Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Labour Have Ceased To Be

On 14 Jul 2015 at 6:58am Paul Newman wrote:
No doubt everyone has had enough politics, I know the feeling but anyone who has watched the Labour leadership farce must be slack jaed with horror that this absurd Party were even considered as a plausible government
Jeremy Corbyn, the joke entry looks as if he may well come second at least, he has the backing of Unite ( who I guess don`t want to officially back Burnham ).
There is no doubt a place for the Galloways Livingstones and so on but it is NOT anyone near the government of this country.
Look at this interview for self righteous insanity persecution mania.
What on earth has happanened to the left?

Check it out here »
On 14 Jul 2015 at 7:16am Sussex Jim wrote:
We now have all the opportunities for equality that we are ever likely to need. Labour have served their purpose, and are now unnecessary. In fact, they should have gone after their failure in 1979- and then we would not have the economic problems inherited from their last administration.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 7:33am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Inequalities in wealth and income have been growing, not falling, in recent years.
Unfortunately, the mechanisms that help to promote equality are being eroded by the nasty party. The protection afforded to the sick and the low paid is diminishing because of the cuts to ESA and tax credits, the opportunities for upward social mobility given to children from poorer families by help with the costs of a university education will cease.
Sadly, the Labour party is failing to stand up for the poorest and least able in our society, and is becoming pointless because of it. The gap will continue to widen.
When the average wage will barely cover the rent and bills on a family house in the most populated part of the country, we are living in times that are grim for many.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 8:05am Paul Newman wrote:
Inequality improved under the coalition ANC, and University hand outs for the middle classes were a staggeringly regressive transfer of wealth from 'plumbers' to 'Lawyers'.
Anyway you and your fellow Utopian socialists have nothing to do with real politics. By all means go on your marches wave your banners, enjoy yourself. Who cares
On 14 Jul 2015 at 8:23am Earl of Lewes wrote:
They all seem to hate Liz Kendall in the Labour Party, which is rather silly because she's probably the only candidate who stands a chance of getting them back into power. RIP Labour.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 8:29am Mark wrote:
The pendulum swings back and forth. All through the 50s, 60s and 70s the tories had to espouse socialist policies to have any hope of election.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 8:30am Paul Newman wrote:
Quite so E of L and look at the way they are treating Harriet Harman. Its not just the Party either , the Guardian used to be center left, Polly Toynbee was one of the SDP gang . Now most of its opining could come straight out of Marxism Yesterday ( today).
On 14 Jul 2015 at 8:37am Lantin Jaed wrote:
Labus dunfer
On 14 Jul 2015 at 9:56am Local person wrote:
Paul Newman, is there a reason why you feel the need to unnecessarily insult people when having a debate? How does this strengthen the validity of your point of view?
On 14 Jul 2015 at 10:53am Paul Newman wrote:
I don`t mean to be personally insulting ,I am saying that views as extreme as those ANC holds are not relevant to politics in the sense of a plausible administration. They are the stuff of protests marches and so on.
ANC is very welcome to be "radical" but when the entire Labour Party starts to sound like a sixth form debate its an admission of irrelevance
On 14 Jul 2015 at 11:13am ar10642 wrote:
We should probably wait for an actual leader to be selected and see what they do before writing them off. Harman is right in a way, they have to listen to the prevailing public opinion. The leftwards direction the party took under Miliband clearly did not work at all and the party needs to appeal more to the centre ground. That might mean agreeing with *some* parts of what the government are doing (min wage rise for example).
IMO Corbyn would be a disaster for the party, taking it even further left. Chuka Umuna looked like a good but but he dropped out, so Kendall is the next best choice.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 11:22am Auntie Aviator wrote:
"We now have all the opportunities for equality that we are ever likely to need. Labour have served their purpose, and are now unnecessary. In fact, they should have gone after their failure in 1979- and then we would not have the economic problems inherited from their last administration. "
I'm not a fan of the last Labour government but it's ridiculous to claim that if we'd had a Tory government we wouldn't have economic problems, given that the world has just gone through the biggest shock since the Great Depression and the World Wars. IF we'd had a Tory government I can guarantee we would still have a huge debt and a huge structural deficit (although I'd concede it might not be as large).
