advertisement


why Corbyn may well win the next election.

Mullardman said:
Joe, I'm sure that bit of Shakespeare is applicable to lots of illusions, especially I would say, religious ones... though to be fair I haven't read Henry IV since about 1964.. and don't recall where it heads.. However, it in no way negates the FACT that many are taken in by political illusions, but many aren't.

If I may say so, you seem to be in a very negative and nihilistic frame of mind of late.... Even I can see rays of hope here and there...:)
Click to expand...

Me? I'm a ray of sunshine. I just find it amusing when people on pfm assert that they, unlike the brainwashed plebs, have escaped the brainwashing and propaganda and can see through all smoke and mirrors to the true reality. I make no such claims. However I am old enough to remember most of the governments that you remember, and I think your analysis that Labour = good; Tory = bad is a tad simplistic. Apart from anything else, if Labour was so good, how come the Tories won in 1970? Both parties, from the late 60s to the late 70s, were plagued by industrial unrest, and neither party was able to get to grips with the problem. Labour should have done better, given its roots in the trade union movement, but instead the trade unions operated as a separate power bloc, obstructing attempts at reform, such as Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife

It was that inability to grasp the nettle of industrial unrest which, IMO, was the main reason for the Tory victory in 1979, and it was Blair's resolutely anti-TU position that made Labour electable.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Me? I'm a ray of sunshine. I just find it amusing when people on pfm assert that they, unlike the brainwashed plebs, have escaped the brainwashing and propaganda and can see through all smoke and mirrors to the true reality. I make no such claims. However I am old enough to remember most of the governments that you remember, and I think your analysis that Labour = good; Tory = bad is a tad simplistic. Apart from anything else, if Labour was so good, how come the Tories won in 1970? Both parties, from the late 60s to the late 70s, were plagued by industrial unrest, and neither party was able to get to grips with the problem. Labour should have done better, given its roots in the trade union movement, but instead the trade unions operated as a separate power bloc, obstructing attempts at reform, such as Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife

It was that inability to grasp the nettle of industrial unrest which, IMO, was the main reason for the Tory victory in 1979, and it was Blair's resolutely anti-TU position that made Labour electable.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Chris
 
Joe Hutch said:
Me? I'm a ray of sunshine. I just find it amusing when people on pfm assert that they, unlike the brainwashed plebs, have escaped the brainwashing and propaganda and can see through all smoke and mirrors to the true reality. I make no such claims. However I am old enough to remember most of the governments that you remember, and I think your analysis that Labour = good; Tory = bad is a tad simplistic. Apart from anything else, if Labour was so good, how come the Tories won in 1970? Both parties, from the late 60s to the late 70s, were plagued by industrial unrest, and neither party was able to get to grips with the problem. Labour should have done better, given its roots in the trade union movement, but instead the trade unions operated as a separate power bloc, obstructing attempts at reform, such as Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife

It was that inability to grasp the nettle of industrial unrest which, IMO, was the main reason for the Tory victory in 1979, and it was Blair's resolutely anti-TU position that made Labour electable.
Click to expand...

You can't post that...that's an aksheral FAK. What's the point of that? Pffff.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Me? I'm a ray of sunshine. I just find it amusing when people on pfm assert that they, unlike the brainwashed plebs, have escaped the brainwashing and propaganda and can see through all smoke and mirrors to the true reality. I make no such claims. However I am old enough to remember most of the governments that you remember, and I think your analysis that Labour = good; Tory = bad is a tad simplistic.
Click to expand...

I would agree. Having said that, why are many on here so obsessed with looking back rather than forward? Have all PFM'ers reached "that age"?

As posted, there is plenty of room in UK public spending and taxation policy to end up with a more socially responsible style of government, providing society as a whole with more equality and a higher standard of living. Countries such as Germany, Holland, Finland and Austria demonstrate that and have done for decades.

Tories hark back to the days of militancy and worker control of state subsidised industry as if this is what will happen with any attempt to rebalance the economy and society in general. Should Labour seek to move forward by improving the public sector and funding it to the same level as many prosperous nations in the EA-19, then there is zero evidence to back up these nostalgic analogies being dug up by selfish old duffers sitting in their houses hording their savings like a modern day equivalent of Scrooge himself.

The opportunity exists to produce a socially responsible society based on socialist rather than Thatcherite policies.

Should one care to look forwards, that is what is most likely to provide a better future for our children and grandchildren. Instead, these anachronisms choose to look back to the days of their youth when they were considerably poorer - as most youths and university graduates are. The difference is that, when they started work or left Uni, it is unlikely that they were already heavily in debt and unable to consider owning your own property (or find affordable housing) at some point in the future.
 
Mescalito said:
The electorate take one look, say "f*ck that",and re-elect the Tories, who proceed to up the standard of living for the majority of the populace.
Chris
Click to expand...

As you have chosen to avoid my earlier comment about your nonsense above, I'll put it another way. Can you give me some examples of the sectors of the populace who have had their standards of living "upped" in the past eight years?

Nurses? Teachers? Fire fighters? Police?

Come on. Enlighten me.
 
