It would be interesting if he got in, but i'd rather have Yvette Cooper.
Does anyone know of any countries which are successful after following Jeremy Corbyn's ideas? I can't.
If Corbyn became Prime Minister this country would go bankrupt pretty quick. He is just an ageing Dave Spart.
If Corbyn became Prime Minister this country would go bankrupt pretty quick. He is just an ageing Dave Spart.
Does anyone know of any successful countries that haven't followed his ideas? Capitalism has given us bank crashes and bailouts, followed by austerity and it still hasn't eradicated poverty.
I like a lot of his policies - for example, I would much prefer us to nationalise and own our railways instead of the nationalised rail companies of other countries running them and making a profit out of us passengers here that enables them to offer better and cheaper services in their home countries. Abelio the Netherlands state railway company now runs the Scotrail, Merseyrail, Northern and Greater Anglia trains. Deutsche Bahn the German state owned rail company has the franchise for Chiltern, Cross Country, Grand Central, Tyne & Wear metro and Wales & Borders and part-owns London overground. And SNCF, the French state owned rqil company is the majority owner of the franchisees for Gatwick Express, South Eastern, London Midland, Southern, First TransPennine Express and Eurostar. Doesn't actually leave much of our trains system in private hands does it? And ever since Virgin was awarded the old GNER franchise which was handed back to the Government and run by the Governemnt until handed over to Virgin, the service on the main East Coast route has been abysmal ever since.
SM
I like a lot of his policies - for example, I would much prefer us to nationalise and own our railways instead of the nationalised rail companies of other countries running them and making a profit out of us passengers here that enables them to offer better and cheaper services in their home countries. Abelio the Netherlands state railway company now runs the Scotrail, Merseyrail, Northern and Greater Anglia trains. Deutsche Bahn the German state owned rail company has the franchise for Chiltern, Cross Country, Grand Central, Tyne & Wear metro and Wales & Borders and part-owns London overground. And SNCF, the French state owned rqil company is the majority owner of the franchisees for Gatwick Express, South Eastern, London Midland, Southern, First TransPennine Express and Eurostar. Doesn't actually leave much of our trains system in private hands does it? And ever since Virgin was awarded the old GNER franchise which was handed back to the Government and run by the Governemnt until handed over to Virgin, the service on the main East Coast route has been abysmal ever since.
SM
I like the idea of certain things being nationalised and run to benefit the citizens and make a profit to improve our standards of living , it all sounds very ideal , but the reality is any government cannot seem to run anything properly so letting them have control of more would be worse for us , they create top heavy organisations that seem to be poorly run and would require taxpayers money to keep a bloated organisation running .
They could bring back British Leyland , remember the dirge they brought out in the 70s ? ( maxi , marina , allegro !! ) no wonder the British car industry died .
Then again businesses privately run seem only to benefit the elite at the top , often offering poor service levels and vast profits for investors , no wonder many seem disillusioned and fed up with the way things are run and that is a politicians dream to prey upon .
I think Corbyn has made the contest interesting , in that he is different to the 3 identikit candidates who seem to be backed by the last 2 Labour prime ministers ( and what a great job those 2 did ) !! I think they would be better off with Ed back
Corbyn would offer a more principled stand and at least be a proper opposition to the government if he can stop his party from arguing with each other .
Would he get elected though as prime minister ? Basically no .
My wife was asked if she wanted to vote as she is in the Unite union , she like many of her colleagues don't even vote Labour !
They could bring back British Leyland , remember the dirge they brought out in the 70s ? ( maxi , marina , allegro !! ) no wonder the British car industry died .
Then again businesses privately run seem only to benefit the elite at the top , often offering poor service levels and vast profits for investors , no wonder many seem disillusioned and fed up with the way things are run and that is a politicians dream to prey upon .
I think Corbyn has made the contest interesting , in that he is different to the 3 identikit candidates who seem to be backed by the last 2 Labour prime ministers ( and what a great job those 2 did ) !! I think they would be better off with Ed back
Corbyn would offer a more principled stand and at least be a proper opposition to the government if he can stop his party from arguing with each other . Would he get elected though as prime minister ? Basically no .
My wife was asked if she wanted to vote as she is in the Unite union , she like many of her colleagues don't even vote Labour !
andy66 wrote:I like the idea of certain things being nationalised and run to benefit the citizens and make a profit to improve our standards of living , it all sounds very ideal , but the reality is any government cannot seem to run anything properly so letting them have control of more would be worse for us , they create top heavy organisations that seem to be poorly run and would require taxpayers money to keep a bloated organisation running .
