Never underestimate the effectiveness of repeating the same arguments over and over again until people absorb them by osmosis
Göbbles would agree.
Actually I have bored myself to tears talking about mutuals (I prefer them to cooperatives) and workplace democracy but as it's not in the manifesto then I have a duty to negotiate on the basis of the platform which our voters voted for rather than the platform I'd ideally like.
Well in that case it would certainly be the sort of policy which the Labour party at least should look into supporting for the future - given our fraternal links to the broader cooperative movement.
Let's not forget that PR is a crucial part of the Liberal manifesto.
I do recognise that"is a considerable concession, which is why i said that "Labour has made considerable concessions, just as the Liberals have." Nevertheless, Britain is yet to have a referendum of nationalisation but has had one on proportional representation for Westminster - I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. (I reiterate however that NI is a special case and that STV for Stormont makes perfect sense in light of the current social crisis in Northern Ireland and instances of unionist gerrymandering in the past.
If we can agree on mutualising unprofitable nationalised industries then that's brilliant but a commitment to consultations which could easily never go anywhere is not acceptable. If, as a starting point, you are prepared to agree to the mutualisation or privatisation of the steel industry as proof that you are serious then I would be more inclined to believe that the consultations you're insisting upon would be genuine consultations instead of just ways to kick the issue into the long grass.
I understand your concerns on this issue, and I personally would happily endorse the denationalisation of an industry I felt never needed to be nationalised in the first place. Unfortunately I can only speak for myself and not for the party on this issue, and in light of the recent crisis in Scotland over the Ravenscraig Steelworks (a profitable business which was nevertheless forced to go to the wall by the Tories economic zealotry) I hope you understand that this is an emotive issue for many Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, and that blanket commitments to
privatisation will make many of our supporters uneasy. Moving towards mutualisation of the Steel Industry, or outright cooperatives, would in my view be a far more acceptable policy to Labour voters.
I don't see what would be so problematic about agreeing the conditions of accession to the EEC and then presenting the full proposal to the British public to vote upon.
Well as I say, the chances of acceptance would in my view be greater if it was backed by a popular mandate. If however we
can agree the conditions of entry with the EEC without committing ourselves to entry before holding a referendum then we can probably save face diplomatically, and if we make it clear to the British people that we are seeking conditions only and not outright entry unless they themselves want it, then we can probably save face domestically as well.
If all this can be made abundantly clear before negotiations begin, then negotiations conducted under that basis would be acceptable.
At the very least, I would expect the Labour leadership to campaign in favour of entry to the EEC in a referendum
Opposition to this however I must be adamant about. Just as many prominent liberals opposed the introduction of PR, all Labour MPs must be free to follow their own consciences in regards to any proposal put forth at a referendum. The Labour Party itself must remain neutral in any referendum to allow its members to express their own views on Europe without real or perceived repurcussion, as befitting any democratic party.
I support a tax neutral change - we will cut income tax by replacing the lost revenue with a Land Value Tax. The treasury will still have the same revenue but ordinary people will have more disposable income which is a great way to increase social mobility. I really don't understand why a socialist is so opposed to cutting taxes on the poor by raising taxes on wealthy landowners.
Look, there are many people within the Labour movement who will see LVT as a wealth tax plain and simple, and therefore support it out of principle - this is why I said that in normal circumstances such policies could be easily agreed upon. I however am sceptical as to whether the lost revenue from income tax would be fully compensated, and am not inclined to take such risks during a time of social crisis.
Please tell me what concessions these are given that so far we have abandoned whole swathes of the Liberal manifesto whilst the biggest thing you've agreed to so far is consultation on possible privatisation of some industries and not really much else.
I have taken if for granted that Labour will move towards acceptance of the Social Market Economy, sooner rather than later if some kind of agreement with the Liberals is reached. This is quite a big compromise if you judge from our current manifesto, even if one accepts as I do that it is one that the party should have ought to have made long ago.
Honestly, if you expect us to give up PR then you should at least support our constitutional reform effort elsewhere.
I would honestly expect that people who campaign for referenda will abide by the result of said referenda once they are held.
