[Kizzy]

But they had a leadership election, it was a democratic process... and the best man won.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

But they had a leadership election, it was a democratic process... and the best man won.

Fair process...but they are screwed if he is the best to offer.

[Denver]

Andy Burnham isn't leader though

[Kizzy]

He didn't win the vote that's why, if more members want someone else that's how it is I'm afraid :/

[Denver]

He should have stepped down when he failed not continued

[Kizzy]

Why, what's wrong with him?...

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why, what's wrong with him?...

The voters don't appear to trust him, or his policies.
All give give give and no real accountability of where the funding is coming from.
Just more of the Labour borrowing that we can't afford.
We hear all the promises that the tax rises etc will pay for it all but it is not convincing many, otherwise he would be doing better than he is in the popularity stakes

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The voters don't appear to trust him, or his policies.
All give give give and no real accountability of where the funding is coming from.
Just more of the Labour borrowing that we can't afford.
We hear all the promises that the tax rises etc will pay for it all but it is not convincing many, otherwise he would be doing better than he is in the popularity stakes

Sorry but I'm going to quote your post from your last paragraph and then work backwards!!

The reason his monetary policies can't convince the masses is because the masses, generally have little idea about how fiscal borrowing/spending works. Now before a certain person jumps in and accuses me of downgrading a populations intelligence, its nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with an interest in political economics... or not. Even my parents (god love em) who are high flying professionals liken fiscal spending/saving/borrowing to how they run their own household. Most people simply don't care about GDP levels so long as their own standard of living is okay.

We can afford to borrow. We can afford to stop austerity and we can afford to spend. If we want our economy to grow and prosper, we have to do all of those things.

I know the British government are always telling us how well they are doing and how popular media echo those sentiments but at this moment in time we are in financial crisis and that crisis is set to deepen because we are running on empty. The Tories are putting their money under the austerity mattress even though they know its a failed experiment and if something radical doesn't happen soon, we are all going to hit depressing times.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Sorry but I'm going to quote your post from your last paragraph and then work backwards!!

The reason his monetary policies can't convince the masses is because the masses, generally have little idea about how fiscal borrowing/spending works. Now before a certain person jumps in and accuses me of downgrading a populations intelligence, its nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with an interest in political economics... or not. Even my parents (god love em) who are high flying professionals liken fiscal spending/saving/borrowing to how they run their own household. Most people simply don't care about GDP levels so long as their own standard of living is okay.

We can afford to borrow. We can afford to stop austerity and we can afford to spend. If we want our economy to grow and prosper, we have to do all of those things.

I know the British government are always telling us how well they are doing and how popular media echo those sentiments but at this moment in time we are in financial crisis and that crisis is set to deepen because we are running on empty. The Tories are putting their money under the austerity mattress even though they know its a failed experiment and if something radical doesn't happen soon, we are all going to hit depressing times.

Excellent post DR.
Really well said.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Sorry but I'm going to quote your post from your last paragraph and then work backwards!!

The reason his monetary policies can't convince the masses is because the masses, generally have little idea about how fiscal borrowing/spending works. Now before a certain person jumps in and accuses me of downgrading a populations intelligence, its nothing to do with intelligence and all to do with an interest in political economics... or not. Even my parents (god love em) who are high flying professionals liken fiscal spending/saving/borrowing to how they run their own household. Most people simply don't care about GDP levels so long as their own standard of living is okay.

We can afford to borrow. We can afford to stop austerity and we can afford to spend. If we want our economy to grow and prosper, we have to do all of those things.

I know the British government are always telling us how well they are doing and how popular media echo those sentiments but at this moment in time we are in financial crisis and that crisis is set to deepen because we are running on empty. The Tories are putting their money under the austerity mattress even though they know its a failed experiment and if something radical doesn't happen soon, we are all going to hit depressing times.

