Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

I'm the reverse, I get more left wing the older I get. When I was 14/15, I'd form my political opinions by reading The Sun, which was the paper my dad brought back with him from work. As I got older, I started reading more (Noam Chomsky for example) and getting my news from a wider range of sources. I used to be really interested in economics in my late teens/early 20's, sparked by the simple question of why housing was so expensive.

Before I got fed up with the bullsh1t of it all, I was reading commentaries from both the right and left, warning of the impending debt crash from about 2005 or so (when I was 21). And seeing that play out, with a lot of disingenuous people (politicians/economists) saying that they had "no idea this was gonna happen..." and then thinking of Chomsky's work, and how he talks of 'framing the debate' -- allowing a very lively debate within very narrow parameters -- it just all seems to be a stitch-up, with very little variance of thought between the mainstream media, the political class and the financial elite who run them. And when you see the coverage of a campaign by Corbyn, who is not 'far left,' but has ideas that fly in other western democracies that are less unequal than ours, you see that the media/political/financial bubble that cannot and must not allow any thought outside of the debate that they have framed for us. Moderate ideas are derided as crazy/loony left or whatever. No serious debate can be had unless it sits within the frame that the media/political/financial class have constructed for us all to live within. There are some exceptions, you might get an Owen Jones article in The Guardian, but then you get 10 more articles in the same paper 'warning' us against having thoughts that go outside of the bubble. The message from a so-called left-wing publication isn't so much 'don't rock the boat' as 'don't rock OUR boat...'

Politics should be about policy and if people disagree, then debate the policy. Corbyn surely has his heart in the right place? If the methods are wrong, then debate them. This is why an opposition should actually attempt to oppose the government imo. Widen the debate and like JFK sorta said, instead of seeing things as they are and asking 'why?', see things how they could be and ask 'why not?'

 

[scaramanga]

I'm the reverse, I get more left wing the older I get. When I was 14/15, I'd form my political opinions by reading The Sun, which was the paper my dad brought back with him from work. As I got older, I started reading more (Noam Chomsky for example) and getting my news from a wider range of sources. I used to be really interested in economics in my late teens/early 20's, sparked by the simple question of why housing was so expensive.

Before I got fed up with the bullsh1t of it all, I was reading commentaries from both the right and left, warning of the impending debt crash from about 2005 or so (when I was 21). And seeing that play out, with a lot of disingenuous people (politicians/economists) saying that they had "no idea this was gonna happen..." and then thinking of Chomsky's work, and how he talks of 'framing the debate' -- allowing a very lively debate within very narrow parameters -- it just all seems to be a stitch-up, with very little variance of thought between the mainstream media, the political class and the financial elite who run them. And when you see the coverage of a campaign by Corbyn, who is not 'far left,' but has ideas that fly in other western democracies that are less unequal than ours, you see that the media/political/financial bubble that cannot and must not allow any thought outside of the debate that they have framed for us. Moderate ideas are derided as crazy/loony left or whatever. No serious debate can be had unless it sits within the frame that the media/political/financial class have constructed for us all to live within. There are some exceptions, you might get an Owen Jones article in The Guardian, but then you get 10 more articles in the same paper 'warning' us against having thoughts that go outside of the bubble. The message from a so-called left-wing publication isn't so much 'don't rock the boat' as 'don't rock OUR boat...'

Politics should be about policy and if people disagree, then debate the policy. Corbyn surely has his heart in the right place? If the methods are wrong, then debate them. This is why an opposition should actually attempt to oppose the government imo. Widen the debate and like JFK sorta said, instead of seeing things as they are and asking 'why?', see things how they could be and ask 'why not?'

I don't think there's any restrictions of what Corbyn can and can't argue.

He's put forward his beliefs/proposals and, aside from a couple of hundred thousand students and trades union members, people have mostly laughed. Even people who don't know much about economics know enough to realise that his ideas are silly pipe dreams.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

All this criticism that a radical agenda is backward looking. Ha, ha. The Tories are adopting the free market policies of the 18th century, so much for that. They're a bunch of reactionaries. And just because Tony (sell out) Blair and finance journalists from The Economist poo, poo it, will not mean that I will mindlessly agree. After all, they would do that wouldn't they?

