[Politics] *** Labour Party Annual Conference, 23-25 September 2018, ACC Liverpool ***

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree with you Harry about Cameron. He walked away when he didn't get the result he wanted. Sorry Harry I just can't vote for labour anymore no matter who's running them. Like you, I don't like corbyn either.
Would you vote for him? Genuine question.

No. From day one as leader he had a chance to anticipate and deal with all the flack he'd get over tea and biscuits with the Brighton bombers, repeatedly voting against his own party, accepting any invitation to schmooze with muslims regardless of whether they were liberal or jihadi sympathizers while making no attmpt to be even handed with jews, and for his old unilatralism. However, instead he spent most of his time invisible while his momentous fan club went about purging the party of social democrats (a work in progress). He seemed surprisd to find his own party is institutionally racist when it comes to jews/Israel. I knew. We all knew! He still hasn't dealt with Ken Leninspart. He has offered no leadership over Brexit, and now he is allowing Confernce to decide the Brxit policy having said basically that 'Brexit means Brexit'. No.

Actually the only reason I might vote labour is if it came to a fight between Corbyn and Boris. Corbyn may be a deluded idiot with no idea, but he isn't self-serving and utterly without principle like Boris. Thre is no limit to the depths of human depravity Boris would delve for prsonal gain. Corbyn is an idiot but he's not evil. If I thought my vote for labour might help keep Boris out I would likly vote labour. But my constituency is likely to be a battle between blue and orange, in which case I'd vote orange (Liberal).

Ironically we now have two honorouble parties, one led by clown and the other by a speak-your-wight machine (at risk of a blond psycho takeover), and a smaller idiotic party obsessd with cannabis, cycling and recycling lead by an honourable gent. What a state of affairs.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have no problem with her passion. I have a lot more problem with people who seem content with what has become normalised in this country regarding inequalities of opportunity and outcome.

Become? Oh yes, lt's go back to the halcyon days of the 60s wher we were all equal and ther was little poverty. Or back to the 1920s, when every child had an apple, a sovereign and rosy cheeks. We were all sooooo much more equal back then.



FFS. The working class are better off now than ever before. There is a big diffrence between agitating for more cake versus a bigger share of the cake. I remember in the 70s people started to talk about a job as if it were a human right. And yet they wanted to work as little as possible for as much money as possible. Skiving was an artform. A mate of mine who worked for BR in th 70s knew pople who came to work, did nothing, and went home and had been doing this for years. On the other hand, bosses treated workers like shit. I worked at Acres in Woodingdene in the late 70s and the supervisors were bullying animals. The working class are treated so much better these days (on average - there are exceptions). 'Know your place' was a mantra. These days its anathema.

The 'working class' will get **** all in the way of better pay and conditions when people keep talking nonsense about 'normalisation of inquality'. As big a load of old bollocks, on the whole, as the 'gender pay gap'. Yes, if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work, this is illegal and the union should step in. But in my sector, if a female professor earning less than a man (both on more than £60K by the way - the minimum salary) it is tough luck - at that level you necociate your own salary - it is beyond the realms of union intrvention.

With so much bollocks written about inequality I can understand why people vote conservative (and hope they'll end up on the right side of the pay gap). Nothing will change till people stop using lazy jargon to collect together a range of different issues under one umbrella.

 

[erkan]

Become? Oh yes, lt's go back to the halcyon days of the 60s wher we were all equal and ther was little poverty. Or back to the 1920s, when every child had an apple, a sovereign and rosy cheeks. We were all sooooo much more equal back then.



FFS. The working class are better off now than ever before. There is a big diffrence between agitating for more cake versus a bigger share of the cake. I remember in the 70s people started to talk about a job as if it were a human right. And yet they wanted to work as little as possible for as much money as possible. Skiving was an artform. A mate of mine who worked for BR in th 70s knew pople who came to work, did nothing, and went home and had been doing this for years. On the other hand, bosses treated workers like shit. I worked at Acres in Woodingdene in the late 70s and the supervisors were bullying animals. The working class are treated so much better these days (on average - there are exceptions). 'Know your place' was a mantra. These days its anathema.

The 'working class' will get **** all in the way of better pay and conditions when people keep talking nonsense about 'normalisation of inquality'. As big a load of old bollocks, on the whole, as the 'gender pay gap'. Yes, if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work, this is illegal and the union should step in. But in my sector, if a female professor earning less than a man (both on more than £60K by the way - the minimum salary) it is tough luck - at that level you necociate your own salary - it is beyond the realms of union intrvention.

With so much bollocks written about inequality I can understand why people vote conservative (and hope they'll end up on the right side of the pay gap). Nothing will change till people stop using lazy jargon to collect together a range of different issues under one umbrella.

Top ranting.

To talk about "equality of opportunity" is obviously shorthand for a philosophical approach to a range of different issues.

