O/T Jeremy corbyn

[KerrAvon]

I've upset you again. It wasn't intended.

Do you deny that the Tories favour low taxes and small government, whilst Labour favour high taxation and big government? Do you not accept that a consequence of higher levels of welfare payments results in some people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits? You should meet some of my clients.

As for 'natural ground', it's clearly a concept that's troubling you. Call it 'an essential element of their political philosophies' if you would prefer. Or try this analogy; if you buy a car, you expect it to have wheels - that is an essential part of being a car. The wheels on a Tory car are low tax small government whilst those on a Labour car are high tax big government. It's part of their raison d'etres, if you will. Labour's tuition fee bribe is more akin to throwing in fluffy dice - unnecessary, retrograde and unhelpful.

[ragingpup]

I've upset you again. It wasn't intended.

Do you deny that the Tories favour low taxes and small government, whilst Labour favour high taxation and big government? Do you not accept that a consequence of higher levels of welfare payments results in some people make a lifestyle choice to live on benefits? You should meet some of my clients.

As for 'natural ground', it's clearly a concept that's troubling you. Call it 'an essential element of their political philosophies' if you would prefer. Or try this analogy; if you buy a car, you expect it to have wheels - that is an essential part of being a car. The wheels on a Tory car are low tax small government whilst those on a Labour car are high tax big government. It's part of their raison d'etres, if you will. Labour's tuition fee bribe is more akin to throwing in fluffy dice - unnecessary, retrograde and unhelpful.

If you call making me laugh as upsetting me, then yes you have.

I would accept that traditionally Tories favour low taxes and small government whilst labour favour higher taxes and big government. But that wasn’t what you said. You defined the tories natural ground as encouraging self-reliance, independence of state (don’t have a problem with that) etc but, and this is the big problem, you defined Labour’s natural ground as encouraging reliance on the state with “high level of benefits”. These are your key defining features of what Labour stand for?

I would go with a less biased, blinkered definition of what Labour stand for. Keeping it nice and simple from ‘Simple Politics’: “They believe in tackling inequality and want society and the economy to be run in the interests of working people”. I would argue that this is their natural ground. I don’t have a problem with you defining a natural ground – it’s your awful, loaded definition of the Labour natural ground, that would have given Fire an erection, that I take issue with.

[Exiletyke]

raging

Kerr constantly extolls the virtue of the tories with unerring vigour,yet doesn't vote for them
How odd

[great_fire]

raging

Kerr constantly extolls the virtue of the tories with unerring vigour,yet doesn't vote for them
How odd

I don't think Blair or Clegg or Mandelson did either, neoliberals are in all parties.

[KerrAvon]

If you call making me laugh as upsetting me, then yes you have.

I would accept that traditionally Tories favour low taxes and small government whilst labour favour higher taxes and big government. But that wasn’t what you said. You defined the tories natural ground as encouraging self-reliance, independence of state (don’t have a problem with that) etc but, and this is the big problem, you defined Labour’s natural ground as encouraging reliance on the state with “high level of benefits”. These are your key defining features of what Labour stand for?

I would go with a less biased, blinkered definition of what Labour stand for. Keeping it nice and simple from ‘Simple Politics’: “They believe in tackling inequality and want society and the economy to be run in the interests of working people”. I would argue that this is their natural ground. I don’t have a problem with you defining a natural ground – it’s your awful, loaded definition of the Labour natural ground, that would have given Fire an erection, that I take issue with.

Well if you wanted to simply regurgitate inaccurate and self-contradictory soundbites about what Labour stands for, why didn’t you just do that instead of asking me to justify positions that I don’t hold on electoral bribery? It would have been a lot easier, don’t you think? Why waste both our time?

In getting all waspish and hot under the collar, you miss obvious points. For example, in a society in which self-reliance is to the fore, the danger is that those who cannot, for whatever reason, be self-reliant are at risk of being left behind. In addition, in a society in which the state is too small, there is a risk that the tools that people need to advance themselves might not be readily available to some.

Try those for size rather than coming out with Momentum generated babble.

[ragingpup]

Well if you wanted to simply regurgitate inaccurate and self-contradictory soundbites about what Labour stands for, why didn’t you just do that instead of asking me to justify positions that I don’t hold on electoral bribery? It would have been a lot easier, don’t you think? Why waste both our time?

In getting all waspish and hot under the collar, you miss obvious points. For example, in a society in which self-reliance is to the fore, the danger is that those who cannot, for whatever reason, be self-reliant are at risk of being left behind. In addition, in a society in which the state is too small, there is a risk that the tools that people need to advance themselves might not be readily available to some.

Try those for size rather than coming out with Momentum generated babble.

Just correcting you old lad by using normal, impartial, non loaded definitions of Labour's 'natural position' seeing as you weren't able to maintain any sense of objectivity.

Momentum? That definition is from SimplePolitics.com, which has nice, simple, clear political definitions for children. Their conservative definition was pretty similar to your own, I'm sure you would approve. But your Labour definition, that you posted without any prompting or provocation would be unfit for the consumption of eager children willing to learn political definition.

Too blatantly biased towards the conservatives you see.

But you don't vote for them. Of course.

[KerrAvon]

Just correcting you old lad by using normal, impartial, non loaded definitions of Labour's 'natural position' seeing as you weren't able to maintain any sense of objectivity.

Momentum? That definition is from SimplePolitics.com, which has nice, simple, clear political definitions for children. Their conservative definition was pretty similar to your own, I'm sure you would approve. But your Labour definition, that you posted without any prompting or provocation would be unfit for the consumption of eager children willing to learn political definition.

Too blatantly biased towards the conservatives you see.

But you don't vote for them. Of course.

I confess that I'm not sure what to make of all that.

I could be harsh and say that the fact that you are taking your politics from a site that you think suitable for children and your final sentence says something about you, but that would only risk upsetting you further.

I'm not sure where the 'prompting and provocation' comment came from. I told you what I thought without checking Wikipedia, child friendly sites or Momentum 'what to think and say' output. As far as I can see, you don't disagree with what I said, but are upset that I said it and are falling back on child suitable, inaccurate and self-contradictory definitions of what Labour stands for.

I have voted in every GE since 1983 and have never voted Tory.