They could bring back British Leyland , remember the dirge they brought out in the 70s ? ( maxi , marina , allegro !! ) no wonder the British car industry died .
So how do you explain the very efficient and successful running of trains in Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands? All run by state owned companies that own both the network, the rolling stock and can plan in an integrated manner and are the envy of this particular train user. State owned does not mean Government run just as in the same way that shareholder owned doesn't mean it's actually run by the shareholders.
And let's not forget that British Leyland came into being because the private ownership and management turned the companies it was made up of into failing companies. The nation bailed out the car manufacturers just like it is still bailing out the banks. Nobody uses the word but in effect RBS, HBOS and LLoyds TSB were nationalised in a similar way and for similar reasons when us taxpayers became their majority shareholders when we bailed them out. It was the same with the coal mines in 1946 - it was the only way to save the UK coal industry and ensure it received the investment needed in post-war Britain.
So, yes, I am all for re-nationalising the railways so that the Virgin East Coast/West Coast services to London are no longer both the only wholly privately owned leg of a rail journey through Europe whilst at the same time being the worst, most uncomfortable overcrowded leg of the whole journey. I takes me an average of 6 hrs to travel from Dundee to Kings Cross but only 10 hrs on average to travel halfway across Europe from St Pancreas to Berlin on state owned railways in far greater comfort and for less cost with a guaranteed seat for every passenger! And oh yes, lots of space for luggage somgoing to the loo or the buffet car isn't an obstacle course!
SM
I can only assume you are quite young SMa or you would remember how awful nationalised companies used to be. There would be no profit for the taxpayer, only losses. Leyland were a very successful company making lorries and busses. Your pal Tony Benn, who for some reason was a minister in the Wilson government, joined the useless BMC car firm, which had been wrecked by the unions and Benn, with Leyland. The results were catastrophic as all the nationalised firms were.
Corbyn is a sick throw back to a communist world where the poor got poorer and hungier and the rulers got rich.
Please tell me where Corbyn's policies have been successful? Is it North Korea or Albania or Cuba or Venezuela? No Corbyn is a loony who would send us all into poverty and humiliation.
Corbyn is a sick throw back to a communist world where the poor got poorer and hungier and the rulers got rich.
Please tell me where Corbyn's policies have been successful? Is it North Korea or Albania or Cuba or Venezuela? No Corbyn is a loony who would send us all into poverty and humiliation.
So if they become state owned they are suddenly going to become better ? Where does the money for improved track and new rolling stock come from ? Subsidised by the government paid for by the taxpayer ? Held at ransom by the trade unions ? Isn't the country in enough trouble and debt because of overspending ?
When Labour dropped clause 4 many years ago , they won landslide victories , I can't see any party stating re nationalisation as a main policy gaining a substantial vote enough to put them in power , it seems the electorate is not really that concerned with nationalisation , it probably thinks it will be more contribution to subsidise what is just an ideology , it does sound great in practice , it always does when it's someone else's money .
I think Corbyn will provide an effective opposition , but he has to be a genius to unite his party and provide enough reason for the electorate to place their trust in Labour forming a government and bandying around nationalisation as a main policy won't convince enough of the electorate .
I agree that improvements should be made to services , but don't see a state owned business necessarily ensuring that .
When Labour dropped clause 4 many years ago , they won landslide victories , I can't see any party stating re nationalisation as a main policy gaining a substantial vote enough to put them in power , it seems the electorate is not really that concerned with nationalisation , it probably thinks it will be more contribution to subsidise what is just an ideology , it does sound great in practice , it always does when it's someone else's money .
I think Corbyn will provide an effective opposition , but he has to be a genius to unite his party and provide enough reason for the electorate to place their trust in Labour forming a government and bandying around nationalisation as a main policy won't convince enough of the electorate .
I agree that improvements should be made to services , but don't see a state owned business necessarily ensuring that .
On the contrary Qman, I'm old enough to remember when people understood the difference between Communisim and Socialism and was around in 1968 when Leyland Motors merged with British Motor Holdings to form British Leyland Motor Corporation. Yes, Tony Benn encouraged and supported the merger because he thought it would help the ailing BMH but it remained in the private sector until 1975. Even then merged company was only partially nationalised in the last year of Wilson being Prime Minister and the holding company of British Leyland wasn't created until 1978 by which time Callaghan was PM. From 1979 onwards the Thatcher Government began floating off into the private sector the profitable parts of the business. As a nationalised business British Leyland actually had only a very short lifespan and it must have been reasonably well managed overall for parts of it to be seen as a good investment by the private sector? Arguably what did for BL was the Thatcher Government leaving it with the unprofitable parts of the business.
