Off Topic Political Debate

Germany would also much rather that they could remain in Syria, or in neighbouring countries. However, that was not the case and the situation which had been building up in Hungary was so potentially explosive that Germany and Austria had to act quickly - what was the alternative ? To ask refugees already in Serbia or Hungary to make their own way back to Syria - maybe swim over the water ? Hungary has already made it clear that they only want 'Christian' refugees, and so that country could not be considered 'safe' for Moslems.

 

Germany, is that the people or the government or both?

 

I really did not intend to mean it as a "XX is good and YY is bad" Yorkie and I did not actually say that it was all about Labour vs Tories. As a whole those who voted (not just the possible voters) rejected Labour. My point remains that if those that voted in 2015 rejected Labour, I just cannot see what will move them to vote Labour in the nexy election now that there is a New New Labour party that is now steering hard to the Left. It is all very well that the Political elite and all those sycophants that they surround themselves with proclaim that this is the rebirth of politics that will take the country forward to a landslide in the next election - but cynical old me just cannot see it.

 

Take a look at this letter to JC. Cannot blame the Super Soaraway, The Torygraph or The Daily Heil for this mudslinging..

http://www.mann4bassetlaw.com/an_open_letter_to_jeremy_corbyn_on_child_abuse

 

I mean both Zen, everybody knows that help is most needed there, at the source, but we still have the problem of thousands of refugees already in Europe and this problem is not going away - it is not acceptable to say that these people should return the way they came, or to burden them on southern European countries which do not have adequate resources for it.

I do not buy into the idea that we should turn people back in their thousands because there may be the odd radical amongst them. Firstly because about a quarter of the IS fighters are of European origins anyway - and these would be the ones used in any terrorist activity in Europe. Secondly because I do not buy into the scaremongering over the risk of terrorism anyway. I do not deny the dangers but the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack have been statistically calculated as one in 20 million. To offer a comparison, the chances of me drowning in my bathtub are one in 800,000. Also the chances of me being killed either as a pedestrian, or on my bicycle by a car are very, very much less. Should I then live in mortal fear of all car drivers and bathtubs ?

 

Everything is possible W_Y the crucial group in any election is not the middle - but rather the 30% or so of non voters, who are they ? We have a picture of which people are voting for the different parties in the UK. but not of this remaining 30%. We can say that the Tories have a lowest possible percentage of about 30%, who would vote for them whatever, Labour probably have a bottom line of between 28 and 30%, the Liberals about 7-8%, the Greens 4-5% and UKIP currently about 10% - this all leaves a 'middle' of only about 15% ie. people who are often cross voters. Why should the Labour party waste time trying to convince a Tory to vote Labour if they lose a voter the other end, to the Greens ? The 30% or so of non voters are a completely different proposition. Who are they, and why are they estranged from politics ? We know that the middle classes are more politically active - so could it be that the 30% has some loose correspondence to the poorest 30% in our society ? 40 years ago the poorest third of our society were conscious of being 'working class', used the expression in a positive way, and were often politically active - this has all changed. In order to win an election Labour has to connect with the new poor, and has to be able to get people to the polling booths who have never been there before, in the same way as Obama managed this in America.

 

I think that I have come across quite a lot of people in my time who are committed non-voters. Seems difficult to understand, but they seem to be quite happy with their position of getting on with their own lives and making the best of whatever the government chooses to do.

 

If there is ever a time deemed safe enough for these migrants to return home, would they go willingly?

 

40 years ago many more 'working class' people, like myself, were working in factories and were members of fiercely political unions. I was in the national graphical union which represented skilled printers. We were constantly bombarded with propaganda supporting left wing causes and anti tory governments. We had more than our far share of strikes. Unfortunately I believed every word at the time. Much of these industries have now disappeared and the unions only have a stronghold in some public services.

With the new technology it is much easier for this group of people to create small businesses or work from home. People now have ambitions way beyond what was thought possible in the 60's, they are the inspirational group that Labour completely failed to attract in the last election.

I would imagine they would not connect with the wacky ideas expressed by Corbyn and his henchman.

