The Labour Party - Part 2

[RJRB 688]

8 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Some of those might be good ideas, in theory; but most are utterly unaffordable, you know.

The definition of affordable has undergone  a fair bit of revision over the last few months.

Sometimes you cannot afford not to do something as the current government is finding

[andyofborg 11]

4 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Some of those might be good ideas, in theory; but most are utterly unaffordable, you know.

A lot probably are affordable though it may need a bit of reform in hows the deliverables are delivered. 

 

The issues with social care, particularly for the elderly have been apparant for years and some change is needed. 

 

An elected second chamber might be a good thing, however for it to work properly then there needs to be a wider review of how government works, including the House of Commons, the devolved governments and possibly a move to a more regional government for England and a "proper" written constitution

 

The size of the civil service is a function of what government wants to do, am not sure that's deliverable under Anna's plans.

 

[Anna B 1,414]

20 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

A lot probably are affordable though it may need a bit of reform in hows the deliverables are delivered. 

 

The issues with social care, particularly for the elderly have been apparant for years and some change is needed. 

 

An elected second chamber might be a good thing, however for it to work properly then there needs to be a wider review of how government works, including the House of Commons, the devolved governments and possibly a move to a more regional government for England and a "proper" written constitution

 

The size of the civil service is a function of what government wants to do, am not sure that's deliverable under Anna's plans.

 

I agree, the whole edifice of government needs a major overhaul, top to bottom. I'd like to see a reduction in the number of MPs, but I'm not sure how that would be achieved, better representation at local level, and a different more representative voting system that restores democracy. 

 

We live in an age of the internet, progress and speed, but our parliamentary system is still lodged in the eighteenth century and bogged down with traditions and archaic ceremonies, not to mention riddled old boy networks, class and cultural divides.  

[andyofborg 11]

12 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I agree, the whole edifice of government needs a major overhaul, top to bottom. I'd like to see a reduction in the number of MPs, but I'm not sure how that would be achieved, better representation at local level, and a different more representative voting system that restores democracy. 

it's easy to reduce the number of MPs. However, curently, there is one MP per 92,000 people, reducing the number of MPs  means the number of people they represent increases not entirely sure that makes things more democratic. 

 

12 minutes ago, Anna B said:

We live in an age of the internet, progress and speed, but our parliamentary system is still lodged in the eighteenth century and bogged down with traditions and archaic ceremonies, not to mention riddled old boy networks, class and cultural divides.  

there is nothing wrong with traditions and archaic ceremonies per se. 

[Car Boot 10]

Jeremy Cornyn is the furthest away from being a racist it is possible to be.

 

This whole affair stinks to high heaven when the decisions made by the Labour government of Tony Blair can murder up to one million people in Iraq and destabilise a region for decades with just a whitewash report absolving anybody of blame but Jeremy has never hurt anybody, desires equality for all and is hung out to dry.

 

Surely even people who don't like the Labour party or Jeremy Corbyn can see that something not right is happening?

Edited November 1, 2020 by Car Boot

[Anna B 1,414]

38 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

it's easy to reduce the number of MPs. However, curently, there is one MP per 92,000 people, reducing the number of MPs  means the number of people they represent increases not entirely sure that makes things more democratic. 

 

there is nothing wrong with traditions and archaic ceremonies per se. 

No, but save them for the tourism market.

Parliament is a place of work and should be treated as such. Traditions and ceremonies just slow things down. The world is moving on at speed and we need to keep up, with a parliament that can keep abreast of the changes.

35 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Jeremy Cornyn is the furthest away from being a racist it is possible to be.

 

This whole affair stinks to high heaven when the decisions made by the Labour government of Tony Blair can murder up to one million people in Iraq and destabilise a region for decades with just a whitewash report absolving anybody of blame but Jeremy has never hurt anybody, desires equality for all and is hung out to dry.

 

Surely even people who don't like the Labour party or Jeremy Corbyn can see that something not right is happening?

I think the penny is finally dropping. People are beginning to join the dots...

[Organgrinder 1,946]

5 hours ago, andyofborg said:

 

there is nothing wrong with traditions and archaic ceremonies per se. 

This is a quote from you to me on the Consequences of Brexit Thread -

It's quite plain that you can change your tune to fit whatever you are trying to say at any given time.

Try to make up your mind whether you would like to live in the past or a forward looking modern country

 

Posted Thursday at 19:13

On 29/10/2020 at 18:48, Organgrinder said:

You know full well that I am referring to the greengrocers of many years ago who were used to the system we had at that time, as we all were.

except time has moved on, you may want to live in some 1950s fantasy world but the 50s along with the empire are long gone you need to accept that. most people want to live in a forward looking modern country

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Organgrinder

[andyofborg 11]

5 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

This is a quote from you to me on the Consequences of Brexit Thread -

It's quite plain that you can change your tune to fit whatever you are trying to say at any given time.

Try to make up your mind whether you would like to live in the past or a forward looking modern country

In order to live in a forward looking modern country you have to have an understanding of its past. There also needs to be an understanding and acceptance that that past includes some pretty unpleasant actions. Whether they are justifiable in the context of the times they were done in is, to a large extent. immaterial. We need to acknowledge they happened and where we can explain how and why they happened even if the only answer is "thats how things were then", and work to make sure they can't happen again.

 

We also need to remember that the past also contains some positive things and we shouldn't focus totally on the negative parts. 

 

As far as the traditions and archaic ceremonies goes then Anna didn't provide a list of the ones she wanted to change.  Some could certainly do with replacing others do no harm so why not keep them, especially if they help maintain a link with the past. I'm not sure that a collective amnesia where we forget everything about our past is healthy for a society, though I appreciate there are some things some people would really like to be forgotten. 

 

[sheffbag 230]

21 hours ago, Anna B said:

Because I have no faith in Starmer and the direction inwhich he is leading the Labour party. We need strong Socialist principles to help the people who need it, to counter the Neoliberalism of the Tory party.  We need responsible capitalism, not the free for all, 'winner takes all' brand of capitalism which has lead to the huge equality gap between rich and poor, foodbanks, homelessness, unemployment etc.   

Anna - the British public has quite clearly rejected this principle for 45 years now and there is no chance of a socialist labour stance at the next electino with Keir at the helm so that will make it nearly 50 years before it may get another chance (unless Keir wins , which at the moment is a good chance)

 

So, the question is, given the Labour party is now once again in opposition and fairly irrelevant to govt decisions given the majority the Tories have then why do you continue to support the Labour party, you've evidently changed party before and voted Tory so why not support the Socialist party instead? The seem to be more in line with your views and principles?

[the_bloke 17]

Looks like that 0.3% claim has been debunked.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-claim-that-labour-antisemitism-numbers-are-exaggerated

[banjodeano 31]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Looks like that 0.3% claim has been debunked.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyns-claim-that-labour-antisemitism-numbers-are-exaggerated

It doesn't to me..

[the_bloke 17]

22 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

It doesn't to me..

The fact checking by Channel 4 clearly highlights that Labour had no proper complaint system in place, and Labour told the EHRC that they couldn't give any figures on the numbers of complaints or cases. Yet Corbyn stated a figure of 0.3%.

 

So was 

 

a) Labour lying to the EHRC

 

or

 

b) Corbyn lying about 0.3% when there wasn't any way of knowing what the figure was