The issues with the British economy - weak exports, huge current account deficit, gargantuan consumer debt, lack of skills, poor infrastructure - are something that both parties have conspired to embed and is the real reason for the deficit
On 14 Jul 2015 at 12:32pm Local person wrote:
The thing is Paul Newman, you are being personally insulting, and your comments are often unnecessarily rude. It concerns me that you seem to be unaware of this. Your hyperbole doesn't help. If someone wrote 'the ENTIRE Conservative Party' or 'The ENTIRE Lib Dem Party' we would both know that is a rather silly and inaccurate generalization, and so undermines the validity any connected comment. Try writing with less embroidery and exaggeration, and you might find you are taken more seriously. 'Labour Have Ceased To Be' might seem to you to be a clever reference to an old Monthy Python form 40 years ago, but to others it is a cliche, or a reference so old they don't get it, and for most of us of whatever Political persuasion it is an unqualified inaccurate statement of fact, which would be better expressed as a question. 'Have Labour Ceased To Be?'
On 14 Jul 2015 at 2:12pm Taff wrote:
Paul Newman must be an anagram of david cameron? Or possibly george osborne.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 2:13pm Mark wrote:
He is just plain ridiculous. I could argue with him about his claim that inequality diminished under the coalition... blah... blah.. I have in the past. The IMF report that said that inequality had gone down and then went on to explain that this was an anolomy that flew in the face of government policy.. blah.. blah...
If you argue with him he just comes out with the same drivel the following week. His arguments are worthless.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 2:47pm Paul Newman wrote:

LP - Thank-you for you stylistic advise I cannot say how much I value it (?)
AA- BOP- I have noticed has been dug up in a desperate attempt o find something negative to say about Europe’s fastest growing economy. Its shift is partly a product if the fact we are Europe’s fastest growing economy and also because of the way services are counted.
On Infra structure you may have a point our supposed lack of productivity ( it is not often mentioned ) is much more a Public than private sector problem and amongst the thing done badly and expensively are provision of infra structure . In this area the inefficiency of the Public Sector not only drags down the average but impedes growth.
Manufacturing output and competitiveness increased under Thatcher so I don`t think she can be blamed for hollowing out the economy, It was the period between 2000 and 2008 when the state share ballooned to over 50% of GDP and continual deficits were run that did the damage. Blair created a country of Bankers and Benefit Streets. Not a good place to be when banking collapses.
It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the Conservative Party would have done any such thing requiring a Soviet Union memory. No-one suggested it at the time!
If lack of skills are a problem we have tested to destruction the theory that hosing education with money would help. The OECD reported that nil improvement was made in the Blair era when god knows how much was spent on education.
The main problem the economy faces is the Public sector crowding out private enterprise and the destructive effect of regional socialism in post-industrial areas which has created areas where there is no way forward . I have increasingly come to the view that some level of fiscal autonomy will have to be given to the North West North East Wales and obviously Scotland but that’s not todays problem
On 14 Jul 2015 at 4:42pm Auntie Aviator wrote:
Paul, I agree with some of your criticisms of the Labour government, but unlike you I am equally critical of Conservative administrations. We are currently following the well-worn path of using a housing boom to engineer a consumer-led recovery, which is not sustainable. The biggest short-term threat to the UK economy is housing, house prices and consumer debt. (Basic economics old chap - whlie the current account deficit remains, we can't reduce the government deficit without increasing consumer debt. They all have to add up).
And Britain's economy was far more diverse than Bankers and Benefit Street, your Blair characterisation: it had strengths then, as it does now.