It strikes me that the problem with N Korea and Albania under Hoxha is that they aren't/weren't Socialist democracies but fascist dictatorships unlike Venezuala which was a socilaist democracy - Chavez was an elected President who did much for the poor as a far as I can see. Cuba falls somewhere between the two and as a regular visitor to Cuba I feel able to speak in more detail about the situation there and I would certainly prefer to be poor in Cuba than poor in the USA. I have been visiting most years for the last 10 years and have got to know and be trusted by the local families I stay with to the extent that they will talk fairlt openly about their adpirations for the future. This includes all the good things about Cuba that they don't want to lose.
One particular trip sticks in my mind when I found myself touring the east of the island for a week as the only passenger in the back of a people carrier with the guide and driver. As the guide had been an English teacher and he knew I was learning Spanish we spent a lot of time chatting on the long drives involved so we could mutually develop our language skills but I always knew that we were getting into territory that would be beyond my Spanish when he started a conversation beginning 'Is it true, Sue....' And over the course of the week I had to confirm that it was indeed true that young graduates left University with very large debts and, yes, there was no guarantee that they would get a job, any job, let alone the one that made use of the degree they had paid so much to gain (unemployment is a concept that most Cubans find very difficult to grasp - they have no experience of it). That, yes, it was true that people had to wait weeks for dental appointments even assuming that they could find a dental surgeon that was taking on NHS patients and that, yes, it was usual for hospitals to anve waiting lists that ran into months and not just weeks. And, yes, GPs had patient lists that ran into 1,000s instead if the 200 families that their Cuban equivalents look after and, yes, you did have to visit the doctor unless you were really ill because home visits were a rarity rather than the norm and, no, you didn't get an annual visit to your home so they could give everybody their annual health check. And, yes, most people had to pay a charge for their prescription drugs even if not the full market price. And, no, there was no equivalent of the raciones system that guarantees everybody the right to purchase basic food staples at a subsidised price that was within the means of even the lowest paid.
I also know a large number of Cuban expats who now live in the UK and arriving here has been such a culture shock for them as they realise that things they took for granted as being either free or very cheap at home are now going to cost them a lot - they love the huge choice of goods in supermarkets on sale in the UK and then reel when they realise that most of them can't afford to buy much because unlike at home in Cuba, dancers and musicians in the UK earn very little. in other words the grass isn't greener here after all. Things will change in Cuba over the next few years but not all Cubans are necessarily looking forward to those changes if it means that their health and education services will start to emulate those in the UK or the USA. Cuba isn't perfect but it has sorted many of the problems that still bedevil us here in the UK.
And, yes, I am still bemused as to why, despite the success of the state owned railways throughout other parts of Europe you still think that it would be better to let them own our railways and cream off profits from our railways for ploughing into investment in their own networks back home? It seems that state ownership of the railways is perfectly OK as long as the railway in the UK is owned by other countries' state owned companies
SM
It strikes me that the problem with N Korea and Albania under Hoxha is that they aren't/weren't Socialist democracies but fascist dictatorships unlike Venezuala which was a socilaist democracy - Chavez was an elected President who did much for the poor as a far as I can see. Cuba falls somewhere between the two and as a regular visitor to Cuba I feel able to speak in more detail about the situation there and I would certainly prefer to be poor in Cuba than poor in the USA. I have been visiting most years for the last 10 years and have got to know and be trusted by the local families I stay with to the extent that they will talk fairlt openly about their adpirations for the future. This includes all the good things about Cuba that they don't want to lose.
One particular trip sticks in my mind when I found myself touring the east of the island for a week as the only passenger in the back of a people carrier with the guide and driver. As the guide had been an English teacher and he knew I was learning Spanish we spent a lot of time chatting on the long drives involved so we could mutually develop our language skills but I always knew that we were getting into territory that would be beyond my Spanish when he started a conversation beginning 'Is it true, Sue....' And over the course of the week I had to confirm that it was indeed true that young graduates left University with very large debts and, yes, there was no guarantee that they would get a job, any job, let alone the one that made use of the degree they had paid so much to gain (unemployment is a concept that most Cubans find very difficult to grasp - they have no experience of it). That, yes, it was true that people had to wait weeks for dental appointments even assuming that they could find a dental surgeon that was taking on NHS patients and that, yes, it was usual for hospitals to anve waiting lists that ran into months and not just weeks. And, yes, GPs had patient lists that ran into 1,000s instead if the 200 families that their Cuban equivalents look after and, yes, you did have to visit the doctor unless you were really ill because home visits were a rarity rather than the norm and, no, you didn't get an annual visit to your home so they could give everybody their annual health check. And, yes, most people had to pay a charge for their prescription drugs even if not the full market price. And, no, there was no equivalent of the raciones system that guarantees everybody the right to purchase basic food staples at a subsidised price that was within the means of even the lowest paid.
