Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
think it has been painted a bit different to what he has actually proposed in the press, but it happens innit.
and build support by actually being a credible party that don't reek of the same pathetic populist desperation the others do.
but I think they're going to stick with attempting to out-populist everyone despite being led by a man who looks like a muppet made flesh all the same.
he isn't doing ENOUGH to be populist. Certainly not in the policy arena anyway, in spite of what certain mugs in the Tory broadsheets think.
That Sun debacle however... :/
he was chosen over his brother because he looked like a break from blair's line of succession. he needs to either mean something, or be popular
Who is the non-elite you're talking about? They sound like middle-class people bitching about their tax bills who look for easy but inaccurate targets. It's this attitude that Labour should be seeking to stop. Maybe they should be sponsoring more working class people to become MPs and go into politics while also concentrating on only making promises they could actually deliver on. Not that the electorate seem to care about that...
I dunno, maybe those on jobseekers' allowance are crying out for training they're not getting. If so, then it's a good idea, but it feels more like simple reactive policy-making trying to appeal to a specific demographic that aren't claiming welfare payments.
"sponsoring more working class people to become MPs and go into politics" is a matter of party management not Government policy.
As DD say below, tough on benefits talk is popular, even amongst people who are actually on benefits. I'm not saying it's right, but like it or not, this policy is aimed to attract those on the lower income thresholds, not "middle class people bitching about their tax bills".
Most of the working class lads I know honk on about benefits more than anything else. And not from a `demonising their fellow poor` point of view either for the most part.
have traditionally purported to represent. In my experience, that's where the majority of the anti-benefits sentiment comes from. And as much as the enlightened classes who've taken Labour on as the 'nice' party as hard right sentiment rises throughout Europe might dismiss this as populism and bandy pages of statistics on how fraud is a negligible expense and that benefit culture doesn't exist, anyone who's lived on a council estate knows it has a disproportionate effect on communities from what it actually costs. The party isn't 'for' those people, and if Labour are using this kind of language to claw back votes from groups who traditionally vote for them, that means they're listening. And they need to be, because they're bleeding votes to a party who actually are listening, or at least appear to be (UKIP) at a worrying rate. Do you really think that more working class MPs will mean less populist policy? The government doesn't exist to appease only the politically literate.
Crime, anti-social behavior, un/underemployment, food shortages etc
Is for the only left wing party to become more right wing and refuse them any help from the State?
That'll end up exacerbating the problems and leaving 3 right wing parties to choose from (yay democracy!)
and many of the papers that target that demographic. Why not listen to them? Like I said, they're the ones that feel the effects of benefit dependence most in our country.
That'll end up exacerbating the problems and leaving 3 right wing parties to choose from (yay democracy!)
Across the Labour and Conservative party, and apparently among a large portion of the electorate. Why do you think you know any better?
In countries like the UEA, Chile, Argentina, Brazil (topical!), etc etc the list goes fucking on throughout the world throughout history it's really not just my ludicrous opinion, it's having a semblance of any society whatsoever.
You'll just have to work harder to access welfare. As a massively lazy fuck I'm not really looking forward to it either, I just wasn't happy about a party for the working class actually reflecting a widely held belief among working class being dismissed as populism.
that appeals to the interests and conceptions (also misconceptions such as fears) of the general people, so in that sense it is populist
The only reason it isn't is that populist policies are not meant to benefit the elites, whereas shrinking a welfare state will.
Implying groups with a lower level of political engagement (such as D/E social class types) hold less informed opinions about what is good for themselves. As I've said before, I don't subscribe to that school of thought.
Says more about your prejudices than the statement you're arguing against. But yeah obviously it's not nice to be condescending, that being said history is full of cases of populations being misinformed into agreeing with disastrous political ideas. It's not enough for a policy to be popular for me to agree with it, it must be principled and rational as well and I am not convinced by either atm.
How will Millibands plan give it?
In the places they live and work.
Existing work oriented punitive capitalist laws that punish some of the most vulnerable in society at that
But the idea of having any actual socialist policies or ideas from the Labour party is never going to happen anymore is it, and I find that really depressing.
...but the fascinating thing for me is that anything that Ed suggests policy-wise that even hints at a slight intervention in any kind of market is really aggressively hounded down by the right-wing press. Like, ridiculously so.
