Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Shamwow said:
You're being facetious.
Click to expand...
not at all... I'm pointing out that his "ideas" have so far been rather problematic if anything... as @Adebesi said he is not getting over any message to the general public other than he is a communist who wants to overthrow capitalism... if you are blind to that and wish to dismiss it as me being facetious then fine... or as our shadow chancellor may say
mcdonnell-mao-book_3509906b.jpg

To behave like "a blindfolded man catching sparrows", or "a blind man groping for fish", to be crude and careless, to indulge in verbiage, to rest content with a smattering of knowledge - such is the extremely bad style of work that still exists among many comrades
 
sun_tzu said:
not at all... I'm pointing out that his "ideas" have so far been rather problematic if anything... as @Adebesi said he is not getting over any message to the general public other than he is a communist who wants to overthrow capitalism... if you are blind to that and wish to dismiss it as me being facetious then fine... or as our shadow chancellor may say
mcdonnell-mao-book_3509906b.jpg

To behave like "a blindfolded man catching sparrows", or "a blind man groping for fish", to be crude and careless, to indulge in verbiage, to rest content with a smattering of knowledge - such is the extremely bad style of work that still exists among many comrades
Click to expand...

Okay whatever, we've discussed this before though. I'm talking about his actual ideas for the economy. Not interested in talking to the front page of the sun(tzu).
 
Adebesi said:
It will only make their absence from the EU debate, or anything relating to the performance of the government or day to day British politics, all the more obvious and baffling.
Click to expand...

They have been talking about the economy recently, does that not count or something?
 
Shamwow said:
They have been talking about the economy recently, does that not count or something?
Click to expand...
Obviously its wonderful that the opposition party has deigned to talk about the economy recently, but it doesnt change the fact that the Labour party's profile is so low it is almost non-existent. They arent setting the agenda, they arent out their capitalising on Tory divisions on Europe, they arent visible. UKIP have a higher profile than Labour at the moment.
 
Adebesi said:
Obviously its wonderful that the opposition party has deigned to talk about the economy recently, but it doesnt change the fact that the Labour party's profile is so low it is almost non-existent. They arent setting the agenda, they arent out their capitalising on Tory divisions on Europe, they arent visible. UKIP have a higher profile than Labour at the moment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help that McDonnell made his speech and the thing that got real oxygen in the media was all the labour MPs and sources undermining it.

I think there was one article discussing it sensibly that I found.

Labour and the British public will get what it deserves in 2020.
 
Shamwow said:
It doesn't help that McDonnell made his speech and the thing that got real oxygen in the media was all the labour MPs and sources undermining it.

I think there was one article discussing it sensibly that I found.

Labour and the British public will get what it deserves in 2020.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of inclined to agree with you. I think McDonnell's a complete muppet and unfit to be chancellor, but he's arguably come up with some reasonable economic plans, and anyone who claims to support Labour should surely be trying to build some support for those plans instead of reminding us that he quoted Mao one time.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm kind of inclined to agree with you. I think McDonnell's a complete muppet and unfit to be chancellor, but he's arguably come up with some reasonable economic plans, and anyone who claims to support Labour should surely be trying to build some support for those plans instead of reminding us that he quoted Mao one time.
Click to expand...
Why? You're implying we should be trying to keep someone that you, a non-Labour voter, deem unfit to be chancellor. Given that I'm pretty sure most people share that opinion of him, I want him out of the job as soon as possible. Him adopting Balls' spending policy doesn't really alter that.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm kind of inclined to agree with you. I think McDonnell's a complete muppet and unfit to be chancellor, but he's arguably come up with some reasonable economic plans, and anyone who claims to support Labour should surely be trying to build some support for those plans instead of reminding us that he quoted Mao one time.
Click to expand...

I don't like his public persona but the debate over whether he is fit to be chancellor should be over whether or not his economic policies and ideas are sound. So far they have been.

