The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[tonyh29]

20 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

And I tried so hard not to use too many big words  

Ok , ok ... its probably late night ramblings when I should be going to bed but it was just me saying in 200 words when 4 would have done that  I didn't agree with Darren ( no real surprise )

Edited July 7, 2017 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it was just me saying in 200 words when 4 would have done that  I didn't agree with Darren ( no real surprise )

No it wasn't.

[PompeyVillan]

5 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

They may need to work on their image a bit as I don't see momentum as a force for positive change , and I'm sure I'm not alone in that view ?

I'm sure they aren't all as mad bad and dangerous as the media would portray , but this cult they have put around Corbyn and this revisionism of him in a bid to get him elected is almost like fan boys at a Star Wars convention ... just nobody at a Star Wars convention ever called Darth Vadar scum and smashed the windows on the Death Star ....the longer momentum and Corbyn plays out the more I keep thing I'm watching the show G.B.H playing out in real life ( though I must confess it was about 25 years ago I watched that so maybe im making life imitate art when it really doesn't )

I think that's a fair criticism, they need to be seen to go beyond the cult of Corbyn. But whilst he is Labour leader, who they fundamentally support, they'll support him. They cropped up as a support network from the left and they'll exist to support the left of the Labour party in the future I should imagine.

But it doesn't make sense to say there's no place for him. He's quite popular don't you know, his name has been chanted at The Proms, Henley Regatta and by Cliff Richard at Wimbledon!

[MakemineVanilla]

12 hours ago, snowychap said:

Coterie du blandy - is that a red or a white?

More vinho verde these days, I understand. 

[darrenm]

8 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

They may need to work on their image a bit as I don't see momentum as a force for positive change , and I'm sure I'm not alone in that view ?

I'm sure they aren't all as mad bad and dangerous as the media would portray , but this cult they have put around Corbyn and this revisionism of him in a bid to get him elected is almost like fan boys at a Star Wars convention ... just nobody at a Star Wars convention ever called Darth Vadar scum and smashed the windows on the Death Star ....the longer momentum and Corbyn plays out the more I keep thing I'm watching the show G.B.H playing out in real life ( though I must confess it was about 25 years ago I watched that so maybe im making life imitate art when it really doesn't )

there may well be a place and a desire for some of Corbyns policies , I just don't think there is a place for Corbyn ... or momentum 

Just because people are nasty to other people and claim to be doing it on behalf of a group, doesn't mean the group is responsible. e.g. some nutter killing in the name is Islam doesn't mean all Muslims are bad or the collective group of Islam is. The left is attracting a few nutters, as is the right. I'm yet to see anything beyond online bullying from the left nutters though. We all know how they manifest on the right  

There's a desire for those threatened by Momentum (anyone not directing benefitting from them e.g. the entire right and centre) to paint them as dangerous. I've that term used about them many times and the actual context for it is either dangerous because they'll grab all the power, dangerous because they'll hold Corbyn's strings, dangerous because they're becoming very popular very quickly. The thing is, none of these are actually dangerous. Not compared to the actual dangerous group who kill thousands of people a year - the British government and their supporting group, the right wing press.

In fact, you could say Momentum are balancing the books a bit. On the right you have Murdoch, Dacre, Rothermere, Barclays, Desmond as a de facto political group aiding the Tories. On the left you have Momentum with sites like the Canary, Evolve and Skwawkbox pushing the left wing angle from a new media point of view. It's a good explanation of why the age divide has happened so suddenly - the new left with young people using social media and the old right with old print and (some) broadcast media.

But again, my point of view is that the right is far more dangerous than Momentum can ever be. Momentum are seen as a threat because they're getting powerful to enact their socialist agenda. An agenda that tries to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance. Debates over if capitalism can work with equality will rage eternal but things certainly aren't great at the moment.

[markavfc40]

8 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

there may well be a place and a desire for some of Corbyns policies , I just don't think there is a place for Corbyn ...

In the UK in 2017 really?