If you want more detail on those issues then you could read the latest Labour manifesto.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[zefarelly]

There probably isn't time in the day after reading the Daily Mail.

Top ranting.

To talk about "equality of opportunity" is obviously shorthand for a philosophical approach to a range of different issues.

If you want more detail on those issues then you could read the latest Labour manifesto.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[BLOCK F]

Do you not think it is dangerous to have a monopoly of views within what is supposed to be a neutral organisiation and not a government mouthpiece. If we are citing Marr, I would suggest viewing his starkly contrasting approach to recent interviews with May and Corbyn. Agree with you that Andrew Neil does go hard on all guests. The majority of mainstream media (which is right leaning) are pumping out Anti-Corbyn articles on a daily basis (mainly the Anti-Semetism smear). There is little balance or nuance. On the plus side, there are growing outlets of ''new media'' outlets which I think is healthy for journalism.

Don't you think that your perceived pumping out of anti Corbyn articles may be, because regardless of whether an individual or 'the media' is left or right wing, they believe that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc. plus the likes of Commie Andrew Murray and now 'General Strike' Laura Smith may be a teensy bit bad for the country, Hmm?
There are plenty of moderate lefties who have no time for the likes of the Marxists.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Top ranting.

To talk about "equality of opportunity" is obviously shorthand for a philosophical approach to a range of different issues.

If you want more detail on those issues then you could read the latest Labour manifesto.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I was aware only of the late labour manifesto. As in the late Dent, Arthur Dent.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love labour to be on my wavelength. On occasions (Blair years, especially, Wilson, early Callaghan, Kinnock with some misgivings, ahem) they have been. The tories have never been. Ironically I liked Cameramoron, until he shit a Brexit in his hat and punched it.

 

[GT49er]

Don't you think that your perceived pumping out of anti Corbyn articles may be, because regardless of whether an individual or 'the media' is left or right wing, they believe that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott etc. plus the likes of Commie Andrew Murray and now 'General Strike' Laura Smith may be a teensy bit bad for the country, Hmm?
There are plenty of moderate lefties who have no time for the likes of the Marxists.

Straightforward re-run of the 1980s. Dear old Michael Foot 'in charge' (but not really), and Militant Tendency taking over Labour. Now it's dear old Jeremy Corbyn 'in charge' (well, sort of) and Momentum calling the shots. Same difference; unelectable (and that is my view as a life-long Labourite). Still, Corbyn is doing a good job of fudging Brexit just enough to keep all those new, young, 50p members of Labour (Euro fanatics to a man/woman/person) happy, and the Blairite Europhiles as well.....might be worth a punt as a Government once we are safely and irrevocably out of the EU.

Jeremy - do yourself a favour. Don't push for a General Election until we're out!

 

[Weststander]

Become? Oh yes, lt's go back to the halcyon days of the 60s wher we were all equal and ther was little poverty. Or back to the 1920s, when every child had an apple, a sovereign and rosy cheeks. We were all sooooo much more equal back then.



FFS. The working class are better off now than ever before. There is a big diffrence between agitating for more cake versus a bigger share of the cake. I remember in the 70s people started to talk about a job as if it were a human right. And yet they wanted to work as little as possible for as much money as possible. Skiving was an artform. A mate of mine who worked for BR in th 70s knew pople who came to work, did nothing, and went home and had been doing this for years. On the other hand, bosses treated workers like shit. I worked at Acres in Woodingdene in the late 70s and the supervisors were bullying animals. The working class are treated so much better these days (on average - there are exceptions). 'Know your place' was a mantra. These days its anathema.

The 'working class' will get **** all in the way of better pay and conditions when people keep talking nonsense about 'normalisation of inquality'. As big a load of old bollocks, on the whole, as the 'gender pay gap'. Yes, if a woman is paid less than a man for the same work, this is illegal and the union should step in. But in my sector, if a female professor earning less than a man (both on more than £60K by the way - the minimum salary) it is tough luck - at that level you necociate your own salary - it is beyond the realms of union intrvention.

With so much bollocks written about inequality I can understand why people vote conservative (and hope they'll end up on the right side of the pay gap). Nothing will change till people stop using lazy jargon to collect together a range of different issues under one umbrella.

I love your posts on politics, tax or societal matters. About the only person posting on NSC who's weighs up every issue, and isn't bitter with either a love or hate for Corbyn or May.

A bit like the lady who called 5live yesterday at midday from Birmingham. A committed socialist, she works for a state funded care trust in Birmingham under threat of cuts, but she revealed that she works with a load of lazy colleagues who've been there a long time and are taking the piss. She explained that she and a few colleagues do all the work. Her point was that she'd love to be given control to get those piss takers out, where the saved £m's could bring in staff who care, and work far better within the confines of the budget. Very honest in revealing matters beyond party dogma.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I love your posts on politics, tax or societal matters. About the only person posting on NSC who's weighs up every issue, and isn't bitter with either a love or hate for Corbyn or May.

