Next Leader of the Opposition

[Molly]

Matt, are you saying that you think we have 3 distinct parties at the moment.

 

I don't see that. Seems like 3 centrist parties and some pressure group extremists.

 

We should be seeing a more socialist left, no-one is talking about a communist left.

[Guest MattP]

The  'Torygraph' want an easy ride as possible to allow Tory rule forever. They back the Tories 100%and their readership who some make huge donations to the party. Corbyn is speaking out for the poor and vulnerable now which will put those with self interest and believe all the 'shirkers' stories off. IMaybe it would be better to have someone like Burnham or Cooper who are playing it safe but will fight the causes when leader. Corbyn will never get the majority of Labour MP's to toe the line in debates and votes as they do not want to lose their seats. As the letter says his lack of experience in leading is a factor too.

I like him as a person. He speaks his mind, gas good values and sticks up for the poorest and most vulnerable. The ones the majority of us do not know about or read about in the Torygraph.

 

Good values? The man invited the IRA into the House of Commons a week after they have tried to blow up the democratically elected government of the country, he was prepared to allow genocide in the east just so he could show how "anti war" he was (who isn't?), he still to this day doesn't believe we should be supporting the Kurds against Islamic State, the bloke should have a good look in the mirror.

 

Just three years ago he was taking part in a state TV show for a country that still executes people for homosexuality.

 

Matt, are you saying that you think we have 3 distinct parties at the moment.

 

I don't see that. Seems like 3 centrist parties and some pressure group extremists.

 

We should be seeing a more socialist left, no-one is talking about a communist left.

 

I think we actually have 5 pretty distinct parties to vote for in England and 6 in Scotland. The Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and UKIP.

 

The old "they are all the same" line is often used by people who barely take an interest in politics or can't be bothered to read manifestos, there are huge differences between the parties.

[Buce]

Thanks for posting that, Matt, it's a really good read.

[Guest Bilo]

Andy the Abstainer is the laziest smear in politics.

[Webbo]

Morning, Sorry I thought I remembered you saying that we should force everyone to work and I took that as meaning their salary replaced benefits.

 

I really don't see the relevance in that to what I posted but obviously I meant the won't work not the genuinely can't work.

[Guest MattP]

Andy the Abstainer is the laziest smear in politics.

 

Don't think I've seen so many ridiculous smears thrown around in a leadership campaign in history.

 

If Dennis Skinner decided to stand Corbyn would probably all of a sudden become a Tory.

[inckley fox]

Because, contrary to leftwing myth,the children of the poor do not always stay poor. Those with the drive and determination to change their circumstances will advance in life, those who prefer to sit back and blame their parents, the govt, society in general will never rise above their background.That's all down to their personality type and no govt can do anything to change that.

 

I think drive and determination are also attributes which parents nurture. I'm not a nativist to the point of believing that you're either born with drive and determination or you're not.

 

Plenty of poor families manage to have children with that sort of drive and determination - that's clearly true - either because they're good parents or because the kid rallies against their circumstances. And yet  with all the drive and determination in the world it still won't pay for your university education, or for people to step in and bail you out when you - as we all do - screw up.

 

I suppose for us to have this discussion we need to start with the parents, rather than the personality of the kid, and consider what a good parent has to do to guide their kids. Yes, reward and punishment is important, but the nature of the reward for a kid from a privileged family - books, Kindles, museum trips, going to university open days from a young age, holidays in places of cultural interest, piano classes, guitar classes, drama clubs, summer camps, football training, the latest technology - the list goes on, and a lot of the small benefits which open doors in life are pretty expensive.

 

Don't get me wrong - I know you're likely to say 'do they have the money for a pack of fags / a beer etc.?' or 'why not go on holiday to Florence instead of Benidorm?' and so on. And I'd agree with you. But none of this is the fault of the kid. And while it doesn't make their progress impossible, it's a fair old handicap if they don't have these sorts of advantages. As is growing up thinking that if you want to make money, the number one trick is finding good places to stash your nine bars!