In a country where we are seeing our health service failing and being set up for more of the same and some, our social care failing, our police numbers slashed to levels that Police say they are struggling to provide effective community policing, where fatalities from fires are rising for the first time in years and fire prevention talks from the fire brigade are in rapid decline due to a lack of resources. In a country where we have seen a huge increase in homeless people, a huge increase in people reliant on food banks, a huge increase in working poor, a huge increase in children living in poverty. Where we have seen those from our emergency services have a real terms pay cut of 14% since 2011. Where we had the government vote against requiring private landlords ensure homes were fit for human habitation, where the government failed to act upon recommendations from a cross party of politicians and fire chiefs stating that fire regulations in relation to older tower blocks needed to be changed. Where in one of the richest countries in the world, in its richest city, we have just seen at least 80 people die in an unsafe building due to cost cutting and a failure to follow advice and listen to residents pleas. Where in one of the richest countries in the world we have disabled people killing themselves as they have had their benefits reduced or taken off them. I could go on all day but I am sure you get the picture.

In that country you don’t think there is a place for someone who opposed much of the above and would reverse most of it? Corbyn isn’t perfect far from it but what politician is. He’d be a damn site better for more people in this country though than the current mob, now propped up after giving out a back hander, by the loony tunes from the DUP. Of course I’ll acknowledge that it is almost certain those of us with the deeper pockets would have to find a few more pennies under Corbyn.

I’ll be honest I don’t get chance to follow threads on VT as often as I would like but I can’t remember much anger from you against the Tories over the last seven years, other than a lot of ahh but Labour….. so genuine question mate what is it you fear under the Labour party/ Corbyn that makes you get your knickers in a knot in relation to them?

[magnkarl]

I think momentum as a group is a great idea. I'm all for political diversity and these guys balance the books a lot when it comes to the far right side of the spectrum. I just wish that the few in the group wouldn't constantly cause such a nuisance and that their leaders would be able to control the more militant elements. At our uni these people are generally part of several groups known to cause trouble and momentum is just the one they portray themselves with when they want to be taken seriously. They also flag under BLM, Anarchists(which is a bit weird considering socialists are the counter opposite to an anarchist), SWP and several other more extreme groups. It might just be that we have to deal with these people a lot because I am at a university but it would be great if someone from the top would calm these loonies down before they ruin the reputation of the whole group.

Debate and a reasoned argument will win you votes, just like Corbyn showed in the election. Become too extreme and people shy away from you, just like we saw with the tories in the election.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by magnkarl

[darrenm]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It might just be that we have to deal with these people a lot because I am at a university

I think that's entirely it. The majority of the general public wouldn't know who Momentum are

[Demitri_C]

39 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

In the UK in 2017 really?

In a country where we are seeing our health service failing and being set up for more of the same and some, our social care failing, our police numbers slashed to levels that Police say they are struggling to provide effective community policing, where fatalities from fires are rising for the first time in years and fire prevention talks from the fire brigade are in rapid decline due to a lack of resources. In a country where we have seen a huge increase in homeless people, a huge increase in people reliant on food banks, a huge increase in working poor, a huge increase in children living in poverty. Where we have seen those from our emergency services have a real terms pay cut of 14% since 2011. Where we had the government vote against requiring private landlords ensure homes were fit for human habitation, where the government failed to act upon recommendations from a cross party of politicians and fire chiefs stating that fire regulations in relation to older tower blocks needed to be changed. Where in one of the richest countries in the world, in its richest city, we have just seen at least 80 people die in an unsafe building due to cost cutting and a failure to follow advice and listen to residents pleas. Where in one of the richest countries in the world we have disabled people killing themselves as they have had their benefits reduced or taken off them. I could go on all day but I am sure you get the picture.

In that country you don’t think there is a place for someone who opposed much of the above and would reverse most of it? Corbyn isn’t perfect far from it but what politician is. He’d be a damn site better for more people in this country though than the current mob, now propped up after giving out a back hander, by the loony tunes from the DUP. Of course I’ll acknowledge that it is almost certain those of us with the deeper pockets would have to find a few more pennies under Corbyn.