A bit like the lady who called 5live yesterday at midday from Birmingham. A committed socialist, she works for a state funded care trust in Birmingham under threat of cuts, but she revealed that she works with a load of lazy colleagues who've been there a long time and are taking the piss. She explained that she and a few colleagues do all the work. Her point was that she'd love to be given control to get those piss takers out, where the saved £m's could bring in staff who care, and work far better within the confines of the budget. Very honest in revealing matters beyond party dogma.

To be fair, flattered as I am, it has taken me a while to get sufficiently to grips with NSC to not disappear down a rabbit hole of narrow hubris, without realising, every time I get my dander up and a rant on the brew. There are plenty of other people on here who can step back a bit. Yourself being a notable example.

Everything takes on a lustre when viewed from a distance.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waRXELtCGSs

 

[clapham_gull]

I do get annoyed when people who complain about the gap between rich and poor get shut down and accused of wanting a Utopian socialist society.

Many conservative economists agree that the grand 80s plan of the "trickle down" effect didn't work.

The rich got super rich, find ways of not paying enough taxes and the "relative" poor pay nothing and receive benefits.

The middle class should be much bigger but it isn't.

It's now f##### the Tories because there isn't enough satisfied, comfortable electors to give them a large majority.

 

[Gwylan]

Become? Oh yes, lt's go back to the halcyon days of the 60s wher we were all equal and ther was little poverty. Or back to the 1920s, when every child had an apple, a sovereign and rosy cheeks. We were all sooooo much more equal back then.
.

We should go back to 1976 - that when the UK was at its happiest, it's been downhill since then.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We should go back to 1976 - that when the UK was at its happiest, it's been downhill since then.

Punk rock, long hot summer, off to uni, slim and mysteriously attractive, and like a dog with two cocks?

Nah! Hated it.

 

[GT49er]

Become? Oh yes, lt's go back to the halcyon days of the 60s wher we were all equal and ther was little poverty. Or back to the 1920s, when every child had an apple, a sovereign and rosy cheeks. We were all sooooo much more equal back then.

The gap between the rich and the poor had been going down for centuries, from the dark ages, trough the middle ages,, through Victorian times and most of the 20th. century. The closest the gap ever got, in percentage terms, was in the mid 1970s. Then we joined the Common Market (willingly for two thirds of the electorate) and were subsequently dragged without consent into the EU - the gap between the rich and the poor in the UK is now hugely greater than in 1975.

Make what you like of that - but it is unequivocally a fact.

 

[Weststander]

Haha.

You think that the collective views, of a group of people, who choose to listen to a radio station that employs Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, 'says it all'?

Brilliant.

The big daytime LBC shows by O'Brien especially, but also Fogerty, who pretty anti Tory. Mair has joined from Radio 4 and he has an impartial reputation. George Galloway has had long term slots. Agreed that there are right wing equivalents also.

Overall the LBC formula is to have a controversial host from the left or right (in a way copying the Howard Stern formula) to hook listeners in on the rants and fights with callers. All about advertising revenue.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The gap between the rich and the poor had been going down for centuries, from the dark ages, trough the middle ages,, through Victorian times and most of the 20th. century. The closest the gap ever got, in percentage terms, was in the mid 1970s. Then we joined the Common Market (willingly for two thirds of the electorate) and were subsequently dragged without consent into the EU - the gap between the rich and the poor in the UK is now hugely greater than in 1975.

Make what you like of that - but it is unequivocally a fact.

But the poor have got richer which, if I were poor would be all I'd care about. I was badly off 1989-1996. Two mortgage payments not made, bank owed thousands, about to lose the house.....I couldn't have given a flying **** if Elton John had just had a gold plated swimming pool put in, and diamonds encrusted into his cock ring. AlI I cared about in that regard was how well I was doing. As life has improved (immasurably) I feel the same. I can't be done with the politics of envy. (He says, typing in his hotel room in Brazil, wondering whether to have another beer).

 

[GT49er]

But the poor have got richer which, if I were poor would be all I'd care about. I was badly off 1989-1996. Two mortgage payments not made, bank owed thousands, about to lose the house.....I couldn't have given a flying **** if Elton John had just had a gold plated swimming pool put in, and diamonds encrusted into his cock ring. AlI I cared about in that regard was how well I was doing. As life has improved (immasurably) I feel the same. I can't be done with the politics of envy. (He says, typing in his hotel room in Brazil, wondering whether to have another beer).