I also know a large number of Cuban expats who now live in the UK and arriving here has been such a culture shock for them as they realise that things they took for granted as being either free or very cheap at home are now going to cost them a lot - they love the huge choice of goods in supermarkets on sale in the UK and then reel when they realise that most of them can't afford to buy much because unlike at home in Cuba, dancers and musicians in the UK earn very little. in other words the grass isn't greener here after all. Things will change in Cuba over the next few years but not all Cubans are necessarily looking forward to those changes if it means that their health and education services will start to emulate those in the UK or the USA. Cuba isn't perfect but it has sorted many of the problems that still bedevil us here in the UK.
And, yes, I am still bemused as to why, despite the success of the state owned railways throughout other parts of Europe you still think that it would be better to let them own our railways and cream off profits from our railways for ploughing into investment in their own networks back home? It seems that state ownership of the railways is perfectly OK as long as the railway in the UK is owned by other countries' state owned companies
SM
As Corbyn has indicated that he wants to re nationalise the railways and the energy company's , known as the big six , this has been analysed by both the FT and the Guardian , I see no figure for buying the railways but it would need 124 billion to purchase the shares to control the big 6 !!
Where's that money going to come from ? Will he ask Gordon to come back and flog off the rest of our gold reserves , I hear the price is at a low at the moment !! # cash for gold !!
Say the UK invests that money to re nationalise will that really improve service or lower costs for consumers ? Or will that benefit of the profit made be used to repay the interest of the loan ?
If state ownership is so important why doesn't the state own its airline or airports which I imagine are an important part of infrastructure ? Why stop at railways ? What about Cadburys ? Chocolate makes people happy ?
The Spanish do own their airports ( state owned ) but not it's national airline , the Dutch own a fair %age of it airports , not its airline , the French and Germans have no overall state ownership of its airlines or airports , they have followed much the same pattern as us in that respect .
It seems a forgone conclusion that he will win the leadership contest , but I think he will be as electable as Michael Foot in a general election
I believe that Abelio ( the Dutch railway company ) is to run Scotrail , this was agreed by the Scottish government ( parliament ) ? So is the SNP in favour of re nationalisation ?
Where's that money going to come from ? Will he ask Gordon to come back and flog off the rest of our gold reserves , I hear the price is at a low at the moment !! # cash for gold !!
Say the UK invests that money to re nationalise will that really improve service or lower costs for consumers ? Or will that benefit of the profit made be used to repay the interest of the loan ?
If state ownership is so important why doesn't the state own its airline or airports which I imagine are an important part of infrastructure ? Why stop at railways ? What about Cadburys ? Chocolate makes people happy ?
The Spanish do own their airports ( state owned ) but not it's national airline , the Dutch own a fair %age of it airports , not its airline , the French and Germans have no overall state ownership of its airlines or airports , they have followed much the same pattern as us in that respect .
It seems a forgone conclusion that he will win the leadership contest , but I think he will be as electable as Michael Foot in a general election
I believe that Abelio ( the Dutch railway company ) is to run Scotrail , this was agreed by the Scottish government ( parliament ) ? So is the SNP in favour of re nationalisation ?
Re Nationalisation how many think we would have had the NHS without a Socialist government ? Should that be openly privatised rather than by stealth. Also what about the utilities privatisation of what we owned to start with in most cases has only brought us bigger bills (unless you made a killing on the shares.
I say lets get back to the Bad Old Days when banking was a respectable profession, when young people could reasonably expect to find employment in jobs where the unions stood up for the rights of workers, when zero hours contacts weren't heard of and when they could expect to get on the housing ladder.
I say lets get back to the Bad Old Days when banking was a respectable profession, when young people could reasonably expect to find employment in jobs where the unions stood up for the rights of workers, when zero hours contacts weren't heard of and when they could expect to get on the housing ladder.
Some of you paint such a bad picture of this country that I wonder why so many people want to come here. Many of them find jobs which some of our own seem to think are not good enough for them.
The iron curtain was built to keep in the population so they couldn't see how much better off life was in the free world. Cubans go in flimsy boats to get into the USA for a better life.
No one has said which countries are being run well with Corbyn's ideas because there aren't any, because extreme socialism does not work. At the end of every single Labour government unemployment is higher that when they came in, socialism does not work however nice and fluffy it sounds.
