because of the the industrial destruction of the car manufacturing businesses in the Midlands ( where we used to live )
I think if you look at figures in the early 80s Thatcher was deeply unpopular , in fact Labour had a double digit lead over the Tories under Foot , but with the SDP formed in 81 they took away many Labour votes and nearly polled as many Labour but didnt get anywhere the number of seats that Labour did so Thachers decline in votes was down to the SDP not the overwhelming urge to have Foot as PM , bit like the SNP taking away many Labour seats with Cameron getting in the last election .
In 1983 Thatchers share of the vote went down because of the SDP , which could be interpreted as a rejection of Labour and Michael Foot as he posted the worst Labour result since 1918 , but better to assume a wave of patriotism swept her back to No. 10 ???
I do apologise for mistakingly thinking Michael Foot was wearing a duffel coat , less favourable reports at the time suggested a donkey jacket , but at a tender age of just 15 it was probably a snapshot I perceived at the time , maybe I was distracted by things a 15 yr old would do like listening to pop music too loudly or chatting up the girl next door ? I must of missed the "statement " he was making ?
You seem to assume I voted for Thatcher, well we have something in common
I wasn't old enough to vote for her first two terms and didnt vote Conservative in 1987 and I fully understand why she was not popular , but I can't understand why Corbyn would be popular with policies that failed against such an unpopular alternative in the 80s , why would a re hash of the " longest suicide note in history " ( Kaufman's description of the 1983 Labour manifesto ) be the answer to a progressive future ? Its like Back to the Future , but in a bad way !! Quick , ... Where's the De Lorean
I guess a lot of people will be going to see their boss tomorrow to ask for a pay rise to get an " average wage " then ? Why are politicians banging on about paying people a living wage that is less than £10 an hour if the average is around £13 ! ?
No I don't live in an area that suffered mass unemployment in the early 80s , I left school when UB40 sang 1 in 10 which was more accurately about 1 in 8 , but didnt sound so catchy ? But always remember my dad coming home in the 1970s having to find another job because of the the industrial destruction of the car manufacturing businesses in the Midlands ( where we used to live )
I think if you look at figures in the early 80s Thatcher was deeply unpopular , in fact Labour had a double digit lead over the Tories under Foot , but with the SDP formed in 81 they took away many Labour votes and nearly polled as many Labour but didnt get anywhere the number of seats that Labour did so Thachers decline in votes was down to the SDP not the overwhelming urge to have Foot as PM , bit like the SNP taking away many Labour seats with Cameron getting in the last election .
In 1983 Thatchers share of the vote went down because of the SDP , which could be interpreted as a rejection of Labour and Michael Foot as he posted the worst Labour result since 1918 , but better to assume a wave of patriotism swept her back to No. 10 ???
I do apologise for mistakingly thinking Michael Foot was wearing a duffel coat , less favourable reports at the time suggested a donkey jacket , but at a tender age of just 15 it was probably a snapshot I perceived at the time , maybe I was distracted by things a 15 yr old would do like listening to pop music too loudly or chatting up the girl next door ? I must of missed the "statement " he was making ?
You seem to assume I voted for Thatcher, well we have something in common
I wasn't old enough to vote for her first two terms and didnt vote Conservative in 1987 and I fully understand why she was not popular , but I can't understand why Corbyn would be popular with policies that failed against such an unpopular alternative in the 80s , why would a re hash of the " longest suicide note in history " ( Kaufman's description of the 1983 Labour manifesto ) be the answer to a progressive future ? Its like Back to the Future , but in a bad way !! Quick , ... Where's the De Lorean
The Falklands war made Thatcher rather like Churchill she was a good war leader but her domestic policies divided the nation even in the South there were Poll tax riots.
In 1983.
Thatcher won the most decisive election since Labour in 1945
Unemployment was increasing during her first term , also a recession , but growth had started .
Labour adopted a more left wing stance , moderates left to form the SDP
The result, Consevatives lost 700, 000 votes compared to 1979
SDP/ Lib were only 700, 000 behind Labour , within 2% .
You described a deeply divisive PM , who had high unemployment , a recession , and the hated Poll Tax you've just thrown in , but had success in taking back a small island miles away few had heard of compared to Churchill's defeat of the Nazis ( and he lost the election after that )
So why was Labour rejected ( very convincingly ) it lost 3 million votes from 79 and the electorate decided to keep the dispised Tories or switch to the moderate SDP/ Lib .