Shows how far the centre-ground has shifted in this country. Miliband's a pretty pragmatic centre-left politician who I personally admire greatly but he's painted as some kind of STALINIST FOLK DEVIL by all who take umbrage with him. It's pretty mental. And it's pretty chilling reading for anyone entering politics who's even slightly left of centre...
He's been forced into free market ideology not least because of the legacy of New Labour but really the right wing simply will not budge and they've dragged the center ground into being something right of Thatcher.
It makes completely no sense, it's fucking awful economics and somehow it's made the working class turn in on itself and vote for policies that hurt them the most. I have no idea why people have such a hard on for free markets when 2008 has proven how shit bankers and investors are and how much they need curtailing. It's like giving a toddler a loaded gun.
Never mind socialist policies, I'd accept anything that took the focus off manic work focused grey scale drudgery at this point. But I simply won't get it.
Complete abolition of private property.
State run is inefficient, free market is inherently inequal
even after the global financial crisis but then it's built into the very dynamics of neoliberalism that we can blame the crisis on the state (whilst ransacking it for bailouts and cheap sell-offs of state generated assets) and the cure appears to be EVEN MORE NEOLIBERALISM. http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/pdfs/s53hallmasseyrustin.pdf
are the same people who are able to control the narrative.
But someone needs to tell him that those interventionist policies are very popular and would easily win him the next election if the party could get the message across.
(which, admittedly, is pretty difficult with the media we have in this country)
even amongst people who are actually on benefits, strict welfare conditionality still gets quite a lot of support.
Divide and rule, innit?
People seem to think the economy is on the upturn. But you ask them if it's easier to get quality jobs, if pay is fair, if prices on products is fair, if taxation is fair, and it's clearly not the case. Most of the country has had absolutely no economic benefits from this government.
Yet the press can smokescreen about how well the rich are doing, how badly other countries are managing, acting with false confidence about rising interest rates and people will believe the Tories are economic gods or something. And there's always a scapegoat (the migrant workers, the benefit scroungers) around the corner rather than the real roots of the problem.
- Enough to live on
- In proportion to the time and effort required to undertake it and the expertise and responsibility exercised in discharging it.
- In proportion to the added value that the employee gives to the company they work for.
- In proportion to the wider benefit the employee provides to society.
Enough to be able to live in a decent home within commuting distance of their place of employment, while also being able to provide for their family.
If it's possible to vulgarly generalise the central thing `the electorate care about` (which Dan Hodges of all people wrote a fairly decent piece about recently) then economic stability seems to be the winner. Think a lot of people don't like the Tories' policies per se, but they see them as competently handling the economy. Labour's `brand` on the economy is (wrongly) poisoned re: `plunging the country into debt` and any Tory message of `keep with the course we're already on` vs. Miliband's interventionist plans seems to be the one that will stick the most.
So, in short, Miliband's ideas would probably be popular... just not in this current climate. Could all change if things go economically skewiff between now and the election mind. But I'm sure the Tory/Blairite press would find new ways to kill him off.
And also concerns over immigration and welfare are more important to a lot of the electorate than the economy. Ed physically can't do much on the former, but the latter he can (and is what he's trying to do here).
and it's largely build on a foundation of lies.
Also think that Miliband's got image issues that he can't shift, which sit outside even the dictation of the media. `Nobody likes a wonk` as William Hague once said...
must get exasperated at the cynicism, ignorance and outright untruths pushed by the media in this country regarding politicians, parliament and the workings of government, surely?
But even if the entire media machine bigged Miliband up to the heavens people would still be a bit funny about him.
There's media conditioning in there, sure. But there's also an innate (if behavioural psychology is to be believed) behaviour about what we look for in leaders and how we build trust in people we don't intimately know. Miliband can't help not appealing to people's instincts. But it would be nice if image-management wasn't as necessary...
He's had a bad couple of months of it, but what's interesting (anecdote alert!) is that even a couple of year's ago, people like staunchly labour grandfather, who defended Brown to the hilt. were saying they didn't like Ed.
"people like my staunchly labour grandfather, who defended Brown to the hilt, were saying they didn't like Ed."