So... what factions within Labour (and most of the media are happy to go along with this because it's more interesting than "unlikeable man has good ideas for economy") are doing is undermining it however they can, in preparation for their coup attempt.

It's short-term and shallow thinking typical of Labour and the Tories, but it gets lapped up and so the "realists" think it's all good. It's not.
 
Ubik is the perfect example really. He's taken McDonnell's very sensible economic policy, so he's followed the Jamie Reed narrative and said it's the same as Balls because to admit that McDonnell has good ideas would be horrifying.

Did you find out about the interest rate probabilities @Ubik?
 
Ubik said:
Why? You're implying we should be trying to keep someone that you, a non-Labour voter, deem unfit to be chancellor. Given that I'm pretty sure most people share that opinion of him, I want him out of the job as soon as possible. Him adopting Balls' spending policy doesn't really alter that.
Click to expand...

I deem George Osborne as being unfit to be Chancellor too. I'd rather McDonnell out of the two, though. Again, if his economic policies are okay (or at least more appealing than the Tories'), then surely it'd make sense to reluctantly back him? I mean, isn't that what the Labour left has been asked to do for years? They may have been disillusioned by the likes of Blair, Brown and perhaps even Miliband, but they were told that it was the only viable alternative to the Tories. So, even if people aren't keen on McDonnell, wouldn't it make sense to at least try to promote the positive aspects of his economic policy? Like it or not, he is the shadow chancellor, and he may still be around for a while.

And didn't you support Labour at the last election? If he does have a similar economic mantra to Balls, then surely that's ideal for you? I mean, you're never going to like every politician in your party. And while McDonnell may be seen as unelectable, it doesn't help when about half of his party intend on offering him no support, and are simply eager to have him ousted at every opportunity.
 
Shamwow said:
I don't like his public persona but the debate over whether he is fit to be chancellor should be over whether or not his economic policies and ideas are sound. So far they have been.

So... what factions within Labour (and most of the media are happy to go along with this because it's more interesting than "unlikeable man has good ideas for economy") are doing is undermining it however they can, in preparation for their coup attempt.

It's short-term and shallow thinking typical of Labour and the Tories, but it gets lapped up and so the "realists" think it's all good. It's not.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. As I've said, I don't think McDonnell's particularly brilliant, but when Labour have been arguing for the past decade or so that they should remain together, instead of fracturing, because it's best for them to unite against the Tories, then it's incredibly hypocritical when they instead decide to undermine McDonnell at every single opportunity. Aye, he isn't electable, but I very much doubt any prospective chancellor would be if he's got half his party saying that they refuse to support anything he does until he's out.

I feel like sucking it up might be the best option for people at the moment if they really want Labour in. You don't have to like McDonnell, but then Ed Balls was a prospective chancellor last year...and I refuse to believe that there were people in the country who didn't think he was a practical joke gone too far.
 
Cheesy said:
Pretty much. As I've said, I don't think McDonnell's particularly brilliant, but when Labour have been arguing for the past decade or so that they should remain together, instead of fracturing, because it's best for them to unite against the Tories, then it's incredibly hypocritical when they instead decide to undermine McDonnell at every single opportunity. Aye, he isn't electable, but I very much doubt any prospective chancellor would be if he's got half his party saying that they refuse to support anything he does until he's out.

I feel like sucking it up might be the best option for people at the moment if they really want Labour in. You don't have to like McDonnell, but then Ed Balls was a prospective chancellor last year...and I refuse to believe that there were people in the country who didn't think he was a practical joke gone too far.
Click to expand...

The critics want the debate to be about anything but the actual policies. They might lose the argument that way.
 
Shamwow said:
Ubik is the perfect example really. He's taken McDonnell's very sensible economic policy, so he's followed the Jamie Reed narrative and said it's the same as Balls because to admit that McDonnell has good ideas would be horrifying.