To blame Fatchur for the collapse of British Leyland is the best laugh I've had for ages. They had to bribe companies to take on the poor old workforce, minus Red Robbo I presume. BL had gone to the dogs long before the great Maggie started turning this country around. And don't forget, Arthur Scargill started out with a large union and a small house. He finished with a tiny union and a mansion.
If Corbyn gets his hands on power in this country we are doomed, he will start printing money and the hyper inflation will start like in Zimbabwe and Venuzuela. Then we would all be poor and the immigrants would be leaving with the rest of us.
Up the revolution!!!
The iron curtain was built to keep in the population so they couldn't see how much better off life was in the free world. Cubans go in flimsy boats to get into the USA for a better life.
No one has said which countries are being run well with Corbyn's ideas because there aren't any, because extreme socialism does not work. At the end of every single Labour government unemployment is higher that when they came in, socialism does not work however nice and fluffy it sounds.
To blame Fatchur for the collapse of British Leyland is the best laugh I've had for ages. They had to bribe companies to take on the poor old workforce, minus Red Robbo I presume. BL had gone to the dogs long before the great Maggie started turning this country around. And don't forget, Arthur Scargill started out with a large union and a small house. He finished with a tiny union and a mansion.
If Corbyn gets his hands on power in this country we are doomed, he will start printing money and the hyper inflation will start like in Zimbabwe and Venuzuela. Then we would all be poor and the immigrants would be leaving with the rest of us.
Up the revolution!!!
Nationalisation at work spending other people's money, which they are good at.
The reported loss on derivatives was £982 million.
Is this what a nationalised.l railway should be doing with taxpayers money? Is this Jeremy Corbyn’s dream way to run a nationalised railway?
The reported loss on derivatives was £982 million.
Is this what a nationalised.l railway should be doing with taxpayers money? Is this Jeremy Corbyn’s dream way to run a nationalised railway?
Qman wrote:
The reported loss on derivatives was £982 million.
I'm not too sure what you are referring to here? Especially since the amount is relatively small in relation to the UK economy. If you are referring to local authorities getting caught out as result of taking out LOBOS pre-2008 and then finding that they were locked into higher interest rates and didn't benefit from the low interest rates post the banking crash then they weren't the only ones who lost out because they had bought into fixed rate loans. On the other hand, if you are referring to the major speculation of Hammersmith and Fulham Council in the late 1980s who did indeed gamble on the derivatives market then you are talking about a situation that was allowed to arise on Margaret Thatcher's watch and that of John Major, not a Labour led Government. And where the Audit Commission didn't raise any alarm bells (knowing full well what was going on) until it was too late.
As for the railways, I'm not aware of them ever having gambled on the derivatives market prior to being privatised by John Major in 1993?
SM
andy66 wrote:I see no figure for buying the railways but it would need 124 billion to purchase the shares to control the big 6 !!
Where's that money going to come from ? Will he ask Gordon to come back and flog off the rest of our gold reserves?
The reason why there is no figure for buying the railways back is that we don't need to buy them back - we just need to wait for the franchises to run out. They are in effect leased out and once the leases expire we can claim them back and start running them for the profit of the exchequer not foreign state enterprises.
As for the energy companies, I am old enough to remember Harold Macmillan giving his speech in the House of Lords warning Margaret Thatcher that she was selling off the family silver and how right he has been proved. At the height of the British Gas sell off TV ad campaigns I was so imcensed that I wrote to British Gas to say that I saw no reason to buy shares in a company that as far as I was concerned I already owned! It didn't surprise me that I never got a reply!
SM
Qman wrote:Some of you paint such a bad picture of this country that I wonder why so many people want to come here. Many of them find jobs which some of our own seem to think are not good enough for them.
The iron curtain was built to keep in the population so they couldn't see how much better off life was in the free world. Cubans go in flimsy boats to get into the USA for a better life.
No one has said which countries are being run well with Corbyn's ideas because there aren't any, because extreme socialism does not work. At the end of every single Labour government unemployment is higher that when they came in, socialism does not work however nice and fluffy it sounds.
To blame Fatchur for the collapse of British Leyland is the best laugh I've had for ages. They had to bribe companies to take on the poor old workforce, minus Red Robbo I presume. BL had gone to the dogs long before the great Maggie started turning this country around. And don't forget, Arthur Scargill started out with a large union and a small house. He finished with a tiny union and a mansion.
If Corbyn gets his hands on power in this country we are doomed, he will start printing money and the hyper inflation will start like in Zimbabwe and Venuzuela. Then we would all be poor and the immigrants would be leaving with the rest of us.
Up the revolution!!!