 

So I'm sympathetic to the traditional Labour and Tory views here, but I don't think the Tory 'sink or swim' approach works unless we at least have a stab at teaching people to swim first!

[Webbo]

I think drive and determination are also attributes which parents nurture. I'm not a nativist to the point of believing that you're either born with drive and determination or you're not.

 

Plenty of poor families manage to have children with that sort of drive and determination - that's clearly true - either because they're good parents or because the kid rallies against their circumstances. And yet  with all the drive and determination in the world it still won't pay for your university education, or for people to step in and bail you out when you - as we all do - screw up.

 

I suppose for us to have this discussion we need to start with the parents, rather than the personality of the kid, and consider what a good parent has to do to guide their kids. Yes, reward and punishment is important, but the nature of the reward for a kid from a privileged family - books, Kindles, museum trips, going to university open days from a young age, holidays in places of cultural interest, piano classes, guitar classes, drama clubs, summer camps, football training, the latest technology - the list goes on, and a lot of the small benefits which open doors in life are pretty expensive.

 

Don't get me wrong - I know you're likely to say 'do they have the money for a pack of fags / a beer etc.?' or 'why not go on holiday to Florence instead of Benidorm?' and so on. And I'd agree with you. But none of this is the fault of the kid. And while it doesn't make their progress impossible, it's a fair old handicap if they don't have these sorts of advantages. As is growing up thinking that if you want to make money, the number one trick is finding good places to stash your nine bars!

 

So I'm sympathetic to the traditional Labour and Tory views here, but I don't think the Tory 'sink or swim' approach works unless we at least have a stab at teaching people to swim first!

But the parents are as much victims of their upbringing as their kids, and their parents likewise . If we accept that obvious truth we might as well give up now. 

 

We do educate children in this country, according to the teachers on here, astoundingly well. The very poorest have their university tuition fees paid for them. Those that don't have their fees paid only have to pay them back once they're earning a decent wage. What else do you want the govt, any govt, to do?

 

Education and intelligence are a bit overrated anyway. I'd consider myself to be quite intelligent but I've always been a bit of a slacker. I could earn a better standard of living but I don't have the drive to make it happen. I've worked for some successful people from quite ordinary backgrounds and have been astounded how dumb they sound when they're talking to you. 

[Molly]

But the parents are as much victims of their upbringing as their kids, and their parents likewise . If we accept that obvious truth we might as well give up now. 

 

We do educate children in this country, according to the teachers on here, astoundingly well. The very poorest have their university tuition fees paid for them. Those that don't have their fees paid only have to pay them back once they're earning a decent wage. What else do you want the govt, any govt, to do?

 

Education and intelligence are a bit overrated anyway. I'd consider myself to be quite intelligent but I've always been a bit of a slacker. I could earn a better standard of living but I don't have the drive to make it happen. I've worked for some successful people from quite ordinary backgrounds and have been astounded how dumb they sound when they're talking to you. 

 

And there you have it. The vicious circle I keep telling you about.

 

I can't agree with you that Education and intelligence is overrated nor by your insistence that just putting the effort in is more important, but we're just going over old ground there.

 

British education is good but it doesn't help everyone, it can't, there are too many children to cater for and we certainly would not accept a chinese type system where the days are incredibly long and punishing (and also remove many areas of growing up that the west insist on). The British system aims for the median and normally that's what the result is. 

 

Considering youth unemployment levels education needs to be revamped to be a real life long experience encompassing traditional education along with alternative training - apprenticeships, life skills, parenting, anger management, painter whipping etc...

[Webbo]

And there you have it. The vicious circle I keep telling you about.

 

 

 

If you genuinely believe that why are you against efforts to try and get parents into work?

[Molly]

If you genuinely believe that why are you against efforts to try and get parents into work?

 

where have I ever said that?

 

That would be ludicrous.

 

I've said you can't force all the unemployed to work.

