When I say you think in a 1/0 way, do you even pause for a nano second to examine your thought processes to confirm to yourself that I am wrong.

Obviously not or you would not make such a blatant 1/0 post.

cut = 1, = tory. No need to process context,nuance or other policy ideas. Cuts =1.

The idea that a Labour party can only be non defined in reference to the Tory party if it never cuts spending is of course absolute absurdity.

Labour if you ever evar cut spending = tory light.

Surely you can see how silly that is?

You bring down the deficit by investing in Britain. British workers, British corporations, British ingenuity. You bring prosperity through hard work and bold innovation empowered by state-of-the-art technology and infrastructure.

That's how you persuade people to vote for you.

Here's how you don't get people to vote for you. You say "The Tories are right that the deficit needs to come down. However they are cutting slightly too fast. We will do essentially the same thing in a half-assed way". No passion, no conviction, vision. Of course Labour got destroyed.

For the benefit of those who think the BBC doesn't have a right-wing bias, possibly the most nauseating piece of spin doctored puffery I've seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S99...A&spfreload=10

Once the outgoing Labour Treasury Secretary left a note saying their is no money left ha ha ha, any such policy direction of we will spend more was absolutely not on the table.

That note got waved around by Cameron and the Tories 24/7 during campaigning.

It is true that Labour have surrendered the argument on deficit spending, but leaving that note has to be one the biggest political blunders of all time.

I think you know this but New Labour spent less as a % of GDP than the tories under Thatcher/Major. The reason the country ran out of money was because of the implosion of global finance and the subsequent decline in expenditure. It was nothing to do with expenditure.

Labour under Milliband, for inexplicable reasons, never pointed this out. They seemed to meekly accept the austerity agenda.

Always thought that note was pretty Ratner-esque. It was incredibly stupid.

Yes, because of the note, are you unaware of the note?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...neral-election

And just so we are clear, the ramifications of that mistake echo fully into Corbyn's Labour.

Every spending plan must be costed and their is no allowance or mentioned made that actually sometimes just borrowing money and spending it into the economy is a perfectly sensible orthodox economic policy that the vast majority of the economics community would agree with.

Our economy needs stimulus and you dont get the same stimulus from tax funded spending because that is spending money taken out of the economy via tax.

What I am trying to do is work out what your actual view is as that is a necessary part of a debate, you have to be willing to share in order to engage. If you don't want to do that that's fine but don't pretend.

That is the most pathetic excuse for politicians 'playing the race card' to try to save their own skin I have ever heard. Are you so naive that you think these people don't know what they are doing? What is reasonable is to expect trade union sponsored politicians not to play the far right tune and blame their own failings on the most vulnerable.

It exposes more your lack of imagination and utter failure to think outside of the dominant narratives presented to you by your betters. Why not think creatively about new possibilities instead of desperately trying to find differences between New Labour and Tory programmes.
I'm reminded of George Galloway's 2 cheeks of the same a*** analogy. (did get annoying in the end though)

The greatest success of politics in the last 18 months has been to challenge the neo-liberal orthodoxy which has plagued the Labour Party since, well since the late 70s in fact, but more obviously since the 80s. This is new territory for Labour. It's about articulating a different vision of how the system should be run which opens up much greater opportunities than simply 'taxing the rich'. The manifesto is of course very reasonable which is why it is gaining a lot of traction.

Grgshgskahdpa, that is the sound of you moving the goalposts.

Its not lack of anything, its debating the topic at hand and countering a specific point made by you. If you want to talk about something else entirely its no fault of my imagination that I am not a mind reader.

May ****ting on the pensioners.
The more help you need at home the more she'll snatch from your home when you die.
Imagine the old and frail having worked your whole life to own your modest home worth over £100000 and knowing that every extra week you survive is less for your heirs.
In many cases that money went to grandkids to give them a start on the property ladder.