As for the deficit. Britain ran a deficit for most of the Thatcher administration, and for many years of Conservative administrations before that. Were they wrong do that? Or was that OK? The ill-fated Barber Boom of the early 70s saw a massively ballooning deficit. Remind me again who was in power then? Mind you they left the problems for Labour to deal with, which they still blame them for.
Come to think of it, the Labour party has been in power during one economic crisis since the war: the Global, GLOBAL financial crisis of 2008 onwards. The Conservatives, meanwhile, presided over the 'Dash for Growth' under Maudling (which led to the original 'ran out of cash' note), the Barber Boom under Heath, and let's not forget the whole Lawson Boom-ERM-Black Monday debacle of the late 1980s (we can probably add the abandoned monetarist experiment of the early 1980s to this as well). In every single case, unlike the 2008 experience, it was caused by domestic factors, domestic mismanagement. All under Tory watch; yet we are now expected to believe they are uniquely capable of managing the economy, and that all the problems of the past are due to Labour mismanagement. A fantastic sleight of hand.
Productivity is not just a public sector problem - and many of the companies I work with are obsessed with how to improve it. They would also tell you that skills are a genuine problem. I agree that public sector dependency is an issue in many parts of the country (not just the north). The post-industrial problems are not 'socialist' but are found in every post-industrial country.
On the state's share of GDP that would partly be expected in an ageing economy - the Conservatives constantly brush under the carpet the fact that so much of the welfare state is devoted to (ringfenced, untterly protected) old age benefits and pensions. I suppose they would do - old people are the Conservatives' client state (along with housing benefit-receiving landlords). They vote for the Tories, they lavish them with public funds - socialism for the old, capitalism red-in-tooth-and-claw for the young.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 5:24pm Barker wrote:
Good to see Paul 'Desperate' Newman trying to whip up a little interest in his deadbeat Tory party. I'm sure we're all amused,
On 14 Jul 2015 at 6:31pm Mark wrote:
Gosh. That's a bit of a rebuttle from Auntie Aviator. I can't wait to hear the response from The Sword of Truth.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 6:46pm Paul Newman wrote:
You are not “equally critical” .After the economic catastrophe of the 70s ( which we at least agree took place ) Labour was so unelectable that it took near extinction ( you may have forgotten how near) by the SDP, then Kinnock( dismayed by its leftward lurch today) and finally Blair to get in . Even then they Conservative spending plans for three years; three good years which give the lie to your wildly partisan claim it would have made little difference. Anyway you claim that actually it was all the fault of the Conservative Party.....On your own their old son, right out there wailing in the wilderness .
Housing boom would you say ? Overstating it, growth has been good employment fantastic but yes there of course supply side problems form the Blair period personally I think it goes deeper than that but another time.
The current account is not just trade and it balances with the Capital account . It is not so ‘basic’ , it cannot be misused by any smarty pants who thinks they will get away with it to pretend that if we stopped getting mortgages and doling out welfare people in Germany would magically start buying Brompton Bikes or visa versa . Not so and since exchange rates stopped being fixed , (when it did matter) ,it is only marginally good or bad . I know why you dredge it up …more of that “equally critical” stuff eh
The economic crisis was of course Global but one of the starting points was the UK which had beaucoup sub prime lending all on its own in any case no-one has asked Labour to see boom and bust coming , it would be nice if they had not acted as if they had cured it .
Your suggestion that actually only an aging population caused this is more just rubbish. Its more aged now .
No productivity is not an exclusively public sector problem but it is a problem that is much worse in the public sector which is rather ironic when our supposedly low productivity ( if you don`t count the unemployed as potentially productive ) is used as an argument for more state interference . In particular The UK suffered almost stopped road construction from 1997 which takes a long to time to catch up with .
I kind of know what you mean about the old but that is factor of voting patterns not a n evil plan . If you were to suggest hacking back the NHS which is also mostly for the old I might go along.