Did you find out about the interest rate probabilities @Ubik?
Click to expand...
I thought you might have just googled it. Here's the first result - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1607881/When-UK-rates-rise.html

I'm just entertained by it because he and many Corbyn supporters said the Labour platform at the last election was "austerity-lite", but it's suddenly fine now it's coming from McDonnell. I'm very glad he's moderated his views on it, as long as he's not still expecting to balance the current budget entirely through recouping money from tax avoidance/evasion. And I still want him out of the job, because he's a proven imbecile.

Cheesy said:
I deem George Osborne as being unfit to be Chancellor too. I'd rather McDonnell out of the two, though. Again, if his economic policies are okay (or at least more appealing than the Tories'), then surely it'd make sense to reluctantly back him? I mean, isn't that what the Labour left has been asked to do for years? They may have been disillusioned by the likes of Blair, Brown and perhaps even Miliband, but they were told that it was the only viable alternative to the Tories. So, even if people aren't keen on McDonnell, wouldn't it make sense to at least try to promote the positive aspects of his economic policy? Like it or not, he is the shadow chancellor, and he may still be around for a while.

And didn't you support Labour at the last election? If he does have a similar economic mantra to Balls, then surely that's ideal for you? I mean, you're never going to like every politician in your party. And while McDonnell may be seen as unelectable, it doesn't help when about half of his party intend on offering him no support, and are simply eager to have him ousted at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Labour member anymore, and I can say whatever I like about the current leadership to be fair. If they actually have some electoral successes and prove not to be the poison pill I currently expect them to be then they can still win me around, but I'm not going to sheepishly cheer on a leadership I believe will give the Tories ten years of large majorities in the 2020s, purely because they might be there a for a couple of years. It would be spectacularly idiotic of me to believe that of them and to not actively hope for their removal as quickly as possible.
 
Ubik said:
I thought you might have just googled it. Here's the first result - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1607881/When-UK-rates-rise.html
Click to expand...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1607881/When-UK-rates-rise.html
I can't see any probabilities in there but the overall situation sounds risky. Considering that, it's good that McDonnell's plan is so much better thought out than Balls really isn't it? Balls would just be doing what Osbourne is now, so the comparisons to "austerity-lite" aren't exactly unfair.


I'm just entertained by it because he and many Corbyn supporters said the Labour platform at the last election was "austerity-lite", but it's suddenly fine now it's coming from McDonnell. I'm very glad he's moderated his views on it, as long as he's not still expecting to balance the current budget entirely through recouping money from tax avoidance/evasion. And I still want him out of the job, because he's a proven imbecile.
Click to expand...

I already gave you the actual document from JC prior to his leadership election win, and there was no contradictions to McDonnell's policy. Desperation to find something to criticise is what it is.
 
Shamwow said:
I can't see any probabilities in there but the overall situation sounds risky. Considering that, it's good that McDonnell's plan is so much better thought out than Balls really isn't it? Balls would just be doing what Osbourne is now, so the comparisons to "austerity-lite" aren't exactly unfair.

I already gave you the actual document from JC prior to his leadership election win, and there was no contradictions to McDonnell's policy. Desperation to find something to criticise is what it is.
Click to expand...
The whole piece is about it being a waiting game before they RISE. There's even projections for next year saying they'll begin to rise. If you're determined to believe that leaves the possibility open that it's really a 50/50 chance they'll go down, then good luck to you.

Balls wouldn't be doing the same as Osborne, his plan allowed for extra capital spending and didn't have a hard target year (other than it being before the end of the parliament) of when the current budget would be balanced.

That quote you gave me said that they wouldn't go into deficit if it's already been closed by 2020, after in the previous sentence having said it was unnecessary to have done so by that date (and by implication also saying Labour's own plans to do so was unnecessary). This goes further and basically commits to it regardless, in the manner of Ed Balls' plan.
 
