Suck it Labor! :nelson:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap8iQufidpV4
QuoteBrown Slumps to 3rd as Election Timetable Published (Update2)
By Robert Hutton and Kitty Donaldson
Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown's ruling Labour Party fell to third place in an opinion poll for the first time since 1982 as activists received a campaign timetable pointing to a May 6 general election in the U.K.
Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats led Labour in the Ipsos-Mori Ltd. survey finished Sept. 27 and published today. An internal document distributed at the ruling party's annual conference sets out a day-by-day schedule for building support, suggesting a four-week election campaign beginning in April. No date has been fixed for the vote, which must be held by June.
In his address to supporters today in the seaside resort of Brighton, Brown announced measures to tackle crime. It's part of an effort to win back middle-class voters who have flocked to the Conservatives as the economy tipped into recession and the financial services industry teetered on the brink of collapse. Yesterday Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling attacked bankers and the rich.
"Labour is very, very weak," Ben Page, chief executive officer of Ipsos-Mori, said in an interview at Labour's conference. "The mood here is just terrible. Most people who want to vote Labour say they expect Labour to lose."
The poll shows Labour supported by 24 percent of voters, compared with 25 percent for the Liberal Democrats and 36 percent for the Conservatives. Ipsos-Mori surveyed 1,003 adults. No margin of error was given.
Worst Since 1982
Labour hasn't been placed third in Mori's poll since February 1982, when the party was committed to raising taxes and unilateral nuclear disarmament. Page said the eight point jump for the Liberal Democrat was probably a temporary bounce following the party's conference last week.
"We need to fight, not give up, not give in but fight," Brown told the Labour conference. "Fight to win, fight for Britain."
While Brown has until June 3 to call the vote, local elections are already scheduled on May 6. A 34-page Labour document titled, "General Election Handbook Part 1 -- A day-by- day planner for your general election campaign," was issued to candidates and campaign chiefs this week at the conference.
The document's description of an April campaign suggests that Brown is planning to hold the general election the same day as voting for local officials.
"This would appear to confirm a May 6 election," said Justin Fisher, professor of political science at Brunel University and an expert on election campaigns. "That would protect Labour from any momentum issues should they perform badly in the local government elections."
Daily Tasks
The handbook gives activists specific tasks to perform on every day, granting them 17 days off between Oct. 1 and March 31. On Thursday, March 18, it instructs them to "follow up budget coverage." The Treasury usually publishes its budgets in March or April, though the date is a closely guarded secret until a few weeks before.
The detailed instructions stop at the beginning of April, when candidates are told "increase the campaign activity to a maximum level" and turn to the "Short Campaign Handbook," which covers the final four weeks of an election.
The list of tasks for that month includes organizing a "Flying Start" blitz of activity for the first 48 hours after Brown names the day for voting. It orders activists to "correctly submit your candidate's nomination papers." By law this must be done in the week after an election is called.
The document leaves open the possibility of an earlier election date, telling campaigners in that case to turn to the "Short Campaign Book." That document has not yet been published.
'Best Practice'
"This is just a best practice guide on various campaigning options between now and the last possible date for a general election," a Labour spokeswoman said in an e-mailed statement. "It is for the prime minister to decide when the election will be, and he has made no announcement."
Cabinet ministers today defended Brown's leadership, rejecting suggestions there may be a challenge to his authority unless Labour's position improves.
"Gordon has already shown everyone in this party what a great leader he is," Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, said on the BBC. Home Secretary Alan Johnson told BBC radio that, "you can't pretend 12 years into government you have solved every problem."
Brown's Comment
Brown this afternoon said "whenever and wherever there is anti-social behavior, we will be there to fight it," according to extracts released by his office. "The decent, hard-working majority are getting evermore angry -- rightly so -- with the minority who will talk about their rights but never accept their responsibilities."
Darling, targeting what he called "greed and recklessness" in Britain's financial system, told banks to curtail bonuses and said the rich will pay more in tax.
The first workday in the campaign schedule is Saturday, Oct. 3, when activists are asked to set up stands in their town centers to canvass for support. It's followed by fundraisers, leaflet drops and evenings phoning voters. They're given three days off in October, none in November, and a single Saturday, on Dec. 5, in the month before Christmas.
