Labour ?

Dave, I agree, however although Blair did provide leadership, he brought spin from the US to the UK orchestrated by Campbell in a way I'm sure  that even Goebbels would have been impressed with. To me this started the detachment of the political centre from the people, the start of the liberal 'elite' if you like... he became seemingly more obsessed of his self righteousness within his own Westminster bubble showing arrogance and disdain for anything that got in the way.. just remember the Chilcot enquiry.. and of course when the going got tough, it was a case of 'here are the keys Gordon'...

And what I find truly alarming and potentially haunting, Blair thinks he can come back from his wilderness and portray his arrogance all over again... thank goodness his credibility now is  way less than that of Jeremy  Corbyns and so I doubt other than a bit  of media curiosity about a relic much will come of it. Mr Blair, either join politics again and become a real answerable MP or get another job... please.

Agreed Simon, the longer he was in power the more detached and arrogant he became which is a shame because he did a lot of good work, building on his two predecessors,  for the Labour Party and for the country in the early days.  I haven't seen much from the Labour Party that pleased me since he left

Timmo1341 posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

As a lifelong Labour voter, and a pro European, all I could think was 'you're a year too late, mate'. 

I may be wrong, but wasn't Blair viewed as simply too toxic to be used to any great extent by the Remain campaign?

That's how I understood it..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

ok its from the Daily Mail - but google and you see from many sources around April 2016 - the British people can't be trusted to vote on this... it says it all really..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...trusted-EU-vote.html

Simon, as you admit, this article comes from the Daily Mail after all.

Surely that in itself should disqualify it from any impartial comment in respect of the Labour Party or the recent referendum.

I have just responded to a post on the 'Trump' thread from a Trump supporter who claimed that the American News Networks are run by the CIA and the BBC by MI6, and that by inference Donald Trump is simply attempting to counter the bias against him.

Although my response to his post wasn't exactly supportive of his views, maybe he is onto something. I don't really think that the British News Media is run by the CIA, but could it just possibly be the case that a number of the News outlets (such as the Mail) are owned and sponsored by the 'Wealthy Elite', and have a vested financial interest in the content of their political editorials. Have these slippery 'Wealthy Elite' So and Sos had the audacity to usurp we arrogant 'Liberal Elites'?    

No, I'm now getting into the realms of fantasy here - although hang on a minute! Who does own the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph? Could it be the non Liberal 'Wealthy Elite'?   

wenger2015 posted:

So Labour lose Copeland, .......Corbyn is now being described as 'chemical Ali' a man in total denial .....

Surely it must be time for him to resign...? 

I'm afraid I have to agree.

Corbyn is a decent man and a politician whom I admire in many ways. However, he must realise that the Labour Party faces a huge battle to regain ground and that there is very little chance of them doing so under his leadership. 

I guess Corbyn et al will point to the 'nuclear issue' in Cumbria and claim this is a special case but the performance in Stoke was hardly stellar.

I admire his integrity as a politician but not his lack of insight if he fails to step aside in time for somebody else to turn this around.

If I was T May I'd be calling an election and securing a vast majority. I believe the '5 year fixed term' can be got around.

Not a great thought this Fri morning.

 

The Copeland defeat was blamed on 'the nuclear issue' during the first interviews on Breakfast TV this morning.    I really can't understand how anyone can admire anything about Corbyn,  OK he might be a principled politician,  but he seems to be blinded by his beliefs & chained to his dogma.  He's been elected by the party left, the activist's & idealist's,  its not what the huge mass of non-member labour middle ground want & he does not attract the swing voters - absolutely the reverse.   A leader should have vision & ability to think & act outside the box.   JC's box is his silo & he looks to be digging that deeper by the day.     Although I'm a Tory,  I do understand & genuinely wish for a strong opposition.   Scottish terriers & lib-deb pussys don't do this,  the country deserves better.  

wenger2015 posted:

It's almost a case,not for waiting for Corbyn  to fall on his sword but for someone to stab him in the back, for the future of the party.... If it's not already to late...?

