How do Labour's inheritance tax policies support sustainable agriculture in Britain?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • french frank
    Administrator/Moderator
    • Feb 2007
    • 30448

    #76
    Originally posted by Anastasius View Post

    Completely agree with you. I have no great affection for the Conservatives but Labour are now beyond the pale.
    And yet, and yet ... they are doing what they believe may help the people at the bottom, and have intense challenges across the board. Can I trust teamsaint and Anastasius more than Rachel Reeves to solve the economic problems?
    It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

    Comment

    • Serial_Apologist
      Full Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 37812

      #77
      Originally posted by french frank View Post

      And yet, and yet ... they are doing what they believe may help the people at the bottom, and have intense challenges across the board. Can I trust teamsaint and Anastasius more than Rachel Reeves to solve the economic problems?
      I wouldn't be so sure about that! I think what happened was that faced with the revolt against Blairism that attracted tens of thousands back into the Labour Party and threatened electorability, the new direction would be treated by the mainstream press and "impartial broadcasters" as continuing a "safe" and at least serious alternative to the increasingly discredited Tories and yet to be shown unblemished Reform. With readerships and viewing figures in journalistic mindsets, the Liberals still had Coalition memories to be taken into consideration - was not the more plausible option now to float in preparation with the new populist alt-right tendencies emerging in a foregone collapsing EU and across the pond, rather than plump for some new version of One Nation Toryism? Although the win was deemed inevitable few in the media predicted the Labour landslide under FPTP voting. Beyond using every false pretext for ridding itself of its troublesome Left while signalling safety to "our allies", I'm not sure Starmer and Rayner's Labour had much clue what they would be facing once in - Starmer's awkwardness signalled more than a personality trait, I reckon, and the policy reversals/broken promises speak for themselves.

      Comment

      • french frank
        Administrator/Moderator
        • Feb 2007
        • 30448

        #78
        Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
        Beyond using every false pretext for ridding itself of its troublesome Left while signalling safety to "our allies", I'm not sure Starmer and Rayner's Labour had much clue what they would be facing once in - Starmer's awkwardness signalled more than a personality trait, I reckon, and the policy reversals/broken promises speak for themselves.
        I agree with that (partially - whatever 'false pretexts' may or may not have been used, and no side in politics is exempt from using such tactics), but the primary electoral aim was to win the election and change direction. If they only do that modestly I would guess that had more to do with 'the 'art of the possible' than any total abandonment of progressive values. No/neither progressive left-wing election manifesto has come close gaining electoral success for 80 years. Meanwhile, I'm working on my own 21st-century political theory to supplant the ideas of Marx, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. I spend a lot of time thinking about things since the late gentlemen aren't available to be questioned about the current state of world economies, and therefore how best to organise them for the general good.
        It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

        Comment

        • Barbirollians
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 11751

          #79
          How is this thread more acceptable than those that led to a number of members being banned ? Isn’t it as political as those ?

          Comment

          • french frank
            Administrator/Moderator
            • Feb 2007
            • 30448

            #80
            Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
            How is this thread more acceptable than those that led to a number of members being banned ? Isn’t it as political as those ?
            As explained: it isn't about any subject being disallowed, it's about how it's discussed. Politics frequently gets into trouble (not just here) because people get so tetchy and aggressive about it. No one was banned for discussing politics: they were banned for insisting that they should be allowed to do so after the topic had just been suspended by the then moderator, thus infringing the house rules. I hope that clarifies the issue.

            I have no objection to the objective analysis of policies and political situations, free of insult and abuse of people whom any individual happens to disagree with, despise, hate or just find annoying. Politics may be of no interest to some members, but classical music is of no interest to some members, ditto jazz, world music, stormy weather and football.
            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

            Comment

            Working...
            X