 

I believe that the dynamics of British Society have changed dramatically in just the past 20 years that means that a large part of that 30% of the "poorest" will never be politically engaged in modern Britain. We have an indigenous underclass (the Jeremy Kyle generation) that will never have any interest unless their Giro is at risk, we have the transient immigrants that are just not politically connected with British Society and we have the illegal population living in the black economy that can never vote. Yes, some massive generalisation, but it severely eats into this 30%. I believe that you are spot on in that it is the middle classes and the politically interested/active that will determine who governs. The days of the working class bloke getting on his bike with his cheese & pickle sarnies, flask of tea and Daily Mirror to go his manual labour job are far far behind us.

 

I don't know the answer to this Zen, but how many refugees from Nazi Germany went back there in later days ? Or those from the Soviet Union ? Relatively few I think. At some stage in the future we will start to see environmental refugees, people fleeing parts of the World which have become uninhabitable - they can never go back.

 

Listening to the radio last night I heard an interview with a chap who was a financial adviser to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonald; he had all sorts of ideas, some of which might work, some which wouldn't and I don't want to go into the ins and outs of these here. The questioner asked where the money would come from to pay for all this spending and the answer repeated several times in answer to the question asked in many different ways was that there would be some borrowing, followed by increased tax revenues (presumably by all the new higher earners and not just by increase taxes on everybody) would be the main source of revenue and then something called "people's quantitative easing". When asked to explain this the response was basically, "Oh, we'll just print more money, it's what the people want.". I though the dream for everyone was to be able to live within their means, with a little help as and when required, not to base an entire financial outlook on how much can I borrow, and how long can I get away with not paying anything back and then when that runs out print money to spend, after all we are not Greece, no offence to Greek readers, but however you look at it your governments's financial record is ****e.

If the current government's idea of austerity is to actually spend and borrow more, even if the perception is they are not, what would a future left wing Labour government do? John McDonald might be a safe pair of hands (according to Ken Livingstone, anyway) but could the rest of the party be trusted not to spend money they really don't have.

 

Nobody on here has noticed yet (not even Superhorns) that the Labour party is now being led by Tom and Jerry.

 

Would not like to be accused of Mudslinging! I suppose it would not be considered as very PC to call Diane Abbot Spike?

 

Cheers there are a lot of people in Leeds really energised by the election of JC...( the labour guy not the son of GT... G_d by another name name )

I think they like the return of labour to its so called roots.

I cannot see the middle class/middle England voter being stimulated by his politics. So that was my first hint when i posted his election on this thread....

For a govt to be electable it has to embrace the middle ground IMO.... unless we have coalitions or PR etc etc.

MY biggest query around JC is quantative easing which i really struggle with.. building up more debt for the future..... of course we need to stimulate the economy.... but is this the best way???


Interesting times ahead!

 

Am I the only one here excited by the thought of a true red/blue scrap rather than a pinky blue/blue one?

At least I'll know who is to the left and right again.

 

Yes, makes things much clearer. The lib dems will take the old new Labour position, I cannot see how the new new Labour Party can avoid a split or at least some deserting to the Lib dems.

Unless of course a new new new Labour Party is created!!!!

 

Certainly interesting - rather confusing though with the EU referendum in 2 years time. Corbyn has stated that he wants Britain to be part of a reformed Europe but that his support for membership is by no means guaranteed - the same applies to Cameron, though the reforms which he wants are likely to be very different from Corbyn's. Which side is going to emerge as the pro or anti membership party on the day ? Or will both parties allow dissent from the party line on this ?

 

That nice Yanis Varoufakis from the Greek anti austerity Syriza Party admitted on Newsnight last night that Tom & Jerry (thanks Cologne!!) had been in contact with his party for some tips.

I'm not sure details of their negotiating skills will be much use. Syriza managed the almost impossible outcome of producing an infinitely worse deal for its citizens than was already in place.

duh!

 

Sorry to return to the refugee situation, but the First Minister here announced last week that Jersey would take in some refugees. On the face of it, commendable but given that during the previous week the Housing Minister had talked about sorting out the shortage of housing on the island for those that currently live here, poorly timed.