It has been tried, and that just increased his mandate. Unless he resigns and does not stand again his slug of Momentum supporters will just vote him back in. Nothing suggests his faithful have stopped believing. As discussed early in this thread, the way a leader is appointed is a big part of the problem. It probably was for Milliband too.

Bruce

Don Atkinson posted:

If he won't resign, why don't the mass of labour MPs resign "en-mass" and form "New Labour" or some such new party. And stand in the ensuing by-elections for this new party, leaving Corbyn and Diane Abbott a soul-mates in the rump of the Labour Party.

Since they have already had New labour,  it would have to be New New labour.....

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Yeah we had New Labour and in practice it was the same as Old Labour in that it still managed to bankrupt the country. 

Mind you since the lunatic decision to withdraw from the EU fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to be the highest priority of the current administration.  

Spot-on. I think that is the plan.

Bankrupt the country, then nobody will want to immigrate to the UK --> Bingo ! Job done. No more EU immigrants.

If it wasn't happening, I wouldn't believe it !

BigH47 posted:

This government has borrowed 546 Billion pounds, more than all Labour governments.

Not an entirely fair comparison perhaps. How much would a Labour administration have borrowed in the post-crash years if they had been in power?

I never thought that Milliband's fiscal policies were actually much different to the Tories last election time.

Bruce

It's true the national debt is just beyond comprehension.    The only possible encouragement for the current administration is that by virtue of better economic conditions the deficit is reducing.   But make no doubt that getting out of this is going to be painfull whoever is in government.   

The National Debt relies on inflation (or hyper-inflation) to be affordable. This government is well on its way to sorting out this little problem. Since most of the Debt is owned by UK investors with £Sterling, and is owed to others in £Sterling, any foreign currency the Gov had in its reserves will more easily pay off this and any foreign owned debt.

A small hike in income tax will soon see us all sending more money to the gov so that it can retun that money back to us as it pays off the Debt we hold. I doubt if this move is in the Gov's line-of-sight at the moment.

None of the Credit-Rating Agencies have indicated a downgrading of the UK in past few weeks so I don't think the National Debt is anywhere near the top of the Gov's "to do" list.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:
BigH47 posted:

This government has borrowed 546 Billion pounds, more than all Labour governments.

Not an entirely fair comparison perhaps. How much would a Labour administration have borrowed in the post-crash years if they had been in power?

I never thought that Milliband's fiscal policies were actually much different to the Tories last election time.

Bruce

I have some sympathy with the view that a Labour administration might have borrowed fairly similarly had they been in power in the post-crash years. However, only if those with a leaning to the right admit that the crash was a world wide phenomenon that would have equally hit the British economy had a Tory administration been in power, and not the direct fault of the Labour party in power at the time.  

As I recall the financial crash wasn't due to the spending of the Labour government. It was caused by reckless bankers.  To varying degrees all the countries in Europe ended up running deficits, regardless of the political party in power. Indeed the mantra from the Conservative party that it continues to have to clear up the economic mess left by the former Labour government must be wearing pretty thin now, given that we've had a Conservative chancellor for nearly seven years, and the previous one regularly missed deficit reduction targets that he set himself.  

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Dave, I agree, however although Blair did provide leadership, he brought spin from the US to the UK orchestrated by Campbell in a way I'm sure  that even Goebbels would have been impressed with. To me this started the detachment of the political centre from the people, the start of the liberal 'elite' if you like... he became seemingly more obsessed of his self righteousness within his own Westminster bubble showing arrogance and disdain for anything that got in the way.. just remember the Chilcot enquiry.. and of course when the going got tough, it was a case of 'here are the keys Gordon'...

And what I find truly alarming and potentially haunting, Blair thinks he can come back from his wilderness and portray his arrogance all over again... thank goodness his credibility now is  way less than that of Jeremy  Corbyns and so I doubt other than a bit  of media curiosity about a relic much will come of it. Mr Blair, either join politics again and become a real answerable MP or get another job... please.

