Is this the last tory government

[Lucas CAV]

Rovinghawk said:

Fittster said:

Attacking people without explaining which of their policies you disagree with comes across to me that your a purely expressing a tribal preference .

Angela Rayner- shadow education minister who didn't actually get an education & probably got in the way of others'.

Successive governments have made a bks of education despite a string of traditionally educated Ministers being in change.

[Derek Smith]

Fittster said:

What policies make Labour unelectable in your opinion?

1. Nationalisation of the railways?

You mean it isn't nationalised now? Then why does it cost so much not to own something?

[SpeckledJim]

Lucas CAV said:

Rovinghawk said:

Fittster said:

Attacking people without explaining which of their policies you disagree with comes across to me that your a purely expressing a tribal preference .

Angela Rayner- shadow education minister who didn't actually get an education & probably got in the way of others'.

Successive governments have made a bks of education despite a string of traditionally educated Ministers being in change.

If that was the case, does that naturally lead to an inclination to leave the setting of education policy up to a person without one?

England haven't won a World Cup for 52 years, yet have always had a qualified football manager in charge. So, clearly, it's time to give me a go?

[don'tbesilly]

SpeckledJim said:

Lucas CAV said:

Rovinghawk said:

Fittster said:

Attacking people without explaining which of their policies you disagree with comes across to me that your a purely expressing a tribal preference .

Angela Rayner- shadow education minister who didn't actually get an education & probably got in the way of others'.

Successive governments have made a bks of education despite a string of traditionally educated Ministers being in change.

If that was the case, does that naturally lead to an inclination to leave the setting of education policy up to a person without one?

England haven't won a World Cup for 52 years, yet have always had a qualified football manager in charge. So, clearly, it's time to give me a go?

You'd want it?

It's possibly more of a poisoned chalice than being PM, although in fairness Southgate never intentionally lost, unlike Theresa May.

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

easytiger123 said:

If you don't have an innate sense of what and what is not fair then there's little hope.

Nobody is born with a sense of 'fair'- don't pretend otherwise. It's a learned value.

It's one of the most discussed matters over the last century in the field. It has intensified over recent years and one side is gaining a certain momentum with evidence mounting for it. I'd give you a clue as to which side is in the lead, but a better idea might be to let you do your own research.

It would appear that no one knows whether a sense of right and wrong is inherited, least of all us keyboard warriors, especially those who pretend they do when trying to make a point..

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 13th July 17:08

[Fittster]

otolith said:

It's interesting how many people appear to have read about MMT and decided that all other economic theories are rendered invalid.

Which economic theories support the current economic policies. Not Keynesian, nor monetarist, nor austrian.

[Derek Smith]

There will always be those who will vote for a certain party regardless of its performance and history. There will always be those who have no allegiances and will vote according to what is the best for them and theirs.

This is not, obviously, the last tory government. That was proposed after the 1997 labour landslide, and probably with more support. However, the evidence is mounting against the party with regards brexit negotiations. If we come out of it with a poor deal, each side in the party will blame the other, with the middle ground blaming both.

It doesn't take a lot of fathoming to work out what the floating voters, the ones who decide elections, will do.

The only question is whether we will be worse off after brexit. The is no other consideration that will as important to the electorate.

If we do get a labour government, there will be only one party to blame. Those who put personal advancement over the good of the country will be the real offenders. Say what you like about the labour front bench being unelectable. The point will be that the tories will be shown to have failed.

[2xChevrons]

jonnyb said:

If you want more money get out and earn it. Taking it from people used to be called theft.

Fortunately there's entire political philosophy out there that was created with the fundamental aim of getting people the money they earn back from those who have taken it from them- it's called socialism.

It's the fundamental difference between 'labour' and 'capital' - and the definition of labour is 'anyone who has to sell his time to an employer in order to earn the means of survival.'

Capital will never pay labour the full value of their time or work, because that's where their profit margin comes from. More importantly labour has no input or choice in what that margin is or how that margin is spent, despite their crucial role in the production of the capitalist's income.

That's the whole point of socialism - to give workers control over their labour and to give them the 'full fruits'. It makes work pay because you not only get the wage but the profit and you get to set both in democratic decisions.