 

[parklane1]

I'm the reverse, I get more left wing the older I get. When I was 14/15, I'd form my political opinions by reading The Sun, which was the paper my dad brought back with him from work. As I got older, I started reading more (Noam Chomsky for example) and getting my news from a wider range of sources. I used to be really interested in economics in my late teens/early 20's, sparked by the simple question of why housing was so expensive.

Before I got fed up with the bullsh1t of it all, I was reading commentaries from both the right and left, warning of the impending debt crash from about 2005 or so (when I was 21). And seeing that play out, with a lot of disingenuous people (politicians/economists) saying that they had "no idea this was gonna happen..." and then thinking of Chomsky's work, and how he talks of 'framing the debate' -- allowing a very lively debate within very narrow parameters -- it just all seems to be a stitch-up, with very little variance of thought between the mainstream media, the political class and the financial elite who run them. And when you see the coverage of a campaign by Corbyn, who is not 'far left,' but has ideas that fly in other western democracies that are less unequal than ours, you see that the media/political/financial bubble that cannot and must not allow any thought outside of the debate that they have framed for us. Moderate ideas are derided as crazy/loony left or whatever. No serious debate can be had unless it sits within the frame that the media/political/financial class have constructed for us all to live within. There are some exceptions, you might get an Owen Jones article in The Guardian, but then you get 10 more articles in the same paper 'warning' us against having thoughts that go outside of the bubble. The message from a so-called left-wing publication isn't so much 'don't rock the boat' as 'don't rock OUR boat...'

Politics should be about policy and if people disagree, then debate the policy. Corbyn surely has his heart in the right place? If the methods are wrong, then debate them. This is why an opposition should actually attempt to oppose the government imo. Widen the debate and like JFK sorta said, instead of seeing things as they are and asking 'why?', see things how they could be and ask 'why not?'

Great post mate, a lot of the general public are like mushrooms ( kept in the dark and fed flimflam) the rest vote for what is best for them and screw the rest. Someone like Corbyn comes along speaking the truth and believing what he says and those who are doing well out of the game close arms and try and discredit him. Just look at the arseholes who are running against him they are bricking themselves that they will not win and join the gravy chain.

 

[the dza]

I don't think there's any restrictions of what Corbyn can and can't argue.

He's put forward his beliefs/proposals and, aside from a couple of hundred thousand students and trades union members, people have mostly laughed. Even people who don't know much about economics know enough to realise that his ideas are silly pipe dreams.

Perhaps some of his ideas are "silly pipe dreams." Which ones specifically do you have in mind? Publicly owned railways, utlilities and free university education are a reality in other western democracies and economies that are as big, or bigger than ours. I don't see why we can't have those things here and the majority of people, when polled, are in favour of those things.

 

[P.D.]

Great post mate, a lot of the general public are like mushrooms ( kept in the dark and fed hogwash) the rest vote for what is best for them and screw the rest. Someone like Corbyn comes along speaking the truth and believing what he says and those who are doing well out of the game close arms and try and discredit him. Just look at the arseholes who are running against him they are ****ting themselves that they will not win and join the gravy chain.

Interesting point though, should everyone vote for themselves or for what will be for the greater good of the nation. Me I vote generally for what policies will have some benefit to me or those close to me. I can see the argument both ways but why shouldn't people vote for what is applicable to them, isn't that why politicians try and 'reach' and 'resonate' with the public.

 

[parklane1]

Interesting point though, should everyone vote for themselves or for what will be for the greater good of the nation. Me I vote generally for what policies will have some benefit to me or those close to me. I can see the argument both ways but why shouldn't people vote for what is applicable to them, isn't that why politicians try and 'reach' and 'resonate' with the public.

I guess that is up to the individual and their conscience, as for politicians trying to reach or resonate with the public I would question that in most cases, Tell them what they want to hear maybe but most of the time its flimflam and sound bites.

 

[the dza]

I think, in a general sense, what is good for you as an individual is good for the nation and vice versa. Unless you are very wealthy, then different rules will apply (and in that case, you might help to make some of the rules anyway).

 

[P.D.]

I guess that is up to the individual and their conscience, as for politicians trying to reach or resonate with the public I would question that in most cases, Tell them what they want to hear maybe but most of the time its hogwash and sound bites.

But your above post suggests that people that vote for what benefits them are doing something wrong. Again so you say, is Corbyn telling people what they want to hear or is he speaking from the heart?

 

[LutonSpurs]

Political leanings for me arwe defined by the desire for self preservation and holding on to values and principles. So difficult to find a party which caters for those.

