Emily Thornberry at it again

[Lancasterclaret]

Something to do with their resurgence and every Nazi frantically denying that they are one.

(Not aimed at you btw)

[ClaretMoffitt]

In conclusion, no. I doubt Corbyn's Labour will get your vote. Contrary to what others might say, I don't think your outlook is that far removed from Labour's, but there's too many bits that clearly are. I have the impression you are vehemently opposed to anything that is obviously unfair - taxing lower earners, people flying in to the UK to be treated by the NHS, those that make an appointment and willfully don't turn up, those in power screwing those without. The tricky part for any political party is converting that into policy. Many 'solutions' end up costing more than they'd save (e.g. policing entry to A&E).

'Family, flag, faith' is meaningless without workable legislation. Yearning for lower taxes whilst improving public services can't happen. Someone will have to pay - you have to be bold and say 'reduce taxes on the poor and increase them for the rich' and that really is Labour through and through. Indeed, Corbyn is the first to come out and say it for 40 years.

The parts about being nationalistic I, personally, can't comprehend. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of the country in which I was born because I had absolutely no say in the matter. I just see Nationalism leading to continual war between citizens of different countries that are actually in the same boat (as in All Quiet on the Western Front). I'll have to leave that alone. I would oppose favouring Christian values over any other, and I hope Labour would, too. But I would also oppose shying away from challenging any faith-based custom because it might upset someone, even if it was a Christian one.

All said, I do think Labour are a lot closer to your values than you might imagine. I just happen to think you might be wishing a return to the 1950s - white and socialist, where men are men and women shouldn't be taken too seriously. But that era has gone, and it's never coming back. Well, not via the ballot box in any case.

Seeing as you are the only person on this thread capable of having political discussion with someone else withing referencing Nazism/skin heads/Fascism or whatever else just because you don't recognise the values of FFF, it looks like this debate is 50/50.

Your points about nationalism and faith favouring are fair. I would counter it by saying that those two ideals form part of the very fabric of society we live in. They help generate a sense of collectivism and shared identity and help reinforce a sense that people are a part of something bigger than just themselves. I personally think that is a good thing, though certainly accept there is an argument to me made against it that it may create a culture of exclusion for those outside that category.

The whole point of the FFF idea was (in my view) totally supposed to be non-legislative. Nobody should be forced to conform to these ideals, I just want to see leadership of this country holding these values in high regard. Not shying away from it or worse still, sneering at it. Like our good friend Emily did when she walked past the house of a working class chap who had a few St Georges crosses on his house.

I do like the idea of traditionalism, men being manly and women being feminine. Though I do take exception to the "women not to be taken seriously" part. I've never once suggested anything of a sort with that.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Something to do with their resurgence and every Nazi frantically denying that they are one.

(Not aimed at you btw)

It gets thrown around on here for literally nothing though.

I mean if poster on her are to be believed, there's a potential 20-30 nazis on this forum alone.

I have NEVER in all my 28 years on this earth met a Nazi. I've met communists, I've met racists, I've met all kinds of unsavoury people. I, have never once however met an actual Nazi or a skin head or whatever. If these people exist (which I'm sure they do somewhere) they are such a negligible fringe in society as to be totally insignificant; yet those on the left seem to think that every second man who leans to the right goes to bed every night with a copy of mein kampf.

[If it be your will]

.

[bob-the-scutter]

Could you explain how Labour are no longer the party for the working class?

You really need that explaining to you?

[AndrewJB]

You really need that explaining to you?

I wouldn't have asked, if I already knew.

[AndrewJB]

Seeing as you are the only person on this thread capable of having political discussion with someone else withing referencing Nazism/skin heads/Fascism or whatever else just because you don't recognise the values of FFF, it looks like this debate is 50/50.

Your points about nationalism and faith favouring are fair. I would counter it by saying that those two ideals form part of the very fabric of society we live in. They help generate a sense of collectivism and shared identity and help reinforce a sense that people are a part of something bigger than just themselves. I personally think that is a good thing, though certainly accept there is an argument to me made against it that it may create a culture of exclusion for those outside that category.

The whole point of the FFF idea was (in my view) totally supposed to be non-legislative. Nobody should be forced to conform to these ideals, I just want to see leadership of this country holding these values in high regard. Not shying away from it or worse still, sneering at it. Like our good friend Emily did when she walked past the house of a working class chap who had a few St Georges crosses on his house.

I do like the idea of traditionalism, men being manly and women being feminine. Though I do take exception to the "women not to be taken seriously" part. I've never once suggested anything of a sort with that.

I've enjoyed nationalism on many (usually sporting) occasions as a Canadian, and a Brit. There is absolutely a positive side to nationalism, but there is also negative nationalism - where it divides people or acts as a veneer for chauvinism. And unfortunately the raw positive emotion (because it's not a thinking thing) from positive nationalism can be very quickly diverted into hatefulness by manipulative people. So whereas I think it's good to enjoy and maybe encourage positive nationalism, we should never push the idea beyond the bounds of critical thought, and with positive nationalism the definition of British has to be as wide as possible to cover everyone living here. That is possible, because I've seen it done in the US and Canada.

With Faith why would it have to coalesce around Christianity, when we have a whole host of different religions here? All of which have broadly the same tenets. A person's faith in their Jewish or Hindu religion lead them down no less a righteous path than your atheist humanism, or someone else's Christianity.

Family - as long as people are left free to form whatever bonds and relationships that meet their needs.