Perhaps there could be truth in what you say, I don't know, but it just doesn't alter the fact that he isn't trusted enough to vote for.
Not just the fiscal aspects but on other issues as well.
Brexit and his stance on defending the country haven't gone down well at all.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Perhaps there could be truth in what you say, I don't know, but it just doesn't alter the fact that he isn't trusted enough to vote for.
Not just the fiscal aspects but on other issues as well.
Brexit and his stance on defending the country haven't gone down well at all.

I don't understand his stance on Brexit, he was a remainer but wanted out really, what is he now?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The voters don't appear to trust him, or his policies.
All give give give and no real accountability of where the funding is coming from.
Just more of the Labour borrowing that we can't afford.
We hear all the promises that the tax rises etc will pay for it all but it is not convincing many, otherwise he would be doing better than he is in the popularity stakes

I think the costings will add up once the manifesto is out.
This lot have borrowed loads too,to be fair.

I also think Corbyn has policies that would attract many voters.
However therein brings the problem
For whatever reasons,rightly or wrongly the voters he needs are sadly not listening.
Neil Kinnock apparently took Labour and Shook it up strongly but could not also reach voters either.

Corbyn would have done better leaving a legacy of policies and letting a new leader convey the message.
A leader should not be a barrier to a whole Party winning power in my view,I have to concede however that Jeremy Corbyn has not connected.

Labour as a govt though is still my choice as to voting.
I just hope enough join me to stop this woman getting a bigger majority and even hopefully remove the one she already had.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The voters don't appear to trust him, or his policies.
All give give give and no real accountability of where the funding is coming from.
Just more of the Labour borrowing that we can't afford.
We hear all the promises that the tax rises etc will pay for it all but it is not convincing many, otherwise he would be doing better than he is in the popularity stakes

The under 40s prefer him to may though, he is appealing to many.
The manifesto will spell it out, if we had had clear accounting or anything at all from team may I would say you have a point, but at the moment I just don't see anything other than the usual media driven slurs.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Deleted some posts in here, stay on topic, stop discussing eachother etc etc

[Kizzy]

Youtube video

[Livia]

That's what we need, 20+ year old satire.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's what we need, 20+ year old satire.

Yeah, well Mr. Corbyn and cronies are going very retro going by their manifesto.
Talk about turning the clock back,

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Yeah, well Mr. Corbyn and cronies are going very retro going by their manifesto.
Talk about turning the clock back,

Ahem...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ever-year.html

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ahem...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ever-year.html

That was one year in a time not so under pressure by unacceptable and unsustainable levels of immigration.

Perhaps you should read up about the three-day week and the winter of discontent in the 70s.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Youtube video

where do you find these gems?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

where do you find these gems?

Youtube.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Youtube.

I don't need you to talk for me thanks

It's still as pertinent today as it was then wouldn't you say though?

[Kizzy]

We need to turn back the clock... what has the clock going forward done for us? Nothing we are worse off now than we were then much worse :/

Schools, NHS, housing, mental health provision, social care public services they are at an all time low.


Get that clock back now!!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We need to turn back the clock... what has the clock going forward done for us? Nothing we are worse off now than we were then much worse :/

Schools, NHS, housing, mental health provision, social care public services they are at an all time low.


Get that clock back now!!

Absolutely right.

The Cons answer is,only more of the same failed policies.
If anyone is turning clocks back after recent announcements it's Mrs May.

[Kizzy]

''It’s certainly transformative what the Labour Party is suggesting here, and I think it’s important to be clear that this is not just about tax and spending; this is about the state getting deeply involved in much more of the private sector than it has been, certainly since the 1970s, and perhaps since the 1940s, with respect to, say, telling banks which branches they can’t close; setting minimum wages for a quarter of private sector workers and about 60% of young people, and dramatically improving labour regulation. All of those things are utterly different from anything we’ve experienced in many, many decades.

If you take what’s here at face value, then much of it I think is unprecedented even in the 1970s. This is a level of state intervention that probably goes back more decades than that.'


They may be different to what we have currently, and that is specifically why they're a good thing, we WANT wage protections and indeed regulation, what has deregulation caused other than corruption and reduced standards across industries affected?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live