Labour, can they sink any lower?

Reverend

A key thing about Churchill getting the boot in 1946 is that the war meant that for 6 years nearly all of the country had felt they had a common purpose and so perhaps Labour's socialism would have appealed to many who saw that it could actually be possible.for to work towards shared goals. 

Of course a few years later that would have worn off

Philly_Q

I gather that Panorama last night was about the current state of the Labour party.  My friend from Brighton Labour was on it displaying her range of "Jeremy for PM" stickers and badges.... I bet she did a serious interview with John Pienaar and they didn't feature any of it, she'll be furious.

ICBM

ESBlonde said:

Atlee took power in a landslide and shafted the countries finances for decades.

Not true - it was the US which shafted the country for decades, by lending us too little money to really do what we needed to get the country back on its feet after the war, at too high an interest rate. There was next to nothing we could do about that whoever had been in power - the alternative was bankruptcy, and the US knew it which is why they wouldn't compromise. They didn't really want to help - they wanted to make sure Britain became a second-rate power and didn't regain its empire.

Attlee established the modern civilised nation we still know today, and which the Tories have been trying to unpick since 1979, if not earlier. (Including New Labour.)

holnrew

ESBlonde said:

So would people be happier with Tracy from the checkouts and her unmarried mum sister Chell running the countries finances with Big trev and Soli from the bookies?
Are these people under represented in politics, yes but they could change it if they wanted to, it's just, you know....

That's a disgusting attitude. Those people work as hard as anybody else, and shaming mums for being single parents is despicable.

impmann

Fretwired said:

Reverend said:

I have enough punk albums to know Maggie was a wrong'un...

Being anti-Maggie was trendy and sold records ... most of the serious old punks have million pound houses in London ...

Like whom?

Most of the 'serious' punks from that time didn't make diddly squit out of the music, and so still have to tour. Even Lydon hasn't got a pot to piss in - he had to do the butter commercial to bankroll the PiL album. TV Smith has been near bankrupt. The Fingers never lived in London. Etc, etc etc.

Being Anti-Maggie had nothing to do with trend. She was a vile human being.

impmann

ICBM said:

ESBlonde said:

Atlee took power in a landslide and shafted the countries finances for decades.

Not true - it was the US which shafted the country for decades, by lending us too little money to really do what we needed to get the country back on its feet after the war, at too high an interest rate. There was next to nothing we could do about that whoever had been in power - the alternative was bankruptcy, and the US knew it which is why they wouldn't compromise. They didn't really want to help - they wanted to make sure Britain became a second-rate power and didn't regain its empire.

Attlee established the modern civilised nation we still know today, and which the Tories have been trying to unpick since 1979, if not earlier. (Including New Labour.)

THIS.

In spades.

ESBlonde

holnrew said:

ESBlonde said:

So would people be happier with Tracy from the checkouts and her unmarried mum sister Chell running the countries finances with Big trev and Soli from the bookies?
Are these people under represented in politics, yes but they could change it if they wanted to, it's just, you know....

That's a disgusting attitude. Those people work as hard as anybody else, and shaming mums for being single parents is despicable.

I'm saying I'd rather put my vote against someone with a track record of success (even if it was gifted to them through birth) and higher education. Yes it might be shallow, but my chances of survival would be higher in the longer run. I don't know many millionairs if I'm honest and I know lots of very poor people, I've been one myself.

Reverend

ESBlonde said:

holnrew said:

ESBlonde said:

So would people be happier with Tracy from the checkouts and her unmarried mum sister Chell running the countries finances with Big trev and Soli from the bookies?
Are these people under represented in politics, yes but they could change it if they wanted to, it's just, you know....

That's a disgusting attitude. Those people work as hard as anybody else, and shaming mums for being single parents is despicable.

I'm saying I'd rather put my vote against someone with a track record of success (even if it was gifted to them through birth) and higher education. Yes it might be shallow, but my chances of survival would be higher in the longer run. I don't know many millionaires if I'm honest and I know lots of very poor people, I've been one myself.

I used to know a few Millionaires - they owned the company I worked for at the time. They were all crooks* and a couple of them were pretty stupid. I'd not trust them to work microwave, let alone run a country. 


