The Labour Party

What is interesting is when you introduce the concept of nationalization like the NHS. You can understand why it is an anathema to the capitalist system as it is taking away potential profit. But some governments have taken the decision that some industries or services are so basic to society that they should not be subject to the vagaries of the market.

I got to the end of page 4 and then lost all I'd written so am giving up on all that but do want to say that I think JC has changed since he became leader. I suspect he has discovered that it is fine to have all sorts of strong views until you are actually at the point when you could be in a position for them to be examined. Once you are in the spotlight and realise the practicalities you need to modify your views or lose the job.

It is so easy to say what would be an ideal world, we would all want pretty much the same but when you are in a position of power and know how big the cake currently is all you can do is decide how to divide that cake and what is the best way to increase the size of it.

It is very easy to attack others when it is not your responsibility to make the decisions - give to one and take from another - as there is not enough to just keep giving. Those of us who have had to manage budgets at work know how difficult it can be, especially during a slow down when cuts have to be made.

Is a 'moderate' voter much different to another 'moderate voter' of any other party? I wonder.

A bit of thread drift perhaps, but it interests me that the American view of socialism is so different from ours, they're so terrified of commies. Even democrats like Obama are more like our Tories. And there's a lot of support for the KKK.
The french view too, Sarkozy's "rightwing "party is more like our moderate socialists, and their FN is to the centre of our NF. There's a lot of support for the communist party too in France.
And I agree with what Nonnie says about JC - once you're in the hot seat you modify your views.

tricia I think to understand where the US and France stand you have to look at their history. US was built on the enlightenment and people like Thomas Payne. The enlightenment was very big in individual freedom. I am sure other people can talk about it with more knowledge than me. But it is interesting how the socialist intellectual debate varies from country to country.

Has Jeremy Corbyn modified his views? He made it very clear that the party made the policies and I can't see any change in that view. I do think he has drawn on other strands of his character and is beginning to fit the job well. I like what he has brought to PMQs and feel it is good that he doesn't descend to the snide and denigrating remarks we often hear from the government benches (and sadly on GN) - but then I don't like the sort of nastiness and one upmanship that goes on in these situations; I prefer to hear them discuss the country, the people in it and the way forward not one another so I am probably prejudiced

Reading the OP, who is to say what a moderate Labour supporter is? It will vary from the standpoint of the person looking on and the person saying they are so it seems pointless to ask a specific section to answer imo. Wherever I sit - I would have said just left of centre - I do not agree that the Labour Party is being torn apart but I would agree that there are changes happening in the Labour Party, other UK parties and in other political parties in the world. I wonder where it will take us? Not into my future - I am going into the autumn of my life - but I do hope it will be better for my children and their children than it has appeared it was going to be.

I suppose those grans who asked the far left in my argument would be those who argue that society should take back entirely the control of production from the wealthy capitalist.
The far right would be groups like Marine Le Pen, and various other nationalist groups.

In between these two stances we have by far the majority of the political parties meeting somewhere in the middle sometimes to the right of the middle and sometimes to the left. Voters behave exactly like that as well. But they have to put up with all the propaganda put out by vested interests, which can muddy the waters to the extent that it impossible to know what to believe, particularly as there are many vested interests who are not above lying about their real intentions.

I agree with many posts on here but I think in modern democratic politics "right" and "left" are quite simplistic definitions. If you have 10 mins to spare and if you are interested in a more sophisticated analysis try the 61 questions on social and political topics on political compass.org. I found it complex but interesting and delighted to find myself in the same zone as Gandhi - but am not rushing out to buy loincloth just yet!

Thanks lazy will look at that.

I am with you on this one lazy economically libertarian. But no surprises there!

Sorry-been out shopping. Anyway re the comment on nationalisation, I don't see the fear of it re NHS as being due to potential profit being removed. I just remember the times when I felt that the big unionised industries held us all to ransom and the economy was going down the tubes. It was scary. I'm sure others might look back on it as 'the good old days but I wouldn't like to see them back.
Its just not black and white -the super rich vs the deserving poor.
Re NHS reading some of the posts here about healthcare in other countries has certainly opened my eyes. I'd automatically thought NHS was best but maybe not. The French model looked good to me.

No jane what I meant was the conceptualising of the welfare state came about as a result of the recognition that the vast majority of people in the UK needed protection. As does some other industries. For example, many countries have other industries nationalised like, water, transport, education etc. It had nothing to do with unions but everything to do with governments trying to support what they saw as essential industries to the health of a nation. The argument with the unions came later.

That doesn't make too much sense but I hope you get the drift!!!!

One of the interesting things is how in times of war the whole country is to a degree nationalised, and things like food production and access to food is totally controlled. It cannot be left to the market, as there is a recognition that it would not answer the populations needs, the wealthy have sufficient resources to buy what is necessary but the poor would starve.

I suppose it all comes down as usual to the definition of 'wealthy'. Your idea of it and mine might be at some variance. I think I'm OK financially right now but anything could happen to rock that boat. Hence my savings (earned, taxed). That looks like capital or 'wealth' to some but my rainy day money to me.

Oh jane I absolutely don't include those people whose wealth is saved for a rainy day, that to me is simple common sense.
I am talking about those wealthy enough to buy whole companies, to influence governments, to ensure through various undemocratic means that their interests are looked after regardless of whether it for the common good.

Having money saved however much has nothing to do with what I am arguing.

It appears that many of the Lib Dems were "finished" by the machinations of the Conservatives when it came to declaring their expenses roses but perhaps you think that was clever politics.

Reading your long post on this page gracesGran you are against 'snide and denigrating remarks' both in the Commons and on Gransnet, also 'nastiness and oneupmanship' all your words.......and then you post a comment to me like the one above.Such hypocracy, I have to laugh in amazement.

The LibDems were finished by their own voters.

And Jane therein lies that line that someone (*Whitewave*?) talked about earlier (if my memory serves me correct) when you mention the actions of the Unions (almost a death wish)that gave people like Thatcher the excuse she needed to emasculate them.

I fear that the LibDems were 'finished' when they went back on promises such as student loans and that is when Vince Cable IMO lost his position as an 'honest politician' in my own estimation. Sorry if you find this too simplistic for your sophisticated tastes Lazi but the general public are not especially sophisticated when it comes to politics - and why should they be?

Actually re Corbyn and PQT - I thought that yesterday, for the first time, he showed some command of his topic and had Cameron on the back foot about all schools becoming academies.

I an sure lazy would not have been so rude as to suggest that we are too simplistic - just that it is impossible to develop a proper argument on here. We can give it a go though. It is fun trying.

I'll drink to that Whitewave or perhaps given the time of day

and as it's HRH's birthday

I've just filled in the drinking survey!

HRH's 90th birthday!! Anyone here remember the death of George V1th? Not at all relevant to the conversation I know, but goodness it does seem a very long time ago! Probably because it was!!! I was just nine, and I remember feeling quite alarmed at the hushed voices (at school) and the feeling of impending disaster!