The problem Qman is that capitalism doesn't work either - the bank crash was a worldwide phenomenon and caused by the rampant capitalism of the modern banking system. Few Cubans now try and make the trip cross the Straits - one of the cosmequences of more tourists arriving is that they are starting to realise that life is not necessarily better in the 'free' world. Just because life is better here than where many economic migrants come from doesn't mean that life here is necessarily as good as it could be. Yes, I like living in a sort of democracy but that doesn't mean that capitalism has all the answers.
As for unemployment it is impossible to actually compare and contrast the records of different Governements because the stats have been manipulated so much. The reason why unemployment appeared to fall under Thatcher was because so many of the longterm unemployed where encouraged to apply for disability/sickness benefits instead (and hence no longer counted as being unemployed) and Job Centre staff were encouraged to encourage them to do this. Another of Thatcher's chickens now coming home to roost!
SM
In regards to the taking back of the railways , I've read that Andy Burnham is in favour of taking back as the franchise deals run out , so piece by piece. Corbyn is in favour of buying out those franchise deals , which has even people like John Prescott writing for the Daily Mirror alarmed at Corbyns plans . ( I feel alarmed myself at reading the Daily Mirror ) !!
I always find the knocking of Thatcher quite amusing ,as the electorate had a choice of who to lead the country , were they suppose to plump for Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock ?? The choice was there , any government is only as good as its opposition , a poor and weak opposition is no good for the country .
I can't agree with the rosy picture painted of unions , both of my grandads were employed in the motor industry , they were paid up Labour members , and the unions wrecked it in the 70s , one of my grandads was outspoken about the shoddy piece work ( the unions wanted less work and more money ) and they hung an effigy of him in the factory , so my view of unions is somewhat tainted .
I'm from a working class background and still consider myself working class , I had a state education and have always been employed in retail work ( so generally unskilled ) I've worked my butt off to be able to buy my own home and be responsible for myself , I have no allegiance to any particular party and have voted for all 3 mainstream parties over the years .
I want good strong well run parties that give me a real choice , i ask myself who is going to run the country well and be fair in the way it personally treats me ( like many voters at an election ) I look at who is going to be safe , I'm fed up with voting for who's the least worse , it should be who's the best !!
I've often found that Labour seems to offer very little to entice me and yet I should be a typical Labour voter ?
The Conservatives throw a few measly bits that make me think I'm better off with them .
I have little confidence in Corbyn changing my view at the moment , he seems to be a bit disliked within his own party , and as one Labour MP put it , we can't stop him and he would win a leader re run , we've just got to wait and in the end give him enough rope to hang himself !! I'm not inspired by that feeling about Corbyn .
I dislike the perception that Labour frowns on home ownership , frowns on big business , that many of us work in , and has an amazing hypocrisy on education , in that many of their MPs send their children to private school , yet they openly think everyone else should use the state system .
Labour should be doing a lot more things to entice back the voters it has lost , banging on about nationalisation is not a vote winner .
I also dislike the myth that only Labour cares about the NHS or claims its only safe with them , having had to use the NHS in the last year , it was amazing service and fantastic care and with no cost spared in assessing my condition , it belongs to the COUNTRY and has greater demands on it today from its inception .
I always find the knocking of Thatcher quite amusing ,as the electorate had a choice of who to lead the country , were they suppose to plump for Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock ?? The choice was there , any government is only as good as its opposition , a poor and weak opposition is no good for the country .
I can't agree with the rosy picture painted of unions , both of my grandads were employed in the motor industry , they were paid up Labour members , and the unions wrecked it in the 70s , one of my grandads was outspoken about the shoddy piece work ( the unions wanted less work and more money ) and they hung an effigy of him in the factory , so my view of unions is somewhat tainted .
I'm from a working class background and still consider myself working class , I had a state education and have always been employed in retail work ( so generally unskilled ) I've worked my butt off to be able to buy my own home and be responsible for myself , I have no allegiance to any particular party and have voted for all 3 mainstream parties over the years .
I want good strong well run parties that give me a real choice , i ask myself who is going to run the country well and be fair in the way it personally treats me ( like many voters at an election ) I look at who is going to be safe , I'm fed up with voting for who's the least worse , it should be who's the best !!
I've often found that Labour seems to offer very little to entice me and yet I should be a typical Labour voter ?
The Conservatives throw a few measly bits that make me think I'm better off with them .
I have little confidence in Corbyn changing my view at the moment , he seems to be a bit disliked within his own party , and as one Labour MP put it , we can't stop him and he would win a leader re run , we've just got to wait and in the end give him enough rope to hang himself !! I'm not inspired by that feeling about Corbyn .
I dislike the perception that Labour frowns on home ownership , frowns on big business , that many of us work in , and has an amazing hypocrisy on education , in that many of their MPs send their children to private school , yet they openly think everyone else should use the state system .
