Scot Dutchy wrote:When did the last party win any election on policies. This is real 60's speak.

It's been a long time, if ever.

Blair won on personality and not being a Tory
Major because he just about had more personality than the opposition
Thatcher won because she wasn't Labour

It's probably 1945

Scot Dutchy wrote:Substance? Really just think what you are saying. The election is 5 years away. You dont discuss policies now you wait for the right time.

More nonsense.
At the risk of repeating myself from the other thread.

A party leader needs to set out their policies now, so those voting for them will understand the basis on which they are likely to oppose and challenge the Government for the next 5 years. It provides clarity for those voting for party leader on how the new leader will direct the party whips to get the Labour MPs to vote on legislation. Which is especially critical in this 5year period, as the Tories have almost no majority.

Given their recent performance, it is utterly ambiguous what sort of opposition Cooper, Kendall or (sadly) Burnham will present to the Government. There is no clarity here about what they would do in opposition.

Corbyn has set his policy stall out. Its pretty clear where he is likely to oppose the Government. People know what they are voting for.

This is not complicated.

The whole "Pull your policies out of the bag at the least minute" nonsense, is one of the reasons why the UK electorate is so apathetic. They don't know what they are going to be voting for until the last second. Its bait and switch politics, designed to react to the media, rather than actually set out a long term vision.

mrjonno wrote:The Tories did not win the election based on policies, Labour did not lose it based on policies.

Anyone disagree with that?

Yeah I do. There were obviously other things involved too (particularly Labour's unpopular leader) but policies were crucial.

- austerity and cutting the welfare bill
- having a referendum on EU membership
- opposing perceived unfair increase in Scottish national rights and possibility of another independence referendum

Briton wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The Tories did not win the election based on policies, Labour did not lose it based on policies.

Anyone disagree with that?

That means we are talking about presentation and image (to the right people). Corbyn will be mobbed by people who are not right people and ignored by the rest

I'm certainly not the right people, I lived in a seat that have a 30% Labour majority, Corbyn, Blair, a red cabbage and it will still go Labour 2020.

Yep what is it with Corbyn supporters. He fills a few halls and writes down a few vague policies without data and they think he can win the next election. Talk about being optimistic.

You understand thinking he can win the next election is not the same as thinking he will?

Thinking he can is fantasy and without justification. Think he will is approaching lunacy.

Beatsong wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The Tories did not win the election based on policies, Labour did not lose it based on policies.

Anyone disagree with that?

Yeah I do. There were obviously other things involved too (particularly Labour's unpopular leader) but policies were crucial.

- austerity and cutting the welfare bill
- having a referendum on EU membership
- opposing perceived unfair increase in Scottish national rights and possibility of another independence referendum

Great policies? Notice something? Detail maybe or the lack of it?

So you call these policies. Well.

Well yes I do. That's because they're policies. See how that works?

Beatsong wrote:Well yes I do. That's because they're policies. See how that works?

Approved of course by Congress?

mrjonno wrote:The government hasn't move the country to the rightly at least, through converting council house tenants into house owners regardless of the other consequences does produce more Tory voters.

When Labour was created you had 90% of the country in total poverty with 10% well off,

Now its totally reversed with 90% of people well off (ie not hungry, healthy, yearly holidays, TV and an indoors toilet), with 10% not so well off

Of course the things have moved to right, 100 years ago its was in clear interest of the majority to look after the poor because everyone was poor, it was self interest now looking after the poor is basically charity and guess what charity isn't anywhere near a motivator as self interest is

So all the recent talk of the wealth of the 1% at the top, and their power to influence governments to act against the interests of the 99%, that's just bullshit, right, because 90% are at the top, and because I own a house I'm more or less the same as Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch Brothers, or Richard Branson or the Barclay Twins?

Get over.

So all the recent talk of the wealth of the 1% at the top, and their power to influence governments to act against the interests of the 99%, that's just bullshit, right, because 90% are at the top, and because I own a house I'm more or less the same as Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch Brothers, or Richard Branson or the Barclay Twins?

It is bullshit its more like the 70% screwing over the 30% ie most of us.

Blaming the 1% is just a way of avoiding looking in the mirror, I look in the mirror don't like what I see but fuck it and rent out my flat for silly amounts because that's going to pay for my retirement

So jonno do you see no difference between people who are born rich, go to Eton etc. and stay rich or get richer based on huge amounts of wealth-generating capital, who may work but don't really need to, and someone on a salary of say 40-60K as a relatively senior professional (or for that matter as an averagely successful self-employed tradesman)? I don't mean difference in terms of morality or culpability for anything, but just in terms of their class, place in the economic hierarchy, what the economy expects of them and what it provides them in return. No difference between a teacher or plumber who happens to own their home with a mortgage, and the Duke of Westminster?