"The party is focused on the election," Mark Wickham- Jones, professor of politics at Bristol University, said in an interview in Brighton. "They're in denial about how much trouble they're in. All these activities may be more designed to boost morale in the party than to achieve anything."
To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Hutton in Brighton at [email protected]; Kitty Donaldson in Brighton at [email protected]
Last Updated: September 29, 2009 09:54 EDT
:yeah: Europe just looks better and better this week.
Why do we hate Labor?
And Tim, why do you spell it "Labour" in the thread title and "Labor" in your post? Make up your mind, cocknugget.
'labia'
Wrong. They're up 5 points.
Which proves the wrongness of polls in general really.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2009, 04:11:12 PM
:yeah: Europe just looks better and better this week.
Hurrah for big government right wingers? :huh:
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2009, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 29, 2009, 04:11:12 PM
:yeah: Europe just looks better and better this week.
Hurrah for big government right wingers? :huh:
That's the only kind of right winger in Europe, so :yeah:
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2009, 04:34:36 PM
Why do we hate Labor?
It's morally wrong. Only the Tories and Liberals are acceptable.
"Labour" is a proper noun in this case, so it should be spelled the way the Brits spell it. The same way it's wrong to spell "Pearl Harbor" with a u.
Also, bring back Tony.
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2009, 04:47:13 PM
Hurrah for big government right wingers? :huh:
Anything to save fox hunting.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 29, 2009, 04:51:03 PM
"Labour" is a proper noun in this case, so it should be spelled the way the Brits spell it. The same way it's wrong to spell "Pearl Harbor" with a u.
:contract:
The world is going down the tubes fast.
No, wait. Portugal just elected socialists, I think. Knew IKK was good for something.
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 04:58:40 PM
The world is going down the tubes fast.
No, wait. Portugal just elected socialists, I think. Knew IKK was good for something.
Yeah, and just look at your average Portuguese socialist. Martim Silva is crazy as can be, living in some sort of fairy dreamland.
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
It's not just Americans. :console:
For me at least it's because I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and thus empathize with my Conservative brethren across the pond.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
Timmay is all Americans? Some British hate Labour as well.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:21:28 PM
For me at least it's because I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and thus empathize with my Conservative brethren across the pond.
That's fine. I do the same for my Liberal Canadian friends :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:21:28 PM
For me at least it's because I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and thus empathize with my Conservative brethren across the pond.
That's fine. I do the same for my Liberal Canadian friends :)
As a Labourite you are required to see Jack Layton and the NDP as your political brethren. :nelson:
Quote from: citizen k on September 29, 2009, 05:22:54 PM
Timmay is all Americans?
For the purposes of my question :P
DS too. I mean from an American perspective Labour's been very, very good surely?
QuoteSome British hate Labour as well.
I understand them.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:25:26 PM
As a Labourite you are required to see Jack Layton and the NDP as your political brethren. :nelson:
Not so. They're the Lib Dems :p
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:25:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:25:26 PM
As a Labourite you are required to see Jack Layton and the NDP as your political brethren. :nelson:
Not so. They're the Lib Dems :p
Liberal Party of Canada = Liberal Democrats
NDP = Labour
since to trot out my favourite canard from Canadian politics, they are both socialist parties as witnessed by their membership in Socialist International. :P
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:21:28 PM
For me at least it's because I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and thus empathize with my Conservative brethren across the pond.
That's fine. I do the same for my Liberal Canadian friends :)
It's just me, I think, Shelibh. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
since to trot out my favourite canard from Canadian politics, they are both socialist parties as witnessed by their membership in Socialist International. :P
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931
I had this argument with a bunch of you last week. I shall not be baited again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
I don't either. I don't even get the Brown hate.
Ok, I shall be baited.
BB...when googling, do more than read the front page.
according to the Socialist International:
The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents. (List of members in full)
Thus, the NDP is not necessarily socialist based on your argument. And, your honour, in anycase, we do not know when that list was last updated.
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 05:36:51 PM
Ok, I shall be baited.
BB...when googling, do more than read the front page.
according to the Socialist International:
The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents. (List of members in full)
Thus, the NDP is not necessarily socialist based on your argument. And, your honour, in anycase, we do not know when that list was last updated.