I’ll be honest I don’t get chance to follow threads on VT as often as I would like but I can’t remember much anger from you against the Tories over the last seven years, other than a lot of ahh but Labour….. so genuine question mate what is it you fear under the Labour party/ Corbyn that makes you get your knickers in a knot in relation to them?

I can't speak for Tony but my concerns are  that I think labour will certainly over spend and I think employment will be on the rise. I cant see labour magically being able to improve the NHS either, it might be  abit better but don't expect incredible improvements. I think the NHS is in massive trouble. Cost too much, too many people here, not enough hospitals (yes tories at fault for that) and shortage of nurses/doctors.

I guess the pay cap scrap age might help with that. Maybe   

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

In the UK in 2017 really?

In a country where we are seeing our health service failing and being set up for more of the same and some, our social care failing, our police numbers slashed to levels that Police say they are struggling to provide effective community policing, where fatalities from fires are rising for the first time in years and fire prevention talks from the fire brigade are in rapid decline due to a lack of resources. In a country where we have seen a huge increase in homeless people, a huge increase in people reliant on food banks, a huge increase in working poor, a huge increase in children living in poverty. Where we have seen those from our emergency services have a real terms pay cut of 14% since 2011. Where we had the government vote against requiring private landlords ensure homes were fit for human habitation, where the government failed to act upon recommendations from a cross party of politicians and fire chiefs stating that fire regulations in relation to older tower blocks needed to be changed. Where in one of the richest countries in the world, in its richest city, we have just seen at least 80 people die in an unsafe building due to cost cutting and a failure to follow advice and listen to residents pleas. Where in one of the richest countries in the world we have disabled people killing themselves as they have had their benefits reduced or taken off them. I could go on all day but I am sure you get the picture.

In that country you don’t think there is a place for someone who opposed much of the above and would reverse most of it? Corbyn isn’t perfect far from it but what politician is. He’d be a damn site better for more people in this country though than the current mob, now propped up after giving out a back hander, by the loony tunes from the DUP. Of course I’ll acknowledge that it is almost certain those of us with the deeper pockets would have to find a few more pennies under Corbyn.

I’ll be honest I don’t get chance to follow threads on VT as often as I would like but I can’t remember much anger from you against the Tories over the last seven years, other than a lot of ahh but Labour….. so genuine question mate what is it you fear under the Labour party/ Corbyn that makes you get your knickers in a knot in relation to them?

there's a lot of stuff I don't agree with regarding the Tory party ,  the reason I'm more vocal against labour is that there is more partisan support for Labour on this forum than there is for the Tory's .. In the Tory thread I doubt someone is going to walk in there and say Isn't May and the deal with the DUP great , thus it doesn't need a rebuttal  ... however this thread has a lot of Corbyn love ( though I'm not sure that was always the case)  and labour love  , and thus it's a better place to offer the yang to someone's yin

.... for some reason @blandy / @bickster are kind of allowed to say they aren't labour ( I hope that's fair, they have both said as such in the past as i recall) but they dislike Tories (more) and everyone accepts that at face value. I'm not Tory but I happen to dislike Labour (more) and yet get accused of being a card carrying Daily Mail reading DUP lover  ... I challenged someone in that thread recently to find anything I'd ever said supporting May for example ... it went very quiet , maybe they have a life and went outside instead  , or maybe they couldn't actually find anything