I don't disagree with any of that. The situation now is very different to how it was when Blair took charge. Nothing was inevitable including Thatcher being so triumphant in earlier years

But I wonder if you disagree with me as much as you think. Lets assume (not a stretch imo) that Labour could only massively improve their chances of winning this election if among other things they took a hard line on immigrants and refugees. I would still want to see Labour not taking that hard line - would you seriously think they should? or is it better to have much greater chance of losing while holding onto some principles and values?

Doesnt seem weird to me, they can slap their testicles in the voters faces and still win because Labour are in disarray

And having seen their manifesto that is indeed what they are doing

Never a good idea to **** on the pensioners. They are the group who reliably turn out to vote at every election. If anything, **** on the young people - most of them don't bother to vote, so it's no big loss. Saying that, Tories will still win regardless.

It's an interesting question although hard to answer exactly since it would depend what you mean by a "hard line" I think some immigration control is reasonable ( I don't think i disagree with JC on that) I wouldn't support a party that was racist and hate filled (which I don't think Labour has ever remotely been) But I would be and have been prepared to vote for a party who have done things i hated ( such as go to war in Iraq) because it will make a difference to people's lives (as new Labour undoubtedly did imo) But yes there is a line.

I think the issue is clearer when thinking about economic policy - there's absolutely no point in having a wonderful egalitarian economic policy with very little chance of being implemented. ( as Labour has now imo and it annoys me how pleased many people seem to be about this) I guess if you were that way inclined you could try to calculate the “ EV” of a set of policies (the benefits x the probability of victory) and choose the policies that maximise this.
My view is that if you were to try to do this you would be choosing a set of policies to do this you would be quite a long way to the right of Corbyn.
Of course this calculation can change if circumstances change or if the left wins arguments and persuades people. My other irritation with the current state of the left is that people seem much more interested in organising their way to power through Labour party politics than in putting their case to the actual electorate. ( to be fair there has been a bit more of this in the last few days- but it’s too little too late)

God these debates are dreary

Is Leane Wood just reading from a piece of paper? This is embarrassing.

They were all reading from a piece of paper.

You'd think at least with the summation arguments they could memorize the words so they can talk directly to camera. Eye contact is crucial in persuasion.

You keep going on about that. It is Westminster village stuff. Most people who don't follow politics wouldn't even be aware of the existence of the note. Of those who do follow politics enough to be aware of it would also be aware that expenditure wasn't the sole factor involved.

Had Labour emphatically stated that they spent less than the Tories it would have been quickly forgotten. They did not do so at any stage. They let the false assertion stand so people accepted it.

This is why I think the centre-left is so bad at winning elections. You show a real lack of conviction, you seem petrified of negative PR and media spin.
.

So given the principle that being better than the alternative isn't sufficient, it's just where we draw the line which depends on many things. Blair was well over it imo especially after the Iraq War.

On the economy alone then I have sympathy with this but there are principles involved as well as how far they propose to go. I wouldn't not vote labour because they are heading in what I think is the right principled direction more cautiously. It's also reasonable not to do everything at once. Those are a matter for some electoral pragmatism.

Indeed.

Overall I'm trying to remain optimistic but feeling very gloomy. Although some of it is down to labour, May would probably be walking this anyway. Despite how some try to portray it, the leavers did overwhelmingly vote for what she is offering and even many remain voters agree.

Your argument contradicts itself.

The whole point of the note was its simplicity and its impact. There is no money left, simple.

To counter that Labour would have had to go into exactly the complex messaging you correctly point out most people dont relate to.

Also just a simple lol at your use of the word you. I am not centre left.

Every Labour government since 79 = centre left + corbyn about to get nuked from orbit = centre left bad at winning elections = lol GBV.

FYI as I have pointed out and is easy to confirm if anyone is aware of my posting history, I have highly radical personal views, but when it comes to elections, I am all about the praxis.

No money because bankers. Which part of that is complex?