An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

'protect what i've got and what i've worked for all my life. You know....the usual stuff.

So just like general elections then.

westernpromise

mrginge wrote: »

It is incredible that all the advancements made in the areas you list have, over the last thirty or forty years been achieved with not one single socialist government.
When I look at the Britain of the 1970s compared to today the transformation in social attitudes is remarkable. Obviously we still have a fair way to go so let's not think its job done.

I can only conclude that socialism has given this country !!!! all.

The NHS would have been implemented whoever had won the 1945 election.

A national health service was one of the fundamental assumptions in the Beveridge Report which Arthur Greenwood, Labour's Deputy Leader and wartime Cabinet Minister with responsibility for post-war reconstruction had successfully pressed the cabinet to commission from economist and social reformer William Beveridge.[10] The [Churchill] government accepted this assumption in February 1943, and after a White Paper in 1944 it fell to Clement Attlee's Labour government to create the NHS as part of the "cradle to grave" welfare-state reforms in the aftermath of the Second World War. Aneurin Bevan, the newly appointed Minister of Health, was given the task of introducing the National Health Service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#History

That we should thank Labour for the NHS is just another Labour myth / lie. All they did was nationalise existing hospitals anyway. It's not like a whole load of hospitals suddenly sprang up like mushrooms. They also racked up state debt so they didn't actually bother with the tiny detail of how to pay for it. Just like Gordon Broon didn't pay for any of his NHS "improvements" but simply left the bill for future taxpayers to pick up. Same old Labour.

Every generation must learn for itself about Labour and once they have they don't vote for them again.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

The NHS would have been implemented whoever had won the 1945 election.

A national health service was one of the fundamental assumptions in the Beveridge Report which Arthur Greenwood, Labour's Deputy Leader and wartime Cabinet Minister with responsibility for post-war reconstruction had successfully pressed the cabinet to commission from economist and social reformer William Beveridge.[10] The [Churchill] government accepted this assumption in February 1943, and after a White Paper in 1944 it fell to Clement Attlee's Labour government to create the NHS as part of the "cradle to grave" welfare-state reforms in the aftermath of the Second World War. Aneurin Bevan, the newly appointed Minister of Health, was given the task of introducing the National Health Service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#History

That we should thank Labour for the NHS is just another Labour myth / lie. All they did was nationalise existing hospitals anyway. It's not like a whole load of hospitals suddenly sprang up like mushrooms. They also racked up state debt so they didn't actually bother with the tiny detail of how to pay for it. Just like Gordon Broon didn't pay for any of his NHS "improvements" but simply left the bill for future taxpayers to pick up. Same old Labour.

Every generation must learn for itself about Labour and once they have they don't vote for them again.

You missed this bit:-

'Churchill's commitment to creating a welfare state was limited and he and the Conservative Party opposed much of the implementation of the Beveridge Report, including voting against the founding of the NHS.

The Labour Party won the 1945 general election on a platform that promised to address what the Beveridge report called "the five giant evils" of society: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. Beveridge's recommendation were implemented through a series of acts of parliament (namely the National Insurance Act, the National Assistance Act and the National Health Service Act),founding the modern welfare state.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report


Churchill had to accept change because of social movement. That's my point. The war changed everything. People wanted better lives not the lives of serfs. They wanted the things the privileged classes had. Access to proper medical services, life insurance, pensions etc. The 1942 Beveridge Report you quote above is the basis for the legislation that followed in the post war years. I think every generation has to be reminded that the rights they now have had to be fought for. These rights were not given by choice. The landowners didnt just one day say..... I think I should give some of my land and voting privileges away to the local serfs.;)

Ironically this is the same lesson that Corbyn needs to learn. Social movement itself is not enough....you need to be in power to implement the changes. That's my beef with him.

Similarly Bobbymotors rather puerile rant about Rugged being unable to demonstrate a country where a hard left govmt works is pointless. You will never have a purely socialist state....that is an unobtainable ideal......The Chair of the report, Beveridge was a Liberal politician....... but he saw what the mood was in the country and the new Labour Govmt of '45 took up the report and ran with it. The extent to which a govmt is socialist or capitalist varies over time depending on social movements and events. Fukuyama was a tad hasty imo.

ruggedtoast

Churchill was a great orator.

He was also militarily completely incompetent, had very limited input into war room discussions, and came from the imperial class of trans global self entitled Atlanticised bullies who were directly responsible for WWII.

The fact that Britons very comprehensively rejected his politics as soon as they could after the war seems to be perennially overlooked by tub thumping right wing little englanders.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Churchill was a great orator.

He was also militarily completely incompetent, had very limited input into war room discussions, and came from the imperial class of trans global self entitled Atlanticised bullies who were directly responsible for WWII.

The fact that Britons very comprehensively rejected his politics as soon as they could after the war seems to be perennially overlooked by tub thumping right wing little englanders.

In the interests of educating toxic toastie (otherwise a fact and truth free area), once the people of the UK actually experienced the labour party they started to see the flaws.
So by 1951 there was a conservation prime minister and continued so until 1964.

As always, Toxic Toastie celebrates the decisions of the people.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

In the interests of educating toxic toastie (otherwise a fact and truth free area), once the people of the UK actually experienced the labour party they started to see the flaws.
So by 1951 there was a conservation prime minister and continued so until 1964.

As always, Toxic Toastie celebrates the decisions of the people.

Churchill was basically insensible when he got back into power.

I can see why you approve so much.

ukcarper

Rugged how do you think Corbyns opinion to have no limits on immigration will play with the thousands of Labour voters who defected to UKIP in last GE and voted for brexit?

westernpromise

Meanwhile, Labour's anti-Semitism problem isn't getting any better:

Jewish Labour chair Jeremy Newmark was rebuked from the floor for comments about the Holocaust, the speaker referencing the current “police holocaust” against black people. Newmark cited a poll showing just 8% of British Jews supported Labour; an audience member demanded: “Whose fault is that!” The event’s title: Does Labour have an Antisemitism Problem?

You couldn't make it up!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/labour-party-conference-bending-reality-like-spoon-matrix-jeremy-corbyn-momentum

The Tories hold Finchley & Golders Green with a mere 12.3% majority of fewer than 6,000 votes. So it's well up the list of seats Yeremiy has to win to get his suefire, nailed-on majority. What's Labour's 2020 GE message to the voters of Finchley & Golders Green, a lot of them Jewish, going to be, Toastie? It better be good cuz Mrs Westernpromise is Jewish and she and her family can smell an anti-Semite like a fart in a lift.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Churchill was basically insensible when he got back into power.

I can see why you approve so much.

what's your point?

the people voted for Churchill and his successors having experienced 5/6 years of Labour

Maybe Moby's right: labour need never aspire for office again : just keep the red flag flying in some dark place whilst telling foul mouth 'jokes' about killing tories.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

Rugged how do you think Corbyns opinion to have no limits on immigration will play with the thousands of Labour voters who defected to UKIP in last GE and voted for brexit?

UKIP defectors? Good riddance.

The Labour Party doesn't need to appeal to cretins to succeed. Quite the opposite.