The election wont just be about Brexit.
It will be on policies that brings relief to working families.
It will be on policies that brings relief to working families.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm not saying there are many. My seat was a Labour loss at the last election and I don't see them winning it back this time.
She's also welcoming Labour MPs. Maybe she's a closet Marxist.
And yeah, I'm seeing Swinson who has in the past voted for fracking endorse a ban on fracking in the manifesto on the back of electorate pressure for more green policies. And I'm not the biggest fan of hers anyway.
Also, the way Lib Dem voters are distributed, they would need well above 40% of the popular vote to get a majority. In which case they would indeed revoke. There's no prospect of Lib Dems becoming a majority with ~30% of the vote.
The UK government is the second biggest sponsor of medical research after the US. If a researcher wants government funding then they'll give the government a generic licence to sell any drugs they develop in the UK while selling the international licence to a drugs company.Yeah I picked up on that mate.
On a serious note, I still wonder how this isn't just a soundbite. I like the idea, but how the hell would they pull it off?
It's possible that's what I'd do though.
I mean I won't, no doubt I'll do what I normally do and go to the booth with the intention of voting with my anger at Labour, then realising there's no alternative then ticking that box, but I think a lot will stay at home instead.
But then, it's all guesswork.
But we all know she'd vote for fracking again if she was in coalition with the Tories. It's meaningless.
Because estimates such as this one here - https://fullfact.org/europe/did-maj...bour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/ - suggest that 61% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave. It is not hard to fathom why a huge party with a diverse support base is reluctant to adopt an unequivocal stance on an issue that divides its supporters. In spite of what Tom Watson et al want you to believe, there is no credible evidence that I am aware of that Labour becoming a pro-Remain party would benefit them electorally
You honestly think that?
I mean you are right in that it should be about more, but brexit is the biggest thing happening to our country in a long time and probably for a long time. I personally think it naive to expect people to just forget about it, or even to use it as a stick to beat people with. Leave or remain, we are all tired with it, but it dominates the discussion and political landscape and there's no escaping that.
Thank you, that makes sense.
I still don't get the part about making it ourselves though. That takes a hell of a lot and how much would all that cost to set up in both money and time anyway?
I have no clue as I'm not a Bio chemist. I'm not sure if it would work but 2 drugs that were developed using UK research funding cost the NHS more than a billion pounds a year so the incentive is there to make it work.
First off, I don't give a damn about Tom Watson. You really need to stop assuming we all read the same papers and believe everything these guys say.
Secondly, yeah polls. They prove everything. It's like there's no willingness to learn from mistakes, which is my main problem with Labour right now and with people who can't debate without assuming every question is lead by a newspaper or a Corbyn enemy.
She probably would, if that was a firm Tory policy, in an exchange for a second referendum which is what wins her most votes and support.
Minority parties in marginal coalition governments don't get too many choices on which of their policies get picked. I'm convinced people are being wilfully ignorant of that, just to suit their narrative.
1. Bolded part: The evolution means multiple deaths due to poor care. Also competition is a dynamic thing not a static process. It is not that after x months, people will know the good from the bad private providers (in that process itself people have died). Players exit the market, others enter it, established ones change their practices, monopolies form, etc. Just because your initial experience with one place is positive does not mean it will continue to be that way. (Additional people die as they keep figuring this out).
Healthcare is not a TV, healthcare demand is mostly price- and supply-inelastic, and it is essential. When you're ill, you are not going from place to place to read Yelp reviews, check ambulance prices, bargain for procedures, ask which scans can be excluded, etc. You may have a relationship with a doctor but the hospital has some prohibitive fees or maybe likes taking an extra X-ray to make more money. In this system, you have to calculate these various things, knowing that they can change over time, and make your best decision, all the whle you're ill and your life might hinge on the outcome. It is pure absurdity.
2. The space program from both the USSR and USA showed the overwhelmingly quick and successful results if governments can throw money and resourcesa at a problem. It is only after the defunding of NASA and the collapse of the USSR that the scientists, trained at government expense, wth government-generated past knowledge, have been absorbed by private industry. India is a country with a notoriously corrupt government, whose space agency can launch satellites at roughly the same rates, sometimes lower, than SpaceX, without having the benefit of a pre-trained workforce.
