Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's not a matter of policy but rather leadership and presentation.
I'd like a labour front bench that looks and can act like a government in waiting and is setting the news agenda every day.
Instead we have a team that looks and acts like a cross between a student debating society and a parish council meeting.
The NEC approved the IHRA definition and a supporting statement affirming freedom of speech.
However I am hearing disturbing stories of this whole issue being revisited and overturned after Conference when the JC9 take their seats on the NEC.
This is political seppuku on a grand scale.
However I am hearing disturbing stories of this whole issue being revisited and overturned after Conference when the JC9 take their seats on the NEC.
This is political seppuku on a grand scale.
Having a Shadow Cabinet drawn from all the talents rather than the left of the Party (including incompetents) would be a great start.
And yes, I am fully aware that is down to MPs not wanting to serve under Corbyn as much as it is him not choosing them.
We are not a government in waiting yet.
If they actually do that then I’m done with Labour.
That's ultimately the problem. As a complaint it'd carry more legs if he'd tried to fill senior positions solely with his own people immediately, but initially he conceded key roles to the likes of Benn and Burnham, who then shot their wads early by resigning and presuming Corbyn would be ousted. For all the talk of his stubbornness (sometimes fair) he has compromised on certain matters. Or has at least attempted to.
Yes I think the problem is there is no critical mass around which everyone can form.
I know that some of the older names tried to work with Corbyn for a good while but he had a habit of not disagreeing to their faces, sending people off to work on a project and develop a plan of attack and then at the last minute either changing his mind or suddenly expressing that he had long held views counter to what was agreed in shadow cabinet. This was not only frustrating but a massive waste of resources and led to poor rushed communication of a new policy at the last minute.
Sadly now everything is just seen as Corbyn vs Moderate/Iraq/Blairite/war crimes/tory in disguise so you are either in team JC or are in the "peoples front of Judea"
I also have to say this comes down to Brexit as well. No credible politician wants to be part of this ghastly schism that is coming so people like Burnham ran away to be Mayor in Manchester.
When even a confirmed brexiteer like Lord King, former bank of England Governor, is forced to admit it has been handled incompetently then that is an admission that the first team is clearly nowhere near the pitch.
I think today’s PMQs marked a change in Labour’s direction on Brexit. Corbyn won’t rule out second referendum and, to me, the subtext to his dialogue with May today was moving towards backing one.
If that happens, surely a Corbyn government is only a matter of time?
I can’t see another way - his support, Momentum, is pro a second referendum and if he called it he’d add to his support base. If he calls for it at the right time, I’d expect him to win more votes than he’d lose.
If that happens, surely a Corbyn government is only a matter of time?
I can’t see another way - his support, Momentum, is pro a second referendum and if he called it he’d add to his support base. If he calls for it at the right time, I’d expect him to win more votes than he’d lose.
Last edited:
There won't be another GE for a while. Even if the Tories get shot of May, they won't call one.
The latest polling had the lib Dems fall behind ukip before this supposed shift from Labour. The second referendum simply doesn't seem to have vote-winning power.
After two and a half years where no major personalities from the two main parties pushed for it. Part of the criticism of Corbyn’s Brexit position is around his complete failure to, or lack of interest in, getting involved in the debate.
It’s been the Tories (and UKIP) who have lead every stage of the debate since June 2016, and as much as anything else it’s that lack of alternative thinking that’s left of us here. If Labour had been heavily pushing for (at least) a softer Brexit from the start then the government would have needed to publically debate and defend its chosen form of exit. That could have completely changed what has happened and what the public’s opinion is.
Not necessarily. There is some evidence that it wouldn't affect Labour's vote and may increase it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study
https://www.bestforbritain.org/the_labour_2017_vote_and_the_referendum
There are a few other studies here: https://www.bestforbritain.org/research
Yes the research is carried out by a Remain group but it does at least make it an arguable point that a shift in the Labour policy on Brexit would not be damaging.
Not yet but the swing to remain in the polls - a significant lead now - does highlight real dangers to the Brexiters. The electorate is volatile and if things get worse, I can see fertile ground for a second referendum in that.
No guarantee Labour would benefit from a Remain vote given their timidity and lack of leadership on this.
if this is true he is doomed
It's why Labour can and has only ever won from the centre. We're leaving the countries to the Tories to destroy public services and feck us beyond perhaps any salvation within a generation with Brexit all on the folly of those on the left who won't accept that fact.
Leaving the Tories to do all the trivial stuff like government, whilst Labour decides to scrap, argue, refuse to reinstate, argue some more and finally reinstate anyway, the IHRA definition of antisemtism. There are people on this very thread who genuinely think that's good leadership and refuse to see why anyone would even dare to suggest that the man responsible for that might just be responsible for keeping this shower in power.
Leaving the Tories to do all the trivial stuff like government, whilst Labour decides to scrap, argue, refuse to reinstate, argue some more and finally reinstate anyway, the IHRA definition of antisemtism. There are people on this very thread who genuinely think that's good leadership and refuse to see why anyone would even dare to suggest that the man responsible for that might just be responsible for keeping this shower in power.
So what's the allegation exactly, is it that the Boundary Commission are bent, or is it that the Boundary Commission are stupid? I call bollocks.
Neither. Labour votes tend to be more concentrated in a single area (cities), so they get less seats/vote.
Ah, rightio, thanks.
That's a difficult one. I don't like list systems for parliamentary candidates. Maybe larger areas so people are voting for several MPs at once?