I don't understand what you're trying to say...
Edit: Oh I think he means that Labor and SD parties aren't socialist? Odd.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 29, 2009, 05:46:14 PM
Edit: Oh I think he means that Labor and SD parties aren't socialist? Odd.
ERm...Not sure what you're trying to say.
If the Labour And SD parties were socialist than why wouldn't that manifest say:
"The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of socialist parties" instead of
"The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties."
Seems a bit redundant.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
since to trot out my favourite canard from Canadian politics, they are both socialist parties as witnessed by their membership in Socialist International. :P
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931
Okay. You're right :weep:
But I still support the Liberals. At one of your elections someone posted an online quiz to find which party you should vote for. The Liberals are the only party in those for which I've got 100%. That means something :wub:
Labour Conference had Zapatero and Jens Stoltenberg of Norway giving speeches yesterday. Truly a sign of how low Labour's gone. When Tony was in charge he could get Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela to do Conference :(
I loved Stoltenberg's elections slogan though - 'Jens We Can!' :lol:
Both of them made a big deal of our international socialist, social democratic and labour movement.
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 05:36:51 PM
Ok, I shall be baited.
BB...when googling, do more than read the front page.
according to the Socialist International:
The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties. It currently brings together 170 political parties and organisations from all continents. (List of members in full)
Thus, the NDP is not necessarily socialist based on your argument. And, your honour, in anycase, we do not know when that list was last updated.
I can't believe you're being baited into this argument again. :lol:
I would say the section you quoted pretty much makes my point for me. The organization Socialist International accepts members that describe themselves as any of social democratic, socialist, or labour. So clearly those three labels all mean roughly the same set of values, since all three can easily co-habitate in one general organization.
The three terms are synonymous.
The only other option is that there are clearly defined differences between the three terms - but then what are they? Are why can the three happily co-exist in the sam umbrella organization?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 29, 2009, 05:34:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
I don't either. I don't even get the Brown hate.
he looks like a walking sack of shit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 06:03:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:31:43 PM
since to trot out my favourite canard from Canadian politics, they are both socialist parties as witnessed by their membership in Socialist International. :P
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931
Okay. You're right :weep:
But I still support the Liberals. At one of your elections someone posted an online quiz to find which party you should vote for. The Liberals are the only party in those for which I've got 100%. That means something :wub:
Heh - I'm mostly teasing you, since I figured that you were no fan of the 'Stache.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cs-reginaleaderpost/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00/00/23/78/59/Jack+Layton.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0TTXDM86AJ1CB68A7P02&Expires=1254276638&Signature=5KpsxHGz%2bouz6Ys0WuV4WIV0y6Q%3d)
My own international political preferences are somewhat mixed. On the one hand as someone who came of political age in a populist protest party, I have a real fondness for non-racist populist protest parties. But as someone who is now a member of a mainline centre-right party, I also like those parties. So I guess I can forgive you liking both a Labour and a Liberal party, despite each having such very different political origins and traditions.
Quote from: Tyr on September 29, 2009, 04:40:51 PM
Wrong. They're up 5 points.
Which proves the wrongness of polls in general really.
Polls are crap; I am yet to be convinced that they are a reliable meterstick for how general elections will turn out, even if they have improved since 1992.
If it is correct, however, and remained that way (which it won't,of course, as we are not out of the season of conference bounces yet) then I think we would be looking at a hung parliament. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:06:37 PM
The only other option is that there are clearly defined differences between the three terms - but then what are they? Are why can the three happily co-exist in the sam umbrella organization?
Some of it's to do with history and some of it's ideology.
The difference between Labour and the Socialists, Social Democrats is that the former parties (such as in the UK, Norway, I believe, Australia) were founded by the unions. They are a far better bridge of working class unionism and intellectual Fabian style socialism than the Socialists and Social Democrats.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:11:00 PM
My own international political preferences are somewhat mixed. On the one hand as someone who came of political age in a populist protest party, I have a real fondness for non-racist populist protest parties. But as someone who is now a member of a mainline centre-right party, I also like those parties. So I guess I can forgive you liking both a Labour and a Liberal party, despite each having such very different political origins and traditions.