Labour should be doing a lot more things to entice back the voters it has lost , banging on about nationalisation is not a vote winner .
I also dislike the myth that only Labour cares about the NHS or claims its only safe with them , having had to use the NHS in the last year , it was amazing service and fantastic care and with no cost spared in assessing my condition , it belongs to the COUNTRY and has greater demands on it today from its inception .
andy66 wrote:
The Conservatives throw a few measly bits that make me think I'm better off with them .
I too come from a working class background and have also worked hard to get where I am today and I could go through your post offering a point by point counter argument but the differences between us boil down to the way we cast our vote. My major concern is with Social Justice and the key question for me at each election is 'Which Party will help create a fairer, more just society for not just me but my fellow citizens?' The answer to that question has never been the Conservative party since I have been old enough to vote. Had I been old enough there is the possiblity that I might have voted for the sort of One Nation Conservatism of Harold MacMillan but the first General Election election I could vote in was the 1974 one and Edward Heath was never going to get my vote after the way he handled the discontent of the early 1970s so I voted for Wilson. But by the time of the 1979 Election Margaret Thatcher was leader and no way was I going to vote for her divisive policies.
It was instilled in me from a young age, from both a religious and political perspective, that it was my responsibility to use my vote (which had been hard-won for people of my class and gender) wisely and not selfishly. I was someone who did well out of the Thatcher Government - eg I saw my income tax reduced but as I didn't buy into the consumer lifestyle, didn't pay it back in the form of Indirect taxes such as VAT. But my neighbours in both the literal and gospel sense didn't and still don't from the heirs to Thatcherism (and I include Tony Blair in that group). My vote is not for sale to the highest bidder but goes to the one who most closely shares my ideals and principles - and at the moment in Scotland that is the SNP and in the Labour Leadership election it is Corbyn.
SM
And that's the great thing about living in a democracy we have an individual choice , and the party that gains the most votes gets to govern .
So why at the last general election did the Conservatives gain enough to command a majority , they're not universally popular , was it because Ed Milliband was unpopular ? He was convincingly rejected by the electorate even though hand picked by the unions who decided to back the wrong brother ! He was viewed as being economically naive and being a bit too " left " , so will Corbyn be viewed by electorate differently ?
The electorate didnt trust Milliband and guessed that the SNP would control him in a hung parliament , that's why the LibDem vote collapsed in England to the Tories and even UKIP voters switched to the Tories to stop a Labour SNP government , don't get me wrong I can see very clearly why voters in Scotland went with the SNP , if I lived there I think I would to , Sturgeon is the type of politician I like , strong , full on conviction , hard on her opponents and confident , exactly what people look for in a leader !! And when I've listened to Salmond on QT I think he's decent and I think the English electorate probably feel much the same and knew they would wipe the floor with poor Ed !! So 1.5m Scottish voters would effectively control the UK parliament of which they really want to break away from ? What about the 3m UKIP voters who got one seat or even the Greens who polled an impressive 1m again with 1 seat , where's the justice for those voters ? If we want social justice we have to fairly represent the views of voters so their voice can be heard ?
If you discount Blair and thus by default Brown as being in effect Tory " lite " , that's over 36 years since a majority Labour government ( not sure if Callaghan 76-79 ) was a majority ? I guess most if the 70s was unstable ?? ( was too young to remember !! ) so could be even more years ! Anyway at least 36 years ago , so when was the last socially just government ruling ? We're almost into the realms of nostalgia , back in the days when you've never had it so good ??
I think the vast majority of the electorate want a government who is economically sound and provides stability , perhaps a bit boring really but without those things we feel uncertain and confidence becomes low ,
I just don't think Corbyn is the right way forward , I think it was a shame that Chuka Umanna didn't decide to go forward , far more adept and modern thinking in a modern global world .
I'm off to watch some re runs of Ashes to Ashes and Minder , at least some things in the 70s were good !!
So why at the last general election did the Conservatives gain enough to command a majority , they're not universally popular , was it because Ed Milliband was unpopular ? He was convincingly rejected by the electorate even though hand picked by the unions who decided to back the wrong brother ! He was viewed as being economically naive and being a bit too " left " , so will Corbyn be viewed by electorate differently ?
