Jeremy and the future

dd that comes as no surprise...... pity we cant test the theory for a while, as Corbyn is unlikely to win the next GE.However the post by Day6 will strike a chord with many in this forum who will agree with her/him.

Why does it matter what Roses votes. That is her business. Leave her alone

Well said Day6. Some straight talking at last.

Oh, what rubbish GracesGran but then that is what I have become used to with your posts.

I'm happy to deny that the bulk of the post is true.

roses We have discussed this before and we have discussed it with GNHQ who saw the evidence when you complained to them. They agreed you had declared you were moving from your previously declared attachment to the Lib Dems and that it was you who said you were going to vote Conservative. If you have changed your mind yet again so be it up to now you have made the point that you had moved to the Conservatives - and, for what it's worth, I think you have found your natural home.

Anyone care to deny that Day6 is wrong in most of the above post ( leaving aside education) No, I thought not...... because it is true.

Although the Greens would be a step too far for most normal people.

@Day6

If we had only ever had Conservative governments since the 1950s, your children would not have had a better lifestyle than you did.

By the way, there were plenty of reasonably bright children in secondary moderns, who didn't fulfill their potential. There are plenty of children who went to comprehensives (including my own) who have done well. Very few schools opt for mixed ability teaching.

I never tut ww do you?

Great post Day6

What do you think of the idea doing the rounds of a broad left wing coalition including the lib Dems the labour left and greens rose you must be tutting.

That was to gg btw ( my question.)

When have this Government or any other, said that we can't afford to educate our children?

Well, you paint a picture of misery, but that got me thinking. Hasn't there ALWAYS been misery for the poorer people of GB? (For the poorer people of most countries in the world.) The poor have always existed. Have socialists addressed poverty and stopped it? Nope.

I'll agree that we have to be very grateful for the welfare acts brought in last century and the NHS, which alleviated much suffering, but even with a benefits system and millions pumped into the NHS every year it sounds as though, from your post above that not a lot has changed, and it must be of course, the fault of a Conservative government. We all know that Labour voters have the monopoly on caring. . The only people who care are on the left, politically. Who knew, eh?

So why haven't things changed? Why weren't things better not so long ago under Blair and Brown, Labour stewardship?

I conclude that NO government can erase poverty. If the next government happened to be a Labour one, it would be interesting to watch poverty and distress being wiped out. Well, it would be interesting if we witnessed it.

Even with Corbyn, a man I respect but wouldn't vote for, things won't change. benefit payments would increase, taxpayers would have to cough up more, but poverty wouldn't be eradicated.

I grew up in the 50s and poor then was very different from poor now.

We wore hand-me downs, which were repaired or darned. We had two sets of clothes at the most, one for school, one for 'best'. Washing was done by hand. We had to heat up water. We had one fire to heat the whole house. We put coats on our beds to keep us warm at night.We ate bread and dripping, or jam if we were hungry.
We made our own amusement. Parents couldn't afford toys. A skipping rope (or a bit of washing line) sufficed for games.We were often cold. We often hid from rent collectors because we couldn't pay bills. Sanitation was deplorable. Loos were outside and often shared. This was only 50+ years ago. Many of us recognise that impoverished lifestyle.

I could go on. My point is that NO government has created today's poverty. It exists, for many and various reasons, and yes, it is right to address them. We talk of food banks, but in truth, they are a step up from 1950s and '60s poverty because no one ever bailed anyone out back then! Pride meant families made do, and it wasn't a happy situation, just as being given carrier bags of food today indicates a grim way of living.

I felt peeved, all my life that my council introduced the comprehensive system and most working class children, who read a lot (because books were an amusement and pastime given we had no TV etc, and were reasonably bright, missed out on grammar school places whether they passed their 11+ or not. I will have no truck with anyone telling me mixed ability teaching is better for ALL children. It is not. One size does not fit all, yet a Labour government would like to deprive the brightest from getting on and leave the less able to flounder and mess about in a classroom where the teacher is trying to cope with several levels of intellect. Diane Abbot, Corbyn's side kick it the epitome of hypocrisy given she exercises her right, with her wealth, to send her son to a private school.

My point is, blaming Tories for things being more expensive, for the NHS needing more money and for people needing food banks so they can eat is pretty pointless, because all of us know if the next government was a Labour one, those problems would not be eradicated. There is not a magic wand or a magician economist or a sh*t-hot sociologist/philosopher working for any political party who can come up with long term solutions.

The Conservative government recently upped tax thresholds so poorer workers took more money home. A good move I'd say and any government has to implement policies which decrease poverty. However, the taxpayer also has to feel it's worth his while working. S/he isn't working merely to cough up so that people less fortunate do alright, although it's a noble system. The worker also wants rewards for his/her labour and rightly so. The rich family who bring industry/work to areas and ease unemployment do not want to be driven away because of prohibitive taxing.

A government has to cater for all stratas of society, like it or not. This is why the "Only Labour Care" strategies are failing. Most of us would be pretty pissed off if the UK became a land of milk and honey ONLY for the poor.

Son joined the Labour party last year and goes to meetings and has been leafleting etc. He is reasonably active but meetings have been an eye-opener because of the cult of Jeremy.There he says the moderates tend to be in a minority and are out-shouted by hard-left remnants of Old Labour supporters who insist on calling everyone 'comrade'. The other faction is the young, who don't have much political nous or knowledge but are good at swearing, getting angry and saying 'F*ck Tories!" They love Corbyn. They adore him. His observations, not mine.