My "fear" (as you call it ) over Corbyn is I don't agree with his policies, I've outlined them over various threads previously I'm sure ... but I don't agree with free Tuition for students , I've posted previously there is some evidence to show Tuition fees actually work , QT last night kinda touched on the debate , Lucas may have had a point in that they are too high but she seemed to be agreeing that they should exist  ... Cameron's ex lackey put a £60bn price tag on free uni , I take that figure with a pinch of salt , but , as discussed a few pages back it was a  shameful bribe to get young votes , as blatant as the DUP bribe that you seem so upset about .. I remember the days of British Rail , bloody awful , yet suddenly everyone is starry eyed about re-nationalising the railways , ok it's 2107 now and not 1970 , but I just don't personally see the advantage other than ideologically it's going to stop a few execs getting a hefty bonus  , I don't agree with him on Trident  , personally I wouldn't push the button either and I don't actually think anyone else would either  , but I do believe in the idea of a deterrent   , which may align me to Kim Jong Un  and may be better spent on 60000 nurses , but even so have the deterrent , and don't be stupid enough to tell everyone you wouldn't use it  ...  I don't know about Europe as he's changing his mind on that more than May changes her mind on a policy ...I believe he's a leaver as that's where his prior voice has been , but it was argued at the time he's now  a remainer and a man of principle for putting country over his own opinion  ( notice the jeers from QT audience last night when Labour man claimed that Corbyn had campaigned hard for remain  ) ... before this post gets too long , well essentially he's a politician who supporters view with rose tinted glasses ( man of principles , not a sympathiser just a man of peace etc  )  .. where as I see I man whose principles seem to change with the wind and someone exploiting situations  his own political gain , I'm just not buying into the act  .. This isn't the sole preserve of Corbyn , but he's the one that manages to get people chanting his name at Glastonbury so he's the one at the moment who gets closer scruinty than some obscure minion 

I appreciate my reasons may appear vague even unfounded / daft but I'm trying to give you the short version to get a reply in whilst I'm against the clock on a project , rather than not reply at all  , so give me a bit of leeway  

 

[blandy]

14 hours ago, snowychap said:

Coterie du blandy - is that a red or a white?

Claret, natch.

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but it was argued at the time he's now  a remainer and a man of principle for putting country over his own opinion  ( notice the jeers from QT audience last night when Labour man claimed that Corbyn had campaigned hard for remain

Just to pick up on this bit. I argued long and hard on here that Corbyn campaigned a lot for remain at the time. He was on social media every day saying to vote remain and when he did get airtime on the TV he said he wants to remain but reform the EU, which is about as moderate as you can get. On The Last Leg he said he's 7/10 in favour of the EU. I realise he was anti-EU before but that was before he was leader of the opposition. That the audience were jeering is just an indication of how the narrative has been played to them. He absolutely did campaign for remain, I was there paying attention and saw it.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

...the reason I'm more vocal against labour is that there is more partisan support for Labour on this forum than there is for the Tory's...this thread has a lot of Corbyn love ( though I'm not sure that was always the case)  and labour love  , and thus it's a better place to offer the yang to someone's yin

.... for some reason @blandy / @bickster are kind of allowed to say they aren't labour ( I hope that's fair, they have both said as such in the past as i recall) but they dislike Tories (more) and everyone accepts that at face value. I'm not Tory but I happen to dislike Labour (more) 

My "fear" (as you call it ) over Corbyn is I don't agree with his policies, I've outlined them over various threads previously I'm sure ... but I don't agree with free Tuition for students , I've posted previously there is some evidence to show Tuition fees actually work , QT last night kinda touched on the debate , Lucas may have had a point in that they are too high but she seemed to be agreeing that they should exist  ... ... I do believe in the idea of a deterrent   , which may align me to Kim Jong Un  and may be better spent on 60000 nurses , but even so have the deterrent , and don't be stupid enough to tell everyone you wouldn't use it  ...  I don't know about Europe as he's changing his mind on that more than May changes her mind on a policy ...I believe he's a leaver as that's where his prior voice has been , 

I appreciate my reasons may appear vague even unfounded / daft but I'm trying to give you the short version to get a reply in whilst I'm against the clock on a project , rather than not reply at all  , so give me a bit of leeway  

I think anyone is "allowed to say" they are or aren't a supporter of a(ny) party. You're right I'm not a supporter of any of the parties. I absolutely loathe the tories and what they do, what they stand for, their incompetence and their arrogance...etc. 

Like you I don't think Corbyn is the answer to much at all, and whilst I think he's got better in terms of his performance as leader, I think he's a wrong 'un basically. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. I think Labour is in a mess, but not as big a mess as the tories and as they're not the Gov't it's less of an issue right now. If they were to become the Gov't they'd be as incompetent (almost) as the current lot. Not as malign, but pretty much as useless. Their policies on quite a few things are pretty good and in a few more they're pretty bad, which is a lot better than the tories, who have bad policies in almost every area, IMO.