To be honest I knew little about him until he became leader.
He thinks he's weak- that he won't be able to keep Labour together when there's a tough decision to make that splits the party in Government. He also seems to think he'd be rubbish on the international stage "imagine him trying to get something from Putin or Merkel".
has shown he has it in him to be a strong political operator to be honest. One swallow doesn't make a summer and all that but, impressive stuff all the same.
It's part of the whole rubbishing of experts and expertise - eg demonising teachers and educationalists, ignoring criminologists, sociologists, scientists etc etc.
Than the current cavalcade of populist shithouses like Hitchens and Piers Morgan and Jan Moir that are currently wheeled out ad nauseam.
Although I've never seen Jan Moir on popular debates, I must say. Not that I watch many of them.
You like Hitchens, have you had a head injury?
about watching Hitchens.
Thought you'd escaped from an asylum for a minute there
On rotation with Melanie Phillips I presume...
Nah Hitchens is quite endearing. He's principled, well-researched and almost super-humanly consistent in his arguments which is refreshing (not that I agree with the majority of them). He provides a pretty reliable dialectical position which, at the very least, usually makes me think. Think it's important to have your own ways of thinking challenged and he does that quite forcefully and articulately. But, like I say, he's difficult to agree with because his full-throttle Burkean Libertarianism is completely at odds with how I see things. And he's pretty hilarious to follow on twitter. I think he's largely misunderstood, too.
Tiny state in the economy, MASSIVE state in the private sphere. His opinions on non-standard family units, immigration and drug addiction are ignorant and sickening. And he's not really even like Edmund Burke he's just a mouthpiece of the Daily Mail's granny-on-roids point of view.
He seems to have an allergy to evidence.
I haven't found anyone on that edge of the spectrum better to read myself. I'll take Hitchens over a borderline-psychotic headcase like James Delingpole or Melanie Phillips any day of the week...
Seems like a decent chap though. That book he did on Iran last year put a cat amongst the pigeons of a lot of people. And he seems to despise Blairism more than most so, he's ok on that score by me...
I think he has a well-intentioned moral foundation, he just doesn't suffer fools gladly, to an extent that often seems heartless.
If by fools, you mean anyone who disagrees with him.
Although Brand did refer to Hitchens as a `Daily Mail bigot` which Hitchens rightfully admonished him for. Say what you like about the bloke but he's not a bigot...
Media reporting on most politics is fucking dire.
The advantage of the rich can actually be dealt with in a societally benefical way, as the end of the Great Depression in America or a modern social democracy in Europe shows.
You need systems in place to prevent the ultrarich becoming the oligarchy (a high inheritance tax for underlying assets, so shell companies can't be used anymore, for starters) but there's zero political will to put those through, because the pain from lost "donations" outweigh the slim chance the masses start to get engaged in politcs and vote against you unless you work for them.
There was an onion article ages ago about the US populace getting their own lobbyists. At this stage, not a bad dea.
As an Irishman I'm particularly mad how my nation is in debt for generations because of our elites gambling debts, when we should indeed have bailed the banks out, then split them up into many (like, 14, I dunno, haven't done the numbers) smaller banks, so that if they fall in future it wouldn't affect the economy, while actually putting in the means for regulators to enforce the regulations too.
Then the type of sociopath who tends to rise to the top (variation on the iron law of bureaucracies ;_;) can gamble freely but actually suffer the consequences, without the state catching them when they fall
Recessions accelerate the trickle-up, consolidating and atrophying of wealth that is a natural result of neo-liberal globalised economics.
not makin it rain up in here
you know how we don't, son
Can't stand the bloke.
but however 'tough' ed miliband's sounding now, i wouldnt have thought that this sort of policy would necessarily match up to that. If the state is helping facilitate the acquisition of qualifications (i.e. puts them in the programmes they want to be in, so they can gain vocational skills/qualifications), then having a 'youth allowance' rather than putting them on job seekers is more like giving them a grant to pursue further education/training. It all depends on the nuances in i.e. the severity of the sanctions/how much education and training you need before youre ineligible for the scheme, how much genuine help the state gives the young people in facilitating their learning.
Can't be bothered finding out more about that stuff cos that's my thing.