Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe that's why the centralist view is often successful. If Corbyn wants to be successful, it is therefore his responsibility to educate those in the electorate?

Unless he's able to successfully convince the voters that his views are suitable and/or viable, then I don't think he will ever be able to win.

That's the problem with democracy though isn't it? The vast majority of people have neither the time nor the inclination to learn in any depth about the things they're expected to vote on. Rationally, if you reason that your vote is one of maybe 30 million, then it's not worth your time putting that effort in either. All of which creates something of a dilemma, as democracy is only as strong as the ability of voters to make informed choices. If you don't have that then it's a terrible system.
 
Corbyn really is that unpopular with the wider population isn’t he? Being behind in the polls to this government takes some doing.

One feels the particularly Hard Left economic policies suggested by the goblin might not help.

Hard left? In comparison to the victorian values espoused by the 'conservatives' only. It's hardly a revolution arguing for a fairer society. Hard left, if only...
 
Hard left? In comparison to the victorian values espoused by the 'conservatives' only. It's hardly a revolution arguing for a fairer society. Hard left, if only...
State ownership of private firms does come from that playbook, at least from my perspective.
 
Are we talking of re-nationalisation?
Partially. I’m not adverse to rail renationalisation being made when the contracts expire. I’m not keen on shares being issued to workers which are then controlled by the government and workers only seeing a slight amount of their actual dividend value.
 
Partially. I’m not adverse to rail renationalisation being made when the contracts expire. I’m not keen on shares being issued to workers which are then controlled by the government and workers only seeing a slight amount of their actual dividend value.

Stolen shares mate, ;)
 
Same could be said for almost all of the industries sold off under successive governments. We've been fleeced repeatedly and the majority of services are atrocious and or too expensive.

Well one could disagree politically with the policy, but as far as I am aware, some consideration was paid in the transactions.

So no. Not really similar at all.
 
Well one could disagree politically with the policy, but as far as I am aware, some consideration was paid in the transactions.

So no. Not really similar at all.

The owner (the government) deciding to sell something, and then getting money for that is really nothing at all like the government deciding to take something from the owner and giving them no money for it. No doubt some will argue that they're not 'actually' taking someone's shares, but rather forcing new shares to be issued, which will inevitably dilute those already in existence.

All taxes have an element of theft in them as you don't have any say in whether to hand over the cash or not, but this is particularly blatant.
 
The owner (the government) deciding to sell something, and then getting money for that is really nothing at all like the government deciding to take something from the owner and giving them no money for it. No doubt some will argue that they're not 'actually' taking someone's shares, but rather forcing new shares to be issued, which will inevitably dilute those already in existence.

All taxes have an element of theft in them as you don't have any say in whether to hand over the cash or not, but this is particularly blatant.

And the difference in intent?
 
Maybe that's why the centralist view is often successful. If Corbyn wants to be successful, it is therefore his responsibility to educate those in the electorate?

Unless he's able to successfully convince the voters that his views are suitable and/or viable, then I don't think he will ever be able to win.

I disagree slightly in that it is more the view we are told is centralist that is successful (precisely because that is what we are told) rather than centrism which remains a minority view in the country and politically.

If you look at the traditional political spectrum, Blair was not a centrist even in general terms - his economics were mostly of the right, his stance on personal morality / responsibility was of the right, his foreign policy was certainly right wing even before Iraq and even his attitude towards the welfare state and employment law (at least in terms of what working tax credits were intended to do) could be argued as being of the right given that it benefitted business more than the recipients. His allies were of the right, he was supported by papers traditionally associated with the right and he attracted people of the right into his party.

Corbyn's problem is that he is seen as an extremist, and that is something that the media and large swathes of the establishment have been determined to push since before he became leader.

The media / establishments problem is that they have been too successful; the moment it becomes obvious how much of a mess we are in that he will be the alternative and he may win the next election in a landslide.
 
And the difference in intent?

I guess the intent is the same; raise money to spend.

But one method involves consideration, and one doesnt. But we will never agree, so I will leave it be. My opinion on the policy has been aired in more than this exchange, so will respectfully agree to disagree.
 
The owner (the government) deciding to sell something, and then getting money for that is really nothing at all like the government deciding to take something from the owner and giving them no money for it. No doubt some will argue that they're not 'actually' taking someone's shares, but rather forcing new shares to be issued, which will inevitably dilute those already in existence.

All taxes have an element of theft in them as you don't have any say in whether to hand over the cash or not, but this is particularly blatant.

There is an element of that to it, but then again that boat has repeatedly sailed over the years - the bank bailouts, firms issuing their own extra shares and so on.
 
I know the Tories opposed the nationalisation of Northern Rock, but can't find any record of Corbyn's vote on the issue. Any ideas?

"Following on from the previous question, does the Chancellor have any concerns that any other bank, along the lines of Northern Rock, has borrowed excessively on the inter-bank market and therefore put itself and its customers in some danger? Does he have any proposals to change legislation in that respect?"

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ight=northern rock#contribution-0711196000244

And I'm not sure if the "The Northern Rock plc Transfer Order 2009" was voted on, as I can't find anything about it:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3226/contents/made
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top