I get your point about disliking Labour, rather than being pro-tory, as it's pretty much the reverse of my outlook.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

38 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Just because people are nasty to other people and claim to be doing it on behalf of a group, doesn't mean the group is responsible. e.g. some nutter killing in the name is Islam doesn't mean all Muslims are bad or the collective group of Islam is. The left is attracting a few nutters, as is the right. I'm yet to see anything beyond online bullying from the left nutters though. We all know how they manifest on the right  

There's a desire for those threatened by Momentum (anyone not directing benefitting from them e.g. the entire right and centre) to paint them as dangerous. I've that term used about them many times and the actual context for it is either dangerous because they'll grab all the power, dangerous because they'll hold Corbyn's strings, dangerous because they're becoming very popular very quickly. The thing is, none of these are actually dangerous. Not compared to the actual dangerous group who kill thousands of people a year - the British government and their supporting group, the right wing press.

In fact, you could say Momentum are balancing the books a bit. On the right you have Murdoch, Dacre, Rothermere, Barclays, Desmond as a de facto political group aiding the Tories. On the left you have Momentum with sites like the Canary, Evolve and Skwawkbox pushing the left wing angle from a new media point of view. It's a good explanation of why the age divide has happened so suddenly - the new left with young people using social media and the old right with old print and (some) broadcast media.

But again, my point of view is that the right is far more dangerous than Momentum can ever be. Momentum are seen as a threat because they're getting powerful to enact their socialist agenda. An agenda that tries to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance. Debates over if capitalism can work with equality will rage eternal but things certainly aren't great at the moment.

I've attended four rallies in Brighton over the last year and EVERY ONE has been interrupted by Momentum groups who don't listen to what is said (because they turn up late) and then chant over speakers. Same on twitter; many post a reply but few bother to engage past 'Corbyn' 'Manifesto' and ''Tory pejorative'.

Are the books really being balanced? Papers lost popularity (apparently they have seen a mini-resurgence) and from what I read, it's a disgrace that Canary call themselves independent. But what about the Guardian, Independent, Metro or Mirror? All painfully one-sided.
Besides, Momentum and their supporters get more (and longer) interviews and attention than our 'minor' parties. How can that be okay? 

We also have people like Adam Klug. Founders that will not discuss policy apart from telling everyone how people want to vote for Labour because of the manifesto. At least when the 'right' gets media attention for ignorance (eg - the Farage poster or Greece) they are savaged/ignored by the majority......savaging barely happens with Momentum (or their agenda), in part because people treat the 'left' as inherently good, despite many powerful left wing pressure groups being inherently ignorant  with their argument.

Ignorance might be less dangerous than right wing attitudes but it can be as damaging, I assume the majority want to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance but apart from the wealth gap, the Labour manifesto and particularity Momentum, certainly does not understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance. Their stance on university and housing (two of life's biggest expenses) tells us that! But heck, if they say it's equal, it must be?!

I am all for Momentum if they can progress the conversation and vicariously policy, but at the moment the clue is in their tag, 'a new kind of politics.'

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I think that's entirely it. The majority of the general public wouldn't know who Momentum are

True, but the conversation and speakers that are then put forward are influenced by the Momentum agenda, Canary for example. Back to us vs them!

[darrenm]

8 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I've attended four rallies in Brighton over the last year and EVERY ONE has been interrupted by Momentum groups who don't listen to - what do you mean don't listen to? How do you know? Rallies for what?

what is said (because they turn up late) - How do you know specific people aligned with specific groups turn up late to rallies? I can't figure out the practicalities of this.

and then chant over speakers. Same on twitter; many post a reply but few bother to engage past 'Corbyn' 'Manifesto' and ''Tory pejorative'. - like who?