To you there are basically two classes - the 30% underclass and the 70% property-owning class. There is an absolute demarcation between them but no demarcation of any great importance between any subgroups within that property-owning class?

That seems like a bizarre perception of society and the economy to me. But it would explain why you seem so incapable of seeing peoples' class identification in any other terms or appreciating that it's subject to change.

Beatsong wrote:So jonno do you see no difference between people who are born rich, go to Eton etc. and stay rich or get richer based on huge amounts of wealth-generating capital, who may work but don't really need to, and someone on a salary of say 40-60K as a relatively senior professional (or for that matter as an averagely successful self-employed tradesman)? I don't mean difference in terms of morality or culpability for anything, but just in terms of their class, place in the economic hierarchy, what the economy expects of them and what it provides them in return. No difference between a teacher or plumber who happens to own their home with a mortgage, and the Duke of Westminster?

To you there are basically two classes - the 30% underclass and the 70% property-owning class. There is an absolute demarcation between them but no demarcation of any great importance between any subgroups within that property-owning class?

That seems like a bizarre perception of society and the economy to me. But it would explain why you seem so incapable of seeing peoples' class identification in any other terms or appreciating that it's subject to change.

Basically lots of words but the simple answer is yes. The gap betwen a teacher or a plumber and the Duke of Westminster is nowhere near as big as it is between someone on minimum wage and with little prospect of ever earning much more. Basically at least in outlook in life someone on £30k with career progression has more in common with someone on £300k than someone on £15k an no real progerssion

There are differences but nowhere near as great as you make out. I actually come to the conclusion that I totally agree with Marx's class struggle but it was bourgeoisie that won in the end basically by turning most of us (ie 70%) into capitalists.

Fuck me, but the reality disconnect is almost total

Yes it is Bill.

mrjonno wrote:

Beatsong wrote:So jonno do you see no difference between people who are born rich, go to Eton etc. and stay rich or get richer based on huge amounts of wealth-generating capital, who may work but don't really need to, and someone on a salary of say 40-60K as a relatively senior professional (or for that matter as an averagely successful self-employed tradesman)? I don't mean difference in terms of morality or culpability for anything, but just in terms of their class, place in the economic hierarchy, what the economy expects of them and what it provides them in return. No difference between a teacher or plumber who happens to own their home with a mortgage, and the Duke of Westminster?

To you there are basically two classes - the 30% underclass and the 70% property-owning class. There is an absolute demarcation between them but no demarcation of any great importance between any subgroups within that property-owning class?

That seems like a bizarre perception of society and the economy to me. But it would explain why you seem so incapable of seeing peoples' class identification in any other terms or appreciating that it's subject to change.

Basically lots of words but the simple answer is yes. The gap betwen a teacher or a plumber and the Duke of Westminster is nowhere near as big as it is between someone on minimum wage and with little prospect of ever earning much more. Basically at least in outlook in life someone on £30k with career progression has more in common with someone on £300k than someone on £15k an no real progerssion

There are differences but nowhere near as great as you make out. I actually come to the conclusion that I totally agree with Marx's class struggle but it was bourgeoisie that won in the end basically by turning most of us (ie 70%) into capitalists.

Even if there was some reality somewhere within your strange conclusions, what 'end' are you referring to? History has not stopped.

In the end the system will probably collapse due to technology making 99% of the population surplus to requirement but that is for the future

Beatsong wrote:
To you there are basically two classes - the 30% underclass and the 70% property
owning class. There is an absolute demarcation between them but no demarcation
of any great importance between any sub groups within that property owning class

Reality as usual is more complicated than simple binary interpretations and so I wonder how mrjonno would classify me. As I own my own property but belong to the underclass too [ or at least the lower class if these are not the same ] It is important to remember that there are many who also own their own property but are not automatically well off by simple virtue of the fact. The asset rich / cash poor in other words. And they could arguably be said to belong to both categories. And conversely there are those who do not own their own property but who have a better standard of living than some who do. So some one who rents for example and is single and has a good job as a result of their university education is arguably far better off than I am even though I own my own property and they do not. And yet none of these subtle variations are considered in mrjonnos interpretation which is why it should not be given too much credence

Or, in simpler terms, his worldview shouldn't be given too much credence because from premises to conclusion it's shot through with rich veins of bullshit.

Gordon Brown's speech about the leadership election: