Pretty much this.
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.
Pretty much not.
Because they are examples of major shifts in policy, unless you think Labour's shifting stance on FoM is more significant than Lib Dems pledging to revoke A50 or Tories ardently pursuing No Deal? Moreover, it is not a massive change, as it is one more of language than substance. Yes, Labour's previous policy was to end FoM, but that was to only really be in name only. I mean, their proposals for the EU exit-deal include membership of CU and close alignment with Single Market. It's obvious that such an agreement, leaving aside discussions about its feasibility, would be certainly reliant on Labour agreeing to something akin to FoM.
You're still missing my point about voters but continuing your line of thought if they are in the single market they have no choice but to accept freedom of movement and in the (not a) customs union they can't do their own deals. Is the policy therefore changing on Brexit as well?
Why do you keep saying this?
No, I am demonstrating to you that it is a moot point, Mr. Wolf. You're arguing that the electorate will now have doubts about trusting Labour because in 2019 the party membership has voted for a policy that was not in its manifesto for an election in 2017. On that basis, who can the electorate trust? Because in 2017 they voted for Theresa May to bring back a Brexit deal, and now they have Johnson breaking the law and lying to the queen to secure a No Deal exit. In 2017 they voted for Tim Farron and the promise of a second referendum, now they have Swinson and a pledge to revoke Article 50.
What else is there to say to Paul pointless comments. What was the point of this conversation ?
Complete waste of everyone time.
Personally I wouldn't trust any politician of any party .Trust is part of it but also policy change towards more immigrants and votes for immigrants will surely upset part of the electorate and part of the Labour supporters- my point is that changing policy may lose as many voters as it gains. Trying to walk a tightrope between two opposing factions in one party. The Tories are imploding for the same reason but they still look much more like getting elected despite the incompetence and terrible leadership and downright lies.
Strange I'm debating sensibly with Bobby which you must be incapable of.
Joker.
I do not disagree about the potential for the policy change to cause a loss of some voters who are worried about immigration, of course that is a risk. I disagreed that it would prompt a lack of trust in Labour though. It's the change itself that will be damaging, not the notion that they are untrustworthy. Hopefully more of the electorate will see the appeal in it than are upset by it, and I'm glad that the party has been compelled to adopt a more proactive and forceful position on immigration, as opposed to having to tiptoe around the issue for fear of upsetting some voters.
As I said, I like the policy change - but I won't be voting - trying to put oneself in the mind of a hesitant voter, who are the ones who will decide an election, not the ardent 'don't criticise our leader' voters- tiptoeing is exactly what has been the problem imo.
What were we debating ?
All I did was point out the idea that extending voting rights to all UK residents would be a massive boost to Remain in another referendum and that its ok for political parties to change policy(But apparently something something I've quoted the 2017 Labour manifesto before ?).
I'll happily engaged in a conversation but I can't do much with this
I was going to discuss the point about changing policy whilst gaining some voters would alienate others and therefore not assume a Remain victory as you seemed to think would be easier , but you can see that with the exchanges with Bobby.
My response below was in response to your similar response which I disagreed with.
This is why i kept saying to ignore the 6 test based policies because they were always going to be changed by conference as is the Labour way.
I do agree with you that it'll alienate the leavers further. It's a good policy but it's not an electable policy if you're relying on leave voters. Unless and i haven't read the detail this is to align all immigration as that's one area some of the labour leave would like as discussed in this thread.
Just in terms of a Remain winning another referendum, the gain of extending voting rights to all UK residents will massively out number the people who will be alienated from such polices . Its a simple numbers game once we are at that point(If people want to remain in the EU then the best chance is with a Labour majority, just for this one single policy).
As for a general election, yes possibly but thats where class politics comes into play.
Why you disagree would have helped.
Last edited:
Yes but at the end of it all voters have to have a clear idea what their voting for, will they? I'm not going to vote, but if I was and whether I agreed with other policies or not , Brexit is the most important event in the UK in recent times, people would surely want to know in which direction the Labour party is heading and immigration is a major, if not the most important, subject of Brexit. Does the average hesitant or swing voter know what Labour are proposing?
They'll learn from the usual source, tory attack lines. This will be painted as ignoring brexit very quickly I'm sure of it.
I was hoping they'd be allowed to be obscure and make such decisions after the election as whilst that would be conning people at least it'd be too late. I'm not even sure there's any point in the neutral stance now, the remain cause fecked unless there's huge remain sentiment.
I agree with the proposal , but I'm very pro-FoM anyway however I am very dubious of your assessment that it will bring more people onside than alienate them.
Labour haven't formed this into a defined policy yet so it's too early to judge. It all comes down to what's in the manifesto.
Same with the private school ban, Corbyn has already pretty much said that they will limit this to removing the charitable status of private schools when it comes to actual policy.
Everyone does, except Jeremy maybe, who called for his resignation. Anyway, I've been out all day, I've still got to put the telly on.
Johnson can resign and it would have no impact on anti no deal legislation
Admitting my ignorance, I don't know what would happen. I'm guessing the deputy would take over, otherwise there would be no one to ask the EU for an extension for some time, as I don't see who could go to the Queen and say they could form a government. Tory leadership election, general election, I've honestly no idea. @Smores not trying to be clever, have you worked it out?
You forget that Corbyn is playing an intellectual game that you're too ignorant to understand.
