Current Affairs The Labour Party

[catcherintherye]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181.html

Corbyn wanted to talk to an organisation devoted to the destruction of the West. Umunna has joined a think tank with a mission statement of improving lives within an existing system. Why is one utterly crazy, but one to be applauded?

What do you think the state visit for Saudi Arabia was all about mate?

 

[zzr45]

What do you think the state visit for Saudi Arabia was all about mate?

I don’t know. I saw it as us keeping things sweet with a country that pours billons into our economy, you obviously have an inside line though, so please do share?

He said that the Government should keep a channel open to ISIS because we are at war with them (and for the same reasons we’ve kept channels open with whoever we’ve been at war with) not to sit down with them and discuss with them the problems they’ve caused.

The problem with sitting down with the likes of HSBC is that they are in a big way a part of the problem, you aren’t ever going to get honest impartial advice that benefits everyone.

That is why repeated attempts to involve the likes of them in dealing with inequality or other social issues have not exactly worked.

But again, why is it okay to keep channels open with someone we are so diametrically opposed with, whereas someone taking part in a think tank with the aims of improving skills, housing and finance regulations (which spans the political divide) is seen as heretical?

Again, even your answer points at a couple of problems. The banks are seen as a big evil only looking to trip people up. Only socialists can truly care about people. There’s no middle ground and there’s nothing to be gained from constructive dialogue. It’s exactly that kind of thinking that’s led the country into this absolutely depressing political nonsense rather than pushing us forward.

 

[davek]

So you want a full on communist state rather than the market economies of Sweden et al?

That's a whole different ball game.

The Nordic model socialises economic relations and makes the free market subordinate to that. Cross party co-operation in that classic model (under pressure now) is on the basis of that common goal. Not so in our country. The market dictates.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's a whole different ball game.

The Nordic model socialises economic relations and makes the free market subordinate to that. Cross party co-operation in that classic model (under pressure now) is on the basis of that common goal. Not so in our country. The market dictates.

I can just imagine private organisations providing 30% of primary care here like they do in Sweden. There would be uproar about the privatisation of the NHS, even if all care remained free at the point of delivery and state funded, which is precisely what it is in Sweden. Sweden also had 'free schools' long before we did here.

 

[abelard]

I can just imagine private organisations providing 30% of primary care here like they do in Sweden. There would be uproar about the privatisation of the NHS, even if all care remained free at the point of delivery and state funded, which is precisely what it is in Sweden. Sweden also had 'free schools' long before we did here.

It's true, the Anglo-Saxon left mostly doesn't understand how the Swedish economy works (though Sweden is an outlier among the Nordic countries).

Likewise, what Anglo-Saxon conservatives/classical liberals don't understand is that the privatization of public services has become overwhelmingly unpopular in Sweden - it's as much a factor as hostility to immigration in the Swedish Democrats' rise - and that there's no real evidence of it making public service delivery any more efficient.

It would be a terrible mistake for the UK to continue further still in this direction.

https://www.iffs.se/media/22171/2017_1.pdf

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's true, the Anglo-Saxon left mostly doesn't understand how the Swedish economy works (though Sweden is an outlier among the Nordic countries).

Likewise, what Anglo-Saxon conservatives/classical liberals don't understand is that the privatization of public services has become overwhelmingly unpopular in Sweden - it's as much a factor as hostility to immigration in the Swedish Democrats' rise - and that there's no real evidence of it making public service delivery any more efficient.

It would be a terrible mistake for the UK to continue further still in this direction.

https://www.iffs.se/media/22171/2017_1.pdf

I didn't comment on whether it was working or popular, merely that they are often held up as the bastion of acceptable socialism (as opposed to Venezuela et al), when many of their policies in recent years are things that Labour have traditionally opposed.

 

[catcherintherye]

I don’t know. I saw it as us keeping things sweet with a country that pours billons into our economy, you obviously have an inside line though, so please do share?

I haven't got an "inside line" mate, the information of Saudi's support to the allies of ISIS, Al Queda etc is very well known. We provide them lots of weaponry and financial/logistical support. Then mysteriously other Sunni extremists end up with extremely well funded weapons. And we wonder how it happens.

Yet Corbyn calling for dialogue is the problem. I can't get my head around it. Neither can I get my head around Amber "trade is good" Rudd making out the money terrorist supporting regimes pay us is worth while. Tell that to the kids who your mates murdered.

 

[zzr45]

I haven't got an "inside line" mate, the information of Saudi's support to the allies of ISIS, Al Queda etc is very well known. We provide them lots of weaponry and financial/logistical support. Then mysteriously other Sunni extremists end up with extremely well funded weapons. And we wonder how it happens.

Yet Corbyn calling for dialogue is the problem. I can't get my head around it. Neither can I get my head around Amber "trade is good" Rudd making out the money terrorist supporting regimes pay us is worth while. Tell that to the kids who your mates murdered.