Interesting. I used to support the Lib Dems and still find some of it's stuff attractive. But I'm drawn to the Labour left of politics by, of all things, a certain social conservatism that isn't at home in the Lib Dems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:06:37 PM
The only other option is that there are clearly defined differences between the three terms - but then what are they? Are why can the three happily co-exist in the sam umbrella organization?
Some of it's to do with history and some of it's ideology.
The difference between Labour and the Socialists, Social Democrats is that the former parties (such as in the UK, Norway, I believe, Australia) were founded by the unions. They are a far better bridge of working class unionism and intellectual Fabian style socialism than the Socialists and Social Democrats.
Well then all the more reason to like the NDP. :nelson
The NDP us a successor party to the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF was pretty explicitly socialistm but had no particular ties to organized labour. The CCF formed in the 1930s and probably had it's greatest success at that time, then slowly fading over time.
In the early 1960s however the CCF formed a formal alliance with the Canada Labour Congress, and the two then formed the New Democratic Party, which gives a formal role to organized labour within the party.
The Liberal Party of Canada by contrast has never had any such formal connection, and while occasionally it has picked up endorsements by individual unions it is much more traditionall been identified with certain large corporations (example the first, Power Corporation).
As for your second comment:
Quote from: SheilbhInteresting. I used to support the Lib Dems and still find some of it's stuff attractive. But I'm drawn to the Labour left of politics by, of all things, a certain social conservatism that isn't at home in the Lib Dems.
How much of that 'certain social conservatism' still exists in the Labour party, as opposed to its history?
The NDP here used to have that tradition. Many of its earliest leaders and members came straight out of various church social justice movements. J.S. Woodsworth being the primary example, but that tradition continued right up to Bill Blaikie, an ordained United Church minister.
But at least as an outsider looking in, I just don't see it any more. The party has been more and more closely aligned with various NGO / protest group movements that 'social conservatism' is a detested word in the party.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:29:59 PM
Well then all the more reason to like the NDP. :nelson
The NDP us a successor party to the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF was pretty explicitly socialistm but had no particular ties to organized labour. The CCF formed in the 1930s and probably had it's greatest success at that time, then slowly fading over time.
In the early 1960s however the CCF formed a formal alliance with the Canada Labour Congress, and the two then formed the New Democratic Party, which gives a formal role to organized labour within the party.
Interesting. I didn't know any of that about the NDP, I thought they were general western prairie populists.
QuoteHow much of that 'certain social conservatism' still exists in the Labour party, as opposed to its history?
I think it still exists. Though by social conservatism I don't really mean things like gay rights on which there's a consensus in the UK or things like abortion which aren't political issues here.
It's true that like the NDP the Labour Party was hugely influenced by various Christian groups and still has an active Christian Socialist sort-of wing. But what I mean, nowadays, is more to do with crime. I mean Labour gets attacked for being overly authoritarian on crime. Things like ASBOs are criticised by the civil libertarians in the Tory Party and far more strongly in the Lib Dems. My view is that the reason Labour emphasises those things is because they overwhelmingly effect the poor. It's fine if you're the Lib Dem MP for Winchester to think ASBOs aren't really that necessary because there's very little anti-social behaviour in posh towns like Winchester. Where it is present is in the poorest estates of the country and there it can make people's lives misery.
I'm encouraged that the Tories' recent discovery of an interest in social justice is leading them to focus on the problems faced by the poorest socially rather than just economically - and I hope Labour can learn from this. It's for that reason I like the Tory idea that we should make the tax system support marriage, because it's a social good. Similarly I think they're right that we should overhaul the benefits system. But at the same time I support Labour's 'respect agenda' because I think the problems of social breakdown aren't felt by Guardian reading liberals.
It's for that reason that I support Labour's nanny-stateism. Another slightly related example would be that I don't think it's a failure of NHS funding that there are areas of Glasgow with a lower male life expectancy than in the Gaza Strip or most sub-Saharan African countries. I think that's a social and a cultural failure that the state should try to address. I think by educating about the dangers of smoking, discouraging excessive drinking and so on. I think that a left-wing view of things being best addressed collectively, when they cause problems that have a communal effect, leads to a sort of social conservatism that's quite different from what I'd view as a slightly self-indulgent, liberal individualism - which I'd associate with the Lib Dems.