Ubik said:
The whole piece is about it being a waiting game before they RISE. There's even projections for next year saying they'll begin to rise. If you're determined to believe that leaves the possibility open that it's really a 50/50 chance they'll go down, then good luck to you.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim anything, I just think the McDonnell plan is much more realistic than Balls with that simple addition, not even taking into account other differences. You are the one claiming to be an expect and stating with confidence that the interest has no chance with falling.

So to prove it you don't give any official figures, you give "ThisisMoney", which is the Mail as far as I can tell. Even then, the piece is saying that they've had to put back their predictions of when it will rise. This implies a risk that it will fall. Do you know what the chance of that is? This article seems to say that the chance of a cut is significant fairly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal...-rates-predictions-first-rise-in-august-2019/

A year ago, a rate rise was considered likely by the end of 2015. Now markets are pricing in a 50pc chance of a rate CUT this year.
Click to expand...

Now like I said initially, I don't know enough about this to say with confidence that you are wrong and I don't like to trust 2nd hand accounts if I can't find the first hand data myself but you are the one claiming that you are confident in stability. George Osbourne in disguise? Oh wait, even he's changed his mind on that!
 
Shamwow said:
I didn't claim anything, I just think the McDonnell plan is much more realistic than Balls with that simple addition, not even taking into account other differences. You are the one claiming to be an expect and stating with confidence that the interest has no chance with falling.

So to prove it you don't give any official figures, you give "ThisisMoney", which is the Mail as far as I can tell. Even then, the piece is saying that they've had to put back their predictions of when it will rise. This implies a risk that it will fall. Do you know what the chance of that is? This article seems to say that the chance of a cut is significant fairly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal...-rates-predictions-first-rise-in-august-2019/



Now like I said initially, I don't know enough about this to say with confidence that you are wrong and I don't like to trust 2nd hand accounts if I can't find the first hand data myself but you are the one claiming that you are confident in stability. George Osbourne in disguise? Oh wait, even he's changed his mind on that!
Click to expand...
When did I claim to be an expert :lol: Or state with confidence that it has no chance in falling for that matter, it only started when you stated (with confidence?) that McDonnell's plan wouldn't even be enacted now because of the interest rates, a statement which I doubted and haven't seen anyone else repeat. For what it's worth, Mark Carney as of late Feb thinks they're more likely to rise than fall (though in fairness, he mentioned it was possible they could fall). Maybe McDonnell should clarify whether it would be implemented at the current juncture. As an aside, the percentage you quote there is a potential cut to 0.25%, rather than 0.
 
Shamwow said:
I didn't claim anything, I just think the McDonnell plan is much more realistic than Balls with that simple addition, not even taking into account other differences. You are the one claiming to be an expect and stating with confidence that the interest has no chance with falling.

So to prove it you don't give any official figures, you give "ThisisMoney", which is the Mail as far as I can tell. Even then, the piece is saying that they've had to put back their predictions of when it will rise. This implies a risk that it will fall. Do you know what the chance of that is? This article seems to say that the chance of a cut is significant fairly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal...-rates-predictions-first-rise-in-august-2019/



Now like I said initially, I don't know enough about this to say with confidence that you are wrong and I don't like to trust 2nd hand accounts if I can't find the first hand data myself but you are the one claiming that you are confident in stability. George Osbourne in disguise? Oh wait, even he's changed his mind on that!
Click to expand...

McDonnell could be the best Labour chancellor since Gogsy but he's got a difficult public image obstacle to get over - in fact nearly all of the Labour Party do. They've neglected the PR in politics for too long and allowed this image of an incompetent Labour Party to grow and grow. I know that image shouldn't come into politics but it can be a powerful tool at getting your message across. I agree that he's got a few interesting ideas but for every good moment he has he gives the press a bad one to report - usually it's something to do with his presentation.
I thought that his attacks on Osborne's record a couple of weeks ago were right on the money, but he seems to have shut down since then. If Labour want a narrative to stick then they need to start focusing on one common line. The Tories have managed it with their "Labour caused the crunch" rubbish. Hell, people are even starting to use Osborne's "Great Recession" line to bash the last Labour administration.