Where did I say it was a problem? It was a question as to why it was perfectly fine for people to suggest that talking to a group whose ideological goal is the destruction of the west, whereas joining a group in discussing ways to help people, because one happens to be a banker is seen as completely unacceptable.

So far, no one, including your little tangential rant that had nothing to do with what was actually being asked, can answer that.

 

[catcherintherye]

Where did I say it was a problem? It was a question as to why it was perfectly fine for people to suggest that talking to a group whose ideological goal is the destruction of the west, whereas joining a group in discussing ways to help people, because one happens to be a banker is seen as completely unacceptable.

So far, no one, including your little tangential rant that had nothing to do with what was actually being asked, can answer that.

I wasn't ranting mate, just asking about whether there is a consistency in position on supporting those who support Sunni extremism. Do please provide me some evidence of where ISiS political program differs from the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Or if as you suggested the difference that makes it acceptable is the financial support they provide through trade thats fair enough, but you should be open about that.

I have no at any point said what Umana has done is unacceptable so I'm not sure how you want me to answer that. I don't think Umuna meeting a bank is "completely unnacceptable" and am not sure I've ever used that phrase? How would you propose I provide you an answer to a question that is something I neither believe in or have said mate?

 

[zzr45]

I wasn't ranting mate, just asking about whether there is a consistency in position on supporting those who support Sunni extremism. Do please provide me some evidence of where ISiS political program differs from the Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Or if as you suggested the difference that makes it acceptable is the financial support they provide through trade thats fair enough, but you should be open about that.

I have no at any point said what Umana has done is unacceptable so I'm not sure how you want me to answer that. I don't think Umuna meeting a bank is "completely unnacceptable" and am not sure I've ever used that phrase? How would you propose I provide you an answer to a question that is something I neither believe in or have said mate?

Not really, my initial point was that people on here decrying Umanna on ideological grounds had no problem with Corbyn talking to people with a completely different ideology. It’s the utter hypocrisy of it which is staggering. You seemingly took the example as some desire to explore Middle East politics, of which I have none.

 

[davek]

I can just imagine private organisations providing 30% of primary care here like they do in Sweden. There would be uproar about the privatisation of the NHS, even if all care remained free at the point of delivery and state funded, which is precisely what it is in Sweden. Sweden also had 'free schools' long before we did here.

It's all about ends. I wouldn't get caught up in the proportion of public to private. If a society is organised to benefit the vast majority of people in it then that's the metric to use; and it's a massive difference to one set up to make sure that 5% of the population own 40% of their nation's wealth.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's all about ends. I wouldn't get caught up in the proportion of public to private. If a society is organised to benefit the vast majority of people in it then that's the metric to use; and it's a massive difference to one set up to make sure that 5% of the population own 40% of their nation's wealth.

So you're happy, with the NHS for instance, if provision of care is done by whomever, be that a charity, the NHS or Acme Inc, so long as the state foots the bill for it all and it's free at the point of care?

 

[catcherintherye]

Not really, my initial point was that people on here decrying Umanna on ideological grounds had no problem with Corbyn talking to people with a completely different ideology. It’s the utter hypocrisy of it which is staggering. You seemingly took the example as some desire to explore Middle East politics, of which I have none.

Fair enough mate.

I don't have an issue with politicians speaking with anyone as a rule, but they should be treated as consistently as possible. In general I think Corbyn gets a bit of a rough end of the deal with certain comments he's made.

I can see your issue is more how Umuna was treated as opposed to how Corbyn was treated which is fair enough. I don't really like Umuna but I don't see any major issue with meeting with a bank. What is questionable is him trying to set up a new party while he's in an existing one, but thats a whole other question really.

 

[davek]

So you're happy, with the NHS for instance, if provision of care is done by whomever, be that a charity, the NHS or Acme Inc, so long as the state foots the bill for it all and it's free at the point of care?

The health care and social service system are different than other service providers in that it's morally objectionable when businesses make any profit from their enterprise. So that is a separate matter (one that I should have made clear in my other response). Elsewhere, if the private sector are comfortable with massive taxation, a cap on the profit they could make, and are ok with having their contracts torn up with zero compensation should they provide poor services, then I dont see the ideological incompatibility with statism - it'd still mean overall democratic control of the economy if the people's needs were being met. Of course, the private sector wouldn't accept such demands. Therefore there waould be a need for nationalisation of certain sectors.

 

[catcherintherye]

So you're happy, with the NHS for instance, if provision of care is done by whomever, be that a charity, the NHS or Acme Inc, so long as the state foots the bill for it all and it's free at the point of care?

Those services work pretty disastrously for rail companies, schools and hospitals currently, so it would be a pretty stupid way to operate it.

I am not sure as a taxpayer why I am expected to pay for shareholders profits for providing a pretty sub standard service.