The more you paint a picture of anti Thatcher , makes me wonder why people were not in favour of Labour ?
The only interpretation I can think of , was that their left wing stance wasn't what the electorate wanted despite rising unemployment and recession , so why would it be popular now ? Taking into account that Milliband suffered a defeat and he was considered a little bit left and Labour now think lets have an even more left wing leader .
Thatcher won the most decisive election since Labour in 1945
Unemployment was increasing during her first term , also a recession , but growth had started .
Labour adopted a more left wing stance , moderates left to form the SDP
The result, Consevatives lost 700, 000 votes compared to 1979
SDP/ Lib were only 700, 000 behind Labour , within 2% .
You described a deeply divisive PM , who had high unemployment , a recession , and the hated Poll Tax you've just thrown in , but had success in taking back a small island miles away few had heard of compared to Churchill's defeat of the Nazis ( and he lost the election after that )
So why was Labour rejected ( very convincingly ) it lost 3 million votes from 79 and the electorate decided to keep the dispised Tories or switch to the moderate SDP/ Lib .
The more you paint a picture of anti Thatcher , makes me wonder why people were not in favour of Labour ?
The only interpretation I can think of , was that their left wing stance wasn't what the electorate wanted despite rising unemployment and recession , so why would it be popular now ? Taking into account that Milliband suffered a defeat and he was considered a little bit left and Labour now think lets have an even more left wing leader .
andy66 wrote:
I guess a lot of people will be going to see their boss tomorrow to ask for a pay rise to get an " average wage " then ? Why are politicians banging on about paying people a living wage that is less than £10 an hour if the average is around £13 ! ?
[/ quote]
This is why I asked you for the source of your information - much can depend on whether the analysis is referring to the mean, median or mode when talking about an 'average'. The ONS analysis is based on median incomes ie the middle value at the centre of the range from highest to lowest, whereas the mean is derived from adding up everybody's income and then dividing it by the total number of people. The median can be different from the mean depending on the spread of the original data. Median values for large data sets (where they usually form a bell curve when plotted on a chart) usually mean that there are roughly as many people on one side of the line as the other. If the median value of the data you are referring to is £10 then the majority of people can't be earning less than £10 because then £10 per hour wouldn't be the median value. On the other hand the mean can be skewed in relation to the median if the values when plotted don't form a bell curve.
Yes, the SDP almost certainly took votes away from Labour but there is very little evidence that they took any votes away from the Conservatives and were a major factor in the declining Conservative vote over the 1979, 1983 and 1987 elections. The big problem about assessing their impact is that the SDP never fought a Generel Election on its own. It fought the 1983 and 1987 (when their joint vote plummeted compared to 1983) elections as an alliance with the Liberal Party. I would need to do a seat by seat analysis (which I don't have time to do) but given that the basis of the electoral pact with the Liberals was that only one of them would contest any given seat on the basis of which party was most likely to win it and that both parties would unite behind and campaign for that candidate, the most likely result of that analysis of the 1983 election would be that the Liberals held on to their previous held seats and the SDP took its 6 seats mainly from Labour. The SDP did certainly come 2nd in the majority of seats won by the Conservatives but this could be just as much the result of tactical voting on the part of non-Conservative voters as previous Conservative voters switching to the SDP. By the time of the 1992 election the two parties had formally merged to create the now Liberal Democrat Party.
But for the moment I am off to my bed! A more detailled analysis of Margaret Thatcher's popularity in the early 80s will have to wait until later but it's hard to see how Michael Foot could both have a double digit lead over her in the early 80s because she was deeply unpopular whilst still being apparently unelectable because of his choice of overcoat on Remembrance day in 1981! Certainly post the Falklands War she had what she regarded as an unassailable lead in the opinion polls and so felt very confident about going to the country the following year in 1983, a good year before she had to. Her judgement was vindicated because even though the Conservative's share of the vote fell they won a landslide victory that David Cameron would give his right arm for. As for whether the opinion polls are an accurate reflection of how people will actually vote on the day, well that is another debate altogether and even more so after this May!
SM
SMa , my source for low paid is not from a statistical data collection of what everyone earns but is what is happening in the REAL world out there , please read this report
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/03/more-than-one-fifth-earn-less-than-living-wage
It's not a distrusted right wing media outlet , but highlights how I feel in that I have always worked mainly in retail and sometimes in bar type work , and it's something I see and hear every day from people I work with or have worked with , I know that not the whole electorate are not employed in these types of work , but when you read that typically 70 to 90% of workers in these honest , hard working down to earth types of work earn less than the living wage ( which is not even £10 an hour ) is that fair in today's society , also care workers are trapped in this low pay system .