3. Focusing on actual private sector products: the iPhone, batteries, etc. A lot of the technologies used in mobile phones has come from government departments as varied as the communications industry of the Soviet Union and the US Dept of Defence. No competition. Antibiotics and the polio vaccine was developed by scientists not operating in a competitive market.
So I take massive issue with that line. Does it mean the state can solve all problems? No, but it means the competition is not necessarily the answer.
And in fact this ties in with your posts on climate change. "The rewards are so great the company will solve it." Then why has the cost of solar panels been driven down most prominently by work in Germany and China, both on massive govt subsidies? Where is the plucky startup destroying the field to make a trillion dollars?
You seem to have a very Econ 101 view of what the world looks like, but even there it is made clear that there are many asssumptions to get the fantasy of perfect ompetitive markets. Individual players in most markets are massive, not so small that their effects will not be felt by the aggregate. As shown by Uber and Lyft and Amazon, firms with more resources can operate at a loss to create a barrier for entry into their markets against startups. There has been a lot of talk about information assymetry. Just like that, 3 of 7 assumptions of perfect competition are gone.
No, there are very strong reasons for the market not to solve climate change. The funds, firms and individuals who own the bulk of the market are interested in returns in the short and medium term. This makes sense, to paraphrase, in the long run we are all dead. A who invested in solar in the 90s would be dead before their investment bore fruit in terms of massive profits. B who invested in oil at the same time would be much richer. B would be correct, he was interested in profit maximisation and he got the rewards. The future rewards for investing in solar aren't going to matter to A, he's long dead. Short-term profit thinking dominates a lot of companies, and for good reason. It is profit maximisation in action. The type of firms that can afford to take long-term risks are Google or Amazon, whose existence violates perfect competition.
Which is why this is a policy I can really get behind. And why I thank you for your responses. If they could pull this off, it resonates way more than other recently policies and actually makes good sense.
It's much easier to talk and learn without the annoying assumptions some just automatically come out with. It's often like it's wrong to ask questions on here at times.
Polls do not prove anything. Polls said we wouldn't have the problem of Brexit in the first place, they said we would have Clinton not Trump, they said Labour would get annihilated at the last election. I'll turn the question around: if 61% of Labour constituencies voted to Leave, why should Labour become a pro-Remain party?
I don't believe any party even pretending to care about climate change could go in to coalition with the Tories. I'm not ignorant of what coalition with Tories requires. I think it's an inherently appalling thing to do.
I agree Brexit will not just be forgotten.
But people are hurting. Corbyn is a good campaigner.
And he will campaign on saving the Welfare state. Restoring what has been dismantled.
I honestly don't see what the other parties will offer specifically that helps people.
I know this place can be too judgemental at times.
Because, as I said a few times, they've already fecked themselves with a fair amount of leave voters with the refendum pledge.
And re: the polls, yeah that was my point. All this percentage nonsense gets us nowhere and it's about time we all got that into our skulls.
Now since I answered you, you do me the courtesy of answering me. If everything they are doing has led them to the point of actually fighting the libs, why should they continue doing the same and noy actually learn? What, exactly, do they have to lose here?
He says, judging us all.
He's not a good campaigner though, not in my eyes anyway. And I'm exactly the kind of voter Labour should be keeping. I don't believe a lot of the stuff he says, and he is incredibly good at being neutral on important issues.
Now this doesn't change what Labour stand for and the fact their ideals largely align with mine, but it does make me question where they are going and how the hell they are going to get back in power.
And constant claims that people are always led by papers or detractors (not aiming this at you btw), doesn't help.
Its like here.
yes. Trump is bad. But what are you going to do?
I believe if people stop to think, they will vote for the party that's going to help them.
Mind you Brexit is huge and may just trump, excuse the pun all other issues.
Reality though is no one is going to get a clear majority.
It will be shit show.
Go and see how KM is being put to the sword on the brexit page for having a different opinion than the rest of us.
KM? The guy who does the boring cricket feuds?
Think you've already been given similar answers but from what i understand it's two fold, firstly for a Labour majority they can only get it through playing for leave votes and secondly for a remain win overall Labour need to win the north whilst the SNP take Scotland and the Lib Dems South.
I'm certainly not comfortable with it and never have been I just don't get into a froth unlike some because i don't believe going remain is some guaranteed solution. I think for remain overall Labour getting some leave votes is important.