So yeah, Labour have the nanny state, the 'respect agenda' and other stuff like that which I think are socially conservative and that attract me to the party.
The CCF were prairie populists, whereas the Canadian Labour Congress took its orders from Moscow.
Actually, I knew some of the old-school farmer NDP types up in Northern Alberta. They were totally different from the fifth-column stooges that dominated the NDP of the Cold War era.
Of course, it's also appropriate that some of the NDP types came from the United Church, given that organization has gone from being about Jesus to being about spreading hatred of the United States.
We Canadians really hijack threads don't we. :D
The NDP may have had its roots in prairie populism and in the 70s under Broadbent, Bless Him, became allied with Oshawa, Unions, GM, and the Autoworker.
But that alliance pretty much ended, especially in Ontario, after Rae, and the Unions do not always necessarily support the NDP.
In my hometown of Oshawa, formerly Broadbent's riding, and a big GM town, the Conservatives have won this riding since the 80s, IIRC. This despite my yelling at my GM-working neighbours that they're not being class conscious and not voting for their common good.
All that happened is that they stopped inviting me to parties. But since they're now all laid-off....I just say "HA. Told you so. Let's see Harper bail you out of this."
They still don't invite me to parties and their homes, purchased with overtime salaries of over $100K/yr.
But, anyways, the NDP, in an attempt to gain votes at the expense of the ones they lost to the unions, started courting the Urban Vote. To do this, they eschewed some of their more economic concerns and started ranting and raving about Gay Marriages, Bicycles, Environment, Moustaches and shit that doesn't really interest me.
I'm only leftwing, economically. Don't really give a shit about other social issues. In Oshawa I vote NDP cause they stand a better chance of defeating the Conservatives here, but I have been known to vote Liberal on occasion when strategically necessary. Really I'm ABC, Anything But Conservative.
Hope this explains a few things about me, the NDP, and life in general.
Thanks and God Bless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
Prbly obvious in my case :)
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 07:17:29 PM
In my hometown of Oshawa, formerly Broadbent's riding, and a big GM town, the Conservatives have won this riding since the 80s, IIRC. This despite my yelling at my GM-working neighbours that they're not being class conscious and not voting for their common good.
All that happened is that they stopped inviting me to parties. But since they're now all laid-off....I just say "HA. Told you so. Let's see Harper bail you out of this."
I don't get that argument when Fathead the Documentary Guy makes it and I don't get it now.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 29, 2009, 08:15:57 PM
it's not. unless it's the fascism fetish.
Hmm, thought it was pretty clear I'm conservative.
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 05:32:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 05:21:28 PM
For me at least it's because I'm a card-carrying Conservative, and thus empathize with my Conservative brethren across the pond.
That's fine. I do the same for my Liberal Canadian friends :)
It's just me, I think, Shelibh. :(
And me... though the last two times i voted for the conservatives. the first time becasue the liberals needed a kick in the nuts, and the second time because dion was just too weird.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
Labour is fine by me. Tony Blair and co. were just as friendly to the US as Thatcher and co. were. No real reason to favor one over the other.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 05:16:12 PM
Why do Americans hate Labour? :huh:
Labour is fine by me. Tony Blair and co. were just as friendly to the US as Thatcher and co. were. No real reason to favor one over the other.
:rolleyes:
The difference between right and left is as obvious as between right and wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 11:38:50 PM
:rolleyes:
The difference between right and left is as obvious as between right and wrong.
Not here in America. Our Dems are pretty awful, but the Repubs have plenty of streaks of crazy!
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 11:27:23 PM
Labour is fine by me. Tony Blair and co. were just as friendly to the US as Thatcher and co. were. No real reason to favor one over the other.
To be honest the down periods in post-war relations have been under the Tories, obviously Eden, but also Heath and Major. Though I think LBJ hated Wilson for not committing anything but moral support to Vietnam.
