Jo Swinson

Ban-jani said:
Absolutely you’re correct and apologies if you weren’t using early Germany to be hyperbolic.

I agree, socially and economically are vastly different points and being authoritative or liberal has no bearing on what you believe economically. Stalin was closer to Hitler socially than he was Marx, for example.

That’s why in my point to Rasc I said my politics are quite rare as a whole. I’m economically Social Democrat but socially I have a mixture of left and right politics.

Labour’s manifesto appeals to me but then again I’m often at odds with the membership.
Click to expand...

Agree with this - I think a perfectly formed and functioning government would be willing and able to draw solutions from across the political spectrum for any given problem. We pretty much do this right now but not in a way that is anywhere near joined up or competent. We do by way of lurching from left to right and clamping down on things and then letting them slide.

An example of this is Nationalisation of utilities. Tories would privatise everything on principle, Labour would Nationalise everything on principle. No one is saying you should review how effective and efficiently something is working and consider actual evidence to determine if we are better served by nationalising or privatising a specific industry.
 
jay_mcfc said:
If people went of a manifesto Labour would have got 40m votes last time.
Click to expand...
Sadly the majority will go off what Rupert Murdoch/Tory Kueensberg/Daily Heil/Cambridge analytica 2 say despite the so called unbiased election reporting by law.


Just had the editor of the daily Mail on Sky News asked about Corbyn.

"We know more about Corbyn now than we did 2 years ago."

"Like what?"

"He's an Anti Semitic, IRA sympathiser"
 
Gaudion M said:
Agree with this - I think a perfectly formed and functioning government would be willing and able to draw solutions from across the political spectrum for any given problem. We pretty much do this right now but not in a way that is anywhere near joined up or competent. We do by way of lurching from left to right and clamping down on things and then letting them slide.

An example of this is Nationalisation of utilities. Tories would privatise everything on principle, Labour would Nationalise everything on principle. No one is saying you should review how effective and efficiently something is working and consider actual evidence to determine if we are better served by nationalising or privatising a specific industry.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Gaudion M said:
Agree with this - I think a perfectly formed and functioning government would be willing and able to draw solutions from across the political spectrum for any given problem. We pretty much do this right now but not in a way that is anywhere near joined up or competent. We do by way of lurching from left to right and clamping down on things and then letting them slide.

An example of this is Nationalisation of utilities. Tories would privatise everything on principle, Labour would Nationalise everything on principle. No one is saying you should review how effective and efficiently something is working and consider actual evidence to determine if we are better served by nationalising or privatising a specific industry.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Tories privatise everything that can extract profit. Labour nationalise those things considered essential to the public good.
 
The perfect fumble said:
Wrong.

Tories privatise everything that can extract profit. Labour nationalise those things considered essential to the public good.
Click to expand...

That’s true but nationalising everything isn’t a sensible policy, despite the fact I believe ideologically that essentials, like travel, utilities, health, mail etc. should be under public ownership.

It’s much better to look at each particular institution/organisation and make a decision based on the service to the public and the ability of either privatisation or nationalisation to be a success for that particular thing.
 
The perfect fumble said:
Wrong.

Tories privatise everything that can extract profit. Labour nationalise those things considered essential to the public good.
Click to expand...

Labour nationalise those things considered essential to the public good irrespective of any evidence as to what the full implications will be. They do it on principle.
 
Ban-jani said:
That’s true but nationalising everything isn’t a sensible policy, despite the fact I believe ideologically that essentials, like travel, utilities, health, mail etc. should be under public ownership.

It’s much better to look at each particular institution/organisation and make a decision based on the service to the public and the ability of either privatisation or nationalisation to be a success for that particular thing.
Click to expand...

That hinges on your definition of success.
 
The perfect fumble said:
That hinges on your definition of success.
Click to expand...

Also correct and my definition of success is an efficient, affordable service to the public, that employs the public.

You can achieve that in a private company, just as you can in a public one.

Essentials are a little different as I believe we, the general public, should have ownership over what comes through our taps and how we can travel, out of principle but other areas such as manufacturing and financial services, as examples, we’re competing against the world and need to be competitive.
 
nmc said:
So are all the Tory Ministers like Whitelaw who frequently met the IRA - are they sympathisers? The Irish Labour Party? Sinn Fein?
Click to expand...

No idea I was commenting on Corbyn and him alone.

Sinn Fein I'd say definitely yes.
 
mat said:
Sadly the majority will go off what Rupert Murdoch/Tory Kueensberg/Daily Heil/Cambridge analytica 2 say despite the so called unbiased election reporting by law.


Just had the editor of the daily Mail on Sky News asked about Corbyn.

"We know more about Corbyn now than we did 2 years ago."

"Like what?"

"He's an Anti Semitic, IRA sympathiser"
Click to expand...

Hard as it is for you quite a few just thought it was a manifesto without any realism attached to it.
 
hilts said:
Hard as it is for you quite a few just thought it was a manifesto without any realism attached to it.
Click to expand...

That is true of every parties manifesto's.

I find things I disagree with and being beyond actual reality in every manifesto I have ever read from across the political spectrum apart from Michael Foot's for the 1983 GE which I considered a magnificent manifesto, unfortunately it was derided as the longest suicide note in history by others who didn't see the reality in it.

We do become conditioned into accepting our own particular viewpoints as being reality, and therefore we are equally dismissive of others views of reality. That is politics and sometimes we will blindly support something we know is not based on reality because we are human and we are tribal.

I am tribal Labour, on the left fringe of the Labour party and I have found things in Labour Party manifesto's that I believe have no basis in reality, but because I am tribal I will support them nonetheless and I know that has to happen to with tribal supporters of all parties. An instance would be in my opinion how could any Tory voter ever actually support the implementation of Universal Credit, that has no basis in reality, it is one of the poorest pieces of legislation and ill thought out policies I have ever seen and it has been so damaging to people in reality, yet people who vote Tory will ignore the reality of it and still vote Tory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top