An earlier post presented the choice between 'fairness' as 'everyone gets the same' and 'get what you work for' as if Labour is proposing the former and the Conservatives the latter. In fact no-one is proposing the former (even communism doesn't posit a world with equal incomes for all), Labour are proposing the latter and the Conservatives are proposing to continue with 'stagnant wages, rising costs, longer hours and less security for most, rising incomes for the small minority.' Which can hardly count as fair by anyone's moral standards.

Let's not kid ourselves that income has anything to do with effort. Does a CEO really work 20x or 100x as a cleaner or a factory line worker? And which is the most indispensable to a company? Certainly in my own experience the minimum wage jobs I've had have had the longest hours and involved the most physical and mental effort, while my present very enjoyable position involves doing nothing that could really be considered work for what is my highest income ever.

As someone who would probably end up paying rather more in tax under Corbyn/McDonnell than I do now I still support Labour's vision for the country because I believe it would bring greater opportunity for more people and even if my tax goes up I feel that the benefits I (and others) would otherwise gain from living in a country and a society run (to borrow the slogan) 'for the many, not the few' would be more than worth it.

As for the original point of the thread - people have been predicting the split of the Tory party since 1988 due to the underlying tensions of the old One Nation brigade vs. the Thatcherite neoliberals and the Pro-Europe v. Anti-Europe. That latter issue is the one that has always been the stress fracture point. It bitterly divided the party in the 1990s and Cameron offered the referendum in the hope of sealing over the cracks for a generation with a Yes. Unfortunately all it did was bring all the divisions right to the surface. Can they hold it together? You'd think so because it should be clear to anyone in the party that a split between 'soft' and 'hard' Tory parties, or even a significant defection of Tory votes to UKIP, would only hand an election to Labour which is slowly but surely consolidating its own ideology in a new form and becoming less divided with time.

But if the recent weeks have shown anything it's that the Conservative movers and shakers are (quell surprise!) a bunch of self-serving short-termist power-hungry idiots. It wouldn't surprise me if some of them feel that they'd rather be the big fish in a small pond than to flail around in the disarray they're in for much longer.

As for the feelings of the Conservative voter and base and how willing to vote blue they are right now (or in the future) I'm in no position to comment.

[sidicks]

Fittster said:

If Angela Rayner is unsuitable to talk about education policy, would you also exclude people who were privately educated from being involved in the policy impacting the state sector? If her lack of education means she is to stupid to have input into policy, should uneducated people able to impact economic policy (i.e. voting in a referendum)?

Ending austerity hardly puts you out of line with mainstream economics. If fact many think austerity is economically is economically illiterate (no government borrowing isn't like a household credit card).

harassing conservative politicians is rather the point when in opposition.

Those who are ‘economically illiterate’ would probably be the ones who see increases in public spending year on year, in combination with a large deficit as ‘austerity’...

[Fittster]

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

If Angela Rayner is unsuitable to talk about education policy, would you also exclude people who were privately educated from being involved in the policy impacting the state sector? If her lack of education means she is to stupid to have input into policy, should uneducated people able to impact economic policy (i.e. voting in a referendum)?

Ending austerity hardly puts you out of line with mainstream economics. If fact many think austerity is economically is economically illiterate (no government borrowing isn't like a household credit card).

harassing conservative politicians is rather the point when in opposition.

Those who are ‘economically illiterate’ would probably be the ones who see increases in public spending year on year, in combination with a large deficit as ‘austerity’...

Supporting austerity in the face of the low growth, global downturn is hardly going to win you a Nobel prize.

[sidicks]

Fittster said:

Supporting austerity in the face of the low growth, global downturn is hardly going to win you a Nobel prize.

We are still running a (small) deficit, aren’t we?

[Halb]

2xChevrons said:

Let's not kid ourselves that income has anything to do with effort. Does a CEO really work 20x or 100x as a cleaner or a factory line worker? And which is the most indispensable to a company? Certainly in my own experience the minimum wage jobs I've had have had the longest hours and involved the most physical and mental effort, while my present very enjoyable position involves doing nothing that could really be considered work for what is my highest income ever.

I think sweden has the best answer to that issue.

[Wills2]

greygoose said:

Wills2 said:

plus at least Sterling is still worth something at the moment.

He had a pretty poor World Cup though, just ran quickly with no end product .

Very good.

[Fittster]

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

Supporting austerity in the face of the low growth, global downturn is hardly going to win you a Nobel prize.

We are still running a (small) deficit, aren’t we?