I think Chris Hitchens was right that one of the best things about Blair was that he was the first leader we've had since MacMillan who was genuinely comfortable and competent in the two big areas of our foreign policy: the US and Europe. Every previous leader has tended to either prefer one for ideological reasons (Thatcher and the US, Heath and the EU are the extremes) to the exclusion or the other. With Blair we punched above our weight in the US and Europe :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 11:38:50 PM
The difference between right and left is as obvious as between right and wrong.
Well, actually we talking apes have been debating what's right and what's wrong since... like 1.000.000 B.C. and we have got nowhere in most fields.
Just consider pro-choice and pro-life. Not to mention dreadnoughts. :P
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2009, 09:01:49 PM
That's the only kind of right winger anywhere
BS. You're stuck on the Bush years. There's been a backlash within the right against big government conservatism, not that you'd bother to notice.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:54:10 AM
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2009, 09:01:49 PM
That's the only kind of right winger anywhere
BS. You're stuck on the Bush years. There's been a backlash within the right against big government conservatism, not that you'd bother to notice.
Really? I wonder... Because I would say that's what always happens when they are in the opposition. And usually the day they return to office big government is all the rage once again.
My father lived in the UK for more than 10 years. He keeps saying that everybody in university is a labour supporter. Until they get their first tax bill ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 29, 2009, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 06:06:37 PM
The only other option is that there are clearly defined differences between the three terms - but then what are they? Are why can the three happily co-exist in the sam umbrella organization?
Some of it's to do with history and some of it's ideology.
The difference between Labour and the Socialists, Social Democrats is that the former parties (such as in the UK, Norway, I believe, Australia) were founded by the unions. They are a far better bridge of working class unionism and intellectual Fabian style socialism than the Socialists and Social Democrats.
Well then all the more reason to like the NDP. :nelson
The NDP us a successor party to the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The CCF was pretty explicitly socialistm but had no particular ties to organized labour. The CCF formed in the 1930s and probably had it's greatest success at that time, then slowly fading over time.
In the early 1960s however the CCF formed a formal alliance with the Canada Labour Congress, and the two then formed the New Democratic Party, which gives a formal role to organized labour within the party.
The Liberal Party of Canada by contrast has never had any such formal connection, and while occasionally it has picked up endorsements by individual unions it is much more traditionall been identified with certain large corporations (example the first, Power Corporation).
As for your second comment:
Quote from: SheilbhInteresting. I used to support the Lib Dems and still find some of it's stuff attractive. But I'm drawn to the Labour left of politics by, of all things, a certain social conservatism that isn't at home in the Lib Dems.
How much of that 'certain social conservatism' still exists in the Labour party, as opposed to its history?
The NDP here used to have that tradition. Many of its earliest leaders and members came straight out of various church social justice movements. J.S. Woodsworth being the primary example, but that tradition continued right up to Bill Blaikie, an ordained United Church minister.
But at least as an outsider looking in, I just don't see it any more. The party has been more and more closely aligned with various NGO / protest group movements that 'social conservatism' is a detested word in the party.
When I was in Vancouver, my parents loved to listen to the local Chinese radio, and therefore I was forced to listen too. Basically, they described the major political parties (federal level) as follows -
NDP - communists
Reform - Chinese haters
Bloc QuebecsomethingwhichIcanneverspell - traitors
Liberals - angelic beings as they named a Chinese MINISTER (out of the 200 they have)
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 01:02:14 AM
Really? I wonder... Because I would say that's what always happens when they are in the opposition. And usually the day they return to office big government is all the rage once again.
I've never been a fan of big government...but then I've never been in charge. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Monoriu on September 30, 2009, 01:04:52 AM
My father lived in the UK for more than 10 years. He keeps saying that everybody in university is a labour supporter. Until they get their first tax bill ;)
In Spain I have seen examples of both transformations. Rabid leftists becoming acquainted with paying taxes and deciding big government isn't so great an idea after all, and rabid rightists becoming acquainted with having a real job, a boss, etc. and becoming in love with trade unionism, social subsidies and state regulations. There is a reason young people and students are far more radical, on the left and the right.
Quote from: Josephus on September 29, 2009, 04:58:40 PM
The world is going down the tubes fast.
No, wait. Portugal just elected socialists, I think. Knew IKK was good for something.
