Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
looks like a shot from transformers or something.
because they had better speakers in than Labour.
I signed up to all the political societies at York.
Gonna hit me in 20 years time when I'm running for PM.
thus saw Tony Benn last term, amazing experience. You're right, I might/should find out about joining the others, there are some pretty interesting people on.
Well done Ed. You'e literally given up being in opposition.
...to be in government in 2015?
What he says directly:
I think the main point is "It was always going to be hard, but it is much tougher because of George Osborne’s mistakes."
why would anyone vote for Labour in 2015 if they don't do anything to support the people against the cuts now?
There are numerous examples of Labour opposing cuts (do you need examples?). I think we need to stop talking about the problem as just "cuts" though. That's talking about it in the terms the Tories want us to. Unlike this government, Labour actually has a viable plan for growth.
the priority is creating jobs, right?
Labour really is a useless sack of shit. Definitely gonna leave this country when I graduate, to somewhere which still has hope of not being run by either Tories or Tories In Disguise for the foreseeable future
genuinely interested to know.
such a bad person, in every respect
or at least in most respects, maybe he loves his wife? i dont know.
Does that make him a good person?
I started learning some grade 8 stuff, but gave up.
I *never* practised and made my parents pay £20 p/h for like 5 years.
it's £876480. You could at least have taken an hour off once in a while.
Hope someone drives over fucking I, ED
I don't like it but can see why Labour have done it.
In general the public seem to have both accepted the cuts as inevitable (especially given the same thing is happening in Europe too) and, paradoxically, see it as being Labour's fault for being reckless with money. So it's not an area where Labour have been making much in-road as an argument and the more they focus on the cuts, the more the Tories deflect back on them.
By drawing a line under the cuts it weakens the Tories' abilities to use them as a stick to beat the Labour party with and means that Labour can focus instead on the lack of growth, where they're more likely to succeed with the voters.
They're the opposition. It's their job to point out to the general public that:
a) it's not their fault that the banking system collapsed; it can be traced back to Thatcher/Reagan deregulating the industry
b) there's no reason for any cuts to happen whatsoever
c) we can prevent these measures going through by mass [illegal] public + private sector strikes
the fact that they're full of useless cunts who seem to be unable to offer up a proper critique of the Tory agenda doesn't mean they should just throw the towel in and accept it all - in fact most people would argue that the main reason that there's no economic growth is because of the cuts.
it will hardly help them win the next election, as when it comes around to it the general public will say "why didn't you stand up for us 3 years ago, when we still had a chance of keeping the NHS, our jobs + our benefits."
that the main reason that there's no economic growth is because of the cuts. Up until now Labour have been saying that 'it's too far and too fast'; this appears to be a massive u-turn on that. Accept that certain cuts should be made, sure, but all of them? Very inconsistent.
a), b) and c) sound like pretty mental suggestions though, tbh.
what is mental about them?
(apart from the fact that Labour are kinda responsible for the economic crisis for not re-regulating the banks sometime in the 90s)
Labour had ages to fix any faults they saw in the banking system. If they didn't see any faults, that implies they accepted the system as it was. Since Ed Balls has been around doing economics stuff with Labour for the past 2 decades, it implies he accepted it as it was. (b) is just not very believable given that pretty much all countries are making cuts. (c) is dependent on (b) being believable to enough people. If no cuts were made, the UK's credit rating would be downgraded loads, meaning no-one would lend to the UK government (or only with high interest), meaning they would have no money to pay anyone anyway...
(b) is only 'not very believable' within the context of global capitalism, though.
The Labour party is the only alternative to centre-right politics in this country. You can complain about it from the outside and do nothing to strengthen its position. Or you can actually get involved and be part of making the party into something you genuinely want to support (there are lots of proper socialists in the labour party).
With the exception of Attlee's government, Labour in power have always been dominated by those on the right of the party. If you're a true socialist, support socialist parties, rather than being a Labour apologist.
what's your opinion on say, harold wilson?
I don't see the need for dogmatic labels but what is a "true socialist"? Which socialist party do you support? And do you think in your lifetime you're going to contribute anything to benefit people's lives by supporting it?
it just depends which way you see it. For me, and this is going to sound awfully studenty and ridiculous but it's what I believe, we need a new system and helping to reduce capitalism's pernicious impact on people in any way can only be a plus. I'm not advocating revolution here though.
I think Labour can and do benefit lives, but it's invairiably hamstrung by some turbulence or other, be it Miliband's weakness, Abbott's controversial comments, the whole rightwing media, or whatever. Socialist movements (or from my experience anyway) focus on small actions one at a time to build up the bigger picture, which is much more helpful than PR, campaign stances, the farce that is PMQs, leadership elections and so forth, all of which do nothing to benefit people. Not having a crack at Labour here because that's the way modern politics works, but I do feel it prevents things from getting done.
but what you're saying is awfully studenty and ridiculous. this is saying something coming from me.
has generally been a good thing. Just needs tweaking, and people need to be reminded that it is a means to an end (i.e. better, happier lives), and not an end in itself. When you get to the point where capitalism is no longer contributing to the end, or is even detracting from it, then changes need to be made.
But fundamentally, people should be allowed to keep a certain amount of any money they make in order to encourage creation of new wealth and new products. And they should be allowed to keep a certain amount simply out of respect for individual personhood.
nowhere near. It's become the only realistic ELECTABLE alternative, but that's a very different thing. And I'm sceptical as to what electability (is that a word?) can actually change anyway- as Blair showed very clearly, an electable party isn't always a moral party or one you'd care to support.
As for 'complaining from the outside', there's a nasty suggestion of ennui in there, as if me and the rest are sitting around in our chairs moaning and doing sod all, when I for on am extremely politically active and am willing to bet that others on here are too.
Why should I work to strengthen Labour's position? I don't see what it's ever done for me. Why be coerced into a party because some people like to vote for it?
but I'm not. One day, perhaps. I like the Green Party and various rubbish socialist ones which nobody votes for, but I don't feel it's right at the moment. I don't think you have to necessarily be a member of a party to be politically engaged or to be involved in trying to fight what the government are doing.
(I'm not one of those nasty anarchists either, before you ask ;-) )
I completely stand by Labour being the only alternative to the centre-right. I'm not even saying there should be a trade off between what we actually value and what we think the electorate will like the sound of. Labour is a movement. It's only as good as its members. Don't make the mistake of judging it entirely by what you read in the news and by what Tony Blair did.
You think they've done nothing for you? Didn't you get EMA? (If not, my mistake, sorry).
I just feel that there is a split somewhere (you'll know more about this than me) and neither side of the split is positive. There are those who (like fyd and s_p_g say upthread) accepted, or appeared to accept, things the way they were/are. Then there are those who wish for a return to a rootsier, white-working-class style party. Neither seems like a particularly great idea to me. It's a good movement, but an inherently flawed one- integration into capitalism is always going to bring the party dangerously close to the centre, and a strong socialist stance always going to see voters leave. I'm just not really sure it can ever properly work.
Ed Balls has been pretty clear that the lack of growth is down to the fatally flawed economic plan of the government (do you need examples of him saying this?).
As for the NHS, do you actually have any idea? It's been a pretty massive issue for Labour over the past few months. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4178a30e-f4ef-11e0-9023-00144feab49a.html#axzz1jU11DAAF Every member has been contacted several times to sign a petition and encouraged to campaign on this specific issue on the doorstep.
As for welfare, we helped defeat the welfare reform bill in the lords just a couple of days ago. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-urges-welfare-reform-rethink-6288432.html