It would certainly be an easier path to just go with the flow and go remain.
Yeah.
Votes. If Labour lurch towards either side, there is a benefit, but also a trade-off. As things stand they have moved towards Remain but not explicitly so. This will lose them some Leave voters, but the hope is that it will not be a great loss and that it is outweighed by its ability to stymie the loss of Remain voters turning towards the Lib Dems. I would argue that the Lib Dems have occupied that "ultra-Remain" space now and it is too late for Labour to challenge them there even if they wanted to. I genuinely believe that as things stand a second referendum with a neutral official position going into the next election may well prove to be their best option.
Let's be honest, Brexit is an inordinately difficult problem for Labour, and we're all lying if we claim to know for certain what is best for them electorally. That's why it annoys me when there is so much clamour for them to become pro-Remain, as if that is a magic solution. It's like the people calling for a "centrist" figure over Corbyn, as if that suddenly guarantees a majority. If there was clear evidence that Labour becoming pro-Remain would win them more seats, I'm sure the Labour leadership would adopt it unhesitatingly, in spite of Corbyn's own Euro-scepticism.
He has two posts in the thread and they were nearly two years ago.
Jesus, the mods on here really need to sort out the consistent terrible changing of thread titles for this thread. Seriously concerning time for UK politics and this is the level of conversation being encouraged?
It's a fecking joke. A bad one at that.
It's a fecking joke. A bad one at that.
Wrong name K13 not KM.
K13 my mistake.
I think it's more down to them not having a clear position, them not having a position makes them very weak opposition when it comes to them having some conviction when debating the key topics.
Why is their position not clear ?
Its another referendum with Remain vs a Labour Leave Deal and the Labour government will stay neutral(Labour MP will be allowed to campaign for leave or remain).
I should point out, and it's my bad for getting involved and not making it clear, that it's not just specifically Corbyn I have a problem with, it's the whole party. For years I feel they have let us down by not providing a strong opposition to the Torys, especially how weak they are right now.
Maybe I'm wrong in being like this, but I don't think going on just what they apparantly stand for is enough. I think they all lie and make promises they can't keep. What gets me is that the party for the people can't seem to even get that bit right, especially now with Corbyn, as instead of focusing on what they can do in terms or realistic progress, it's shit they can't and won't really do. Basically thay are playing the same game as everyone else, and they are losing it.
So this is why I question why people are so okay with them just doing the same old shit? It's not frothing at the mouth, it's not reading papers and believing hatchet jobs and all that, it's looking at the facts and wondering why people just don't seem to want to see the failures and expect them to do something about them?
Because the fact is they keep losing. They aren't close to power. And here we are getting the same old story. At what point is it worth at least examining real actual change that might get them back in power?
Voting to stay neutral is exactly that. It's Corbyn and Labour all over. And it doesn't work. That bothers me, and although it's only my opinion, I feel it should bother us all.
It is a bad joke, though.
I don't share the view about 'serious times' but honestly whoever gave us this title was forcing it. I expect better going forward.
A neutral position isn't clear, it's a pretty binary position on this subject & the neutral position doesn't work for voters (they see it as a cop out). Voters like certainty, and given that it hasn't resonated in the last couple of elections, it would suggest that the neutral position means they don't have a strong enough idea on what policy to go forward with.
Another referendum will bring us the same result sadly, a pointless waste of time.
Wait a minute - So there's a referendum with just these two choices and as the Labour Leave Deal is a figment of Corbyn's imagination - yes Remain have won - vote Labour! vote Labour!
Well the position is clear, but I know what you mean. The point is there is no position they can adopt that is immune from criticism. If they become pro-Remain, they abandon their Leave voters and Leave constituencies. They obviously cannot be a Brexit party. So it's a tough pathway they have to walk, with obstacles either side.
You saying it isn't clear doesn't make it true. You can disagree with it etc but its a clear and understandably position. As for it being a binary position, again only if you chose it to be.
I'm not sure how you can argue voters like certainty, the past 3 years suggest otherwise. Also last couple of elections ? We've had one general election with resulted in a tory/dup government and one EU election which only 37& of the voting public took part in.
The sign of a great leader is making great decisions, this is where Corbyn falls down with his sit on the fence approach and why he has very slim chances of winning any election or majority.