What I'm trying to say is that Labour need to grow some balls, and everyone in the party has to tug on those same balls instead of muddling up their narrative.
 
Ubik said:
When did I claim to be an expert :lol: Or state with confidence that it has no chance in falling for that matter, it only started when you stated (with confidence?) that McDonnell's plan wouldn't even be enacted now because of the interest rates, a statement which I doubted and haven't seen anyone else repeat. For what it's worth, Mark Carney as of late Feb thinks they're more likely to rise than fall (though in fairness, he mentioned it was possible they could fall). Maybe McDonnell should clarify whether it would be implemented at the current juncture. As an aside, the percentage you quote there is a potential cut to 0.25%, rather than 0.
Click to expand...

I said that because I interpreted the plan as saying when interest rates are near zero it wouldn't apply. You said that the interest rates aren't going to fall any time soon so it doesn't matter.

Regardless of the current situation you have to admit, taking everything else aside, that clause is a smart addition on its own considering the shaky nature of the global economy in current times.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
McDonnell could be the best Labour chancellor since Gogsy but he's got a difficult public image obstacle to get over - in fact nearly all of the Labour Party do. They've neglected the PR in politics for too long and allowed this image of an incompetent Labour Party to grow and grow. I know that image shouldn't come into politics but it can be a powerful tool at getting your message across. I agree that he's got a few interesting ideas but for every good moment he has he gives the press a bad one to report - usually it's something to do with his presentation.
I thought that his attacks on Osborne's record a couple of weeks ago were right on the money, but he seems to have shut down since then. If Labour want a narrative to stick then they need to start focusing on one common line. The Tories have managed it with their "Labour caused the crunch" rubbish. Hell, people are even starting to use Osborne's "Great Recession" line to bash the last Labour administration.

What I'm trying to say is that Labour need to grow some balls, and everyone in the party has to tug on those same balls instead of muddling up their narrative.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you are saying. The party needs to show a united front publically so that they can effectively put forward their ideas and attack the tories.

Fragmented party is great news to report on, so that is what will get reported on until the situation changes. Unfortunately it won't change.
 
Ubik said:
I'm not a Labour member anymore, and I can say whatever I like about the current leadership to be fair. If they actually have some electoral successes and prove not to be the poison pill I currently expect them to be then they can still win me around, but I'm not going to sheepishly cheer on a leadership I believe will give the Tories ten years of large majorities in the 2020s, purely because they might be there a for a couple of years. It would be spectacularly idiotic of me to believe that of them and to not actively hope for their removal as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

But how is this meant to happen when you admit yourself that you're just simply not going to support the current leadership? You're probably not alone in the regard of Labour fans who feel Corbyn/McDonnell are simply too unelectable to back, which means that they'll lose a number of voters from that, but isn't it a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Yeah, Corbyn may be unlikely to succeed, but saying that you won't back him until he's had some electoral success is probably one of the central reasons as to why he inevitably won't have any. If he's going to have a divided Labour party essentially waiting to pick him off at the right moment, then how the hell is he supposed to have even the most remote chance?
 


Not really sure what's going on here. Europe?

That's probably the best Labour has polled in absolutely ages given that ICM will presumably have adjusted their methodology since the GE.