Companies complain about a skill shortages do they. Coo this is probably because you are talking to some knob in HR who just likes saying that sort of thing . I wouldn`t take it too seriously
On 14 Jul 2015 at 6:50pm Mark wrote:
Not really in the same league at all. Soz.
On 14 Jul 2015 at 7:47pm Belladonna wrote:
Give it a rest SoT. Your more interesting - and credible - talking about your love of dancing to Northern Soul. Although I doubt you would ever have gone near Wigan Casino given it would be full of (mainly) northerners, those dangerous lefties
On 14 Jul 2015 at 10:27pm Auntie Aviator wrote:
Let's revisit the 70s, and remind ourselves that for just under half that decade we had a Conservative government.
Lets' rewind to 1972. Conservative chancellor Anthony Barber told Parliament in 1972 that his Budget would add 10% to the UK's growth in two years, and he professed to be unconcerned by his own forecast of a £3.4bn public sector borrowing requirement. (He cut taxes at the same time and deregulated consuemr debt - leading to a housing boom). Unfortunately, events soon proved him wrong. Inflation soared, boosted by the newly-floated pound and the first oil crisis.
Within 15 months the chancellor was forced to bring in a deflationary Budget, and the government was forced into an incomes policy (wages freeze). In 1974, in the biggest recession since the war, GDP fell by 3.4%. Inflation and unemployment soared. In 1974, Labour are returned to power but inherit the very large deficit produced by the Barber boom.
By 1976 Callaghan recognises that Keynesian policies no longer work and begins to adopt monetarism and cut back on government expenditure - 3 years before Thatcher. In Blackpool that year he is arguing that you cannot spend your way out of recession, and more, at a famous speech in Blackpool.
Then, little more than a decade later, we have the Lawson debacle.
On sub-prime - there was little of it here, not in the mortgage market, which is why repossessions were so low. In commercial lending, though....
On 14 Jul 2015 at 10:30pm Auntie Aviator wrote:
I should have added that the very large deficit inherited by Labour in 1974 made it almost a certainty that Callaghan would have to go cap in hand to the IMF. His change of heart wouldn't have time to have any effect - and in 1979 maggie arrives.
The economy is doing ok at the moment, I admit, but that must surely mean that what was inherited from Blair/brown was actually in reasonably good shape, surely? The coalition cannot have done much to change the underlying structure in five years? If it was so rotten in 2007 (bankers and benefits street) then surely it still is now?
On 15 Jul 2015 at 12:09am Paul Newman wrote:
Fine what we needed was more Callaghan its an interesting point of view but as you are unable to travel back to 79 (or any election to 97) to tell the Nation how wrong it was again and again, I would leave it now .
The economy has underlying weaknesses that will take decades to repair .We are in the least bad position we could be in but I anticipate many zombie years of ultra low interest rates disguising weak investment , ( but at least we can have low interest rates ) .The only deficit reduction has been achieved by EU immigration expanding the overall GDP ( and thank god for that).
Blair`s escalation of public sector rewards and expansion of the state has IMHO brought about a cultural change in this country whereby the middle classes look to the Law ( parasites ! ) and the State, much as they do in Southern Europe .Thats what parents are telling their children , not create wealth, but get on the payroll and I think people across the spectrum sense this ( Andy Burnham has said as much in his way). This is the road to Greece ( Burnham ok but in union pocket)
On Housing , well ….there are loads of cheap houses its just that there are no jobs near them . I think the regional problem is the key but housing is obviously an issue. The £40 billion spent on ex state employees pensions and rising doesn`t help either, those greedy bloodsucking Labour voting old people eh …… tsk tsk,
Osbourne has been lucky not brilliant .My point was the same one Harriet Harman, Tristan (rhyming slang ) Hunt , Peter Mandelson and many others have made .The Labour Party is demonstrating it has no wish to be a plausible opposition. It cannot even say cut never mind implement it .If Corbyn ( friend to Hammas) is a going to poll above Kendall people are quite right to conclude that they have as much right to challenge for government as a chimp party . Thats without their problems on immigration , anti-Englishness welfare the public sector unions and much much more.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 12:48am Richard Head wrote:
I, for one, am glad there's no more Labour Party.