Tony Blair wannabee socialists though.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 02:01:49 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on September 30, 2009, 01:04:52 AM
My father lived in the UK for more than 10 years. He keeps saying that everybody in university is a labour supporter. Until they get their first tax bill ;)
In Spain I have seen examples of both transformations. Rabid leftists becoming acquainted with paying taxes and deciding big government isn't so great an idea after all, and rabid rightists becoming acquainted with having a real job, a boss, etc. and becoming in love with trade unionism, social subsidies and state regulations. There is a reason young people and students are far more radical, on the left and the right.
I can understand this.
I've been a Conservative voter since I was old enough to vote, and have never had much time for trade unions.
However, several times over the last few years I've been infuriated enough with the man who was my boss to contemplate the merits and benefits of a workplace trade union; the man was a charming sociopath when it came to his workforce.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:54:10 AM
BS. You're stuck on the Bush years. There's been a backlash within the right against big government conservatism, not that you'd bother to notice.
Well in terms of a Republican President actually running a small government and not increasing the size of it you'd have to go back to Nixon.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:54:10 AM
BS. You're stuck on the Bush years. There's been a backlash within the right against big government conservatism, not that you'd bother to notice.
Yeah well they are always against big government when they no longer control the government. We will see what tune they are singing when they win back power. I predict: big government.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 01:40:07 AM
I've never been a fan of big government...but then I've never been in charge. :Embarrass:
Yeah that will count for something when you are a high ranking member of the Republican party.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:54:10 AM
Quote from: Fate on September 29, 2009, 09:01:49 PM
That's the only kind of right winger anywhere
BS. You're stuck on the Bush years. There's been a backlash within the right against big government conservatism, not that you'd bother to notice.
Really? I wonder... Because I would say that's what always happens when they are in the opposition. And usually the day they return to office big government is all the rage once again.
No, you're exactly right. In this case, the backlash began before they actually lost power though, and contributed to their downfall. I think Spicy's only half right here. The anti-Bush backlash isn't a result of the loss of power, it predates it and contributed to it. Any random moron with an R after their name can get a 40% approval rating doing basically nothing. Bush had to really work to achieve his 31% or whatever it was. :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 11:18:10 AM
Yeah that will count for something when you are a high ranking member of the Republican party.
First step re-registering as a Republican!
Btw, when Karl Rove recently came to SF, he said the following :swiss::
Quote
"Fellow counter-revolutionaries!" Rove bellowed to open his remarks after receiving a standing ovation from the 500 folks who packed the ballroom. "Revolutionaries! We meet behind enemy lines. And we will prevail!"
"It must not be easy to be a easy to be a conservative in San Francisco," Bush's Brain said. "You must be people of character."
Quote from: Monoriu on September 30, 2009, 01:04:52 AM
My father lived in the UK for more than 10 years. He keeps saying that everybody in university is a labour supporter. Until they get their first tax bill ;)
Not my uni, it was full of damn tory scum (tm).
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2009, 11:17:07 AM
Yeah well they are always against big government when they no longer control the government. We will see what tune they are singing when they win back power. I predict: big government.
You may be right, espec. if someone like Huckabee gets into the White House. We sure could use another Reagan :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Well in terms of a Republican President actually running a small government and not increasing the size of it you'd have to go back to Nixon.
Reagan was a small-gov't. conservative. I actually see Nixon as a big-gov't. conservative.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 12:24:02 PM
Reagan was a small-gov't. conservative. I actually see Nixon as a big-gov't. conservative.
Government spending didn't change significantly under Reagan and the deficit was huge. Nixon cut the size of government and the deficit.
Nixon cut the size of government? I know he created the EPA. What did he get rid of?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Nixon cut the size of government? I know he created the EPA. What did he get rid of?
No idea. But the amount of Federal government spending, the number of civilian employees and the deficit decreased far more significantly under Nixon than Reagan. The first two more or less stagnated under Reagan and the deficit dramatically increased.
In HK, we measure the size of government with government spending as a percentage of GDP. An important rule when making the budget is that the trend growth rate in government spending must not exceed GDP growth.
We are at about 18% now. The UK should be around 40-50% by this measure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 30, 2009, 01:54:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Nixon cut the size of government? I know he created the EPA. What did he get rid of?