 

I've said that simply reducing benefits won't get all the unemployed into work and that, dependant on how much you want to reduce, it could have very negative effects on society.

 

But I've never said I'm against efforts to get parents into work.

 

In my post this morning I spoke about lifelong education - which should help parents get into work - more importantly I spoke about teaching parenting skills to parents which would help to break the vicious circle you mentioned today.

 

I'm all for helping people to get into work, I think it's one of the most important tasks a government can undertake, I just don't agree with the only way of doing this that you mentioned - cutting benefits - I don't think that would work.

 

Benefits are a consequence of the problem they are not generally a cause.

[Webbo]

Then tell us what you would do?

[Molly]

Then tell us what you would do?

 

When I have time. but alf and others are so much more eloquent and precise than I am.

 

My point is that I don't see the problem that you do. (and that you haven't given any ways to alleviate the problem that you see to be so central)

 

A few benefit cheats and lazy slackers are an annoying but small expense to the nation and getting them working won't change anything much . Why not pay them to clean up the shitty areas in the cities and rebuild community centres for a start? Renationalize the thousands of empty houses and make renting them affordable. 

 

The government bending over backwards for the "business" community and the wealthy whilst denigrating the needy, allowing companies to make obscene profits for their "shareholders" whilst paying their taxes to foreign governments, sucking up to certain powerful industries whilst clean and green ideas/companies are not invested in. Vilifying immigrants whilst using them to keep the country competitive. Decentralize the job market and   stop feeding the London giant at the expense of EVERY other area in the UK. Teach people life skills. Stop the ever expanding use of credit - make the individual financially responsible and maybe the country will become the same. Stop secretly promoting dangerous drugs like tobacco and acohol and actively work to reduce the country's dependance on them thereby reducing the need for health expense, then go further and better regulate the food industry reversing the terrifying trend to obesity that the country has taken, improving the populations health and thereby it's productivity and again it's NHS expense. Educate and train the population regularly and throughout life. Even those in work need to have continual retraining.

 

Most of all the government needs to take control of the population's education and health and stop leaving these to the private sector who couldn't care less for anything other than the bottom financial profit. Private companies fail often, countries can't - look at Greece as an example of where we're heading by not taking control of our own lives. They  allowed the rich to plunder and now they are on the brink of entering the third world.

 

That's enough for now. I'm sure you'll just pull it to pieces and fair enough but at least I was willing to put some alternatives down and not just "Force the unemployed to work"

[Webbo]

 

 

My point is that I don't see the problem that you do. (and that you haven't given any ways to alleviate the problem that you see to be so central)

 

 

So you're quite happy for kids to suffer because of feckless parents?

[Guest Bilo]

Barely any Labour MP's are supporting Corbyn, he needed to beg at 11.55am on the morning nominations closed to get the 35 MP's he needed to enter, a handful of them said they only did it so they could have all sides represented, since then one has publicy said they are an idiot for allowing this to happen and numerous others have said they can't imagine him as leader.

 

I think supporting Corbyn will be allowing the Tories to run amok, they will be able to be as extreme as they want with their policies knowing victory in 2020 is all but certain, also means George Osborne would be guaranteed the top job IMO, no need for Boris , you don't pick a clown to fight another clown, you pick stability.

 

If we elect Corbyn as party leader, you could pin a blue rosette to a chimp and still get a comfortable majority.

[Guest Bilo]

Maybe the present Labour MPs have proven that they are too right wing and they need to join the Lib Dems. 

 

If that makes the Lib Dems the party to challenge at the next election then so be it.

 

A new centre -left/Left labour party who believe in Labour ethics would be good for the UK and western politics.

 

Burnham is the best placed to provide that, his manifesto is centre-left with some firmly left wing policies (such as nationalisation of the railways) included within. Corbyn wouldn't achieve that, and would turn us into an irrelevant party of protest in the form of a bloated, less mental Respect Party. 