Pop down your town centre and go into the bars , coffee shops , restaurants and retail shops and ask as many as you like " who earns £10 an hour ?" And see if the answers can help you plot a bell curve .
It's ok to give me a maths lesson in averages , I did do mean, median and mode aged 11 at my comprehensive secondary school , so don't need a detailed explanation of what they are .
I also understand the figures from the 83 election , you clearly explain the declining vote of Thatcher to further your view of her unpopularity ( 79 vs 83 was 700, 000 down equals - 1.5 % ) but clearly miss and fail to comment and comprehend the 3, 000, 000 , yes 3 million !! that Labour lost in votes , and my view was that Foot's policies were rejected as an alternative to the much disliked Thatcher , and his policies and the way the party was being run , meant that some moderates left the party to form the SDP who proved more palatable and received 25 % of the total share of votes .
You talk about Thatcher being deeply unpopular , what do think that makes Michael Foot ?? Unlucky , misunderstood ? The victim of tactical voting by SDP voters ?
He wasn't apparently unelectable , he was totally unelectable , and I agree not because of his fashion sense being " obscure " but his policies were not what the majority of voters wanted .
As I've said before , I'm fed up with a party for the working people not delivering what it should be concentrating on , it's failing to offer a real choice to the Tories who i feel seem to be the best of a bad bunch choice .
Ask those low paid workers who's numbers are growing everyday , what do you want from a political party ?
Better pay and less tax
A well run health service
A well run economy which makes your Job safer and keeps the cost of living under control
The chance to buy your own property
Is Labour offering these things as priorities ? Is it going to invest money in these areas or just keep banging on about nationalisation and adopting failed policies that never put them in power in the last generation .
My view is that the Tories will keep scraping along ( Europe is their only fly in the ointment ) the LibDems will regroup and improve under Tim Farron ( who has reasonable appeal ) the SNP will stay strong under an well led and impressive Sturgeon leadership , so where does that leave Labour under what is already a potentially divisive Corbyn leadership ( if he wins !! ) ?
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/03/more-than-one-fifth-earn-less-than-living-wage
It's not a distrusted right wing media outlet , but highlights how I feel in that I have always worked mainly in retail and sometimes in bar type work , and it's something I see and hear every day from people I work with or have worked with , I know that not the whole electorate are not employed in these types of work , but when you read that typically 70 to 90% of workers in these honest , hard working down to earth types of work earn less than the living wage ( which is not even £10 an hour ) is that fair in today's society , also care workers are trapped in this low pay system .
Pop down your town centre and go into the bars , coffee shops , restaurants and retail shops and ask as many as you like " who earns £10 an hour ?" And see if the answers can help you plot a bell curve .
It's ok to give me a maths lesson in averages , I did do mean, median and mode aged 11 at my comprehensive secondary school , so don't need a detailed explanation of what they are .
I also understand the figures from the 83 election , you clearly explain the declining vote of Thatcher to further your view of her unpopularity ( 79 vs 83 was 700, 000 down equals - 1.5 % ) but clearly miss and fail to comment and comprehend the 3, 000, 000 , yes 3 million !! that Labour lost in votes , and my view was that Foot's policies were rejected as an alternative to the much disliked Thatcher , and his policies and the way the party was being run , meant that some moderates left the party to form the SDP who proved more palatable and received 25 % of the total share of votes .
You talk about Thatcher being deeply unpopular , what do think that makes Michael Foot ?? Unlucky , misunderstood ? The victim of tactical voting by SDP voters ?
He wasn't apparently unelectable , he was totally unelectable , and I agree not because of his fashion sense being " obscure " but his policies were not what the majority of voters wanted .
As I've said before , I'm fed up with a party for the working people not delivering what it should be concentrating on , it's failing to offer a real choice to the Tories who i feel seem to be the best of a bad bunch choice .
Ask those low paid workers who's numbers are growing everyday , what do you want from a political party ?
Better pay and less tax
A well run health service
A well run economy which makes your Job safer and keeps the cost of living under control
The chance to buy your own property
Is Labour offering these things as priorities ? Is it going to invest money in these areas or just keep banging on about nationalisation and adopting failed policies that never put them in power in the last generation .