No idea. But the amount of Federal government spending, the number of civilian employees and the deficit decreased far more significantly under Nixon than Reagan. The first two more or less stagnated under Reagan and the deficit dramatically increased.
Erm. How much of that is related to winding down the Vietnam War and pushing expensive programs off the official books?
:lmfao: @ the notion that Reagan accomplished a smaller government. He certainly worked hard for greater financial irresponsibility.
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 02:54:24 PM
:lmfao: @ the notion that Reagan accomplished a smaller government. He certainly worked hard for greater financial irresponsibility.
His success in limiting spending was mixed (though if you use Mono's measure he shrank the government by 5% relative to GDP growth), but he had a Democrat-controlled congress shooting down his spending-cut proposals left & right.
If he had a Republican Congress spending would have been even greater. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 03:47:46 PM
If he had a Republican Congress spending would have been even greater. :thumbsup:
Rrrright. :rolleyes:
Reagan cut taxes and jacked military spending to the stratosphere. I'm hard pressed to think of a single domestic spending initiative on his watch. If you want to call that "big government" that's pretty dishonest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 04:00:01 PM
Reagan cut taxes and jacked military spending to the stratosphere. I'm hard pressed to think of a single domestic spending initiative on his watch. If you want to call that "big government" that's pretty dishonest.
If you don't want to consider the military part of the government that's pretty dishonest.
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
If you don't want to consider the military part of the government that's pretty dishonest.
Both of our statements are true.
I'm surprised Spicy fell for Elmer Fudd's box trap.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Nixon cut the size of government? I know he created the EPA. What did he get rid of?
The Vietnam War.
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 03:47:46 PM
If he had a Republican Congress spending would have been even greater. :thumbsup:
Rrrright. :rolleyes:
Judging from the past few years of GOP Congress... :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2009, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 30, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 03:47:46 PM
If he had a Republican Congress spending would have been even greater. :thumbsup:
Rrrright. :rolleyes:
Judging from the past few years of GOP Congress... :P
Congress would have approved an accelerated Death Star construction schedule.
Quote from: Fate on September 30, 2009, 02:54:24 PM
Erm. How much of that is related to winding down the Vietnam War and pushing expensive programs off the official books?
Nixon didn't really start winding down Vietnam until 1973 which was, what, 12 months before he resigned. So it's not from there. I don't know what you mean by the last point.
QuoteReagan cut taxes and jacked military spending to the stratosphere. I'm hard pressed to think of a single domestic spending initiative on his watch. If you want to call that "big government" that's pretty dishonest.
Domestic spending increased but very lightly. You're conflating two things in the other point. Cutting taxes and not cutting spending contributes hugely to deficits - which increased hugely under Reagan. And big military spending increases the size of the government and the number of civilian federal employees mildly increased under Reagan. Saying defence spending doesn't count is like politicians saying they want to cut the size of discretionary, non-defence spending. It's a nonsense because if you remove the mandatory programmes, he didn't change, and defence which he increased then there's fuck all left to cut.
Nixon on the other hand cut the national debt, put a hold or mildly shrank the size of government spending overall and decreased the number of civilian federal employees. I think he's a far more convincing small government conservative because he made government smaller.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 01, 2009, 01:42:46 AM
Nixon on the other hand cut the national debt, put a hold or mildly shrank the size of government spending overall and decreased the number of civilian federal employees. I think he's a far more convincing small government conservative because he made government smaller.
He *wanted* to make it bigger, though. Don't forget he was pushing pretty hard for government-funded national health insurance.
I guess we're sort of talking past each other, though. I'm more interested in political philosophies, and you're focusing on results, which the president doesn't always fully influence.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 30, 2009, 06:49:43 PM
Judging from the past few years of GOP Congress... :P
That was Bush-43's 'Compassionate Conservatism' in play :bleeding: plus a couple wars.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2009, 10:23:30 AM
I'm more interested in political philosophies, and you're focusing on results, which the president doesn't always fully influence.
Well I think you have to judge them by the combination of their philosophy and their results. I think if you just focus on results then you're right there are a lot of mitigating factors. If you focus on philosophy alone then I think you end up saying well-intentioned people you agree with who are incompetent but philosophically okay - in short people like Bush II.