The Labour Party - Part 2

[Anna B 1,401]

9 hours ago, apelike said:

I'm not blaming Labour, just pointing out that what has happened in the past has not been restricted just to the conservatives. It's a fact that many Labourites still blame Maggie for what she did with the conservatives in the past and yet if there had been enough will and votes all that could have been easily reversed, yet despite having a Labour government since it never was. 

 

I agree and that will always be the case until it changes, that's why I was saying it now seems to depend a lot on floating voters.

It's not a question of Labourites peevishly blaming Thatcher. People STILL don't seem to understand that the policies of the Thatcher/ Regan years, followed by the Russian collapse of Communism in the 80s changed the Economic Ideology of the world fundamentally to Neoliberalism. This is a documented fact. Her move to Deregulated free trade agreements and privatisation took the brakes off Capitalism which has been running out of control ever since, the negative outcomes of which we can now see right across the planet with the huge disparity between the rich and poor and all the ills associated with it, including losing the nhs to privatisation, environmental damage and climate change. 

 

Tony Blair went along with it, calling it 'New Labour' and Blair got very rich indeed out of it.  Any Labour leader who has tried to amend it, to make it fairer, (Foot, Kinnock, Milliband, Corbyn) has been hounded out of office and vilified by the Establishment, because they and the media Barons and the Oligarchs and Plutocrats are also doing very nicely out of it thankyou. In fact it's the Establishment people who run everything that are doing great and getting richer and richer at the expense of everyone else.

 

These are the facts behind the phrase 'for the many, not the few,' and the 99% v's 1% (actually more like 0.05%) campaigns, etc.

It's in plain sight but still people just don't get it! They don't understand its significance. And they are never going to be helped to understand it because it's not in the interests of those running things to help them do so. Sir Keir Starmer is another Tony Blair (minus the charisma) Starmer has systematically purged the Labour party of anyone who tries to fight for the people. That's how we know he won't change anything, so on present evidence it won't matter whether Labour or the Conservatives get in. Democracy itself is the victim here, we are losing any true meaning in our two party system, they can lie, cheat and steal - what are we going to do about it?

 

The ultimate conclusion is that we are moving towards fascism, our rights are being stolen, (which is another reason why people are so concerned over lost civil liberties to do with Covid,) protest is ignored or ends in arrest, and we are losing our representation.

Ordinary people can no longer afford justice in the courts, jobs are getting scarcer, costs are going up, wages down, rents, bills and food unaffordable. Who then is going to fight for us?

      

Edited March 1, 2021 by Anna B

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Everything in the Labour party's 2019 election manifesto was carefully funded, they made sure of that after the slurs of them having caused the financial crash etc.

Are you sure and can you provide some links to how they would fund it all? After all, someone (meaning us) would have to pay for it which will also mean austerity under Labour would also need to continue to help fund it.

 

Quote

The need for free broadband has also been shown to be necessary in the light of the Chinese security debacle (we need to keep control of our own systems) and of the home schooling fiasco where inequality has been highlighted. 

No it hasn't and the Chinese security debacle as you call it had nothing to do with free broadband at all. Very few in the UK are in need of free broadband as most already have it. All Corbyn said about it was just a publicity stunt.

 

Quote

Economists agree that you have to spend your way out of a recession, with investment in infrastructure etc, rather than austerity which has made the problem worse. And Labour would have actually done what it promised with regards to closing tax loopholes for the rich and famous, rather than the empty promises of the Tories.    

But you can't spend and invest money without either borrowing it or increasing taxes to raise it and that is the major problem, so it's back to the austerity argument again. Tax people or companies too much and all they will do is leave and go somewhere else which is what was happening before under Labour.

Edited March 1, 2021 by apelike

[Anna B 1,401]

9 hours ago, apelike said:

Are you sure and can you provide some links to how they would fund it all? After all, someone (meaning us) would have to pay for it which will also mean austerity under Labour would also need to continue to help fund it.

