Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[davek]

Sorry, but the words "Corbyn" and "consensus" don't belong in the same sentence. He's not even prepared to meet his own party halfway, let alone the opposition.

Indeed, if he was a pragmatist in that regard in even a minor way, I wouldn't be a critic of him - but then, he wouldn't exist I suppose.

No, he's a serial protester - in many ways, he couldn't be more Michael Foot if he tried.

You have it arse about face mate: those who are bloody minded and unreasonable are the pampered bunch of expense fiddling, private company lobbying free booters of the PLP.

 

[Tubey]

The counter argument is which party has served those people best? It's certainly not the Conservatives. So even if we have to determine the least worst option, it will never be the Conservatives. The fact is there will always be a part of society that is relatively poor, relatively uneducated, relatively disadvantaged.

The question is how great will their disadvantage be? Historically they are more disadvantaged under Conservative power than Labour therefore Labour is the least worst option for the disadvantaged. Hopefully one day they'll be more than that - but there is next to no chance that a Conservative Government will benefit the disadvantaged at the expense of the advantaged.

The thing is, by mindlessly voting for one side no matter what, it means neither side have to pay a bit of interest in you until an election rolls about.

Consider it like this - if an area votes Labour no matter what, then Labour take that vote for granted and don't invest resources there, and the Tories don't bother because it's a lost cause - so the net result is nobody cares about that area at all.

Again, it's why swing seats and safe seats exist. Kirkby, for example, is by and large no better or worse off regardless of who is in government, as the council is perpetually the same, but the people who live here are too tribalistic and - dare I say - stupid to realise it.

 

[peteblue]

Not, in and of itself, an obstacle to being a decent man and being empathetic to those less fortunate, so I dont know what your point is ther.e

He lives in a different world, always has. It's a con, his empathy goes as far as worrying about if he gets your vote. One question, what has he ever done?.........

 

[The Esk]

The thing is, by mindlessly voting for one side no matter what, it means neither side have to pay a bit of interest in you until an election rolls about.

Consider it like this - if an area votes Labour no matter what, then Labour take that vote for granted and don't invest resources there, and the Tories don't bother because it's a lost cause - so the net result is nobody cares about that area at all.

Again, it's why swing seats and safe seats exist. Kirkby, for example, is by and large no better or worse off regardless of who is in government, as the council is perpetually the same, but the people who live here are too tribalistic and - dare I say - stupid to realise it.

Surely this is a fault of the system rather than the electorate?

You can't seriously suggest that by voting other than Labour those most in need will make Labour more responsive to their needs?

 

[peteblue]

The thing is, by mindlessly voting for one side no matter what, it means neither side have to pay a bit of interest in you until an election rolls about.

Consider it like this - if an area votes Labour no matter what, then Labour take that vote for granted and don't invest resources there, and the Tories don't bother because it's a lost cause - so the net result is nobody cares about that area at all.

Again, it's why swing seats and safe seats exist. Kirkby, for example, is by and large no better or worse off regardless of who is in government, as the council is perpetually the same, but the people who live here are too tribalistic and - dare I say - stupid to realise it.

And this nails it.......and why the likes of Kirkby will never change or become prosperous......I assume that the Esk lives in a conservative area........??

 

[Tubey]

Surely this is a fault of the system rather than the electorate?

You can't seriously suggest that by voting other than Labour those most in need will make Labour more responsive to their needs?

I certainly can seriously suggest that.

Let's put it this way - if Kirkby had a gap of no more than a thousand voters at the next election, watch how much more attention Kirkby would get from the Labour council, and how much more resources the Tories would throw at the seat to turn it blue - and then hold on to it.

Unfortunately, pigs would fly before that happened, but yes - if the people in Kirkby had any collective sense for their own prosperity whatsoever, they'd vote Conservative. Not because they believe in the Tories, but because Labour have, consistently, failed them utterly for generations, so what is there to lose?

And it'd work the other way too - so yeah, a problem with the system.

