The Left's way forward

It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to post the views you are rosesarered but it is also perfectly reasonable for another poster to disagree or ask what it adds to the current discussion. How about just answering that question?

NigglyNellie it appears that, to you, your perception of the "socialism" the 1970/early 80's makes Labour unelectable. What is anyone who is interested in "The Left's way forward" supposed to say to that. I think all I can say is - yes, you are obviously not going to vote Labour but others may and I wonder and am interested in what they hope for from the Labour Party and its new leader. I am not trying, in any way, to exclude people - I can't as we are all equal on this board but it is up to you to put forward an argument with which others can agree or at least discuss not expect us to agree with whatever you put forward or discuss a finite point. Where do you go from NigglyNellie will not vote Labour again or rosesarered does not like people who slouch?

Tegan I have noticed that too. I think many young - and older - people have got fed up with spin and want principle, even if they may disagree with some of it. At least you really know where that person stands.

The younger generation certainly got involve in the referendum in Scotland so it does seem they are discovering socialism

But they've never lived under it - we have!!

Gracesgran

You see I read your post and when you say Jack has 'extreme views' I find that relates to certain points in my last post. He probably chimed with other posters but that's not the point, he/she is allowed to say it without being called out for it.

I could say you have 'extreme views', if I did you would be quite rightly put out . You may even be proud to be said to have 'extreme views'.

I don't care, couldn't give a monkeys either way but having a view is not cause for this continual round a bout of everybody having to conform to what just a few posters would have us do and not post against their views or use the faux argument that posts must keep to the OP , which is nothing more than being dogmatic and puts others heckles up to be honest.

I don't feel it necessary to respond as you 'requested' as to what he/she meant in his/her post, it made perfect sense to me first time round. It would matter not a jot how I viewed his post in relation as to how you read it anyway, ask him/her if you have correctly interpreted his/her post.

Yes Nigglynellie , we have all lived under a Tory government and a socialist government and many are still suffering from the Thatcher years

For all the people that dread the thought of a socialist government, there are just as many people that despair of the Thatcher era and the way it gave people carte blanche to just think of themselves and no one else. I'm sure it was round about that time that people started to use credit cards. Now, we had a government that explained the economy as something that you could only spend what you had etc and yet people were encouraged to buy things they couldn't afford on credit; the reasoning being, I suppose, that markets can only grow if people buy things. I've never understood how markets can just keep on growing anyway. The railways are run privately and yet most of us can't afford to travel by train any more; also utilities bills cripple a lot of us. I really don't understand the economy at all but that doesn't mean that I totally believe what any given government tells us about it.

I don't mind anyone posting their views providing they do so with accurate and thought out opinions about policies. I do object to people expressing things that they really have no idea about or that are based on superficial irrelevancies such as personal appearance. So I have tried to explain to Jackthelad the real situation about coal and the miners and asked rosesarered what policies she really objects to as far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned. The general answer seems to be "we don't like socialist policies"
So lets have some details. Is it the running of public services like the railways so that the profits reach the electorate and are not pocketed by big business? Is it the proper funding of a National health Service so that it is not open to "cherry picking" by private companies? This is about the Left's way forward and where we go from here. Not a soapbox for right wing conservatives to express their disapproval.

Another public service which has suffered under the last Tory govt. is the Police Force.
I read yesterday a report on a survey carried out by the Police Federation: One in 6 police officers plan to leave the job within the next 2 years due to low morale. And numbers already down to 127000 from a peak of 144000 in 2009. Even if they're replaced, it takes time to recruit and train new officers.
Whatever we think of the Police, we need them.

I didn't request anything of you as far as I remember POGS. I do think that anyone who writes off all that Labour governments have done is expressing extreme views. In just the same way I would feel anyone who sweepingly said that Conservative "do not have the answer" and gave only a totally negative view of all that party had done also had extreme views.

You say "I could say you have 'extreme views', I would love to know what views as expressed on here, you consider to be extreme.

In answer to you annibach, I'm sure you are absolutely right in your observations about the Thatcher government, a lot of it was pretty hideous but bearing in mind the state of the country at that time,it had to done and someone had to do it. A lot of us lost businesses, suffered redundancy and had a pretty tough time one way or another for quite a long period with very little state help, and I don't think anyone on the right/centre would contemplate a leader who would want to hark back thirty odd years for a 're-run!! Proposing to revert back to the era of the winter of discontent is exactly what the electorate could look forward to under a Corbett government or so it would appear. This seems to me to be backward looking,unworkable and an extraordinary thing to be contemplating in a modern age.

Personally I never thought any of the services such as gas, electric, water, railways should have been privatised - competition lowering prices !!! That was a good joke on someone's part!
We need more lateral thinkers in charge not the single vision single aim people.

Can the few of you who write so scathingly about other posters not see what the problem is?Is it done on purpose? Scaring moderate Labour voters off this thread.Trisher says ' I don't mind anyone posting their views, provided they do so with accurate and thought out opinions etc' Really, that's very good of you.
gracesgran simply wouldn't like anything that I posted regardless of content
But the body language of Jeremy Corbyn IS interesting and not that of a leader in the making.
A question to all.... Would you not have been perfectly happy if Ed Miliband had won the election?If you would have been happy with that, why all the sudden championing of somebody who is a fan of Marx? it takes something special to be a leader and Jeremy Corbyn ain't it.