The electorate didnt trust Milliband and guessed that the SNP would control him in a hung parliament , that's why the LibDem vote collapsed in England to the Tories and even UKIP voters switched to the Tories to stop a Labour SNP government , don't get me wrong I can see very clearly why voters in Scotland went with the SNP , if I lived there I think I would to , Sturgeon is the type of politician I like , strong , full on conviction , hard on her opponents and confident , exactly what people look for in a leader !! And when I've listened to Salmond on QT I think he's decent and I think the English electorate probably feel much the same and knew they would wipe the floor with poor Ed !! So 1.5m Scottish voters would effectively control the UK parliament of which they really want to break away from ? What about the 3m UKIP voters who got one seat or even the Greens who polled an impressive 1m again with 1 seat , where's the justice for those voters ? If we want social justice we have to fairly represent the views of voters so their voice can be heard ?
If you discount Blair and thus by default Brown as being in effect Tory " lite " , that's over 36 years since a majority Labour government ( not sure if Callaghan 76-79 ) was a majority ? I guess most if the 70s was unstable ?? ( was too young to remember !! ) so could be even more years ! Anyway at least 36 years ago , so when was the last socially just government ruling ? We're almost into the realms of nostalgia , back in the days when you've never had it so good ??
I think the vast majority of the electorate want a government who is economically sound and provides stability , perhaps a bit boring really but without those things we feel uncertain and confidence becomes low ,
I just don't think Corbyn is the right way forward , I think it was a shame that Chuka Umanna didn't decide to go forward , far more adept and modern thinking in a modern global world .
I'm off to watch some re runs of Ashes to Ashes and Minder , at least some things in the 70s were good !!
What your post highlights is the problems with our first post the post voting system - it's why I support the idea of a proportional voting system. The one we have in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament is a good compromise. We still have constituency MSPs elected on the first past the post system but these are then topped up with regional list MSPs who are returned on the basis of their party's PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE OVERALL vote. It means that the smaller parties who mightn't command enough support to win any constituency seats nevertheless do end up with some MSPs. In fact it was largely created by Donald Dewar to ensure that Conservative voters in what could otherwise be a Tory free Parliament still had representation. He assumed that it would mean that no one party would ever achieve an outright majority and so they would all have to pursue consensus based policies. It's a sign of how disillussioned the electorate in Scotland is with the major parties that the SNP does now have an outright majority that is likely to be repeated next year if the electorate votes the way it did in the 2015 Westminster election.
David Cameron did achieve an outright majority of MPs in the 2015 Election over his showing in 2010 but he didn't actually increase his share of the overall vote. More than 60% of those who voted, voted for other parties - he has a majority of seats in the House of Commons but only a minority of votes. The Conservatives only polled a 36.9% share of the vote - just 0.8% more than in 2010. What gave him his majority was a combination of the splintering of the opposition vote, the collapse of the Lib Dems (and especially voters in the southwest of England deciding that if a vote for the Lib Dems was going to give them Tory Government then they might as well vote Troy in the first place), UKIP attracting votes from people who had previously supported the other non-Tory parties and perhaps most signifcantly of all the defection of so many previous Labour voters to the SNP in Scotland.
Whatever he says, David Cameron does not command the support of the majority of the electorate and even his small unrepresentative working majority does not constitute the landslide victory that some ahve tried to portray it as. Indeed, when John Major was elected in 1992 with a majority of 21 he was regarded as a bit of a failure because his majority had dropped from the 102 that he had inherited from Margaret Thatcher! I'm sure that David Cameron would give his eye teeth for a majority if 21 seats!
SM
Edited to make explain better how the 'list' MSP seats are allocated (Edit in upper case above)
David Cameron did achieve an outright majority of MPs in the 2015 Election over his showing in 2010 but he didn't actually increase his share of the overall vote. More than 60% of those who voted, voted for other parties - he has a majority of seats in the House of Commons but only a minority of votes. The Conservatives only polled a 36.9% share of the vote - just 0.8% more than in 2010. What gave him his majority was a combination of the splintering of the opposition vote, the collapse of the Lib Dems (and especially voters in the southwest of England deciding that if a vote for the Lib Dems was going to give them Tory Government then they might as well vote Troy in the first place), UKIP attracting votes from people who had previously supported the other non-Tory parties and perhaps most signifcantly of all the defection of so many previous Labour voters to the SNP in Scotland.
Whatever he says, David Cameron does not command the support of the majority of the electorate and even his small unrepresentative working majority does not constitute the landslide victory that some ahve tried to portray it as. Indeed, when John Major was elected in 1992 with a majority of 21 he was regarded as a bit of a failure because his majority had dropped from the 102 that he had inherited from Margaret Thatcher! I'm sure that David Cameron would give his eye teeth for a majority if 21 seats!
SM
Edited to make explain better how the 'list' MSP seats are allocated (Edit in upper case above)
-
Edited by
SMa
2015-08-24 18:34:14
Post a Reply
Please sign in or register an account to reply to this post.