Emigrating... They think comrade Corbyn is going to let them out of the gulag to emigrate... Wishful thinking
Tounge (slightly) in cheek
Corbyn is pro Brexit, although, apparently, a soft Brexit.
May is proposing a soft Brexit, therefore Corbyn should support this suggestion.
Europe aren't particularly interested in May's proposals.
May is proposing a soft Brexit, therefore Corbyn should support this suggestion.
Europe aren't particularly interested in May's proposals.
Someone just needs to convince Corbyn that he has infiltrated himself as part of a Zionist conspiracy to bring about Brexit and that the only way to save Palestine is for him to resign the Labour Leadership and setup an affirmative action for transgender vegetables initiative in Hamas controlled areas.
Maybe that might get through to him and we can get an effective leadership team in place.
Maybe that might get through to him and we can get an effective leadership team in place.
Poor stuff. Didn't mention cults at all.
Why can't these guys forget the anti-semitism controversy for a while. Corbyn over a period of time has stood with oppressed people. There's no point in analyzing what he has done on 15th January 1979, thursday afternoon in a rally anymore. He has become the Labour leader, get his stance on what is relevant today, forget the issues and be a strong party going forward. Surely, with the issues at stake, that's more important. It's like fecking Wheel of time fantasy book, the apocalypse is coming surely and all Elayne fecking Trakand can think of is to secure Andor without anyone's help.
What exactly is fair taxation? How should the tax system be changed from it's current structure?
Don't you think most people in this country are having their pockets raided enough already with money heading to the Government not only through traditional taxation routes and VAT, but through practically everything we do, fuel duty, stamp duty, alcohol, insurance. The list of items that come with their own niche tax to eventually end up with the government is practically endless.
Most would agree the average person pays enough - it's the richest who need to contribute more, as is evidenced by growing income inequality and the number of people struggling to get by.
Not personally, no. I've always earned a pretty average salary, sometimes below average, but I've still had quite a bit to spend on stuff I don't really need and hasn't made much difference to my life. If it takes a bit more tax to keep public services going and maybe even improve them to make the country a better place to live then I'm happy with that.
Last edited:
and the MP responds
Last edited:
What kind of genius are you to put ‘Trots’ and ‘Stalinist’ in the same descriptive term?
I'm just not sure it's as simple as that anymore. The problems in the UK go deeper than just tax. I thought this was a good summary: https://www.ft.com/content/c85b9792-aad1-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c
and the MP responds
She needs binning. Making up a racism claim is not on.
Labour must be moving up in the polls, Blair has taken a day off from working for dictatorships to go on another media tour to talk down Corbyn.
All depends what your definition of rich is I suppose. Someone can be rich by having millions of pounds in an tax-free off-shore account & doesn't have to work, which therefore means they pay very little, if anything, in income tax. Whilst someone could be rich because he/she has worked - & is still working - very hard in building up a successful business that has grown & employs people that themselves contribute by paying tax. I think we'd both agree which one should be made to pay more. But why should the hardworking, 'wealthy', businessman/woman have to be punished by having to pay more tax in proportion to those of us on average earnings ?
Maybe increasing the VAT rate to 25% could be a solution. After all, the richer people are generally the ones who splash their cash on luxury, non-essential items.
Come on there's about a ice pick breadth of difference between the two(This was the best I could come up with). The Labour right really is a
complete mess.
Saw on twitter that her local party has been thinking of getting rid of her from some time. Seems this was the final straw.
That's clearly a blairite smear... Or some other corbynista clap trap
That would hit the poor massively
well yes if you ask say the 10% who earn the lowest they will say they pay too much in tax and the other 90% should pay more
If you ask the bottom 30% you will find they say the same and the yop 70% should pay more
again ask people who are in the top 40% of earners and they will say they pay too much and it should be tose that earn more than them footing the bill
take it up to the top 10% of earners and they will say you should focus on the top 1% and they themselves pay too much
anyway some actual stats
the top 1% of earners in the uk make up 28% of the total income tax contributions
the top 10% of households pay a whapping 27% of the total tax take in the UK
no wonder (legal) tax avoidance schemes are so popular
So whilst you are correct the average person would say the rich should pay more lets keep in mind that at current rates we are still running a budget deficit and not even talking about tackling the nation debt and this same average person who says the rich should pay more probably thinks they should pay less and at the same time we shouldnt have a national debt / deficit yet they dont want spending cuts...
I think there is a valid argument for us all to pay more... but if the burden is ever shifted to the top few% also remember these are the few % with access to tip top legal and financial advice / vehicles and at a certain point it becomes more effective to just pay yourself in dividends or set up a company abroad and cintract through that - and in a world wide connected economy you cant stop things like that so there will be a natural limit as to how high taxes can be on the top 10%
interestingly if you go back to pre thatcher times you will see the rates were very different
what % of total tax take is reasonable for the top 10% to carry?
what level of income is it reasonable to start paying tax and what level should basic tax be?
what should be the maximum tax level we ever look to impose (e.g. is it reasonable to take 100% above a certain threshold - (personally i feel thats unethical... but how much is fair 40%, 50% 60% 90% etc)
and whilst there will be many different opinions as to what is right - its also about what is practical (enforcement, avoidence, people leaving the country or at least taking tax revenue away through offshoring etc) - and of course a government also has to win elections, retain business confidence and well frankly i think its a nit more complicated than most people think thise richer than them should pay more (that statement is true- but it in no way helps to resolve the issue - especially in an environment of deficits, debt and cuts)