Up to a point I agree with you Bez, the only problem as I see it is, that it costs such enormous sums of money to run the utilities and the railways, and if they were nationalized again, presumably taxes would have to go up to support them. When the railways were in the public domain, they were allowed to decline abysmally owing to little investment, a problem we're still dealing with to this day. Equally the utilities especially water had been underfunded for decades and needed vast sums of money to bring them up to standard, european as well as domestic. The money had to come from somewhere ; The consumer of course (!!) and the tax payer/investor? It's a difficult one, but like just about everything in our society it unfortunately all boils down to money.

I think body language is important.
And like it or not, rightly or wrongly, jeremy Corbyn did give the impression of a laid back, perhaps not overcaring about much in life, sort of image. Even if his words were saying otherwise.
But equally, and I count myself among them, we can get fooled by a polished image.

I think that if someone likes what a person is saying, then yes, it doesnt matter too much what they look like and how they act.
But it strikes me, that there are more voters nowadays like me, who are willing to switch allegiance quite easily and quickly.
To my mind, for some time now, the parties themselves change. Especially if and when there is a new leader. Who then puts a new team in place.

What concerns me these days is the concept of 'if it hurts it must be doing good'. Because no one says that to the very rich. And, sometimes it is true, but is it often used as an excuse [I sometimes feel that we've been slightly brainwashed] At least Corbyn has made people start questioning policies. He may not be good for the Labour Party [imo] but, in some way he may be good for the country if we, at least start to question things more.

Jeremy Corbyn is also coming to the age where in a normal job he would be retiring not trying to head up the company. I know in the past prime ministers and party leaders have been older but as it would be a strenuous job for someone not already doing it - a lot to learn etc maybe not a good idea, plus a bit of a wild card to say the least!
I think either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper would be a reasonable choice - they both have a good bit of experience.

and left wing conservative voters too rosesarered!! I think that everyone should feel comfortable to say what they think and how they feel, as they see it. It would be nice to if you could say what you think and get a reply contradictory or otherwise in a convivial atmosphere, not a hectoring lecture! It's not what you say, but how you say it. We can't all be intellectuals, but we can still have opinions even valid ones! and most of us outsiders are receptive of other people's points of view and happy to discuss them and maybe persuaded by them!!

If people in the Labour party agree with Jeremy Corbyn's views but think he may not be prime minister material, I think they should still vote for him as leader to allow him to make changes that they want to see in the party.
If they vote for one of the others, they will get someone who looks the part but will take the party in a totally different direction.

I saw him on Andrew Marr this morning for the first time. My BBC reception in Germany is poor lately and I miss a lot of news.

I was surprised to see how old he looked but what he said was OK. Alex Salmond said he could envisage them working together in opposition and think that is a good reason to vote for him as leader- for the time being.

To represent the ordinary people who have to take the brunt of Osborne's austerity measures. It would do them good to feel they had someone who cared. Ed Miliband said a lot but it was all one liners and I never believed a word he said, his body language was all wrong for what he was saying.
Up till now I find Corbyn OK .

For all the talk about a socialist government, I am interested to understand when we have had one in the UK?

nigglynellie When the East Coast line was taken into public ownership it actually made a profit, so didn't cost the tax payer anything.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-privatise
If the railways are properly run they are a valuable asset and bring in money, which is why companies want to own them.

Many people, particularly in her own party, thought Margaret Thatcher was "not Prime Minister material" but she either was or she did a good job of making people believe she was. Who ever takes over as Prime Minister does it their way.

Soon I think what you say makes a lot of sense. If you are at least inclined to listen to what someone is saying you pay less attention to how they look or anything you might otherwise find irritating. Members and supporters who would vote for what one of the four politicians says are the audience he/she is appealing to in the leadership election. Once those people have made him/her leader then that person and their team will have to appeal to a wider audience.

Bez I do think the idea that there is a market in Gas, Electricity, etc., is what I would call extreme capitalism - and a fraud

Tegan I couldn't agree more. Figures which appear to be plucked out of the air have been offered as targets and few people, including the LP team in the last election, seem to have challenged them. What JC is doing widening and challenging the current accepted "facts".

I think you have a real point FarNorth and it follows on from Tegan's point about questioning things more. Surely the Labour Party should be thinking about moving the argument to their ground not moving the party to the Conservative ground. It is a long time until the next election..

MargaretX you sound like another in favour of widening the argument and challenging the perceived truth as put forward by "the only way is austerity" crowd.

Right on the button, nigglynellie.

Why are so few people concerned about the government changing the date for the cap on what people will have to pay for care homes? There seems to be so little publicity about it. As I've said before, they were in government and knew the figure they were working with so why the date change?

Tegan, thanks for mentioning the government changing its mind (never mind the date) for the cap on what we'll pay if we need residential care. In the lead up to the election, a key conservative manifesto commitment was to cap care costs for the over 65's and younger people with disabilities to £72000 from next year.

The Observer front page headline today is that Hunt's U turn on social care costs will 'cost tax payer £100m'. The Observer says that Hunt insists it's merely been delayed but that most experts agree it's been quietly shelved. My husband works in the area of social/health care and tells me its been rumoured for weeks in the department where he works that this would happen.