UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[dAVe80]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm just wondering, who exactly would you describe as "far left" in the U.K.?

Because no one in the main stream of British Politics would fit the fairly well accepted academic description of far left

This is the thing see, there are many people on the right, who believe Corbyn would introduce full Communism by Friday, if he could. In actual fact most of what Labour based their manifesto on, isn't that radical. It just shows how far neo liberalism dragged politics and the Labour party to the centre right.

[darrenm]

Here's where I reckon the Overton window has moved to. I think there's now 2 split between younger and older people

This is based on nothing but my own personal opinion

 

[bickster]

29 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

This is the thing see, there are many people on the right, who believe Corbyn would introduce full Communism by Friday, if he could. In actual fact most of what Labour based their manifesto on, isn't that radical. It just shows how far neo liberalism dragged politics and the Labour party to the centre right.

That was kinda what I was getting at.

[MakemineVanilla]

36 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

This is the thing see, there are many people on the right, who believe Corbyn would introduce full Communism by Friday, if he could. In actual fact most of what Labour based their manifesto on, isn't that radical. It just shows how far neo liberalism dragged politics and the Labour party to the centre right.

There might be but there again there are a lot of people who see how precarious the present economic situation is, as acknowledged by Carney with his speech about household debt.

They see Corbyn as a very risky proposition as regards his spending plans.

People of the left don't seem to be able to take this on board and even those who advocate an MMT approach to the economy have to accept that big spending when there is full employment might, according to the the theory, create inflation which most can't afford.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There might be but there again there are a lot of people who see how precarious the present economic situation is, as acknowledged by Carney with his speech about household debt.

They see Corbyn as a very risky proposition as regards his spending plans.

People of the left don't seem to be able to take this on board and even those who advocate an MMT approach to the economy have to accept that big spending when there is full employment might, according to the the theory, create inflation which most can't afford.

You sure you quoted the right post there? As I'm struggling to see the link between the post your quoted and your reply. Nowhere are you actually addressing the issue we were talking about. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

12 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

There might be but there again there are a lot of people who see how precarious the present economic situation is, as acknowledged by Carney with his speech about household debt.

They see Corbyn as a very risky proposition as regards his spending plans.

People of the left don't seem to be able to take this on board and even those who advocate an MMT approach to the economy have to accept that big spending when there is full employment might, according to the the theory, create inflation which most can't afford.

Whilst Corbyn does reflect a fairly extreme spending plan, it's clear to all of those with half a brain (and was clear to all those with half a brain at the time) that austerity would both retard economic growth and decimate the public serves that most people in this country value, both of which has happened. We've had a lost decade and most of that is down to the ridiculous logic of 'fiscal contraction-expansion'. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I'm just wondering, who exactly would you describe as "far left" in the U.K.?

Because no one in the main stream of British Politics would fit the fairly well accepted academic description of far left

It was a tongue in cheek comment but for fun; Corbyn's Labour are......if we're going on the accepted academic definition of far-left being the extreme left of a political party or group.......but then accepted academic definitions might also place Western activities as 'terrorism', so meh, I prefer tongue in cheek!

But back to the fun; 'New Labour' were basically Conservatives and Corbyn represents an ideology the main party (many elected MP's) rallied against and still rally against, even if they kept their jobs because of it! Under that accepted academic definition he, or the newest Old Labour are 'far-left'.
Not so fun

Edited June 27, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[MakemineVanilla]

13 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Whilst Corbyn does reflect a fairly extreme spending plan, it's clear to all of those with half a brain (and was clear to all those with half a brain at the time) that austerity would both retard economic growth and decimate the public serves that most people in this country value, both of which has happened. We've had a lost decade and most of that is down to the ridiculous logic of 'fiscal contraction-expansion'. 

But that is my point. Those who advocate an MMT view of the economy say that the theory proves that austerity is unnecessary. But the same theory also predicts that increasing spending during a period of full employment will generate inflation.

 

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

But that is my point. Those who advocate an MMT view of the economy say that the theory proves that austerity is unnecessary. But the same theory also predicts that increasing spending during a period of full employment will generate inflation.