[nil_desperandum]

You really need that explaining to you?

I think many of us would need you to explain it to us.
Under Corbyn, this is the most left-wing pro- working class Labour Party for decades, so much so that the right wing press will do anything to smear it. And any "working class" voter who votes Tory, will most likely end up getting what they deserve. (There's no obvious benefit to the working class of the UK being some kind of post-brexit off-shore tax haven, and there's no obvious benefit to the majority of the population to having more austerity and further cuts to services).
The greater problem is for moderates in the centre, like myself, who at present don't really have a party or leader that they can vote for.

[AndrewJB]

I think many of us would need you to explain it to us.
Under Corbyn, this is the most left-wing pro- working class Labour Party for decades, so much so that the right wing press will do anything to smear it. And any "working class" voter who votes Tory, will most likely end up getting what they deserve. (There's no obvious benefit to the working class of the UK being some kind of post-brexit off-shore tax haven, and there's no obvious benefit to the majority of the population to having more austerity and further cuts to services).
The greater problem is for moderates in the centre, like myself, who at present don't really have a party or leader that they can vote for.

With current Labour policies still being to the 'right' of Heath's Conservative government, I would say what we might call the 'centre' has shifted rightwards from the late seventies to now. I don't feel in any way extreme just because I'd like to see us take back control of railways and utilities, or ending austerity, or not having a wasteful layer of cruelty in our immigration system.

[nil_desperandum]

With current Labour policies still being to the 'right' of Heath's Conservative government, I would say what we might call the 'centre' has shifted rightwards from the late seventies to now. I don't feel in any way extreme just because I'd like to see us take back control of railways and utilities, or ending austerity, or not having a wasteful layer of cruelty in our immigration system.

Sorry Andrew. Having read a large number of your posts, I know where you stand politically, and I don't have an issue with that, and you will note that I usually defend Corbyn against the right-wingers on this board, (even though I think he is a useless leader).
However, if you are going to claim that his policies are to the right of Heath, then you lose some credibility. I don't particularly regard the 3 issues that you mention as being especially extreme, - indeed you have chosen some that many in the centre will agree with, but there are many others far more controversial than this. It's fine that a significant number of people, (including yourself) support Corbyn's vision for the Labour Party, but you are doing Corbyn himself a disservice if you claim that he is more to the right than Heath!.
The Labour manifesto at the last election was refreshingly radical - if flawed in parts.

[If it be your will]

.

[bob-the-scutter]

I think many of us would need you to explain it to us.
Under Corbyn, this is the most left-wing pro- working class Labour Party for decades, so much so that the right wing press will do anything to smear it. And any "working class" voter who votes Tory, will most likely end up getting what they deserve. (There's no obvious benefit to the working class of the UK being some kind of post-brexit off-shore tax haven, and there's no obvious benefit to the majority of the population to having more austerity and further cuts to services).
The greater problem is for moderates in the centre, like myself, who at present don't really have a party or leader that they can vote for.

Corbyn has ditched the "Working Class" in favour of the festival goers and the gullible students, didn't you know?
The working class had him sussed ages ago!

[AndrewJB]

I've just had a quick skim of the 1974 Conservative manifesto: http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/19 ... esto.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All the things Corbyn aspires to renationalise (and much more) were in public ownership in 1974, with no plans to privatise; university was free of fees and had maintenance grants; the proposed top rate of income tax was 75% (Corbyn - 50%), and corporation tax at 40% (Corbyn 26%/21% large/small businesses); the most regressive of taxes - VAT - is 10%; the rates system in 1974 was far less regressive than the current council tax, with its very low ceiling.

There was also commitments to full employment (presumably using Keynesian policies); no proposals for NHS contracts to be outsourced to the private sector. No mention of PFI or outsourcing council services to the private sector. No free schools here, and no private academies running state schools for profit. We even had capital controls and a highly regulated financial sector back then, and there are no plans here to alter this either. And I smiled at the necessity of a firm commitment not to ban private education, as if it might actually become Tory policy! It also looks like they are embroiled in a competition with Labour as to who would build the most council houses. Indeed, everything about that manifesto appears dramatically to the left of Labour's 2017 manifesto.

It looks to me that if Corbyn went to the electorate with the Heath manifesto of 1974, he really would be written off as a commie loon. Hell, even I might write him off as a commie loon!

Which bits of Heath's manifesto do you consider to be to the right of Labour's 2017 manifesto? Or, alternatively, where does Corbyn stray to the left of Heath? Only one comes to mind: introducing VAT on private school fees - hardly a Marxist bombshell.

Different days, I know, but we didn’t have a housing crisis, a debt crisis (public and private), NHS crisis, underfunded schools, and we still owned a lot of service delivery. I would say this all illustrates the failure of Neo liberal economics.

[If it be your will]

.

[tiger76]

Different days, I know, but we didn’t have a housing crisis, a debt crisis (public and private), NHS crisis, underfunded schools, and we still owned a lot of service delivery. I would say this all illustrates the failure of Neo liberal economics.

I'm not sure about not having a public debt crisis wasn't the pound devalued,and of course the 3 day week and the lights going out,agree about housing that was more affordable.

[AndrewJB]

Corbyn has ditched the "Working Class" in favour of the festival goers and the gullible students, didn't you know?
The working class had him sussed ages ago!

I was genuinely curious what you thought, but I can’t go along with your “Daily Mail-ish” received wisdom. Pretty much all the working class people I know still support Labour.