 

[peteblue]

The counter argument is which party has served those people best? It's certainly not the Conservatives. So even if we have to determine the least worst option, it will never be the Conservatives. The fact is there will always be a part of society that is relatively poor, relatively uneducated, relatively disadvantaged.

The question is how great will their disadvantage be? Historically they are more disadvantaged under Conservative power than Labour therefore Labour is the least worst option for the disadvantaged. Hopefully one day they'll be more than that - but there is next to no chance that a Conservative Government will benefit the disadvantaged at the expense of the advantaged.

That's crap mate, and the worst type of crap at that. This is just 'keeping the people down' and it has happened all over the world in 'socialist' countries. You wouldn't accept it for yourself but are happy for others to do so. The conservatives have allowed you to prosper, because you certainly wouldn't have done under the 1970's Labour.....

 

[peteblue]

I certainly can seriously suggest that.

Let's put it this way - if Kirkby had a gap of no more than a thousand voters at the next election, watch how much more attention Kirkby would get from the Labour council, and how much more resources the Tories would throw at the seat to turn it blue - and then hold on to it.

Unfortunately, pigs would fly before that happened, but yes - if the people in Kirkby had any collective sense for their own prosperity whatsoever, they'd vote Conservative. Not because they believe in the Tories, but because Labour have, consistently, failed them utterly for generations, so what is there to lose?

And it'd work the other way too - so yeah, a problem with the system.

And if anyone can suggest different I'd love to hear it..........

 

[peteblue]

I certainly can seriously suggest that.

Let's put it this way - if Kirkby had a gap of no more than a thousand voters at the next election, watch how much more attention Kirkby would get from the Labour council, and how much more resources the Tories would throw at the seat to turn it blue - and then hold on to it.

Unfortunately, pigs would fly before that happened, but yes - if the people in Kirkby had any collective sense for their own prosperity whatsoever, they'd vote Conservative. Not because they believe in the Tories, but because Labour have, consistently, failed them utterly for generations, so what is there to lose?

And it'd work the other way too - so yeah, a problem with the system.

Excellent post Tubey........

 

[Tubey]

That's crap mate, and the worst type of crap at that. This is just 'keeping the people down' and it has happened all over the world in 'socialist' countries. You wouldn't accept it for yourself but are happy for others to do so. The conservatives have allowed you to prosper, because you certainly wouldn't have done under the 1970's Labour.....

The Tories do crap on the lower classes though. That's just a fact.

The reason? Because they have no reason whatsoever to do otherwise. Their entire voter base is middle class and up, so that's where they appeal to - and people generally only care about themselves. What's good for them is, after all, good for them.

The reason New Labour got into power is because they weren't seen as a threat to traditional Tory voter bases, by being business friendly and looking astute with the economy - whilst also appealing to "old" Labour by simply not being actual Tories.

Not saying New Labour was great, but the idea was sound - the execution, however, was not.

That's why we're here now - people don't believe there's any other way to a better life for the lower classes than a marxist revolution. It's a shame, because I don't think that's the case; I believe a centre-left party who kept their ideals in mind but didn't do everything out of mindless ideology would benefit the lower classes in this country very well, while maintaining growth and prosperity for business and the middle classes.

What needs battering in this country is the very wealthy; the closure of tax loopholes and the obscene excesses that can be found in the City of London particularly - but Corbyn represents battering everyone from the middle class up. And that's why he's unelectable.

 

[WycombeToffee]

She's V unpopular with the police BTW...

I know a copper from Sunderland who works on May's personal armed protection team at Chequers. They may not like her policies, but they like her as a human being. Apparently she is 10x the person Cameron ever was.

 

[peteblue]

The Tories do crap on the lower classes though. That's just a fact.

The reason? Because they have no reason whatsoever to do otherwise. Their entire voter base is middle class and up, so that's where they appeal to - and people generally only care about themselves. What's good for them is, after all, good for them.