 

 

Personally I do not care one iota about MMT. It's a fringe position. Very standard Macroeconomics was enough to demonstrate that austerity was not only unnecessary after the financial crisis, but would also be harmful. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

19 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Whilst Corbyn does reflect a fairly extreme spending plan, it's clear to all of those with half a brain (and was clear to all those with half a brain at the time) that austerity would both retard economic growth and decimate the public serves that most people in this country value, both of which has happened. We've had a lost decade and most of that is down to the ridiculous logic of 'fiscal contraction-expansion'. 

I see it slightly differently, though we're not too far apart in the final six words.

I always felt it was clear 'to all of those with more than half a brain' that we needed a mix of policy, austerity and spend and that spend/support in certain areas had far outweighed the benefits. Restructuring was needed with an element of austerity, but not austerity across the board. That was exceedingly stupid but local authorities are still culpable, and they continue to cut local services rather than resource draining revenue streams.

This mess didn't start a decade ago when the Tories came in, it started well before the new government were left a note to say there was no money!

[mjmooney]

The trouble is, certain terms become knee-jerk, bogeyman insults - 'lefties' are crazed communists who want to turn us into  a cold war soviet hell. And to be fair, the left love to brand Conservatives as 'fascists', who all want to bring back rule by toffs, and children working as chimney sweeps. 

It infantilises the whole nature of political debate. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Here's where I reckon the Overton window has moved to. I think there's now 2 split between younger and older people

This is based on nothing but my own personal opinion

 

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I must admit one of the things that bugs me is when articles etc. say there's a left right split between younger and older people. I mean Jeremy Corbyn's "older people" for example, and there are many other older people with left views. And the same applies in reverse. There are younger people who liked UKIPs or Tories. Sure, I accept there's plenty more younger people voted Labour than Tory, but I'm also reasonably confident quite a lot of that was due to Brexit and Europe and so on.

Plenty pensioners will vote for protected pensions, and plenty younger people for free Uni tuition, but beyond that, or even including that, people's views don't (IMO) easily fit into left / right boxes. You could also draw a circle round the central part of your picture and capture where most UK politics is actually based and accepted - the old middle of the road thing. Even Labour's manifesto had stuff in it that was quite tory-ish and vice versa, because both parties wanted to appeal to that centre ground, of all ages.

[Dr_Pangloss]

13 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

I see it slightly differently, though we're not too far apart in the final six words.

I always felt it was clear 'to all of those with more than half a brain' that we needed a mix of policy, austerity and spend and that spend/support in certain areas had far outweighed the benefits. Restructuring was needed with an element of austerity, but not austerity across the board. That was exceedingly stupid but local authorities are still culpable, and they continue to cut local services rather than resource draining revenue streams.

This mess didn't start a decade ago when the Tories came in, it started well before the new government were left a note to say there was no money!

New Labour were at fault for deregulating the financial services and allowing Canary Wharf to get far too big. They obviously then made a decision to bail out failing banks, which of course substantially raised public spending, although the Tories would have almost certainly have done the same in that position. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Personally I do not care one iota about MMT. It's a fringe position. Very standard Macroeconomics was enough to demonstrate that austerity was not only unnecessary after the financial crisis, but would also be harmful. 

I'd give that a double like, if I could.

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I'm not saying you're wrong...but I must admit one of the things that bugs me is when articles etc. say there's a left right split between younger and older people. I mean Jeremy Corbyn's "older people" for example, and there are many other older people with left views. And the same applies in reverse. There are younger people who liked UKIPs or Tories. Sure, I accept there's plenty more younger people voted Labour than Tory, but I'm also reasonably confident quite a lot of that was due to Brexit and Europe and so on.

Plenty pensioners wil vlotte for protected pensions, and plenty younger people for free Uni tuition, but beyond that, or even including that, people's views don't (IMO) easily fit into left / right boxes. You could also draw a circle round the central part of your picture and capture where most UK politics is actually based and accepted - the old middle of the road thing. Even Labour's manifesto had stuff in it that was quite tory-ish and vice versa, because both parties wanted to appeal to that centre ground, of all ages.

Oh of course there's a lot in the middle and also crossovers but there is definitely a divide. I accept what you're saying though.

and just because it's on the site (eek, don't shoot the messenger) it seems the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to vote Labour (if assuming education level roughly correlates with intelligence)

[blandy]

The austerity and all that - that was Osbourne being party political in large part - make like it was Labour's fault that the world economy tanked, make people hurt a bit, while shrinking the state and giving his rich mates a hand.

It was utter madness, and still is.