 

[parklane1]

But your above post suggests that people that vote for what benefits them are doing something wrong. Again so you say, is Corbyn telling people what they want to hear or is he speaking from the heart?

You are right that some vote what is best for them and that is human nature ( which could be selfish), my point is those that some then try and say they are voting for the good of the country. As for Corbyn if you read his history he has always said the same about his feelings and what he thinks is right or wrong. But to know that you would have to ( as I say ) read his history.

Unlike the likes of Blair and Cameron who are full of sound bites and change with the wind.

 

[scaramanga]

Perhaps some of his ideas are "silly pipe dreams." Which ones specifically do you have in mind? Publicly owned railways, utlilities and free university education are a reality in other western democracies and economies that are as big, or bigger than ours. I don't see why we can't have those things here and the majority of people, when polled, are in favour of those things.

Specifically, the worst one by far is the People's QE (or whatever he's calling it this week). It just goes to show how scarily wrong his understanding of the economy is.

Publicy owned railways - why? Why should we all contribute for the few that choose to use the railways? If you're concerned about the costs of travel why not abolish car tax, punitive BIK rates on company cars, fuel duty, etc?

Publicly owned utilities would be a fudging disaster. It would be rife with greedy union clams holding us all to ransom again. I'll back some public investment into the building of nuclear power stations - I don't think there's a competent private enterprise with the stomach for that currently.

The university education funding system isn't quite right yet - it's still missing one massive incentive. The loans (and profit on the interest) need to go via the universities themselves. Currently, there's no incentive for a university to promote useful courses or to ensure their intake is up to the task. Currently universities will get paid £x per student for studying surfing or origami without the need to care whether those students go on to achieve or not as the cost of an unpaid student loan is with the government. Reduce the per student fee and let the university keep the interest on the loans and there will be a strong incentive for universities to provide a good education to those who can achieve.

People, when polled, are always in favour of "nice things", that never, ever translates to an election though. If someone said to me "would you like everyone in the country to have free rail travel, low cost energy and incredible education" I would answer positively. Frame that in the real world of economics and an election and you end up having to take into account the downside of massive public spending - huge tax increases (and reduced overall take in the long term), an inefficient economy, union power, massive inflation, decreased bond value, increased government borrowing, the list goes on. In that situation people will (and have done at every election for nearly 40 years) say "No."

 

[the dza]

Specifically, the worst one by far is the People's QE (or whatever he's calling it this week). It just goes to show how scarily wrong his understanding of the economy is.

Publicy owned railways - why? Why should we all contribute for the few that choose to use the railways? If you're concerned about the costs of travel why not abolish car tax, punitive BIK rates on company cars, fuel duty, etc?

Publicly owned utilities would be a fudgeing disaster. It would be rife with greedy union clams holding us all to ransom again. I'll back some public investment into the building of nuclear power stations - I don't think there's a competent private enterprise with the stomach for that currently.

The university education funding system isn't quite right yet - it's still missing one massive incentive. The loans (and profit on the interest) need to go via the universities themselves. Currently, there's no incentive for a university to promote useful courses or to ensure their intake is up to the task. Currently universities will get paid £x per student for studying surfing or origami without the need to care whether those students go on to achieve or not as the cost of an unpaid student loan is with the government. Reduce the per student fee and let the university keep the interest on the loans and there will be a strong incentive for universities to provide a good education to those who can achieve.

People, when polled, are always in favour of "nice things", that never, ever translates to an election though. If someone said to me "would you like everyone in the country to have free rail travel, low cost energy and incredible education" I would answer positively. Frame that in the real world of economics and an election and you end up having to take into account the downside of massive public spending - huge tax increases (and reduced overall take in the long term), an inefficient economy, union power, massive inflation, decreased bond value, increased government borrowing, the list goes on. In that situation people will (and have done at every election for nearly 40 years) say "No."

My point is that there are developed, democratic nations with some or all of those things (nationalised rail/utlilities/free university education) and if they are popular ideas amongst our population that are already working elsewhere, then they are not pipe dreams. You disagree with the ideas and that is your right, but if they are working in countries comparable to ours, in terms of development and size of economy, then these things can obviously work for us too. If he said "mansions for everyone!" than that would be a pipe dream, but that isn't the message.

 

[monkeybarry]

Publicy owned railways - why? Why should we all contribute for the few that choose to use the railways? If you're concerned about the costs of travel why not abolish car tax, punitive BIK rates on company cars,.