PFM, and indeed political discourse in general, is becoming more and more like that though which is sad. It makes reconciliation and mediation increasingly difficult. It increases the polarisation of society.

On social media, someone posts something coherent and researched that is at odds with another's beliefs. It questions the validity of points made in an earlier rant and this rationality is simply ignored in order for the ranting to continue unchecked ad infinitum.

Sad.

Arguments should be won and lost on demonstrable facts not subjectivity. This is a hifi forum though and such approaches are an anathema to the majority of audiophiles of course.
 
merlin said:
PFM, and indeed political discourse in general, is becoming more and more like that though which is sad. It makes reconciliation and mediation increasingly difficult. It increases the polarisation of society.

On social media, someone posts something coherent and researched that is at odds with another's beliefs. It questions the validity of points made in an earlier rant and this rationality is simply ignored in order for the ranting to continue unchecked ad infinitum.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Are you channeling Trump?
 
It works both ways sadly Joe - the polarisation is extreme.

Unless both parties will engage and consider the veracity of their long held beliefs then utterly illogical and manipulative people like Trump will gain support.

Suppression of one side of an argument, through whatever means, only increases the anger and removes the opportunity for both sides to establish an understanding.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
We have grip on most of the Party wards now.
Click to expand...
Does the 'we' bit refer to your political associates who want to see a more socialist alternative to the current Labour Party?


merlin said:
It works both ways sadly Joe - the polarisation is extreme.
Unless both parties will engage and consider the veracity of their long held beliefs then utterly illogical and manipulative people like Trump will gain support.
Click to expand...

Ah the sweet voice of reason who would never call for riots or widespread civil unrest because he got annoyed over something.
 
HarryB said:
As you have chosen to avoid my earlier comment about your nonsense above, I'll put it another way. Can you give me some examples of the sectors of the populace who have had their standards of living "upped" in the past eight years?

Nurses? Teachers? Fire fighters? Police?

Come on. Enlighten me.
Click to expand...

All the above are public sector workers, and as such are totally funded by workers in the private sector. Workers who are generally opposed to tax increases of any kind, and as such are simply not willing to fund the public sector any more than they already do.
The public sector have born the brunt of the austerity measures. But they account for only about 20% of the working population. The vast majority of the working population are doing OK.

Chris
 
merlin said:
It works both ways sadly Joe - the polarisation is extreme.
Click to expand...

It was actually your use of the single word 'Sad' as a sentence that suggested the Trump parallel.

Me, I love everyone, it's how I was brought up. I quite enjoy the ding-dong rows that rage on here, however, and am particularly fond of the pi-jaws we get when someone or other takes a dim view of something or other. It's like being back at school, where the teacher would say 'And I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves' when we quite clearly weren't.
 
Mescalito said:
All the above are public sector workers, and as such are totally funded by workers in the private sector. Workers who are generally opposed to tax increases of any kind, and as such are simply not willing to fund the public sector any more than they already do.
The public sector have born the brunt of the austerity measures. But they account for only about 20% of the working population. The vast majority of the working population are doing OK.

Chris
Click to expand...
Not really. Since 2008 UK workers have endured one of the largest cuts in real wages of any developed country:

Collapse%2Bin%2BUK%2Breal%2Bwages.jpg


But wait! Are those the "green shoots of recovery" I see? Nope; here's the 2018 outlook:

oecd_jun17_2-660x277.png


So, people might think they're doing OK, but the reality is quite different.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I think your analysis that Labour = good; Tory = bad is a tad simplistic.
Click to expand...

It would be had I made it, but that isn't what I said, or have ever said. Labour clearly have not got everything right all the time, but neither have they regularly, deliberately or even accidentally 'trashed' the economy as our resident Tories continually and incorrectly assert.

However, I make no bones that I favour a more social democratic approach.

I think it is evident to all who are honest, that the present bunch of spivs have done more damage to the UK economy than any Govt of any colour since WW2.And I still struggle to believe that people are so ignorant of the realities of outsourcing, privatisation and all of the other ways in which successive Tory Govts since Thatcher have quietly 'divvied up' the nation's assets amongst the already rich, whilst simultaneously and deliberately further impoverishing the poor.

Mull
 
Mescalito said:
All the above are public sector workers, and as such are totally funded by workers in the private sector. Workers who are generally opposed to tax increases of any kind, and as such are simply not willing to fund the public sector any more than they already do.
The public sector have born the brunt of the austerity measures. But they account for only about 20% of the working population. The vast majority of the working population are doing OK.

Chris
Click to expand...

And so.. because public sector workers are funded from revenues,they are not worthy of the same consideration as other workers?

And of course you, in your terminal selfishness, take it upon yourself to decide that because you don't need public services, or don't support their funding, then it is OK for those who do depend upon public services, to suffer the results of service cuts?

You get worse.
 
Mescalito said:
The vast majority of the working population are doing OK.

Chris
Click to expand...

I presume you can back up this statement with some evidence. If not it is just more of your boorish and irrelevant opinion from your blinkered world.

I think what you actually mean is you're doing OK and you don't give a toss about anyone else. Am I right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top