Corbyns Inertia

Just because you are better off doesn't mean society is better lemongrove There are people today starving and homeless. I want a society that cares for them as we were cared for.

There were starving and homeless in the 60's and 70's trisher. Despite a top rate of tax at 98%.

With respect Trisher I don't think you know what the word socialist means.

I think you'll find out she does, wally.
In my opinion and with respect, of course.

As Peter Ackroyd writes in his London: The Biography: "It has been observed that the West End has the money, and the East End has the dirt." London's history is a tale of the haves and the have-nots. In the sixth century, victorious invading Saxons settled in the west of the capital, with poor Romano-British natives populating the east. This gap in Londoners' fortunes has persisted until the present day.

1969:
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/11/newsid_3037000/3037650.stm

Has any government ever got on top of this problem?

Fact, there has never been and never will be a society which has no starving and homeless , quite simply because we cannot change human nature . Corbyn or no other person cannot force people to put everyone before self.

Useless looking for Utopia or wrong to promise it.

As for the young turning out for Corbyn, no different to the generation of the young in the sixties, how many flower power peace loving , caring of that time , failed to change the world.

Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair and Corbyn and his dreams of a world government is in the land of Oz.

Firstly from 1948 until the 1980s we were a socialist country. Will anyone come on this thread and say that the society they grew up in was worse than today's ? I doubt it. Most of us had good health care regardless of our family's wealth, we had free education and we had state owned railways

I think expectations were lower then. We still have good health care and many of us are living longer with conditions that people died from in those days because of better treatment and drugs. Education was free but only about 5% went on to state-funded university, not the huge proportion who wish to go now. No, we don't have state-owned railways now but in those days not many people had cars, we certainly never had one. I won't disagree, though, about the railways as I think that public transport does need vast improvement - even if to keep so many cars off the roads.

Who can forget Rachman too?

Oh do explain then Wally I am after all only a weak and feeble woman with no intellect whatsoever! (I will be celebrating 100 years since women got the vote dressed as a suffragette this year!)

That got me thinking about corsets trisher, then I found this from 1882 which is interesting - The Rational Dress Movement:

In 1881, the 'Rational Dress Society' was formed in London protesting against: 'any fashion in dress that either deforms the figure, impeded movement of body or in any way tends to injury health.'

Weren't the Pre-Raphaelite women part of that or something similar? Jalima?
I don't do the corset bit. I do like the fact that the suffragettes believed in Equal wages for Equal work and thought that men could not be trusted to look after poor children and women.

Strange that women were still being encouraged into wearing corsets up until the 1960s, although not so extreme as they were.

Show me one truly socialist country that has succeeded, even China and Russia had to abandon it

You're still conflating socialism with communism.

Instead of arguing the toss about the Labour party's evils, why don't all the 'anti but still Labour' folk detail what they would want a Labour party to do. Forget who leads it, just give us a manifesto.

It is Momentum getting the members by their activists pushing Corbyn

When did you join Momentum Lemons? How exciting and, I have to say, unexpected. At least it puts you in a position to tell us all exactly what is happening and why. After all there is not other way you could be so sure of that you had such a handle on the truth - could there?

Why haven't they the courage to campaign as the Momentum Party and leave the Labour Party to have the same success as 1993

So the Labour Party started in 1993? Not in my history books it didn't.

Good post Maizie. It is very easy to try and ridicule and destroy. What is it these "this is not the Labour Party we changed it to in 1993" folks want.

Maizie, I think you have a problem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

They share a common definition of "socialism" and they refer to themselves as socialist states on the road to communism with a leading vanguard party structure. For this reason, they are generally, albeit erroneously, called "communist states".

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union which was the founding and ruling political party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

So have I, and others, got it wrong for all these years?

Why are we talking about the USSR?

Definitions of communism and socialism I think

I was responding to this:
Show me one truly socialist country that has succeeded, even China and Russia had to abandon it

You're still conflating socialism with communism.

Just asking

I think no one really cares - IRL you wouldn't give a fig if someone called China communist or socialist.
It's easier to argue about semantics than give an example of a communist or socialist country that has succeeded.
I should have know better than to get involved in the distractions!

Just shows how poorly you think of those who do care about politics, primrose.
Perhaps you don't give a fig, being a capitalist.

Exactly Primrose when there is no real answer semantics takes over.

Actually, you never hear anything bad about Portugal, and that's been a socialist country for a few generations/centuries.