Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

We complain about wage inequality and say 1% have more money than the 99% etc. Then why doesn't proposals like this get voted in because of populism? 99% don't care about wage cap as long as it is more than what they make. Even if a few people aspire to be a celebrity, majority of common people should get behind a wage cap.

After the election of the Donald, it seems a right idea to go for a populist angle.
 
fishfingers15 said:
We complain about wage inequality and say 1% have more money than the 99% etc. Then why doesn't proposals like this get voted in because of populism? 99% don't care about wage cap as long as it is more than what they make. Even if a few people aspire to be a celebrity, majority of common people should get behind a wage cap.

After the election of the Donald, it seems a right idea to go for a populist angle.
Click to expand...
The majority of common people aspire to be wealthy. They dislike the fact they are already paying tax and the thought of having to pay more, should they 'make it' is not appealing.

EDIT - Maybe... I can't back any of that up.
 
Adisa said:
Bernie is a very sensible politician. I don't recall anything this daft, coming from him.
Click to expand...

Bernie has pushed for a maximum salary cap previously but he dropped it years ago. I only know as i checked to see if the Corbyn camp had stole it from him. Roosevelt also tried to enact one during war time but couldn't get it through.

Its certainly not a ridiculous principle which is why we've seen it discussed in other countries.

What it is, is a politically naive and idiotic proposal given the state the Labour party are currently in. The variation of average staff pay to CEO pay is much more sensible..........actually watching his press announcement live he's just explained it as this not a set cap.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
The majority of common people aspire to be wealthy. They dislike the fact they are already paying tax and the thought of having to pay more, should they 'make it' is not appealing.

EDIT - Maybe... I can't back any of that up.
Click to expand...

I think I've had someone complain to me before that them doing better for themselves shouldn't be 'punished'.

People are happy with progressive taxation until it affects them i guess.
 
I like Jeremy Corbyn. He's someone I would gladly have a drink with and chat about the world. We'd get on, I reckon. We agree on most things.

He's not made to be a leader of a major political party, though. He never really meant to be. He ran aiming to 'influence the debate' then when it became clear he might win he seriously considered stepping out (if reports are to be believed) before members of his team encouraged him to keep going. Which is pretty much what's happened since. The bloke feels lost in his job, is massively unsure if he should be doing it, but his associates keep telling him he has to carry on, for the good of the movement.

He's a typical indecisive leftie, like myself, and so if enough like minded people tell him what should be done he'll do his best to do it. Despite being aware he is unqualified.
 
Sweet Square said:
Not to be too blunt but he is the LABOUR mayor of London, if Sadiq has always had this inner conflict of supporting workers than why join the Labour Party. This is a guy who's always happy to tell us(In fact you can never get him to shut up about it) that he's dad was the common old worker on the buses.

He's not even being balanced. He's completely gone against the workers on strike.

Good.
Click to expand...

What about all the workers who aren't in unions, ie the vast majority, who want to get to work around their city, get reasonably priced tickets and can not? Should Labour represent their interests to, or not?

The general population got sick of the Labour-Unions collussion in the 70s and will not accept it to happen again.
 
They're approached the imbalance of wages in the wrong way. Creating a wealth drain and brain day is inheritently a bad idea.

Increase the minimum wage, remove taxatation for low paid or even middle income workers and increase the services they have access to and you'll mobilise them to vote for you. Increase higher end pay and increase stealth taxes for the rich if you must, ie mansion tax, increase BTL taxation, increase taxes on luxury items generally.

Pogue Mahone said:
I think I explained myself badly. What I mean is that the revenue could put a "footballer's clause" in the legislation for people whose lifetime income is front-loaded. If Pogba earns £15m over a 10 year career, that would be a lifetime earnings of £150m. If the cap is set at, say, £5m/year, they could calculate his "real" annual salary as 150/40 = 3.75m/year, so he wouldn't exceed the annual cap during his playing career. Obviously, that would be complicated by whatever he does end up earning after he leaves football but they could take that into account in his tax returns over the course of his subsequent career.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't work, firstly he wouldn't be able to get his hands on his money. Secondly is he not earning elsewhere after his football career?
 
Smores said:
That last tweet is exactly why taxation on the wealthy is unpopular. People vote beyond their own circumstances but also on their aspirations.

Terrible media work this, they need to stop allowing premature policy statements and saying it's just something we're thinking about doesnt make it acceptable . Its the right direction but such unworkable policy is surely detrimental to the cause.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, simply framing it as a wage cap won't work. It has to be along on the lines of ''fixing a broken system'' or saying it's a ''fixed game where you can't win'' it's easier message for someone like Sanders, who has the idea of the American dream but it's slightly tricker here(Although I think there's a good anti capitalism message that could work but would scary people shitless sadly).

Anyway he seems to have back track on the idea and pissed off his base(I guess I was in that group) with his comments on freedom of movement. All in a days work.
WackyWengerWorld said:
What about all the workers who aren't in unions, ie the vast majority, who want to get to work around their city, get reasonably priced tickets and can not? Should Labour represent their interests to, or not?

The general population got sick of the Labour-Unions collussion in the 70s and will not accept it to happen again.
Click to expand...
Um....
 
He's becoming more and more delusional as time goes on. Labour might as well not even exist.
 
Dobba said:
Get your immigration mugs out, for the lads!
Click to expand...
:lol:

Smores said:
Bloody hell....i assume non-british means non-white here then?

Corbyn had a good PMQs today, he does seem to have improved in some areas.
Click to expand...
It has to be what she saying doesn't it. Pretty disgusting stuff and the news night presenter was hardly any better.

As for Corbyn I've sort of given up after yesterday mess.

Unmutual said:
I'll have to listen to it in context, but that transcript didn't seem particularly noteworthy.
Click to expand...
Watch the link, clearly it's racist.
 
Last edited:
Labour will lose a lot of voters if they go all UKIP, especially young voters.
 
It's pathetic how labour change their stance on anything if they feel it will gain them a few more votes to get back to power. The truth is the majority of people they are trying to pander to would never vote for them anyway and they have now lost another demographic. I hate the tories but at least they are consistent about being cnuts. Labour are a desperate joke!
 
Stephen Kinnock was talking about the immense feeling about immigration in this country. Yet, those feeling are strongest in areas that have experienced little of it. Very sad, labour seem to be bowing to it. Thought they were above that. thought wrong.
 
Unmutual said:
Watched it - sorry, what am i missing here?
Click to expand...
She equating non-white to mean non-British and that the increase of non white people into these small towns has been a problem. There's also the more slight bigotry when the presenter brings up ''cultural differences'', which is not only a completely empty term but used in the negative sense, that migrants and people of colour are completely incompatible with the people of the nation - white british people.

Basically something that cnut Powell would have agreed with.
 
Even Shami Chakrabarti has come out and said it's not racist to fear immigration. How times have changed. Funny how making someone a baroness and letting them inside the club quickly changes their view's!
 
Sweet Square said:
She equating non-white to mean non-British and that the increase of non white people into these small towns has been a problem. There's also the more slight bigotry when the presenter brings up ''cultural differences'', which is not only a completely empty term but used in the negative sense, that migrants and people of colour are completely incompatible with the people of the nation - white british people.

Basically something that cnut Powell would have agreed with.
Click to expand...

One of us getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could well be me.

What she says is that in 1999, 99.5% of people in her constituency were white. By which she means white-british, presumably? I don't see what else that could mean.

Then she says that, now, its 5% non-British. By saying non-British she makes the point that a) it includes white people from other countries (eastern Europe presumably) but that b) it doesn't include non-white people who are British.

That seems to be the correct terminology doesn't it? How else would she put it?
 
Unmutual said:
One of us getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could well be me.

What she says is that in 1999, 99.5% of people in her constituency were white. By which she means white-british, presumably? I don't see what else that could mean.

Then she says that, now, its 5% non-British. By saying non-British she makes the point that a) it includes white people from other countries (eastern Europe presumably) but that b) it doesn't include non-white people who are British.

That seems to be the correct terminology doesn't it? How else would she put it?
Click to expand...

She prob didn't mean how she said it tbf but the point being made to you isnt hard to understand.

The parallel between whites and non-british rather than british and non-british. In other words she said white as thats what those bigots actually mean and then crossed the terms to non-british as you cant get away with any other term.

This rural racism you encounter isn't acceptable and shouldn't be pandered to. I was in a village pub not so long back, a 99.5% white community and the locals piped up about the Pakistanis moving in (one family) followed by their best racist impressions. I'm white, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't dare have that conservation but thats the group we have to pretend are only concerned about 'overpopulation'.
 
Unmutual said:
One of us getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could well be me.

What she says is that in 1999, 99.5% of people in her constituency were white. By which she means white-british, presumably? I don't see what else that could mean.

Then she says that, now, its 5% non-British. By saying non-British she makes the point that a) it includes white people from other countries (eastern Europe presumably) but that b) it doesn't include non-white people who are British.

That seems to be the correct terminology doesn't it? How else would she put it?
Click to expand...
Pretty much what @Smores said, it's pandering to a racist viewpoint.

She brings race into this ''debate''(A debate which is only talking negatively about immigration) and also implies that it's a problem her constituency is now less white. And then there was also of talk cultural differences and globalisation which at least in the UK is almost always aimed at people of colour - mostly Muslims. Add in the lie that immigration = loss of jobs and it's pretty horrible stuff.
 
Smores said:
She prob didn't mean how she said it tbf but the point being made to you isnt hard to understand.

The parallel between whites and non-british rather than british and non-british. In other words she said white as thats what those bigots actually mean and then crossed the terms to non-british as you cant get away with any other term.

This rural racism you encounter isn't acceptable and shouldn't be pandered to. I was in a village pub not so long back, a 99.5% white community and the locals piped up about the Pakistanis moving in (one family) followed by their best racist impressions. I'm white, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't dare have that conservation but thats the group we have to pretend are only concerned about 'overpopulation'.
Click to expand...

Tbh that's just not how I view it. I saw her start out as saying "white", because using white to describe people who are white british is a totally standard expression, particularly when referencing a group of people from 20 years ago. However she then realised that using "non-white" wouldnt be accurate because it was about the accession countries who were white European, so said non-british to include any migrants from that period. Its very harsh to consider that as even casually racist, particularly in a live TV context when subtle potential misunderstandings can't be considered.

Anyway, its also worth pointing out that she was saying that her constituents had told her they were concerned about changes to their community because of this, not that she was.
 
I know Corbyn has decided to take a more "populist" line including on immigration, but surely campaigning on white flight isn't his/his team's plan? Is the MP a known Corbynite?
 
Unmutual said:
Tbh that's just not how I view it. I saw her start out as saying "white", because using white to describe people who are white british is a totally standard expression, particularly when referencing a group of people from 20 years ago. However she then realised that using "non-white" wouldnt be accurate because it was about the accession countries who were white European, so said non-british to include any migrants from that period. Its very harsh to consider that as even casually racist, particularly in a live TV context when subtle potential misunderstandings can't be considered.

Anyway, its also worth pointing out that she was saying that her constituents had told her they were concerned about changes to their community because of this, not that she was.
Click to expand...
Doncaster immigration is split 2.9% EU and 3.0% Outside of the EU, immigration in Doncaster is not only white Europeans.
berbatrick said:
I know Corbyn has decided to take a more "populist" line including on immigration, but surely campaigning on white flight isn't his/his team's plan? Is the MP a known Corbynite?
Click to expand...
She's a Blair Babes(That term was actually used by the press). So on the right wing of the Party.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
Doncaster immigration is split 2.9% EU and 3.0% Outside of the EU, immigration in Doncaster is not only white Europeans.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference, non-British is still the correct term in that context. I was just making the point that they were discussing the Accession countries in particular at that moment.
 