 

No it hasn't and the Chinese security debacle as you call it had nothing to do with free broadband at all. Very few in the UK are in need of free broadband as most already have it. All Corbyn said about it was just a publicity stunt.

 

But you can't spend and invest money without either borrowing it or increasing taxes to raise it and that is the major problem, so it's back to the austerity argument again. Tax people or companies too much and all they will do is leave and go somewhere else which is what was happening before under Labour.

Amazing how they can always find the money for wars and bombs. And pet projects. The whole system runs on borrowing. Always has. And much of it will never be paid back.

Every penny of our taxes needs to be spent carefully and not wasted on vainglorious schemes that are not necessary like HS2.

[RollingJ 2,002]

19 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Amazing how they can always find the money for wars and bombs. And pet projects. The whole system runs on borrowing. Always has. And much of it will never be paid back.

Every penny of our taxes needs to be spent carefully and not wasted on vainglorious schemes that are not necessary like HS2.

Not exactly an answer to @apelike's question Anna.

[tinfoilhat 11]

32 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Amazing how they can always find the money for wars and bombs. And pet projects. The whole system runs on borrowing. Always has. And much of it will never be paid back.

Every penny of our taxes needs to be spent carefully and not wasted on vainglorious schemes that are not necessary like HS2.

Can you point to other massive infrastructure projects over the past, say, 60 years and aren't used massively?

[apelike 10]

11 hours ago, Anna B said:

It's not a question of Labourites peevishly blaming Thatcher. People STILL don't seem to understand that the policies of the Thatcher/ Regan years, followed by the Russian collapse of Communism in the 80s changed the Economic Ideology of the world fundamentally to Neoliberalism. This is a documented fact. Her move to Deregulated free trade agreements and privatisation took the brakes off Capitalism which has been running out of control ever since, the negative outcomes of which we can now see right across the planet with the huge disparity between the rich and poor and all the ills associated with it, including losing the nhs to privatisation, environmental damage and climate change. 

You keep going on about Neoliberalism as if it is something new when it's really just capitalism with a new name. One of the most popular things Maggie did, and I'm no fan as I lost a good job because of her, was to change the way taxation was applied. Instead of high direct wage taxation she changed it to indirect taxation and people could see that they were immediately better off when it came to earnings, and it proved popular with the voters. Remember what it was like under a Wilson government... 

 

 

 

As for the bit in bold... We have not lost the NHS to privatisation, and environmental damage and climate change has been going on since before the Neoliberalist buzzword from the 80s. Not saying it is right but remember the smogs in the 60s and why we got the clean air act. 

 

11 hours ago, Anna B said:

Tony Blair went along with it, calling it 'New Labour' and Blair got very rich indeed out of it.  Any Labour leader who has tried to amend it, to make it fairer, (Foot, Kinnock, Milliband, Corbyn) has been hounded out of office and vilified by the Establishment, because they and the media Barons and the Oligarchs and Plutocrats are also doing very nicely out of it thankyou. In fact it's the Establishment people who run everything that are doing great and getting richer and richer at the expense of everyone else.

Foot, Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn were not hounded out of office by the establishment. Voters didn't want them as they were seen to be weak and just full of promises in order to get elected. When Kinnock was up for election I voted Green as I just couldn't stand the man, he was a good speaker but that was about it. Now look at him, just another millionaire. Miliband had no chance as he projected weakness as a leader, a bit like Hague. Corbyn may have had a few good ideas but they needed to be coupled with a strong charismatic leader and that he was not. Unfortunately whether you like it or not the latter is important in this modern internet age, Charisma is part and parcel for being successful and politicians now want to act like stars. Just look at the latest crop of Boris, Macron or Sarkozy to see how it works.

 

11 hours ago, Anna B said:

These are the facts behind the phrase 'for the many, not the few,' and the 99% v's 1% (actually more like 0.05%) campaigns, etc.