Of course, what we should do is copy the US, the land of the free, and put a ban left wing politics, and imprison anyone who belongs to a left wing party
Like the brilliant mind that is Paul Newman, I think right wing dictatorship is the way forward. Nobody has ever been able to give an example of a right wing dictatorship that hasn't been a huuge success
On 15 Jul 2015 at 2:30am Local person wrote:
Paul Newman, you ,of course do, not need to take my advise, but I would suggest you that you do need to listen to someone's.You were referencing an early 1970's cliche, in 2015 weren't you? Your posts seem to me to be too long, and often express opinion as fact.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 10:02am Auntie Aviator wrote:
"Fine what we needed was more Callaghan its an interesting point of view but as you are unable to travel back to 79 (or any election to 97) to tell the Nation how wrong it was again and again, I would leave it now ."
You're a great one for setting up straw men. Did I ever say anything like this? No. Callaghan was not PM material and I fully understand why Thatcher was voted in, and stayed in for so long.
I was merely pointing out the the mess of the 70s was partly a Conservative creation, and that Labour had begun to realise what needed to be done well before 1979 (in other areas too - try Googling 'in place of strife').
let's try another bit of history: In 1963 Reginald Maudling's budget was to create a 'dash for growth' and was to achieve the promised 4% target without inflationary consequences. A year later, in his final budget, the reality of the economic situation was apparent, he increased taxes and acknowledged that the balance-of-payments and sterling's exchange rate in the Bretton Woods system were both under severe pressure. The deficit soared and the economy collapsed.
When Maudling left office he left his successor, James Callaghan, a note saying "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."
As to your comments on the economy - I wish you'd decide whether it was in good shape or not. Cos when you're praising the current government, it's all great, but at the same time there are deep underlying problems that are the fault of the last government. Errm....

On 15 Jul 2015 at 10:34am Belladonna wrote:
Thank you AA , for 'owning' PN. I believe Paul, you may have 'seen your ar@e' (in northern parlance).....
On 15 Jul 2015 at 12:11pm Paul Newman wrote:
You are lapsing into incoherence garnished with faintly embarrassing preening. If, as a Thatcher supporting Conservative criticising New Labour defending merely this-ing and that-ing antiquarian there is actually any point you wish to make then I`d suggest showing the dog the rabbit mate.

Some things we do know
The reason the Labour Party were not electable was because they were not trusted to run the economy not the personal shortcomings of James Callaghan (a nice man who coincidentally my employer knew personally ) and certainly not the personal magnetism of Margaret Thatcher.
You have obviously been amusing yourself constructing your historical argument as to why this view was mistaken. Well ok some people make matchstick models of Noire Dame but its all good . That no-one agreed with you at the time as is abundantly clear by the lengths New labour went to lose that reputation. One of the key elements of it was that the Labour party were owned by the Unions which is why they did not adjust Thatchers reforms ( and also why they corrupted Party funding ) neither did they renationalise anything, so there was more to it than fiscal or monetary policy, the supply side in fact .. (and of course the existential threat to democracy posed by the mining unions ). Well done New Labour, if you like.
My view of the economy, for what its worth, is that the coalition made the best job of an appalling situation combining both short term fiscal emergency with long term structural damage . The have made a good fist of manning the pumps but the ship is still a cruddy weighty one which is a longer term job.
My original post concerned the astonishing sight of the Labour Party imploding by the way which, I take it, does not interest you.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 1:04pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Thank you AA, for such informative and succinct posts. Although only a child at the time, I can remember only too well the widespread opprobrium with which Maudling was regarded for the mess he got the economy into.