Are the books really being balanced? Papers lost popularity (apparently they have seen a mini-resurgence) and from what I read, it's a disgrace that Canary call themselves independent. But what about the Guardian, Independent, Metro or Mirror? All painfully one-sided. - It's still nowhere near being balanced IMO. That the traditional Labour northern working class went hard brexit, isolationist and right while the younger non-paper readers went left is a sign that papers still have a (admittedly shrinking) influence. As for the left wing papers, the Mirror, Guardian and Independent have far smaller readership than the huge right wing groups. Not sure why you put the Daily Mail owned right wing Metro in there. And why isn't the Canary independent?
Besides, Momentum and their supporters get more (and longer) interviews and attention than our 'minor' parties. How can that be okay? - Got any examples? I've seen one person on a late night BBC programme.

We also have people like Adam Klug. Founders that will not discuss policy apart from telling everyone how people want to vote for Labour because of the manifesto. At least when the 'right' gets media attention for ignorance (eg - the Farage poster or Greece) they are savaged/ignored by the majority - Are they? Really? The majority of what?

......savaging barely happens with Momentum (or their agenda),  - apart from what we're currently talking about?

in part because people treat the 'left' as inherently good, - the left treat the left as good. Not really shocking is it?

despite many powerful left wing pressure groups being inherently ignorant  with their argument.

Ignorance might be less dangerous than right wing attitudes but it can be as damaging, I assume the majority want to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance but apart from the wealth gap, the Labour manifesto and particularity Momentum, certainly does not understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance. Their stance on university and housing (two of life's biggest expenses) tells us that! But heck, if they say it's equal, it must be?! - Not really sure what you're talking about here. Could you explain how the Labour manifesto and Momentum don't understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance, and how their stance on university and housing tells us that? I'm really confused by that one.

I am all for Momentum - I can tell

if they can progress the conversation and vicariously policy, but at the moment the clue is in their tag, 'a new kind of politics.' - anything new is bad?

Replies above

[Wainy316]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

 I remember the days of British Rail , bloody awful , yet suddenly everyone is starry eyed about re-nationalising the railways , ok it's 2107 now and not 1970 , but I just don't personally see the advantage other than ideologically it's going to stop a few execs getting a hefty bonus 

Was British Rail so shite because it was a nationalised service or because it was incompetently run?  Most countries seem to manage it alright.

Right now not only are we paying the highest fares in the world, much of which goes directly into shareholders pockets, but we are paying again in subsidies through taxes.  It is a complete joke and they must be howling with laughter at us in their cosy little board meetings.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

Was British Rail so shite because it was a nationalised service or because it was incompetently run?  Most countries seem to manage it alright.

Right now not only are we paying the highest fares in the world, much of which goes directly into shareholders pockets, but we are paying again in subsidies through taxes.  It is a complete joke and they must be howling with laughter at us in their cosy little board meetings.

have they proposed how they would fund it , What improvements would it give , how it would make this utopia of cheap rail travel  .. best I know half of rail fares are regulated and set by government  anyway so why would nationalisation suddenly make them cheaper ?

i think it's just a band wagon people have jumped on that sounds good on paper but actually probably isn't ... my general experience with trains is that they are quite good , can be a tad pricey , but if you book in advance can be bloody cheap , it suggests to me that all that is required is simplifying the ticket purchase process , and trying to regulate the other 50% of rail fares ....not renationalising the railways 

Also the man in Seat 61 who probably knows more about trains than most , suggested your most expensive train fares line isn't strictly accurate either  

So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story.  The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too.  The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats.  This is exactly what airlines have known, and been doing, for decades. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself, check some UK train fares at www.nationalrail.co.uk 

[markavfc40]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

there's a lot of stuff I don't agree with regarding the Tory party...........

My "fear" (as you call it ) over Corbyn is I don't agree with his policies, I've outlined them over various threads previously I'm sure ... but I don't agree with free Tuition for students , I've posted previously there is some evidence to show Tuition fees actually work , QT last night kinda touched on the debate , Lucas may have had a point in that they are too high but she seemed to be agreeing that they should exist  ... Cameron's ex lackey put a £60bn price tag on free uni , I take that figure with a pinch of salt , but , as discussed a few pages back it was a  shameful bribe to get young votes , as blatant as the DUP bribe that you seem so upset about .. I remember the days of British Rail , bloody awful , yet suddenly everyone is starry eyed about re-nationalising the railways , ok it's 2107 now and not 1970 , but I just don't personally see the advantage other than ideologically it's going to stop a few execs getting a hefty bonus  , 

 

@tonyh29 thank you for taking the time to reply and I will respond to a couple of your points.

