The Politics Thread

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

"but we won't know that until the negotiations take place."

 

So corbyn has stopped being the opposition and started being the parrot. Even though he's expressed multiple times his whole UK plan is along the lines of "we'll borrow money and pay for it through immigration" 

 

That quote is exactly what May has been saying all along, she wants control of movement and to be outside eu courts but doesn't yet know what access to the single market would be available, yet she's been getting grilled for not having a complete rock solid idea of what we will get. 

 

Why is it good enough for corbyn but not for may? 

 

I was making a point about the politics of Corbyn's position, which have improved (though I'm no fan).

If you want to make wider points about Brexit, I suggest you make them in the Brexit thread. This is the politics thread.

 

May has NOT been grilled for not knowing what we'll get. She's been grilled (rightly or wrongly) for not revealing enough about her priorities.

 

By all means, go to the Brexit thread and claim that Corbyn's policies are identical to May's. I suspect most people will be a bit bemused, though. It's obvious that Corbyn sets more store by employment protection and single market access, and that the Tories set more store by immigration control. It's just that Corbyn has made his policy on migration a bit more flexible - a rare good move from him, I'd say.

 

As for your "borrow money and pay for it through immigration" comment, you're getting confused. That is garbage spouted by you, not by Corbyn.

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

At least there is some thinking going on, but the relaunch has barely made it past breakfast without him backtracking, but no clarity on anything. First off it's all "proposals" again, nothing concrete and I still don't actually know what his position is, he did two interviews om GMB and Sky and still left me non the wiser whether he supported immigration controls or would prioritise being a member of the single market over it, Corbyn's position seems to be that is Labour isn't wedded to free movement in principle, but he's wedded to it in practice.

Put it this way, he doesn't appear to be in much of a position to tell Theresa May she hasn't got a plan, his is all nothing more than guesswork.

 

He's going to have to quickly explain the policy detail of this potential wage cap as well, otherwise he's going to get torn to bits. All we have found out so far is it will be a more than his own wage, but yet again, no clarity or idea of what is actually will be, he's just making it up as he goes along.

 

 

Much of that is fair comment.

 

Only thing I'd say is that Corbyn has less need of a plan as he's not in power. He's in opposition - and it would be nice if this signaled the start of him doing his job (said in forlorn hope, rather than expectation).

In contrast, May is in government, in power and about to enter into the most important negotiations we've had for decades. It's rather more important that she has a plan.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Much of that is fair comment.

 

Only thing I'd say is that Corbyn has less need of a plan as he's not in power. He's in opposition - and it would be nice if this signaled the start of him doing his job (said in forlorn hope, rather than expectation).

In contrast, May is in government, in power and about to enter into the most important negotiations we've had for decades. It's rather more important that she has a plan.

At least he is trying to co-ordinate some sort of policy, we can commend him for that rather than flying off to Mexico for three weeks, anyway, best we wait until 3pm for Corbyn's speech, hopefully he'll clarify a lot of what he has put forward.

 

Did you know Max Mosley was a Labour member btw? I had no idea of that.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Did you know Max Mosley was a Labour member btw? I had no idea of that.

 

No, I had no idea. If he became an MP, he could take the party whip.... 

[Barky]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Might need more thinking if he's under the delusion the EU would sign off on us allowing Europeans to come here to holiday and spend their money but not be able to work here 

 

 

Again, what would corbyn be investing in exactly? 

 

I think it seems pretty mad to be worried the sky is falling and the economy will crash yet want to slam us with another £500bn worth of debt for the labour gang to waste frivolously (again). 

It goes without saying that i'd expect it to be well spent and not wasted. There is a practically unlimited amount of potential infrastructure improvements we could make. I'd expect smart specialists to draw up a priority list.

[SMX11]

3 minutes ago, Barky said:

It goes without saying that i'd expect it to be well spent and not wasted. There is a practically unlimited amount of potential infrastructure improvements we could make. I'd expect smart specialists to draw up a priority list.

Based on what? Governments normally make terrible decisions when they have a big budget. They will usually choose projects based on the political outcome rather than any serious cost benefit analysis.

[Nick]

Corbyn needs to come up with some actual policies and implementation strategies rather than Trumpesque, substanceless, daft, ideological theory, promises and media stunts.

 

There is a huge political 'space' for a liberal left outfit to storm post Brexit result and it's not being capitalised upon by either the further right who are also in disarray or even any slightly left of centre group......

 

It feels washy, slow and inept from Corbyn - I would think the average labour voter is entirely disillusioned with the identity of their party. I'm surprised the Liberal Democrats haven't been more inspiring, vocal and forward thinking too.

[Countryfox]

11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Corbyn needs to come up with some actual policies and implementation strategies rather than Trumpesque, substanceless, daft, ideological theory, promises and media stunts.

 

There is a huge political 'space' for a liberal left outfit to storm post Brexit result and it's not being capitalised upon by either the further right who are also in disarray or even any slightly left of centre group......