My view is that the Tories will keep scraping along ( Europe is their only fly in the ointment ) the LibDems will regroup and improve under Tim Farron ( who has reasonable appeal ) the SNP will stay strong under an well led and impressive Sturgeon leadership , so where does that leave Labour under what is already a potentially divisive Corbyn leadership ( if he wins !! ) ?
I have read The Guardian for the best part of 45 years and do trust it precisely because it is not a right wing media outlet. I fully accept what it says re both more than 20% of the workforce earning less than the Living Wage and also what it says re the disgustingly low pay of those who work in the catering, licensed and retail trades but nowhere does it say that more than 50% (ie the majority) of those in employment earn less than £10 an hour which is what you asserted. As I also said, I accept that mean wages might well be less than the Government's stats re median wages but you have still been unable to point me in the direction of where I might find evidence of that discrepancy. 
Similarly you were the one who said that Margaret Thatcher was deeply unpopular in the early 80s and that Michael Foot was ahead of her in the opinion polls, not me. I confined myself to pointing out that her overall share of the vote declined in each succeeding election and that she was not popular in some parts of the country and hence with some sections of the electorate. As a result of that, she was a divisive PM. She sank the Conservative Party in Scotland and they have never bobbed back to the surface in any meaningful way in the succeeding 35 years. I cannot see that changing any time soon.
The one thing we can agree on is that Labour has not offered a real alternative to the Conservatives in the last two elections and I think that the key thing that Jeremy Corbyn offers is that he is a real alternative, even if it is not one palatable to you. The other 3 candidates don't and so I see no reason why anybody would vote for them instead of the Conservatives. Why vote for the watered down version of Thatcherism when you can have the real thing? Jeremy Corbyn would get my vote precisely because he is not Torylite and the groundswell of support for him from the young people who have becomed engaged in political debate suggests that I am not alone. Whether we are in the majority remains to be seen in 2020 and I accept that when the time comes we might not be in the majority but I see no point in selling the party's soul solely in order to get elected if all they are then going to deliver is a watered down version of the Conservative manifesto. Why would anybody vote for them in preference to the Conservatives in 2020? It is clear what the other three candidates don't stand for but it is not clear what they do stand for - at least Jeremy Corbyn has been very frank about the policies he would support and like to see implemented.
But given that I cannot follow the logic of your arguments and you seem unable to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence for the assertions you have made, I'm going to give up trying. Time will tell whether the low paid who earn less than £10 an hour (and whom you asserted form the majority of the electorate) are ready to embrace a radical alternative to Cameron and Osborne or whether they will continue to vote for a party that doesn't have their interests at heart.
SM
Similarly you were the one who said that Margaret Thatcher was deeply unpopular in the early 80s and that Michael Foot was ahead of her in the opinion polls, not me. I confined myself to pointing out that her overall share of the vote declined in each succeeding election and that she was not popular in some parts of the country and hence with some sections of the electorate. As a result of that, she was a divisive PM. She sank the Conservative Party in Scotland and they have never bobbed back to the surface in any meaningful way in the succeeding 35 years. I cannot see that changing any time soon.
The one thing we can agree on is that Labour has not offered a real alternative to the Conservatives in the last two elections and I think that the key thing that Jeremy Corbyn offers is that he is a real alternative, even if it is not one palatable to you. The other 3 candidates don't and so I see no reason why anybody would vote for them instead of the Conservatives. Why vote for the watered down version of Thatcherism when you can have the real thing? Jeremy Corbyn would get my vote precisely because he is not Torylite and the groundswell of support for him from the young people who have becomed engaged in political debate suggests that I am not alone. Whether we are in the majority remains to be seen in 2020 and I accept that when the time comes we might not be in the majority but I see no point in selling the party's soul solely in order to get elected if all they are then going to deliver is a watered down version of the Conservative manifesto. Why would anybody vote for them in preference to the Conservatives in 2020? It is clear what the other three candidates don't stand for but it is not clear what they do stand for - at least Jeremy Corbyn has been very frank about the policies he would support and like to see implemented.
But given that I cannot follow the logic of your arguments and you seem unable to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence for the assertions you have made, I'm going to give up trying. Time will tell whether the low paid who earn less than £10 an hour (and whom you asserted form the majority of the electorate) are ready to embrace a radical alternative to Cameron and Osborne or whether they will continue to vote for a party that doesn't have their interests at heart.