*true story. I remember they time they defrauded Blockbuster Video for £120,000. 

impmann

ESBlonde said:

holnrew said:

ESBlonde said:

So would people be happier with Tracy from the checkouts and her unmarried mum sister Chell running the countries finances with Big trev and Soli from the bookies?
Are these people under represented in politics, yes but they could change it if they wanted to, it's just, you know....

That's a disgusting attitude. Those people work as hard as anybody else, and shaming mums for being single parents is despicable.

I'm saying I'd rather put my vote against someone with a track record of success (even if it was gifted to them through birth) and higher education. Yes it might be shallow, but my chances of survival would be higher in the longer run. I don't know many millionairs if I'm honest and I know lots of very poor people, I've been one myself.

Poor - yep been there myself. Actually, I've been about a fiver away from being homeless... but thats another story... oh, and I had a "higher education" at a Grammar School etc, so it has fuck all to do with that. We are all just four or five steps away from the gutter and never forget it...

Track record of success? A good friend of my sister's, who makes seven figure sums per year in the city said that if someone was truly successful in business, why would they give it up to work in politics?

Frankly, Tracey from the checkouts probably has a better grasp on what something actually costs to buy (like a loaf of bread) than the pricks from Westminster...

crunchman

Does Tracey have the kind of brain to look at all the data and make reasoned coherent decision from the data though?  That's what you need in a PM or chancellor.

impmann

crunchman said:

Does Tracey have the kind of brain to look at all the data and make reasoned coherent decision from the data though?  That's what you need in a PM or chancellor.

Not convinced that any of the recent Chancellors or PMs could either!

Heartfeltdawn

impmann said:

Poor - yep been there myself. Actually, I've been about a fiver away from being homeless... but thats another story... oh, and I had a "higher education" at a Grammar School etc, so it has fuck all to do with that. We are all just four or five steps away from the gutter and never forget it...

Track record of success? A good friend of my sister's, who makes seven figure sums per year in the city said that if someone was truly successful in business, why would they give it up to work in politics?

Frankly, Tracey from the checkouts probably has a better grasp on what something actually costs to buy (like a loaf of bread) than the pricks from Westminster...

This is why some of them have cheat sheets. 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/12/camerons-sheet-on-prices-of-everyday-goods-revealed

ToneControl

paulads said:

I dunno about Corbyn not being a leader...or why a political party would so desperately need one - or more to the point try to dump someone who they didn't think was one...despite actually being one

anyway...i think we're supposed to be run by cabinet government...and i think "leaders" like Blair and Thatcher might have been better advised to have operated under just such a system...rather than seeing their parties as their own personal toys

The other curiosity i find is the guesswork that Corbyn couldn't win a general election...bearing in mind that two out of our last three Prime Ministers didn't win one either...

And the fear that Corbyn would be a disaster...i can't personally remember a non-disastrous British Prime Minister.

it's OK to challenge whether  parties need  strong leaders
However, it's not "guesswork" that Corbyn can't win an election
I am not sure what you mean by "non-disastrous" PM. We still live in the 4th or 5th  biggest economy in the world, and many want to come here, where's the disaster?

paulads

I do think it's guesswork. I can't see how you could know for a fact that Corbyn couldn't win an election.  A lot of effort is being made by a lot of people in various positions of power who seem very concerned that he could do just that. The concerted effort against him has been breathtaking, in my opinion.
I feel that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them.
The disaster, to me, is the unnecessary poverty, suffering, inequality and selfishness in our society and our lamentable foreign policy.
Reading thorough this thread, I haven't been persuaded that my opinion of our recent PM's needs re-evaluating.

Chalky

paulads said:

I do think it's guesswork. I can't see how you could know for a fact that Corbyn couldn't win an election.  A lot of effort is being made by a lot of people in various positions of power who seem very concerned that he could do just that. The concerted effort against him has been breathtaking, in my opinion.
I feel that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them.
The disaster, to me, is the unnecessary poverty, suffering, inequality and selfishness in our society and our lamentable foreign policy.
Reading thorough this thread, I haven't been persuaded that my opinion of our recent PM's needs re-evaluating.

Now you're just being silly. You're ignoring the very austere 50s and how we were broke in the 70s, asking the IMF for money like a family going to a foodbank.  