And how much damage to public services, GDP and productivity is being done because of austerity? We'd have more tax revenue to invest if we'd not had some fixation with the deficit. Ignoring growth and productivity for getting on for 10 years isn't helping the UK.

Plenty of Tories are now repenting austerity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41927864

[sidicks]

Fittster said:

And how much damage to public services, GDP and productivity is being done because of austerity? We'd have more tax revenue to invest if we'd not had some fixation with the deficit. Ignoring growth and productivity for getting on for 10 years isn't helping the UK.

Plenty of Tories are now repenting austerity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41927864

We’d have more debt and more interest to pay. We’ve already added more than £500bn to the debt.

Ignoring growth??

You probably think that Labour spending from 1998-2008 was entirely appropriate too?

Edited by sidicks on Friday 13th July 17:47

[Wills2]

Fittster said:

What policies make Labour unelectable in your opinion?

1. Nationalization of the railways?
2. Nationalization of utilities
3. Creation of an investment bank?
4. Something else?

All of that, plus all the other crazy "fully costed" but not "fully funded" free everything for everyone plans they have (Uni fees and the NHS as an example) and just wait until some union gets disappointed when even McDonnell realises there isn't enough money to run his socialist utopia and the strikes begin.....

If you want rampant currency flight, followed by hyper inflation and huge interest rate rises leading to millions of unemployed and currency controls then by all means vote that shower in.

You can all cheer as he makes the call to the IMF like the last time a real labour government was in power.

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

Derek Smith said:

Rovinghawk said:

easytiger123 said:

If you don't have an innate sense of what and what is not fair then there's little hope.

Nobody is born with a sense of 'fair'- don't pretend otherwise. It's a learned value.

It's one of the most discussed matters over the last century in the field. It has intensified over recent years and one side is gaining a certain momentum with evidence mounting for it. I'd give you a clue as to which side is in the lead, but a better idea might be to let you do your own research.

It would appear that no one knows whether a sense of right and wrong is inherited, least of all us keyboard warriors, especially those who pretend they do when trying to make a point..

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 13th July 17:08

Whenever as a kid I wailed 'it's not fair' she used to simply reply 'life isn't darling, get used to it'. It worked for me.

[anonymous-user]

Fittster said:

If her lack of education means she is to stupid...

too stupid!

[Rovinghawk]

Fittster said:

If Angela Rayner is unsuitable to talk about education policy, would you also exclude people who were privately educated from being involved in the policy impacting the state sector? If her lack of education means she is to stupid to have input into policy, should uneducated people able to impact economic policy (i.e. voting in a referendum)?

Ending austerity hardly puts you out of line with mainstream economics. If fact many think austerity is economically is economically illiterate (no government borrowing isn't like a household credit card).

harassing conservative politicians is rather the point when in opposition.

An uneducated person as education minister would be pure satire but Labour want it as real life. Your comment on privately educated people has a whiff of envy/spite to it. Uneducated people get a vote- such is democracy.

"Ending austerity" is another way of saying living beyond one's means- it's not a great idea.

You miss the point regarding harassment- his clearly stated intent was the public abuse, assault & intimidation of conservative politicians. Do you consider this acceptable?

[Fittster]

sidicks said:

Fittster said:

And how much damage to public services, GDP and productivity is being done because of austerity? We'd have more tax revenue to invest if we'd not had some fixation with the deficit. Ignoring growth and productivity for getting on for 10 years isn't helping the UK.

Plenty of Tories are now repenting austerity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41927864

We’d have more debt and more interest to pay.

Ignoring growth??

The conservative government implemented austerity in attempt to reduce the budget deficit (lets leave aside the theory they simply wanted to reduce the size of the state for ideological reasons). The policies were implemented when the global economy was weak. The problem with this is it lower aggregate demand

The government cut public spending and raised taxes which leads to lower aggregate demand and growth. As output fall firms are less keen to spend and invest, consumers get nervous about their jobs and cut back their spending which adds a further drag on the economy.

Recent low inflation fits into this model, falls in aggregate demand lead to lower inflationary pressures in the economy. Add into that pay cuts/ freeze for public sector workers and you get downward pressure on wages. Which in itself feeds into low inflation.

By not investing in infrastructure the government is damaging long term growth.

This is pretty conventional keyness economics. .

https://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/02/keyness-par...

The alternative to austerity is to reduce the budget deficit as a % of GDP by promote economic growth

(And the national debt is not like a credit card!).