I saw what Lucas said on QT around tuition fees and it was that she felt they maybe could be 2k a year and that we are paying the highest student fees in the world. There is a world of difference between leaving Uni with a few thousand pound worth of debt or 50 odd k of debt. One of the biggest scandals for me in terms of student fees is in relation to nurses. From September they will have to pay for the privilege of getting a nursing degree. It takes three years, the bursary has now been removed so at a time we have a huge shortage of nurses we now want them to get into 27k worth of debt, be on placement for 30 odd weeks a year working in hospitals for 37.5 hours a week, not get a penny whilst they are training and all for a starting salary of 21k. This is just another means to ensure the NHS fails. As Caroline Lucas said an individual getting a good education benefits us all and that is certainly shown in the case of a nurse.

 

As for railways the service is poor now the only difference being that people are now paying more for the privilege, including those of us who pay taxes in subsidies, and it is going into private hands. As @Wainy316 said the reason it was poor in the 80's wasn't down to it being nationalised it was because it was incompetently run and plenty of other countries have shown that doesn't have to be the case.

 

Out of interest given the choice would you stick with the Tories and a continuation of the way they have run the country over the last 7 years or go with Labour and let them try to implement what they promised in their manifesto?

 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by markavfc40

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

8 hours ago, darrenm said:

I've attended four rallies in Brighton over the last year and EVERY ONE has been interrupted by Momentum groups who don't listen to - what do you mean don't listen to? How do you know? Rallies for what?  Four rallies; Refugee crisis, anti-austerity, anti-Trump immigration policy and LGBT rights. We are all listening to speakers with non-partisan stories but suddenly from the back - three quarters through an event - arrive placards, megaphoned slogans about May, Trump, Boris and red t-shirted Momentum fellows. 

what is said (because they turn up late) - How do you know specific people aligned with specific groups turn up late to rallies? I can't figure out the practicalities of this.
See above. Red momentum t-shirts and anti-conservative, perceived right-wing figurehead slogans. Also 'ooooh Jeremy Corbyns means you can hear them a mile away...in both directions! Though I think that chant is amazing for modern day Britain.

and then chant over speakers. Same on twitter; many post a reply but few bother to engage past 'Corbyn' 'Manifesto' and ''Tory pejorative'. - like who? In rallies I attended, so anyone speaking late! And on twitter it's quite easy to identify who is saying what and whether they are partisan, particularity with the Labour logo thing many have adopted. I also ran the twitter campaign for a Lib Dem and so sadly had to do a lot of response reading. Very murky out there!

Are the books really being balanced? Papers lost popularity (apparently they have seen a mini-resurgence) and from what I read, it's a disgrace that Canary call themselves independent. But what about the Guardian, Independent, Metro or Mirror? All painfully one-sided. - It's still nowhere near being balanced IMO. That the traditional Labour northern working class went hard brexit, isolationist and right while the younger non-paper readers went left is a sign that papers still have a (admittedly shrinking) influence. As for the left wing papers, the Mirror, Guardian and Independent have far smaller readership than the huge right wing groups. Not sure why you put the Daily Mail owned right wing Metro in there. And why isn't the Canary independent? Maybe you're younger than me so I'm getting the depth of influence wrong, but I have a 22 year old sister whose/friends voting preference was shaped by twitter/facebook and I still speak to many young people who have said the same thing. I would also argue that the left wing shapes more conversations than the right.

Canary isn't independent (unless you mean financially) because it relies on being anti-Conservative (not pro discussion) to sell itself.

I know it's a tough ask for a tabloid owned paper but the Metro all too often paints bleak pictures about existing policy without giving the reader both sides, or even the full argument. That ends up with more 'us vs them' and its seen by millions every day. On my commute to work I often pass the time with a pen by correcting headlines and articles.