I don't believe Labour MPs on the whole are too right-wing, the notion of Labour being a left-wing socialist bloc has long been replaced by the notion of it being a broad church of democratic socialists and social progressives all fighting for equality, social justice and a fairer society. The last time it was truly the latter was in the 1983 election, and that was so catastrophic that it led to the creation of the SDP and a total change in direction.

Old style socialism didn't work in 1983, and it doesn't now. 

[Molly]

So you're quite happy for kids to suffer because of feckless parents?

 

I don't think you are stupid enough to say that.

If we elect Corbyn as party leader, you could pin a blue rosette to a chimp and still get a comfortable majority.

 

Boris is already in.

[Molly]

Burnham is the best placed to provide that, his manifesto is centre-left with some firmly left wing policies (such as nationalisation of the railways) included within. Corbyn wouldn't achieve that, and would turn us into an irrelevant party of protest in the form of a bloated, less mental Respect Party. 

I don't believe Labour MPs on the whole are too right-wing, the notion of Labour being a left-wing socialist bloc has long been replaced by the notion of it being a broad church of democratic socialists and social progressives all fighting for equality, social justice and a fairer society. The last time it was truly the latter was in the 1983 election, and that was so catastrophic that it led to the creation of the SDP and a total change in direction.

Old style socialism didn't work in 1983, and it doesn't now. 

 

So re-name yourselves as the SDP . Perhaps you can get a few more votes that way. From what you're saying you are not the Labour party anymore. That's cool but don't lie to the populace. Center politics is the way to get voted in, fine but don't call yourself Labour when you're not.

[Guest Bilo]

So re-name yourselves as the SDP . Perhaps you can get a few more votes that way. From what you're saying you are not the Labour party anymore. That's cool but don't lie to the populace. Center politics is the way to get voted in, fine but don't call yourself Labour when you're not.

 

Parties evolve.

The Conservative Party of 2015, at least in terms of social policies, is very different to that of 1979. The idea that Thatcher's government could have legalised gay marriage, for example, is fanciful yet nobody questions whether they're true Tories.

It's quite clear to see that there is a significant difference between ourselves and the Tories - look at Burnham's manifesto versus the Tory one with which they won this year's election, they're chalk and cheese. Yet if you were to compare Burnham's manifesto of 2015 with Callaghan's of 1979, and Cameron's manifesto of 2015 with Thatcher's of 1979, you'll see an equally dramatic gap in both cases.

Every party changes, evolves and adapts to the times. Corbyn's policies, to me, are not really in tune with what the electorate of 2015 want. There's elements of it that people will engage with, but it's appealing to too narrow a demographic to be a viable GE winning plan.

[Webbo]

I don't think you are stupid enough to say that.

 

 

Hang on, you accused me of wanting to put the poor in concentration camps.

 

Now, enough of your posturing, stop telling us how offended you are by child poverty and then saying it's not a problem. Tell us your solution?

[Molly]

Hang on, you accused me of wanting to put the poor in concentration camps.

 

Now, enough of your posturing, stop telling us how offended you are by child poverty and then saying it's not a problem. Tell us your solution?

 

Act like the adult you are Webbo, not rubbish like that first line.

 

I've written above what I think, you are the one who hasn't answered the question. I honestly thought I was getting into a conversation with someone who had thought through his tory political theories and it would help me to understand  political views better but it seems you haven't you have just basically quoted 1 idea from the daily Mail.

 

Disappointing. 

 

I suggest we just let it go as there is no need for it to lead to unpleasantness.

 

I'll ask MattP, it's just that his answers are usually very long.

[Webbo]

Unbelievable.

[Strokes]

Unbelievable.

[MPH]

When I have time. but alf and others are so much more eloquent and precise than I am.

 

My point is that I don't see the problem that you do. (and that you haven't given any ways to alleviate the problem that you see to be so central)

 

A few benefit cheats and lazy slackers are an annoying but small expense to the nation and getting them working won't change anything much . Why not pay them to clean up the shitty areas in the cities and rebuild community centres for a start? Renationalize the thousands of empty houses and make renting them affordable. 