Adisa said:
Stephen Kinnock was talking about the immense feeling about immigration in this country. Yet, those feeling are strongest in areas that have experienced little of it. Very sad, labour seem to be bowing to it. Thought they were above that. thought wrong.
Click to expand...

New Labour aren't really above anything. Kinnock at least is on the other wing of the party to Corbyn. And for all his failing I can't see Corbyn being okay with the narative of 'too many ethnics'.
 
It's disengenouis debate. 'Donnie' for the last 30 years, maybe longer, has been considered a shithole, not just by southerners but by it's fellow Yorkshiremen. The fact that it's a shithole now after it's had a HUGE 5% immigration compared to 1999 when it was just as much of a shithole means little. Now the NHS/Educational services have dwindled in that time.

But the problem in the debate is the focus is on immigration and not 'health/education spending per capita'.

Unmutual said:
One of us getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could well be me.

What she says is that in 1999, 99.5% of people in her constituency were white. By which she means white-british, presumably? I don't see what else that could mean.

Then she says that, now, its 5% non-British. By saying non-British she makes the point that a) it includes white people from other countries (eastern Europe presumably) but that b) it doesn't include non-white people who are British.

That seems to be the correct terminology doesn't it? How else would she put it?
Click to expand...

So are British blacks and Asians are 'white' in this new UKIP era or just not real Britains?
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
So are British blacks and Asians are 'white' in this new UKIP era or just not real Britains?
Click to expand...

I'd have thought it self evident that if you describe a community of people as white, that means there are no black or asian people included, no?
 
Unmutual said:
Tbh that's just not how I view it. I saw her start out as saying "white", because using white to describe people who are white british is a totally standard expression, particularly when referencing a group of people from 20 years ago. However she then realised that using "non-white" wouldnt be accurate because it was about the accession countries who were white European, so said non-british to include any migrants from that period. Its very harsh to consider that as even casually racist, particularly in a live TV context when subtle potential misunderstandings can't be considered.

Anyway, its also worth pointing out that she was saying that her constituents had told her they were concerned about changes to their community because of this, not that she was.
Click to expand...

Confused since when is saying white a standard term for white british? And why is it important white is emphasised.

I mean I've heard people probably using white as they don't consider white immigration to be 'real immigration' but I don't see how the terms relate.

Even if she meant nothing by her poor choice of words (it happens people mispeak) the interview is still stoking the immigration witch hunt.
 
Smores said:
Confused since when is saying white a standard term for white british? And why is it important white is emphasised.

I mean I've heard people probably using white as they don't consider white immigration to be 'real immigration' but I don't see how the terms relate.

Even if she meant nothing by her poor choice of words (it happens people mispeak) the interview is still stoking the immigration witch hunt.
Click to expand...

Seriously? So if i said that, for example, my next door neighbour was white, you wouldnt assume I meant white British?
 
Unmutual said:
I'd have thought it self evident that if you describe a community of people as white, that means there are no black or asian people included, no?
Click to expand...

So therefore it's a problem if black/asian people move into said geographic area? Also the 'community' narrative is slightly bollox isn't it?
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
So therefore it's a problem if black/asian people move into said geographic area? Also the 'community' narrative is slightly bollox isn't it?
Click to expand...

Did you watch the clip? She was talking about a community of people in Doncaster in the mid 90s. So yeah, we are talking literally about everyone being white, not just using the term white instead of British.
 
Unmutual said:
Did you watch the clip? She was talking about a community of people in Doncaster in the mid 90s. So yeah, we are talking literally about everyone being white, not just using the term white instead of British.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the clip, but I consider her considering 'the dilution of the white race' to be disgusting, despite the fact it's for popular appeal. Hopefully she gets some aggressive backlash.
 
The thing about Labour getting properly tough on immigration is that...well, who's really going to buy it? They're too late if it's their intention to appeal to such a demographic. Kind of like in Scotland...all the talks now of federalism, and working properly for Scotland's interests etc have fallen on deaf ears, because the party has fallen into political irrelevance. No one really cares now - anyone who feels Scotland has been disenfranchised or not represented properly has stopped voting Labour.