Besides, Momentum and their supporters get more (and longer) interviews and attention than our 'minor' parties. How can that be okay? - Got any examples? I've seen one person on a late night BBC programme. Channel 4 will pitch a young momentum supporter against a conservative MP. Adam Klug on This Week. This ends up with conversations not being about what the solution is, but who has the stronger moral compass. Watching something like Question Time you realise how much an audience continues be taken in by phrases and not discussion. I remember in the 2000's where people used to google facts  ha

We also have people like Adam Klug. Founders that will not discuss policy apart from telling everyone how people want to vote for Labour because of the manifesto. At least when the 'right' gets media attention for ignorance (eg - the Farage poster or Greece) they are savaged/ignored by the majority - Are they? Really? The majority of what? People, the media, general conversation, everyone! When one side goes too far in the context of what they stand for, society does stand up...even 'right wing press' stop being partisan!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644716/Nigel-Farage-racism-storm-Brexit-poster-showing-thousands-male-refugees-warning-country-breaking-point.html
In the context Labour and their MP's - who are riding the wave of manifesto support from momentum which many young people feel is easily deliverable - I don't think the same level of scrutiny is applied. 

......savaging barely happens with Momentum (or their agenda),  - apart from what we're currently talking about? I'm glad you/some of us are but in general for both sides of the spectrum, few are challenged properly to give an adequate response, even in parliament! 

in part because people treat the 'left' as inherently good, - the left treat the left as good. Not really shocking is it? I feel that If you swing too much the other way because you are ideologically driven you leave people behind or worse still, harm them. Europe is a good example, a great project that doesn't do enough to help or sacrifice itself for those already behind, new behinds, lacking resources or with a differing point of view. Or maybe we have helped enough and my perception of equality is warped? 

despite many powerful left wing pressure groups being inherently ignorant  with their argument.

Ignorance might be less dangerous than right wing attitudes but it can be as damaging, I assume the majority want to close the wealth gap, promote equality and give everyone a chance but apart from the wealth gap, the Labour manifesto and particularity Momentum, certainly does not understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance. Their stance on university and housing (two of life's biggest expenses) tells us that! But heck, if they say it's equal, it must be?! - Not really sure what you're talking about here. Could you explain how the Labour manifesto and Momentum don't understand how they can promote equality or give everyone a chance, and how their stance on university and housing tells us that? I'm really confused by that one. I'm happy to. On housing they will leave very many people behind because the policy does not even focus on the planning process, which has typically been the housing enabler for those unable to access social housing. I could post many other reasons if you wanted but I do not believe the party, leader or pressure group Momentum understand how homes actually get built and that worries me greatly.

University is another problem for me. It's not the only answer and despite promising to unlock adult education, which would offset the failings of secondary education, there has been little to explain where the industrial strategy, which should be the modern jobs creating platform, will produce success economically and socially. By the time that decision is made, because it's panic stations, it becomes a private vs public policy and co-operation is lost. 

In practicable terms, I believe both promises (not policies) will end up delivering inequality and continue delivering narrow opportunities.
Just so I'm clear for others, I'm not comparing manifestos here, just judging the Labour one on what I see.

I am all for Momentum - I can tell  

if they can progress the conversation and vicariously policy, but at the moment the clue is in their tag, 'a new kind of politics.' - anything new is bad? We need a new kind of policy, not a new kind of politics. 

Ha, that was a great reply! I went blue!

Edited July 7, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Was British Rail so shite because it was a nationalised service or because it was incompetently run?  Most countries seem to manage it alright.

Right now not only are we paying the highest fares in the world, much of which goes directly into shareholders pockets, but we are paying again in subsidies through taxes.  It is a complete joke and they must be howling with laughter at us in their cosy little board meetings.

The huge difference here is that our rail system is older and bigger than most of our European neighbours' rail-systems. Bar Germany and France (who both have quite troublesome systems as well may I add) most the other states are either ridiculously small or flat (Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia - all touted as great systems) or in extremely rich countries (Norway, Switzerland).

If you want to compare our system to anything you need to find something that is similar. London's tube system was started in 1863 and some of these lines still remain in use, while most European countries were still working on their first tracks at this point. Our system costs more, requires a lot more maintenance and was built a very long time ago.