 

The government bending over backwards for the "business" community and the wealthy whilst denigrating the needy, allowing companies to make obscene profits for their "shareholders" whilst paying their taxes to foreign governments, sucking up to certain powerful industries whilst clean and green ideas/companies are not invested in. Vilifying immigrants whilst using them to keep the country competitive. Decentralize the job market and   stop feeding the London giant at the expense of EVERY other area in the UK. Teach people life skills. Stop the ever expanding use of credit - make the individual financially responsible and maybe the country will become the same. Stop secretly promoting dangerous drugs like tobacco and acohol and actively work to reduce the country's dependance on them thereby reducing the need for health expense, then go further and better regulate the food industry reversing the terrifying trend to obesity that the country has taken, improving the populations health and thereby it's productivity and again it's NHS expense. Educate and train the population regularly and throughout life. Even those in work need to have continual retraining.

 

Most of all the government needs to take control of the population's education and health and stop leaving these to the private sector who couldn't care less for anything other than the bottom financial profit. Private companies fail often, countries can't - look at Greece as an example of where we're heading by not taking control of our own lives. They  allowed the rich to plunder and now they are on the brink of entering the third world.

 

That's enough for now. I'm sure you'll just pull it to pieces and fair enough but at least I was willing to put some alternatives down and not just "Force the unemployed to work"

 

 

 

it isnt of course just  the fianancial aspect that is the problem here, it's the mindset that this is an ok and acceptable way of life, or an ok thing to do... its also the influence this could then potentially have on friends/family/ children. Soon a trend can be made and followed....

[inckley fox]

But the parents are as much victims of their upbringing as their kids, and their parents likewise . If we accept that obvious truth we might as well give up now. 

 

We do educate children in this country, according to the teachers on here, astoundingly well. The very poorest have their university tuition fees paid for them. Those that don't have their fees paid only have to pay them back once they're earning a decent wage. What else do you want the govt, any govt, to do?

 

Education and intelligence are a bit overrated anyway. I'd consider myself to be quite intelligent but I've always been a bit of a slacker. I could earn a better standard of living but I don't have the drive to make it happen. I've worked for some successful people from quite ordinary backgrounds and have been astounded how dumb they sound when they're talking to you. 

 

You mention teaching - well I'm a teacher and I've done pretty well at it, I think. I value my profession highly but firmly disagree that we educate our kids 'astoundingly well'. Some of that is down to the government and their tendency to change the system rather than perfect it. Some of it is down to the teachers and the fact that a large number of them aren't very good at their jobs and don't value their profession, or appreciate their responsibilities, as much as they should.

 

I can, I'm ashamed to say, usually tell which young teachers are going to go far, and they're customarily as ambitious as they are unconcerned about the welfare of their students.

 

But this is because we reward the wrong things in society. Longevity in teaching is rewarded more than results. It's the case in many other areas of public service too. You'd be stunned by the applications I've received from people who have held all sorts of lofty positions simply because they were willing to do them, but have an appalling record when it comes to academic success. They sacrifice the job they're supposed to be doing for another one which they think will make them rich. And they're often wise to.

 

For me this is why society has to do everything it can to help a person be useful, and then reward them based on their worth. It's why inheritance tax is as important, more important maybe, than dealing with those who depend on the benefits system. It sounds very utilitarian, I know, but none of this means you need to leave those you can't find a purpose for to rot.

 

As for being able to afford education, I'd argue that tuition fees only account for a small percentage of university costs (there's books, accommodation etc.) and there's little doubt that university isn't a viable option for everyone for exactly this reason. There's also the issue of a large number of parents who depend on their kids to earn money for them, even care for them. And, while we're on the topic of the poor having fewer opportunities than the well off, red brick unis still stubbornly insist on offering places to the privately educated ahead of those with equivalent, and occasionally superior, grades from comprehensive education. In spite of god knows how many governments insisting that this shouldn't happen any more.

 

Apologies for the long post. I know you love my essays...