I suspect anyone who genuinely, properly has massive qualms about immigration to the point where they won't vote Labour because of it has probably already stopped voting for the party. Of course, I still think it's right for the party to pay attention to the issue and engage with voters on it, but if they intend to take a hardline stance then it's not going to reap them many rewards. If they do they'd have to abandon support of freedom of movement and thus any support for a softer Brexit, and would thus cede voters to the Lib Dems on mass. Probably a lot more than they'd gain back from UKIP in constituencies they already hold.

I imagine any move towards this would be to stop the rise of UKIP in the north...but I also don't think the situation up there is anywhere near as dire as a lot of people seem to think. It's being treated similarly to the SNP situation but the SNP has already been a reasonably sized political force for decades in Scotland and always did alright...even in plenty of constituencies Labour dominated. Then they took Holyrood by force in 2011 and translated that to Westminster last year.

That's not really happened with UKIP yet...who in spite of their growth up north still don't have any core bases/areas, and according to recent polling are still a fair way off suddenly taking the north by storm. It could suddenly flourish and happen in an instant, but I'm not even sure a hollow change in tone from a party who have long been championed as liberal, pro-EU and multi-cultural, with a leader who's said he's fairly keen on open borders, is going to do much.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
I didn't watch the clip, but I consider her considering 'the dilution of the white race' to be disgusting, despite the fact it's for popular appeal. Hopefully she gets some aggressive backlash.
Click to expand...

Dilution of the white race? That's a pretty serious accusation considering you haven't seen it.

Watch the clip, I'd be interested to know if you still think that's what she's saying.
 
Cheesy said:
The thing about Labour getting properly tough on immigration is that...well, who's really going to buy it? They're too late if it's their intention to appeal to such a demographic. Kind of like in Scotland...all the talks now of federalism, and working properly for Scotland's interests etc have fallen on deaf ears, because the party has fallen into political irrelevance. No one really cares now - anyone who feels Scotland has been disenfranchised or not represented properly has stopped voting Labour.

I suspect anyone who genuinely, properly has massive qualms about immigration to the point where they won't vote Labour because of it has probably already stopped voting for the party. Of course, I still think it's right for the party to pay attention to the issue and engage with voters on it, but if they intend to take a hardline stance then it's not going to reap them many rewards. If they do they'd have to abandon support of freedom of movement and thus any support for a softer Brexit, and would thus cede voters to the Lib Dems on mass. Probably a lot more than they'd gain back from UKIP in constituencies they already hold.

I imagine any move towards this would be to stop the rise of UKIP in the north...but I also don't think the situation up there is anywhere near as dire as a lot of people seem to think. It's being treated similarly to the SNP situation but the SNP has already been a reasonably sized political force for decades in Scotland and always did alright...even in plenty of constituencies Labour dominated. Then they took Holyrood by force in 2011 and translated that to Westminster last year.

That's not really happened with UKIP yet...who in spite of their growth up north still don't have any core bases/areas, and according to recent polling are still a fair way off suddenly taking the north by storm. It could suddenly flourish and happen in an instant, but I'm not even sure a hollow change in tone from a party who have long been championed as liberal, pro-EU and multi-cultural, with a leader who's said he's fairly keen on open borders, is going to do much.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the problem in a nutshell.

Whats odd is that electing Corbyn was supposed to be the end of this vote chasing and triangulation. The idea was that, as per the welfare reform bill, popular or not, the party would always champion what it thought was right and try and change the conversation rather than follow the votes.

And yet on Brexit we're doing just the opposite, we're trying to find a non existent happy medium because we don't want to lose votes to either UKIP or the Lib Dems. In doing so we risk losing votes to both.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
That's not really happened with UKIP yet...who in spite of their growth up north still don't have any core bases/areas, and according to recent polling are still a fair way off suddenly taking the north by storm
Click to expand...
Even with losing their charismatic figurehead, I find it surprising that they've gained literally no ground at all since the 2015 election despite the absolute madness that has occurred since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.