Just one poll though.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
But how is this meant to happen when you admit yourself that you're just simply not going to support the current leadership? You're probably not alone in the regard of Labour fans who feel Corbyn/McDonnell are simply too unelectable to back, which means that they'll lose a number of voters from that, but isn't it a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Yeah, Corbyn may be unlikely to succeed, but saying that you won't back him until he's had some electoral success is probably one of the central reasons as to why he inevitably won't have any. If he's going to have a divided Labour party essentially waiting to pick him off at the right moment, then how the hell is he supposed to have even the most remote chance?
Click to expand...
It's mainly because I went through the whole "I don't think he's doing well but I'll support him regardless to give him a chance" thing already for five years of Miliband, and as strategies go, it's awful. And Ed was at least polling quite well and gaining councils. You probably didn't get the feeling of being suckerpunched at 10pm on May 7th last year, but I felt it all too painfully and don't want to have to do so again. So the idea that I'd do that again now, for a leader that shows every sign so far of doing worse than Ed, is a non-starter. And if Corbyn's alienated me, someone that's voted Labour in every election bar I think one local council election where I went tactically for the Lib Dems (didn't work), it's not exactly a positive sign for the people that are usually torn between Labour and the Tories.
 
Ubik said:
It's mainly because I went through the whole "I don't think he's doing well but I'll support him regardless to give him a chance" thing already for five years of Miliband, and as strategies go, it's awful. And Ed was at least polling quite well and gaining councils. You probably didn't get the feeling of being suckerpunched at 10pm on May 7th last year, but I felt it all too painfully and don't want to have to do so again. So the idea that I'd do that again now, for a leader that shows every sign so far of doing worse than Ed, is a non-starter. And if Corbyn's alienated me, someone that's voted Labour in every election bar I think one local council election where I went tactically for the Lib Dems (didn't work), it's not exactly a positive sign for the people that are usually torn between Labour and the Tories.
Click to expand...

Fair enough if you're genuinely against most of his political views, since I think that's the most admirable way to approach politics.

I think it kind of highlights a lot of the general ideological divisions within Labour, though, which could eventually lead to a split of some sort. Due to the variation in political viewpoints (from socialist to centrist roughly), there's inevitably going to be people who are incredibly disillusioned with a Labour party no matter who is placed in charge. It's probably the way a lot of the socialist types felt about the party for much of the Blair/Brown era, and I expect if Corbyn leaves to be replaced by someone more of that ilk then there'll be a lot of disillusioned voters who perhaps jump ship. Could be some dismal prospects for Labour either way.

Out of interest, who would you vote for at the moment?
 
Cheesy said:
Fair enough if you're genuinely against most of his political views, since I think that's the most admirable way to approach politics.

I think it kind of highlights a lot of the general ideological divisions within Labour, though, which could eventually lead to a split of some sort. Due to the variation in political viewpoints (from socialist to centrist roughly), there's inevitably going to be people who are incredibly disillusioned with a Labour party no matter who is placed in charge. It's probably the way a lot of the socialist types felt about the party for much of the Blair/Brown era, and I expect if Corbyn leaves to be replaced by someone more of that ilk then there'll be a lot of disillusioned voters who perhaps jump ship. Could be some dismal prospects for Labour either way.

Out of interest, who would you vote for at the moment?
Click to expand...
I'll still vote Labour, the only way I won't is if McDonnell (or Clive Lewis, who I see more in his mould than Corbyn's) gets the leadership after Corbyn goes. Corbyn I can at least respect as being genuine and sincere. The Labour whips used to differentiate between the two by saying one's a lost cause, the other's a shit. You can guess which way around.
 
it will get lost because of the budget but corbyn completely wronfooted Cameron on air pollution at pmq's
 
Wheeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy

Oooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh


Sit down and shut the feck up you childish twats.
 
redtilded121 said:
it will get lost because of the budget but corbyn completely wronfooted Cameron on air pollution at pmq's
Click to expand...

Looked like he'd had some training head of his response today. Was much louder, provided some humour and was just more powerful.

Wish he'd just day bollocks to the pointless fornat and press Cameron repeatedly for actual answers.
 
Smores said:
Looked like he'd had some training head of his response today. Was much louder, provided some humour and was just more powerful.

Wish he'd just day bollocks to the pointless fornat and press Cameron repeatedly for actual answers.
Click to expand...
agreed that is corbyns failure never follows up properly.
 
Must be hard for the opposition when you can pull rabbits out of the hat with a smug smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.