You won't be persuaded of anything if the only facts you believe are the ones already in your head.

paulads

Chalky said:

paulads said:

I do think it's guesswork. I can't see how you could know for a fact that Corbyn couldn't win an election.  A lot of effort is being made by a lot of people in various positions of power who seem very concerned that he could do just that. The concerted effort against him has been breathtaking, in my opinion.
I feel that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them.
The disaster, to me, is the unnecessary poverty, suffering, inequality and selfishness in our society and our lamentable foreign policy.
Reading thorough this thread, I haven't been persuaded that my opinion of our recent PM's needs re-evaluating.

Now you're just being silly. You're ignoring the very austere 50s and how we were broke in the 70s, asking the IMF for money like a family going to a foodbank.  

You won't be persuaded of anything if the only facts you believe are the ones already in your head.

Am I?

Is there something you're trying to persuade me of?

ICBM

ToneControl said:

I am not sure what you mean by "non-disastrous" PM. We still live in the 4th or 5th  biggest economy in the world, and many want to come here, where's the disaster?

Try looking east of Tunisia, south of Russia, west of Tibet and north of the equator … which also might help explain why so many might want to come here.

There are also areas of the UK where the people - although not that badly off by global standards - might feel it applies to them.

ICBM

Chalky said:

Now you're just being silly. You're ignoring the very austere 50s and how we were broke in the 70s, asking the IMF for money like a family going to a foodbank.

The austere 50s were caused by the terms of the US loan to bail us out after the war - they purposely wanted to restrict our recovery. Attlee's government in fact achieved a miracle by being able to create the modern welfare state on the very restricted resources available. The sad thing is that in '51, Labour actually increased its share of the vote slightly and polled more than the Tories - but lost the election because of the way FPTP works. The Churchill/Eden/Macmillan government then reaped the benefits of what Labour had done to set Britain back on its feet.

We also didn't need to go to the IMF in the 70s - that was caused by an error or misinformation at the Treasury. In fact by the end of the 70s Callaghan's government was just starting to turn things around, but ran out of time - and the public's patience. If Callaghan hadn't misjudged the election and called it for the autumn of '78 instead he would probably have won.

You can check all this if you want to.

Chalky

ICBM said:

Chalky said:

Now you're just being silly. You're ignoring the very austere 50s and how we were broke in the 70s, asking the IMF for money like a family going to a foodbank.

The austere 50s were caused by the terms of the US loan to bail us out after the war - they purposely wanted to restrict our recovery. Attlee's government in fact achieved a miracle by being able to create the modern welfare state on the very restricted resources available. The sad thing is that in '51, Labour actually increased its share of the vote slightly and polled more than the Tories - but lost the election because of the way FPTP works. The Churchill/Eden/Macmillan government then reaped the benefits of what Labour had done to set Britain back on its feet.

We also didn't need to go to the IMF in the 70s - that was caused by an error or misinformation at the Treasury. In fact by the end of the 70s Callaghan's government was just starting to turn things around, but ran out of time - and the public's patience. If Callaghan hadn't misjudged the election and called it for the autumn of '78 instead he would probably have won.

You can check all this if you want to.

I was responding to @paulads assertion that "that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them", as if the politicians had slowly been spending the national fortune through decades of steady decline. It had already been spent and was gone by the end of the war. So the leaders of this country must have done something right since 1945, and couldn't have all been disastrous.

ICBM

Chalky said:

I was responding to @paulads assertion that "that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them", as if the politicians had slowly been spending the national fortune through decades of steady decline. It had already been spent and was gone by the end of the war. So the leaders of this country must have done something right since 1945, and couldn't have all been disastrous.

You could probably say the same about the Italians!

To be fair I actually think our leaders have been more disastrous abroad than at home.


What's really odd for me thinking about Corbyn is that if people would actually listen to what he says rather than what he's painted as by the media, he could quite possibly win an election. But that probably won't happen - although he seems to want an election too, if May is unwise enough to call one - so presumably he must think he would win.

Britain is a strange country - it's a tolerant, optimistic, moderately socialist country which has somehow convinced itself that it's a prickly, individualistic, conservative one.

France is the other way round...