How is Corbyn going to be different? Say Corbyn was given four years in office, Would we see food banks wiped out? Would we see unsatisfactory housing eradicated and no homeless on the streets?

Nope, we wouldn't. Would the NHS suddenly have billions pumped into it - much more than the Tory budget? I doubt it. Corbyn's chancellor would still have to balance the books.

My point is, Corbyn, should he be elected isn't going to be our saviour, neither is Theresa May in office, or any of the big names in politics out there. All governments make promises but they cannot please everyone or eradicate poverty.

Could the hard left solution be Communism, whereby we give to the poor and take from the rich so we all have the same amount to live on? That to me seems to be the only (misguided) answer to all those who hate Tory governments and seem to think that once out of office Labour will put everything right.

It'll never be right and spleen vented at ANY government is futile, if not misplaced. Utopia doesn't exist and never will.

The fiasco and chasms created by the Labour leadership battle hasn't inspired confidence in Corbyn or indeed the Labour party being a decent opposition because there are so many Labour factions. I suspect, given the chance, they wouldn't run the country any better than the party presently in charge.

Yes Ana I am, but GracesGran chooses to think otherwise ( just as anniebach is now perceived as Tory lite!) [ grin]
The problem is , on these threads, only those of the same mind are posting (more or less) all fans of Corbyn, so it's never balanced out.All those new posters on other threads rarely join in, which is a pity, because we may hear other views not quite so one sided.perhaps you are not gloomy GracesGran just sad, since you use that word a lot.

Thumbs up grace lovely to hear such sense - eventually the penny will drop.

Even TM recognised the Tories as the nasty party.

Excellent post GG.
I've spent the last few years wondering when the penny would drop re Keynes. His system of economics which has proved hugely successful historically needs to be brought back.
I'm not a Corbyn/McDonnell fan but felt a surge of relief when I heard their discussions on economic policy.
Get out of recession/austerity by providing employment. Improve the NHS. Invest in infrastructure by paying people to work - people who will contribute to our communal coffers by paying income tax!
It's not only logical but also compassionate.

Gracesgran, I echo Trisher's praise for your post. It sums it up. That is why I vote Labour.

I thought you were a LibDem voter, roses...

Oh Gracesgran what a fantastic post, so moving and so true. Thank you.

What a delightful personality you display roses when you declare that you are made cheerful by what you perceive as someone else's 'gloom'. I am rarely miserable or gloomy and perhaps you should see comments like mine as challenging to the government you intend to vote for rather than cheering.

I certainly feel sad when I realise this government is telling a country as rich as ours that we cannot afford care for my soon to be 96 year old mother who struggles more and more with her dementia and even more sad when I think of others worse off than her who are left half dressed or not toileted because the government does not think we can afford proper time for proper care for people who are worse off than my DM is and who don't have a 'me' to fight their corner.

I also feel sad that this government tells us that this country, which we are reminded constantly by posters such as yourself, is the fifth or sixth richest in the world, cannot afford to invest in the health of those who need it to the level other rich countries do.

I am also sad that this government believes we cannot afford to educate our children but where there is money to spare we will segregate a small section of society and offer them an increased budget whether or not it actually improves education for them or for any children.

I am sad that the government does not feel we can offer housing to those we need to work to keep our business and industry going. I am sad that these people are undervalued but even sadder that the government of our rich country feels increasing homelessness is OK.

I am sad that, in this rich country, the government thinks it is OK to have a system of help that is so poorly constructed it drives people to food banks where upon they receive vitriol from this government for their poverty.

Yes roses you are right, the country is not made up of only the poor and disabled; it is more and more made up of those who are now part of the 'gig' economy because, so this government tells us, companies earning vast fortunes for their shareholders cannot afford proper contracts or even to pay the minimum wage.

No roses (and I have said this many times so a bit of pot, kettle, black there) I do not "think that Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread". What I do think is that he is offering an interesting view and he is saying, to all those who now feel that the country just doesn't think they count, that there is another way. He is not saying to these people, as the Conservative government is, that we just cannot - or choose not to - afford you and your needs while we can and will look after the needs to those who are grasping more and more of the riches of this very rich country.

Fingers crossed that the penny has finally dropped about Keynesian economics! Unfortunately, I'm not convinced it has. Even some MPs, like Chris Leslie, don't seem to have a clue.

Not sure that Hammond will in fact follow osbornomics(such as they were) as everyone is finally beginning to understand what a disaster he was for this country.

My bet is that he will begin to follow a more Keynsian agenda, and we will see the government investing into various projects in order to stimulate the economy and avoid further cuts.

Just as McDonnell and Clinton are arguing for. Obama of course has been following this model since the general agreement with Brown after 2008.

Ok let's look at the situation as it might be in 2020 which is when the next election should be.
Education- some grammar schools will be expanding and grabbing as much cash as possible, meantime all over the country underfunded primary schools will be increasing class sizes and trying to up their numbers but parents will still be unable to get the school of their choice.
NHS Waiting lists for free care will be huge, some services will be available for those who can afford to pay and jump the queue.
Housing Little affordable housing will be available in any major city. Rented property will be in short supply and multiple occupancy housing will be common everywhere. The numbers sleeping on the streets will have massively increased as shelters have closed.
The Conservatives will lose the election and leave Labour to clear up the mess (sound familiar?)