As for PN's comments, if he's reading stuff that's incoherent and embarrassing, I think he must have mistaken his own posts for yours. His personal insults just show what a drooling loon he is.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 1:19pm Paul Newman wrote:
The whole gang is here I see ....lets put on a show !
On 15 Jul 2015 at 1:24pm A Person wrote:
I would like to clarify that if my un-named employer once knew someone else , in some capacity, it does not offer any insight into my employer or the people he/she may have known , and certainly does not endorse my own views in any way.
Thank you.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 1:31pm Auntie Aviator wrote:
I have huge interest in labour's implosion, although it doesn't look so different to the Tory party's problems under Hague and IDS (remember them?). They are in a sorry state, 'tis true, and for what it's worth I'm a fan of Kendall (albeit she has no experience) and shake my head in puzzlement at the 'death wish' Corbyn support.
Paul, The story I have provided is not some fringe narrative, it's pretty much accepted history - even on the right. My source is Jonathan Sandbrook's two volumes of history on the 70s (State of Emergency, Seasons in the Sun) which document the errors of the Heath/Maudling administration and their role in precipitating the late 70s emergency.
Here's sandbrook, in The Daily Mail of all places.
"And while the Tories are crowing, there are plenty of skeletons in their cupboards, too.
Back in the early Sixties, for example, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan used to suggest to his chancellors that there was nothing wrong with inflation.
He ruthlessly hired and fired anyone who had the temerity to put the brakes on state spending. But in 1962, he found the perfect sidekick in Reginald Maudling.
Fun-loving, hard-drinking and financially corrupt, Maudling was a man who never saw a spending spree he didn't relish.
In the run-up to the 1964 election, Maudling unleashed what he called the 'Dash for Growth', slashing £240million in taxes (£9billion today) in a naked attempt to bribe the electorate.
Maudling insisted that 'jam today' would be paid for by a fantastic rate of growth in a few years' time - a rate of growth that, surprise, surprise, never materialised.
Back in the early Sixties Prime Minister Harold Macmillan used to suggest to his chancellors that there was nothing wrong with inflation
Instead, by the end of 1964, Britain was faced with an annual trade deficit of £800 million (£37billion today) - a crippling bill for Harold Wilson's incoming first Labour government after it won that autumn's general election.
And in traditional fashion, he, too, refused to bite the bullet, ducking and fudging in the desperate, Micawberish hope that 'something would turn up'. Nothing did, of course, and the sorry story ended in 1967 with the devaluation of the pound.
What these stories have in common - and we might also throw in the Tory Chancellor Anthony Barber's deranged monetary spree in 1972-73, when he massively inflated the economy with huge tax cuts and spending increases - is the depressing tendency of chancellors of both parties to do what is popular instead of what is right."
On 15 Jul 2015 at 4:09pm Paul Newman wrote:
Dominic Sandbrook - yes I know who he is. I don`t think its reasonable, myself to imagine a Callaghan without the Unions who might have steered another course but don`t please start again , I`ll buy them for xmas .
On 15 Jul 2015 at 8:33pm Mark wrote:
What a delightful thread. My little hands are being clapped. I've read many threads where the nasty, patronising, misogynistic, racist clown winds up being humiliated (and, sometimes, flounces off and resigns as if the experience of being humiliated proves in itself that this forum is beneath him) but this was certainly one of the best. Well done Auntie.
On 15 Jul 2015 at 8:37pm Sussex Jim wrote:
The gang's not quite complete Paul- we are missing Southover Queen!

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


rye bonfire badge 103:132
rye bonfire badge

Wrong. Being covered in some mainstream media outlets a few times in the 1970s, doesn't mean it was scientific consensus like... more
I like the walk along the ouse to Hamsey church, the view from the top of the Castle, Pells pool, the antique shops and boot fair, the lion in the window of the 15c bookshop, keere street