It's in plain sight but still people just don't get it! They don't understand its significance. And they are never going to be helped to understand it because it's not in the interests of those running things to help them do so. Sir Keir Starmer is another Tony Blair (minus the charisma) Starmer has systematically purged the Labour party of anyone who tries to fight for the people. That's how we know he won't change anything, so on present evidence it won't matter whether Labour or the Conservatives get in. Democracy itself is the victim here, we are losing any true meaning in our two party system, they can lie, cheat and steal - what are we going to do about it?

All I can say to that is.. it's just your opinion. I for one is at an age where I just dont worry about it anymore as it up to the newer generations to do something about it as its their future and mine is limited.

 

11 hours ago, Anna B said:

The ultimate conclusion is that we are moving towards fascism......

Which is basically incompatible with the neoliberalism and capitalism you are on about.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

37 minutes ago, apelike said:

Which is basically incompatible with the neoliberalism and capitalism you are on about.

A point that has been made several times already.

14 hours ago, Anna B said:

Economists agree that you have to spend your way out of a recession

Not all of them.

[El Cid 214]

18 hours ago, Anna B said:

 

Economists agree that you have to spend your way out of a recession, with investment in infrastructure etc, rather than austerity which has made the problem worse. And Labour would have actually done what it promised with regards to closing tax loopholes for the rich and famous, rather than the empty promises of the Tories.    

Economists do not agree, they have their own biases just like we do.

[the_bloke 17]

20 hours ago, Anna B said:

Everything in the Labour party's 2019 election manifesto was carefully funded, they made sure of that after the slurs of them having caused the financial crash etc. The need for free broadband has also been shown to be necessary in the light of the Chinese security debacle (we need to keep control of our own systems) and of the home schooling fiasco where inequality has been highlighted. 

Economists agree that you have to spend your way out of a recession, with investment in infrastructure etc, rather than austerity which has made the problem worse. And Labour would have actually done what it promised with regards to closing tax loopholes for the rich and famous, rather than the empty promises of the Tories.    

Carefully funded yet the fact checkers debunked that myth in days.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-gaps-in-labours-spending-plans

 

At least £58bn underfunded.

[nightrider 13]

On 28/02/2021 at 20:23, andyofborg said:

That's the difference between government and opposition. Governments have to be seen to be doing something,  If things go to plan and things start to open up in June and we don't end up locked down again in August then I'd hope Labour would start to talk about the principles which will drive the policies. 

 

In normal times, the majority of people simply will not pay enough attention to policy detail now for anything to take hold now. Now is an even worse time.  Also,  policy which looks perfect for today might be totally unrealistic in 3 and a half years. The opposition needs policies which address the issues of the day not the ones of from earlier days. 

 

So, now you have policy forums and idea gathering. A couple of years out from the election you start to propogate vague policy ideas and gradually firm them up as the election approaches. 

Possibly, but if all else fails the Bank of England can print more money.

Except governments can't earn really earn money except via taxation.

 

To raise money outside of taxation, you are looking at nationalisation and that has been contrary to all government's  philosophy for 40 years. Government success in running enterprises has been rather patchy.   

Or just print money. Just like we have been doing for the last year to pay for Covid.

 

 

https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1366665012882857984

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by nightrider

[andyofborg 11]

4 hours ago, nightrider said:

Or just print money. Just like we have been doing for the last year to pay for Covid.

What else are they supposed to do?

[Organgrinder 1,946]

5 hours ago, nightrider said:

Or just print money. Just like we have been doing for the last year to pay for Covid.

 

 

https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1366665012882857984

 

No nation can carry on printing money indefinitely or there would be no nations on earth with debts and we would all be as rich as lottery winners.

Printing extra money causes the value of the pound (or whatever) to fall and causes roaring inflation so you eventually need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.

That's what happened in Germany in the early 30's.

No country would bother with careful and prudent budgets if it were as easy as that.

This subject has been discussed in full on these Forums.

I also wouldn't recommend Twitter as the place to get tutorage on International Finance.