SM
It doesn't matter if he's just palatable to me , he has to be palatable to the electorate , and that has to be more than " the groundswell of support for him from the young people " that excites you
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-leadership-contest-can-grey-beard-jeremy-corbyn-win-the-grey-vote-10476866.html
The low paided seem not to matter , I can understand the Tories not caring , but Labour should be championing this , but as you clearly state they are just a 20% part of the electorate so why would they when it's more important to have principals and not sell your soul to form a government to tackle this , as I assume that you have to be in power to change things .
We will just have to wait and see what happens over the next 2 weeks with the leader contest , and the fallout from that , and even further on over the next few years
As you cannot understand the logic of my arguments , and you fail to enlighten me how a left wing Labour will achieve to become a government that is elected ( as it hasn't for quite a few years now ) and have the ability to change our society , there's nothing more to say and there are far more important things to think about than the Labour leadership contest !!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-leadership-contest-can-grey-beard-jeremy-corbyn-win-the-grey-vote-10476866.html
The low paided seem not to matter , I can understand the Tories not caring , but Labour should be championing this , but as you clearly state they are just a 20% part of the electorate so why would they when it's more important to have principals and not sell your soul to form a government to tackle this , as I assume that you have to be in power to change things .
We will just have to wait and see what happens over the next 2 weeks with the leader contest , and the fallout from that , and even further on over the next few years
As you cannot understand the logic of my arguments , and you fail to enlighten me how a left wing Labour will achieve to become a government that is elected ( as it hasn't for quite a few years now ) and have the ability to change our society , there's nothing more to say and there are far more important things to think about than the Labour leadership contest !!
My last words on the leadership election! Honest!
The reason why a leftwing Labour Government hasn't been elected for some years is that nobody under the age of 40 has realistically had the chance to vote for one. You have to have been born before April 1974 and hence old enough to have voted in the 1992 General Election to have had the chance to vote for a mainstream left of centre party outside of Scotland. It doesn't surprise me that this drift to the right has also been accompanied by lower turnouts, which hit an all time low in 2001 when half the registered electorate decided to stay at home and not bother voting when the choice was between a 2nd term government led by Tony Blair and one led by William Hague. For the last 4 elections 1 in 3 registered voters have seen no point in going to cast their vote at all and who knows exactly how many more don't bother to get themselves on the Electoral Roll in the first place?
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and goes on to do no more than galvanise voters to get out to the polling stations in 2020 then he will have done his bit for democracy. Even if people vote for policies I don't agree with I would prefer to see them get out and cast their votes one way or the other than not to vote at all. At least he won't be caught in the doublebind that the other three contenders have created for themselves, arguing that they want to change things but as they think that they won't win a General Election if they say so, they don't promote the radical policies that will change the political landscape. Whichever way you look at it the result is that they have decided to stick with the status quo in order to win and as a result they won't be fighting for the sort of radical changes that will really do something for those bumping along the bottom in our current economic situation. Who knows, actually given the chance to vote for a leftwing manifesto the electorate might just actually go for it? But if we never get that chance how will we ever know if leftwing policies could be vote winners?
SM
Edited to correct typo re 1992 Election
The reason why a leftwing Labour Government hasn't been elected for some years is that nobody under the age of 40 has realistically had the chance to vote for one. You have to have been born before April 1974 and hence old enough to have voted in the 1992 General Election to have had the chance to vote for a mainstream left of centre party outside of Scotland. It doesn't surprise me that this drift to the right has also been accompanied by lower turnouts, which hit an all time low in 2001 when half the registered electorate decided to stay at home and not bother voting when the choice was between a 2nd term government led by Tony Blair and one led by William Hague. For the last 4 elections 1 in 3 registered voters have seen no point in going to cast their vote at all and who knows exactly how many more don't bother to get themselves on the Electoral Roll in the first place?
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and goes on to do no more than galvanise voters to get out to the polling stations in 2020 then he will have done his bit for democracy. Even if people vote for policies I don't agree with I would prefer to see them get out and cast their votes one way or the other than not to vote at all. At least he won't be caught in the doublebind that the other three contenders have created for themselves, arguing that they want to change things but as they think that they won't win a General Election if they say so, they don't promote the radical policies that will change the political landscape. Whichever way you look at it the result is that they have decided to stick with the status quo in order to win and as a result they won't be fighting for the sort of radical changes that will really do something for those bumping along the bottom in our current economic situation. Who knows, actually given the chance to vote for a leftwing manifesto the electorate might just actually go for it? But if we never get that chance how will we ever know if leftwing policies could be vote winners?
SM
Edited to correct typo re 1992 Election
-
Edited by
SMa
2015-08-29 21:57:52
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