The reason New Labour got into power is because they weren't seen as a threat to traditional Tory voter bases, by being business friendly and looking astute with the economy - whilst also appealing to "old" Labour by simply not being actual Tories.

Not saying New Labour was great, but the idea was sound - the execution, however, was not.

That's why we're here now - people don't believe there's any other way to a better life for the lower classes than a marxist revolution. It's a shame, because I don't think that's the case; I believe a centre-left party who kept their ideals in mind but didn't do everything out of mindless ideology would benefit the lower classes in this country very well, while maintaining growth and prosperity for business and the middle classes.

What needs battering in this country is the very wealthy; the closure of tax loopholes and the obscene excesses that can be found in the City of London particularly - but Corbyn represents battering everyone from the middle class up. And that's why he's unelectable.

There have been just two PM's who won multiple elections in the last hundred years, Thatcher and Blair. Both of whom had major flaws, but both of whom managed to connect with both the working class and this supposed middle class. Both of whom seemed to be on their side. To say that either crapped on either the working class or the middle class is wrong because their re-election disproved it. Appealing, and doing right for the majority will always bring electoral success......

 

[peteblue]

I know a copper from Sunderland who works on May's personal armed protection team at Chequers. They may not like her policies, but they like her as a human being. Apparently she is 10x the person Cameron ever was.

I think this will come through over the years........

 

[The Esk]

That's crap mate, and the worst type of crap at that. This is just 'keeping the people down' and it has happened all over the world in 'socialist' countries. You wouldn't accept it for yourself but are happy for others to do so. The conservatives have allowed you to prosper, because you certainly wouldn't have done under the 1970's Labour.....

With as much respect as I can muster, I never prospered because of a Conservative Government just so you are clear on that. I and others like me prospered despite a Conservative Government who threw everything in my way to stop me doing so.

People less fortunate than me, have not been able to fight the opposition that exists. We have to remember that you can't value society by how it treats those able to fend for or to advance for themselves, you have to value society (and government) on how it treats those less capable. Until we have a system that provides not only financial assistance but educational and aspirational advances that will always be the case. A Conservative Government will never provide those services for all, ever. We only have to look at the plans for the re-introduction of Grammar Schools to understand that.

The day this nation understands and agrees to the concept of improving life chances for all not just the gifted, the fortunate, the connected, the better off, the landed and the entitled, then we'll begin to make progress as a nation. This concept is not a cost to taxpayers, it's an investment to move the lowest denominator to the next level. By doing so it lifts the metaphorical boat for all and leaves no-one below the high tide mark.

 

[peteblue]

With as much respect as I can muster, I never prospered because of a Conservative Government just so you are clear on that. I and others like me prospered despite a Conservative Government who threw everything in my way to stop me doing so.

People less fortunate than me, have not been able to fight the opposition that exists. We have to remember that you can't value society by how it treats those able to fend for or to advance for themselves, you have to value society (and government) on how it treats those less capable. Until we have a system that provides not only financial assistance but educational and aspirational advances that will always be the case. A Conservative Government will never provide those services for all, ever. We only have to look at the plans for the re-introduction of Grammar Schools to understand that.

The day this nation understands and agrees to the concept of improving life chances for all not just the gifted, the fortunate, the connected, the better off, the landed and the entitled, then we'll begin to make progress as a nation. This concept is not a cost to taxpayers, it's an investment to move the lowest denominator to the next level. By doing so it lifts the metaphorical boat for all and leaves no-one below the high tide mark.

How can you support educational and aspirational advances for the poor yet knock the reintroduction of the Grammar School. I will bet that both you and I went to one, and prospered as a result. Yet you would deny it to the kids on the very sink estates from which I came. I know you care for others and that your politics looks to the disadvantaged, but how you fail to see the damage that has been done by educational political dogma terrifies me. I want to see most of the kids in Kirkby and the like going to the best schools in Liverpool, but they won't because it's the ones with the big houses next door who will go. I know you have a social mentality but the fact that you are unable to see that it just drags the working class down is criminal........