Publicly owned utilities would be a fudgeing disaster. It would be rife with greedy union clams holding us all to ransom again. I'll back some public investment into the building of nuclear power stations - I don't think there's a competent private enterprise with the stomach for that currently.

Railways - because it doesn't operate under the same competitive market conditions as road travel, and in heavy commuter areas even less so as it is an essential mode of transport.
I'm not saying the taxpayer should fund the railway, only support the infrastructure ( as it does with roads) and the system is publicly run with profits reinvested.
The irony of the unions calling for public ownership is that they would suddenly become a lot more answerable to the public which would not be in their interest - although I'm sure they know it is a change that isn't going to happen ( just because it would cost too much!) so it makes a nice sound bite to make them sound "lefty" ( when in reality they are far from it).

Utilities- publicly run with mandated profit margins and restrictions on annual increases. Offer a fair, and realistic price to stop the price collusion in the industry and also make people pay what it actually costs ( high or low) so maintain a sense of perspective in relation to usage and global prices

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

This is the Tory game. They and their self interested cheerleaders say that public ownership of transport is 'looney,' 'economically dangerous' and a recipe for the complete breakdown of the state and everything we hold dear. The silence is deafening when one makes the simple point that like economies have public owned transport, public owned utilities and free tertiary education. You see it doesn't fit into their Orwellian world view. They attempt to decry even the most moderate Labour proposal as something from the Five Year Plan. Ha, ha.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Specifically, the worst one by far is the People's QE (or whatever he's calling it this week). It just goes to show how scarily wrong his understanding of the economy is.

Publicy owned railways - why? Why should we all contribute for the few that choose to use the railways? If you're concerned about the costs of travel why not abolish car tax, punitive BIK rates on company cars, fuel duty, etc?

Publicly owned utilities would be a fudgeing disaster. It would be rife with greedy union clams holding us all to ransom again. I'll back some public investment into the building of nuclear power stations - I don't think there's a competent private enterprise with the stomach for that currently.

The university education funding system isn't quite right yet - it's still missing one massive incentive. The loans (and profit on the interest) need to go via the universities themselves. Currently, there's no incentive for a university to promote useful courses or to ensure their intake is up to the task. Currently universities will get paid £x per student for studying surfing or origami without the need to care whether those students go on to achieve or not as the cost of an unpaid student loan is with the government. Reduce the per student fee and let the university keep the interest on the loans and there will be a strong incentive for universities to provide a good education to those who can achieve.

People, when polled, are always in favour of "nice things", that never, ever translates to an election though. If someone said to me "would you like everyone in the country to have free rail travel, low cost energy and incredible education" I would answer positively. Frame that in the real world of economics and an election and you end up having to take into account the downside of massive public spending - huge tax increases (and reduced overall take in the long term), an inefficient economy, union power, massive inflation, decreased bond value, increased government borrowing, the list goes on. In that situation people will (and have done at every election for nearly 40 years) say "No."

Ha, ha the people who use railways will turn that logic against you one day when you need a complex piece of medical hardware inserted in an NHS hospital and they'll say "why should we pay for it, we'll never need that?"

 

[scaramanga]

Ha, ha the people who use railways will turn that logic against you one day when you need a complex piece of medical hardware inserted in an NHS hospital and they'll say "why should we pay for it, we'll never need that?"

No they won't. BUPA will walk me in past all the railway types.

 

[scaramanga]

My point is that there are developed, democratic nations with some or all of those things (nationalised rail/utlilities/free university education) and if they are popular ideas amongst our population that are already working elsewhere, then they are not pipe dreams. You disagree with the ideas and that is your right, but if they are working in countries comparable to ours, in terms of development and size of economy, then these things can obviously work for us too. If he said "mansions for everyone!" than that would be a pipe dream, but that isn't the message.

Tell me which countries you consider to be successful that have all of these and I'll tell you why they're pipe dreams.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

No they won't. BUPA will walk me in past all the railway types.

You'll still need an NHS surgeon.

 

[scaramanga]

You'll still need an NHS surgeon.

As we are forcibly coerced into giving up large chunks of our money to the government, then yes - there's currently no way around that. I actually don't mind publicly funded healthcare, I just don't think the provision of it should be public.

The model that the US are moving to where most people have private insurance and the govt picks up the tab for those who can't seems much more sensible.