That's you, pesonally. The stats are gathered from the population as a whole. I personally was poorer in the 80s and the 90s, but then I was bringing up children, paying a mortgage and Mum and Dad hadn't then died and left me half a house.
The gap is getting wider, and that is not a good thing for the future. Mind the gap!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's you, pesonally. The stats are gathered from the population as a whole. I personally was poorer in the 80s and the 90s, but then I was bringing up children, paying a mortgage and Mum and Dad hadn't then died and left me half a house.
The gap is getting wider, and that is not a good thing for the future. Mind the gap!

I won't argue about the gap. If you say so then fine. But like I said, its what I earn that I care about, not what someone else earns.

BUT, OK, here is the thing. Contentment, especially in the young, is a bad thing. My son has always been far too contentd. We need to feel motivated when we are young, and actually seek out greivance to spur us on. I did! It is the human condition and part of why we keep making things better. It is what sets us apart from the other animals (who live to reproduce, only, in the main, and ar largely happy to wallow in thir own shit - just visit some pigs if you are unconvinced). If being aggrieved about a wealth gap spurs people on, then good. I haven't thought this one properly through yet, so please don't deconstruct it

 

[beorhthelm]

That's you, pesonally. The stats are gathered from the population as a whole. I personally was poorer in the 80s and the 90s, but then I was bringing up children, paying a mortgage and Mum and Dad hadn't then died and left me half a house.
The gap is getting wider, and that is not a good thing for the future. Mind the gap!

the question is, if the base has got higher does it matter much that a gap from top to bottom has widened? heard the other day that 1950, 50% of housholds had an outdoor privy. thats unheard of today. everyone is far better off than they were a couple of generations ago, so now the focus is on "the gap".

 

[GT49er]

the question is, if the base has got higher does it matter much that a gap from top to bottom has widened?

Yes, it does.

 

[highflyer]

I won't argue about the gap. If you say so then fine. But like I said, its what I earn that I care about, not what someone else earns.

BUT, OK, here is the thing. Contentment, especially in the young, is a bad thing. My son has always been far too contentd. We need to feel motivated when we are young, and actually seek out greivance to spur us on. I did! It is the human condition and part of why we keep making things better. It is what sets us apart from the other animals (who live to reproduce, only, in the main, and ar largely happy to wallow in thir own shit - just visit some pigs if you are unconvinced). If being aggrieved about a wealth gap spurs people on, then good. I haven't thought this one properly through yet, so please don't deconstruct it

I won't deconstruct that one in detail, as I have no idea what I think. As a fellow grumpy old man, I also find myself resenting the sense of entitlement in the younger generation. Though i also understand that there are pressures and worries now that we never had to contend with.

But I'll have a go at a few responses to your general rant(s).

There is plenty of evidence that inequality in itself is problematic. Cause and correlation are contested of course, but the link between a more equal society and many other positive indicators (including GDP growth if that floats your boat) is strong.

It is not just about where we are now- it is the trends and where we are going, without some kind of policy intervention. Inequality in wealth is becoming more important than income inequality, as returns on wealth now outstrips returns on Labour (eg working, no matter how hard, will never help you catch up with someone that inherited wealth). We live in an increasingly 'rentier' economy where more and more income is returns on wealth than return on labour. And wealth inequality is growing and will continue to grow to grow without substantial intervention

Assuming you do accept that climate change is real, as well as other environmental concerns, there are big questions raised about how long we can continue growing our economy, versus more emphasis on redistribution.

Poverty, well-being, happiness. Call it what you will, but there is more to it than the simple income lines. What makes us feel happy is far more than our income, so inseurity in work, in housing and other factors in our economy are as important to many as pure poverty measures.

Inequality is not just a problem of those at the bottom. The accummulation of ever greater wealth at the top creates an inequality of power than undermines democracy. We see that with manipulation of the media (printed in UK, TV in US). With the ability to influence politics etc. It is telling, for instance, that current rates of tax are lower on income derived from wealth (unearned) than on Labour. And attempts to change that are inevitably shouted down in the media (inheritance tax as an example - a deeply regressive tax that is seen as politically toxic to increase)

I have some personal experience of how the wealthy protect themselves by exerting influence pover policy makers and it has convinced me that the concentration of wealth creates a genuine challenge to democracy, and will not end well if not challenged.I know many will say 'it has ever been thus' but I am not sure that is entirely true. The extremes we are seeing in terms of personal wealth and size and dominance of corporations the globalised nature of wealth and new technology all increase risks.

Any real challenge to the status quo is going to meet with massive resistance. As we have seen. First they will fight. Then will try and co-opt (witness the massive increase in corporate stalls at the Labour conference this year) and then someone will win...

You'd be a fool to think that the type of changes being proposed by Labour - and the type of movement and tactics that will be required to actually make that change happen - does not bring huge risks. It does, and could go very wrong. No doubt. But my view is that the alternative - allowing things to continue - may be riskier.

This is all in addition to other factors, such as the collapse in the global multuilateral system and the rise of the far right across the world, which also makes me think that a genuinely progressive government in the UK will be a good thing.