Simon,

I notice that you have used the term 'liberal elite' quite a few times in this and other posts. Could I ask you a couple of questions about your understanding of the term?

I have just looked up the term in Wikipedia for the first time and realise I didn't quite grasp the nuances of the use of the term. I obtained the following definition from Wikopedia:

"Liberal elite (also metropolitan elite in the United Kingdom)[1][2] is a pejorative term used to describe politically left-leaning people, whose education had traditionally opened the doors to affluence and power and form a managerial elite. It is commonly used with the implication that the people who claim to support the rights of the working class are themselves members of the ruling classes and are therefore out of touch with the real needs of the people they claim to support and protect". 

My questions are -

1. do you agree with the definition, and with the implication above that It has been coined to apply only to 'left leaning' people whose education gives them access to power, but who have apparently (possibly consequently) lost touch with the 'working class' whom the 'claim' to support - 'Champagne Socialists' if you like (to use one of your other references to educated left leaning persons)?

2. do you personally use the term 'liberal elite' in a pejorative sense? I have to assume that the term 'champagne socialist' is not meant to be complimentary.   

2. Does this mean that those people from a 'right leaning' or 'central' political background who voted Brexit (of which there are quite a few on this forum) do not qualify for the label 'Liberal Elite'. What then might they be? - possibly 'non National Populist', non 'Anti-establishment' or 'lapsed radical right'? It's all getting very confusing and a little lazy. The term 'liberal elite' tends to get rolled out regularly as a ready-made explanation of why the Brexit vote went the way it did, although the term 'Champagne Socialist' not so much.   

3. Do you really think that the right wing Government of May, and the likes of IDS and Redwood are any more in touch and have more empathy with the aspirations of the 'working class' of this country than the Labour party and we 'liberal elites' of which there appear to be quite a few on this forum. These people really are the 'Elite Class' of our still class divided society, whichever measure (wealth, privileged education, number of silver spoons) one cares to use.  

Just interested in your viewpoint

Simon posted:

"........he (Blair) brought spin from the US to the UK orchestrated by Campbell in a way I'm sure  that even Goebbels would have been impressed with"

Just possibly very slightly OTT?

Wasn't Sir Bernard Ingham in Thatcher's Government the ultimate and possibly the inventor of 'spin' in British politics? I'm certainly old enough to remember even if you are not. However, I would in no way equate him with Goebbels, or with Donald Trump for that matter. Campbell and Ingham before him 'spun' to promote his politics. I wasn't a fan of this approach, but Donald Trump and his team just resort to complete invention and lies.

The fewer references to Goebbels the better, unless you use his name in relation to Donald Trump or possibly Nigel Farage? Even that (although I can see no redeeming features in Farage) is a bit of a stretch!    

wenger2015 posted:

Is not SPIN just the same as Trumps Fake News? 

SPIN is just a more palatable description ....

Not really (imo).

Spin (to me) is explaining away the facts in a paletable way.  Spin used facts, but uses them selectively.  

Fake news is making up a story. And is an accusation levelled by certain politicians at the mainstream media when stories are run which paint them in a bad light.

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selective information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don - I tend to agree- however the selective information bit is interesting.. in the world of commerce, consumerism, marketing and dare I say politics one tends to highlight benefits and advantages and avoid or contain any disadvantages, risks etc - as the aim is communicate a benefit or advantage that the customer wants to hear so as to provide a positive or beneficial outcome making a decision easier... as long as its not false and a lie, surely this is the norm in many areas - and I suspect deep down its what people want to hear - sifting through all the pros and cons of everyday life decisions would probably be unworkable for many and some might not even otherwise be able to cope with getting out of bed in the morning  - but do we call focussing on such selective information deceit?

I guess it moves us into the concept of trust and people associating themselves with  an identity, movement or philosophy - so as to reduce the amount of decision making - and after all humans tend to be happiest when they have a sense of belonging to a group, culture, nationality, ideal, religion, philosophy etc. - i.e. the herd instinct..

Likes (1)
Hungryhalibut
×
×
×
×