Dave
Friday 23rd June 2017 3:28pm [Edited]
1,172 posts
Quote: Aaron @ 23rd June 2017, 12:51 PM
We're starting to go around in circles here.
I think I've made pretty clear that I agree with you on the negative effects of some of the policies you've raised. Some are simply regrettable, and some sound pretty awful. I suspect the real difference is that you don't agree with the policy at all in the first place, so expect any criticism to result in total opposition to the policy. I do agree with the policies and see those negatives as side effects. Some awful, as I've said, but not ones that make the policy itself wrong.
Again, circles. There have been cuts in certain areas. There is a message of austerity, of cutbacks, and of suffering, from the media. Just like certain papers' claims about effects of the EU or of the crimes of immigrants, that doesn't mean they're actually true when you look at the cold hard facts. The figures of Government spending simply do not support that there is true austerity.
There are always complaints. There is always suffering. There are always people struggling to get by. (I found that far more evident in the Blair years than now.) That's not to dismiss them, but let's not act like they've suddenly appeared out of nowhere since 2010.
Labour's relative success in the election was more to do with the utter balls campaign of the Conservatives. Surely, if it were so related to the "misery" and the "pain" that people are suffering, it would have been a long-standing Labour gain, not simply a turn-around of the previous 6 weeks?
Although the Tory campaign was indeed terrible, that is not the only factor of the result. I've read thousands of words on this and the consensus seems to partly attribute it the electoral broadcast rules kicking in and Labour getting heard. Previously, the right-wing media had not given Corbyn - as David Dimbleby put it - a "fair deal". Additionally, many young people came out to vote, and, for other reasons too, we came very close to winning the election. If Labour in-fighting and continued right-wing attacks on Corbyn had not happened, we may well have won. As it was, Labour had their best election since 1997.
If nothing else, a major indication of how successful Labour were in the election is seen in how the Tories are having to take note of what worked in the Labour manifesto. They wouldn't be doing that if they thought those particular policies weren't popular with the public.
Your denial of austerity, unfortunately, remains puzzling to me. If you claim it is a lie perpetuated by the media, then why have all these Conservative politicians been talking about it for seven years? Why hasn't it been debunked on Mythbusters?. If there is no austerity, surely the government would just say so and put everybody straight?
Your argument that there will always be poor people is one I often hear. But I am not disputing that poor people will always exist. What I am saying is that these brutal austerity measures have caused the poor to become even poorer. That's the problem.
To say I do not agree with such policies as those we have discussed is inaccurate. My view is less simplistic. As I've said before, I agree that people should not lead benefit-driven lifestyles and have multiple children just to necessitate it. I agree - for example - that any family should get benefits for two children only, though I think this should only apply to third child+ after a particular date. After all, the parents who can't afford to keep them anymore can't very well shove them back into the womb.
It is not, however, such 'scroungers' who are only being affected here. I am not in support of them - comparatively few as there are. It is the people who desperately need money to survive because they are either unable to work or unable to find work. The welfare system is a safety net, as we've agreed, but many people are having that net taken from them because the government are trying to save money at the expense of people's health, dignity and sometimes even lives. You may turn a blind eye to this, but I will not.
I don't mean for us to go around in circles, but that fault is not exclusively my own. Neither do I mean to convince you that you're wrong. This conversation - pleasingly free of any insults and passive-aggressiveness - has only ever been about me trying to understand the opposing view.
With your permission, after the next reply, we may as well head back to the comedy boards and discuss that. If you think I'm going on now, wait until you hear me talk about Rising Damp and Goodnight Sweetheart Such is the beauty of shared culture. Despite all that's happened here, we have a heck of a lot in common when it comes to our appreciation and knowledge of the history of British sitcom and would almost certainly get on like a house on fire were we discussing that instead. Until, of course, we start arguing about which party Jim Hacker actually belongs to....