 

It feels washy, slow and inept from Corbyn - I would think the average labour voter is entirely disillusioned with the identity of their party. I'm surprised the Liberal Democrats haven't been more inspiring, vocal and forward thinking too.

 

For me this guy is going down faster than a fireman on a greasy pole ...   He's now 'changing his stance' on some issues to appeal to a wider audience.  Tricking the electorate is about as low as you can get. 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

No, I had no idea. If he became an MP, he could take the party whip.... 

The scene was quite brilliant in the interview.

 

http://news.sky.com/video/max-mosley-im-not-a-fascist-im-in-the-labour-party-10724032

 

"Are you still a fascist Mr Mosley?" "No I'm a member of the Labour party" - I wonder who it was who inspired him to join?

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

There is a huge political 'space' for a liberal left outfit to storm post Brexit result and it's not being capitalised upon by either the further right who are also in disarray or even any slightly left of centre group......

The answer is in what you said, the Labour party are certainly to the "left" - but there is nothing "liberal" about Corbyn and his mob, just check out how they treat those who oppose their views. (dictionary definition is " willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" )

 

Too many people these days think Liberalism and being on the left go hand in hand, they really don't, you are just as likely to be a liberal in than Tory party as Labour in 2017.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

It goes without saying that i'd expect it to be well spent and not wasted. There is a practically unlimited amount of potential infrastructure improvements we could make. I'd expect smart specialists to draw up a priority list.

So do you think half a trillion quid worth of improvements to "infrastructure" would pay itself off over time? 

 

How long do you think it would take to see a decent return on investment? 

 

And do you agree with corbyn's bring back the trainwreck (pun intended) British rail policy? 

[Webbo]

We all know what they'll spend most of the money on, a big expansion of the public sector, increases in wages and higher benefits. There'll be precious little to show for it once the money's spent.

[Finnaldo]

55 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Tricking the electorate is about as low as you can get. 

 

Welcome to Politics 2017!

[Barky]

58 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So do you think half a trillion quid worth of improvements to "infrastructure" would pay itself off over time? 

 

How long do you think it would take to see a decent return on investment? 

 

And do you agree with corbyn's bring back the trainwreck (pun intended) British rail policy? 

Yes I have absolutely no doubt that it would. Investing in infrastructure when you're behind is an economic no-brainer. Remember that when the public sector spends money it doesn't disappear, it goes into the economy and is recycled around. The money for infrastructure projects goes everywhere.

 

Decent return? Depends. Our productivity is a long way behind our competitors so it's not like we're pushing the limits, we're just playing catch up. A £500bn investment could be full of easy wins guaranteed to make a big difference.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, SMX11 said:

Based on what? Governments normally make terrible decisions when they have a big budget. They will usually choose projects based on the political outcome rather than any serious cost benefit analysis.

Examples?

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

Examples?

HS2. 

[Barky]

Just now, Innovindil said:

HS2. 

That's the obvious one. We'll see if it actually gets built. Although in fairness people said hs1 was a similar waste of money but it's part of the furniture now.

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Barky said:

That's the obvious one. We'll see if it actually gets built. Although in fairness people said hs1 was a similar waste of money but it's part of the furniture now.

Well if it doesn't get built now we've wasted a lot of money on planning and posturing so either way it was/is a waste of money. 

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

So do you think half a trillion quid worth of improvements to "infrastructure" would pay itself off over time? 

 

How long do you think it would take to see a decent return on investment? 

 

And do you agree with corbyn's bring back the trainwreck (pun intended) British rail policy? 

Well rail prices in this country are shocking.

 

There has to be accessibility or it's not 'public transport'

 

There has to be middle ground between accessibility and public transport versus privatised profit monster companies.....

 

I'm all ears to ideas and it perhaps should be a thread in its own right but I'm sure we can do better than what we have....

 

Car parking too - that requires some regulation! 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

At least there is some thinking going on, but the relaunch has barely made it past breakfast without him backtracking, but no clarity on anything. First off it's all "proposals" again, nothing concrete and I still don't actually know what his position is, he did two interviews om GMB and Sky and still left me non the wiser whether he supported immigration controls or would prioritise being a member of the single market over it, Corbyn's position seems to be that is Labour isn't wedded to free movement in principle, but he's wedded to it in practice.

 

Sadly, it sounds as if you're right. Corbyn doesn't seem to be supporting the advertised position - freedom of entry for new arrivals from the EU, but no guaranteed right to work here pending the outcome of Brexit negotiations. He just seems to be saying that improving employment conditions (a good idea) might lead to lower immigration. Presumably the idea is that if employers had to advertise jobs to locals and pay and conditions were better, then more Brits would take the crappier jobs.

 

My guess is that other Labour front benchers like Watson and Starmer twisted his arm to moderate his position on paper, but he wasn't prepared to support that position in personal interviews. What a pig-headed, virtue-signalling narcissist! 