He's pushing Labour leavers with his murky remain rhetoric and pro immigration stance into the hands of the Brexit Party, whilst pushing ardent remainers and economically literate lefties into the arms of the Lib Dems.
His idea is to garner support for as many smaller parties as possible so that in every marginal seat he can win with a historically low % of the vote.
He's using the same primary school maths as were applied to his 2017 manifesto.
Uh oh
There's a distinction here between resigning as leader and resigning his government, it's the latter people are expecting although he could do the former. It gets murky with the fixed term parliament act but that should be the same as a VONC and the 14 day period.
The latter point is a good one and it's what will drive the need for a national unity gov quickly. Although they are planning on tabling legislation to get a civil servant to do it if Boris can't/won't.
Thanks, especially the new legislation bit, I wasn't aware of that. Am I just wrong about a deputy taking over as effective PM then? I mean, if Boris had a stroke from a surfeit of swan stuffed with goldfinches or something wouldn't someone else step up for a while?
I should caveat its not confirmed but the political journalists tend to be right.
If Boris died from his pants literally catching fire then you'd have a party replacement but it's not like the US it wouldn't necessarily be the deputy. For one thing because we don't currently have one
I think Raab is the closest role and god forbid that psycho gets his hands on office.
Looking forward to watch the Parliamentary Debate when I get home.
Thought this was spot on from McDonnell and a wake up call to any Labour voters on the fence considering the Lib Dems.
https://talkradio.co.uk/news/john-m...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1569243623
Swinson is already regurgitating the 'no magic money tree' and 'we need to make tough choices' rhetoric that the Tories have been parroting for the last 10 years. As he says, we all know who will feel the brunt of these "tough choices".
https://talkradio.co.uk/news/john-m...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1569243623
Swinson is already regurgitating the 'no magic money tree' and 'we need to make tough choices' rhetoric that the Tories have been parroting for the last 10 years. As he says, we all know who will feel the brunt of these "tough choices".
Matthew Pennycook: Labour MP resigns as Shadow Brexit Minister to 'focus efforts' on campaigning for Remain
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...forts-on-campaigning-for-remain-a4246781.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...forts-on-campaigning-for-remain-a4246781.html
Someone has to talk about fiscal responsibility, we’re still in deficit by 40b a year and all the tories and labour want to do is spend money like we are the Greece or Italy of the 80s. Good for her.
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
Yeah and fiscal responsibility should begin by closing tax loopholes for the rich do you not agree?
The top 1% pay nearly a third of all income tax in the UK. We're truly fecked if we start increasing taxes on them, they are the ones with the means to leave if they want to.
What really needs to change is tax on existing wealth, and thats not a loophole.
The thing is... this whole 'if you tax the mega rich more than they will just up and leave' is not based on actual evidence. It also doesn't take a great imagination to wonder why the theory gets thrown around, almost as if it is fact.
They did a study on every million $ earner in the USA and these people could literally just move to another state to pay less tax if they wanted to... they don't even have to go to another country. Yet the levels of inter state migration was lower than for poorer or middle class people. The reality is, that when you have that much money... place is actually more important than the extra $. If you are a millionaire, settled with a family and business... are you really going to up sticks and move just to pay a bit less tax?
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
Great series of posts, I agree with all of them. Including Sweet's, Momentum Labour won't win over those interested in fiscal responsibility, as your own post shows you find the very subject laughable.
There are loopholes need closing, but the point about existing wealth is a good one.
I think when thinking of taxing the top 1% (or 0.1%) we have to consider the reason that it isn't already happening.
For every single political party of any persuasion, taxing the top 1% is an absolute no brainer. They represent a tiny minority of the votes and the money they could provide would win a large majority of the votes. It would be the easiest ticket to perpetual election winning if it could be done.
The problem is you can't tax them anymore than we currently are. It isn't just about them leaving, it's about them finding ways around paying more than they feel is fair.
The part you're not accounting for in your migration statement is that the top 0.1% particularly aren't paying tax according to the doctrines and rules you or I do. They are paying tax according to their own rules. If they want to pay less tax they wouldn't need to move to do so.
Essentially the cost to make them pay more in tax outweighs the tax the country will receive. Again this is obvious as there is every single incentive to tax them to a greater level. Any party who was able to shake them down for another £100 billion would win a landslide.
That's why the truth is that any party who talk about increasing taxes, that are already at an all time peacetime high in comparison to GDP, can only be talking about taxing two groups of people: middle earners and lower earners.
The reason political parties don't tax middle earners further is because they're the bulk of the voting base. Turkies do not vote for Xmas so for any party this won't happen.
We then are left with poor people. They vote to a far smaller degree than every other class and whilst they don't have much to give individually, collectively an increase such as the 5% on VAT, another 5p on fuel duties or 5% on council tax which disporportiontely hurts them is an easy winner. Poor people also use public services less as they die younger, go to higher subsidised education to a much lower rate etc
Likewise punitive corporation tax rates (if they weren't easily avoidable) merely push the price of the goods those companies supply. If we have 3 competing bread manufacturers all of whom need to make a £1b profit to keep their shareholders happy... What do you think occurs if the government take £500m of their profit? The price of bread increase and the money in the pockets of the poorest decreases.
Any vote for an increase in taxes is a vote for taxing poorer people disproportionately. That's why we should be voting for an abolition of these taxes.
Last edited:
Spoken like a true lefty. I wonder why can't Labour just win over progressives like yourself.
You really aren't very good at this are you?
Yes, not disagreeing with that.