What business, when borrowing costs are next to zero, would fail to invest in new infrastructure, new tools, training people and all that kind of thing and expect to have a good long term future. And if a Gov't does the equivalent, they not only repair and build the country's infrastructure, renewable energy, internet broadband, tech, engineering, medicine, schools and so on, but they also put money in people's pockets and generally boost the economy.

The tories have hammered teachers, nurses, doctors, the disabled, while selling bits of the UK to China and wherever else. Dangerous, harmful and stupid - and all for party politics, which is now coming back to bite them on the arse.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

New Labour were at fault for deregulating the financial services and allowing Canary Wharf to get far too big. They obviously then made a decision to bail out failing banks, which of course substantially raising public spending, although the Tories/Conservatives would have almost certainly have done the same in that position. 

Definitely.

Stuff like PFI, welfare to work, increase in leasehold properties, focus on university and away from a wider career spectrum, OFSTED, closing of school kitchens and move onto offsite catering, academies etc. etc. were policies which impacted people on the ground and I believe hurt the most.

I started my love affair with wasted money when working on a Labour crafted 'helping the hardest to help' contract. It was delivered by the private sector and appalling is too weak a crticism. The worst part was the Conservatives came in and rubbed their hands with glee; it was exactly the mechanism for privatisation they were desperate for but now they had cross party support! Absolute disaster! 

Edited June 27, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[darrenm]

I have to keep quoting this to people every time they say Labour's plans would bankrupt the country

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/guws3cyv3ctq9g7vg754p2zyymvc2f

On 8 June, voters will go to the polls for perhaps the most important UK general election since 1945. The importance arises in great part from profound differences in economic policy, reflecting different views of the nature and health of the British economy.

The Conservative manifesto calls for continued austerity, which will tend to slow the economy at a crucial juncture, against the backdrop of Brexit negotiations. Their spending cuts have hurt the most vulnerable and failed to achieve their intended debt and deficit reduction targets. 

In contrast, Labour’s manifesto proposals are much better designed to strengthen and develop the economy and ensure that its benefits are more fairly shared and sustainable, as well as being fiscally responsible and based on sound estimations.

We point to the proposed increases in investment in the future of the UK and its people, labour market policies geared to decrease inequality and to protect the lower paid and those in insecure work and fair and progressive changes in taxation.

There is no future for the UK in a race to the bottom, which would only serve to increase social and economic inequality and further damage our social fabric. On the contrary, the UK urgently needs a government committed, as is Labour, to building an economy that really works “for the many, and not only the few”.

Signed by 130 economists lecturing, in universities, institutes, research facilities, etc. It makes sense. Spend on things that matter and drive growth. Or cut things and stall. I don't understand how this narrative that Tories are fiscally responsible got accepted, especially when Labour historically spend more but borrow less.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Oh of course there's a lot in the middle and also crossovers but there is definitely a divide. I accept what you're saying though.

and just because it's on the site (eek, don't shoot the messenger) it seems the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to vote Labour (if assuming education level roughly correlates with intelligence).

Yeah, I understand that, and have seen it before. I'm (with nothing other than from people I know) sort of thinking that people voting Tory (say) to protect their pension, or Labour to get free Uni fees are maybe voting at least as much about self interest, or that of their family or friends, as about "left" v "right" choices  - they're both essentially voting for free money (yeah, I know) for someone - they're both kind of "state support" policies.

And as for the intelligence thing, I've seen stuff to say it's to do with imagination and visualisation - that more intelligent people can see prospects as to how things might be improved, and that Conservatism is about keeping things safe and the same. Dunno if I go with that completely, though. In some ways you'd expect better educated people to earn more money and so perhaps vote Tory, so there's maybe something somewhere to be looked at with it.

Greens seem to get their best level of support from the brain people.

[MakemineVanilla]

22 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

The trouble is, certain terms become knee-jerk, bogeyman insults - 'lefties' are crazed communists who want to turn us into  a cold war soviet hell. And to be fair, the left love to brand Conservatives as 'fascists', who all want to bring back rule by toffs, and children working as chimney sweeps. 

It infantilises the whole nature of political debate. 

The reality is that the relationship between the individual voter and the state is childlike - the state being ascribed with most of the archetypal qualities assumed of a good or bad parent: wise, nurturing, omnipotent, benevolent, gratuitously cruel, capricious and always to blame for our own failings.