 

Even if he personally sees no objective harm in uncontrolled immigration, there is nothing immoral in moderating his position to bring it closer to the views of those whose votes he needs to ever exert any power in British politics. As usual, I can only assume that, in practice, he views his personal purity as more important than British politics. the state of society or the lives of the people of this country. On a personal level, the scale of immigration doesn't bother me - because it doesn't directly affect me much - but it does affect some people, and many others worry about it affecting them (often without justification, but that changes nothing). Just as Cameron, Boris and the other twats could go down as the people who ruined this country, Corbyn could well go down in history as the man who destroyed the Labour Party....at a time when it could be making a comeback. Labour had its problems pre-Corbyn, but a good Labour leader could have made a lot of the current state of public dissatisfaction with Westminster, divisions in the Tory party, collapse in UKIP/Lib Dems, uncertainty over Brexit etc. I feel angrier at Corbyn than I do at any of the Tories or even Farage. I expect Tories to be undermining the sort of British society I'd like to see, that's their job. I expect Labour leaders to do some stuff that I see as beneficial, even if it's a mixed bag. I'm no fan of Blair, but even he did some good stuff among the crap. I'd rather have him back than have Corbyn!  

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Well rail prices in this country are shocking.

 

There has to be accessibility or it's not 'public transport'

 

There has to be middle ground between accessibility and public transport versus privatised profit monster companies.....

 

I'm all ears to ideas and it perhaps should be a thread in its own right but I'm sure we can do better than what we have....

 

Car parking too - that requires some regulation! 

Well I'm inclined to agree. Until I see them say 97p from every quid they take in goes back into the network. I mean, it could be complete bollocks, but they did take over a shocking mess to sort out. 

 

I can't say I personally use the rail service so I can't really judge the state of it, but from the people I know who do they seem to blame the current strikes (which they say are over nothing) to the majority of the problems. 

 

Edit: and the same with car parks. I don't really use them, when I go most places out of town I always use private car parks which are pretty good and when I travel to the city centre I take the bus, whose service I personally think is exceptional. 

[Countryfox]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

. I'm no fan of Blair, but even he did some good stuff among the crap. I'd rather have him back than have Corbyn!  

 

Dont be silly Alf ....    As bad as he is he's still preferable to a narcissistic, self serving, lying, devious, satanic war criminal.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Dont be silly Alf ....    As bad as he is he's still preferable to a narcissistic, self serving, lying, devious, satanic war criminal.

 

Blair had the positives of (a) being capable of winning elections so as to exert some power; (b) doing a few good things: national minimum wage, investment in public services (even if PFI wasted a lot of cash), peace in Ireland, devolution, a half-decent economy, good relations with Europe etc.

 

Admittedly, he had the negatives you mention!

 

In contrast, Corbyn seems incapable of ever winning power so as to exert any positive influence. He is also a desperately poor opposition leader at the most critical political juncture of my lifetime, so nobody is holding a weak, divided, incompetent government to account. The consequences of all that could be truly massive for the survival of the Labour Party, for the existence of any sort of credible centre-left party of government, for the state of our democracy, our society, our international relations....

 

Despite your fair and reasonable criticisms of Blair, I'm not being silly in the slightest!

[Jon the Hat]

41 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Well rail prices in this country are shocking.

 

There has to be accessibility or it's not 'public transport'

 

There has to be middle ground between accessibility and public transport versus privatised profit monster companies.....

 

I'm all ears to ideas and it perhaps should be a thread in its own right but I'm sure we can do better than what we have....

 

Car parking too - that requires some regulation! 

Why are rail prices in this country shocking?  Why should those of us who pay for a car to drive to work subsidise the commute by train of those who dont have to have a car to get to work?  They should be higher.

 

"Oh my god it costs me £3000 a year to get to work in London!"

 

Takes out phone, opens calculator: cost of running a half decent car for a year, call it 30p a mile, average mileage 10k, OH MY god it costs me £3000 a year to get to work!

 

Before someone tells me the operating companies make a fortune, they earn approximately 3.5% margin on average, as they pay back to the government excess profit.

[Countryfox]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Blair had the positives of (a) being capable of winning elections so as to exert some power; (b) doing a few good things: national minimum wage, investment in public services (even if PFI wasted a lot of cash), peace in Ireland, devolution, a half-decent economy, good relations with Europe etc.

 

Admittedly, he had the negatives you mention!

 

In contrast, Corbyn seems incapable of ever winning power so as to exert any positive influence. He is also a desperately poor opposition leader at the most critical political juncture of my lifetime, so nobody is holding a weak, divided, incompetent government to account. The consequences of all that could be truly massive for the survival of the Labour Party, for the existence of any sort of credible centre-left party of government, for the state of our democracy, our society, our international relations....

 

Despite your fair and reasonable criticisms of Blair, I'm not being silly in the slightest!

 

Fair enough Alf the silly bit is retracted ...    But I can now leave this thread with a smile on my face cus you agreed that Blair is a satanic war criminal ...       

 

Death to the anti Christ !