Labour Party Leadership [Archive] - Page 5

RyeSloan

24-08-2016, 10:12 AM

1. The train he was on WAS crowded.
2. There IS a problem in this country with overcrowded trains.
3. He couldn't get two seats together so sat on the floor.
4. Two people on the train were interviewed saying the train was packed out and he couldn't get two seats together. The cctv footage doesn't prove or disprove that. Branson hardly has an interest in promoting a socialist prime minister, after all. Let's try and manipulate the news.

But the facts of what actually happened are of course irrelevant and unimportant. It's all spin. Essentially, I trust his policies to do something about the railways more than anyone else.

Of course what actually happened is irrelevant and unimportant [emoji849]

So the 'truth' appears to be he couldn't initially find a seat with his wife so instead of sit in a seat apart from his wife for a short while he decided to sit apart from his wife on he floor instead...a rather bizarre decision no?

Trains are crowded on occasion and on some routes probably rather frequently...and I'm sure that there is plenty that can be done but as ever I'm curious on detail. What, if anything, would renationalisation do to change that? How would it create more space on the network or increase train capacity? Or is it just a dogmatic response? It's a genuine question so a link to a detailed policy on renationalisation and how that would increase capacity faster and better than currently would make an interesting read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hibsbollah

24-08-2016, 10:22 AM

Of course what actually happened is irrelevant and unimportant [emoji849]

So the 'truth' appears to be he couldn't initially find a seat with his wife so instead of sit in a seat apart from his wife for a short while he decided to sit apart from his wife on he floor instead...a rather bizarre decision no?

Trains are crowded on occasion and on some routes probably rather frequently...and I'm sure that there is plenty that can be done but as ever I'm curious on detail. What, if anything, would renationalisation do to change that? How would it create more space on the network or increase train capacity? Or is it just a dogmatic response? It's a genuine question so a link to a detailed policy on renationalisation and how that would increase capacity faster and better than currently would make an interesting read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll look one out when I have a minute, there's a policy paper out there by IPPR if I remember right :aok:

I mean it ironically of course; the facts are 'irrelevant' to those covering politics today. I just challenge fair minded people to look at the coverage of this and other 'stories' (massively important report has just been released on housing policy and the cost to the welfare state in subsiding private landlords, almost completely ignored)...and think whether it's true, whether it's relevant, and whether a pattern is emerging here.

RyeSloan

24-08-2016, 11:48 AM

I'll look one out when I have a minute, there's a policy paper out there by IPPR if I remember right :aok:

I mean it ironically of course; the facts are 'irrelevant' to those covering politics today. I just challenge fair minded people to look at the coverage of this and other 'stories' (massively important report has just been released on housing policy and the cost to the welfare state in subsiding private landlords, almost completely ignored)...and think whether it's true, whether it's relevant, and whether a pattern is emerging here.

Ahh apols, my irony detector malfunctioned!

To be fair though he's brought this one on himself to some degree!

And as for housing...I've said it before and will say it again. Want to sort the housing crisis in one go? Simply repeal the green belt laws. They more than any other factor result in high land prices and thus high house prices. Drive down the premium to be paid for development approved land and you can bin all the self defeating and pointless policies that politicians of all colours have introduced in an attempt to cover up their lack of back bone in solving the problem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hibbyradge

24-08-2016, 03:26 PM

Hibbyradge

24-08-2016, 03:33 PM

Let's try and manipulate the news.

I know you decided to ignore my posts, but I'm still going to respond to yours when I feel the need. I must say I'm particularly comfortable with arrangements like that! :aok:

Corbyn staged a sit down to manipulate the news and the public. He got caught.

He's an untrustworthy hypocrite.

That does matter.

hibsbollah

24-08-2016, 03:58 PM

Ahh apols, my irony detector malfunctioned!

To be fair though he's brought this one on himself to some degree!

And as for housing...I've said it before and will say it again. Want to sort the housing crisis in one go? Simply repeal the green belt laws. They more than any other factor result in high land prices and thus high house prices. Drive down the premium to be paid for development approved land and you can bin all the self defeating and pointless policies that politicians of all colours have introduced in an attempt to cover up their lack of back bone in solving the problem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suppose he (or his team) 'brought it on himself' in some respects. I just don't it very interesting, it's not a smoking gun proving he's a devious ******* and I don't think most voters think he is either. He didn't (for example) fiddle his expenses like some MPs who have joined in the ludicrous newsroom witchhunt today. But we know the score by now.

Like you, I would also repeal the green belt laws, with the proviso that proper environmental protection is put in place. But the two things that would make the most difference is a FDR style mass social housing building programme (someone earlier was mocking JCs one million new houses aspiration...it's totally achievable in fact) and controls on multi property ownership. Increase low cost housing in rural areas and limit property speculation by foreign capital in the south east. And in terms of the rental market, regulate private landlords and set a housing benefit cap. You sort out housing and you go a long way to sorting out crime, health, education, the welfare bill the list goes on. I think that was more than two things but you see where I'm going :greengrin

ronaldo7

24-08-2016, 04:10 PM

I know you decided to ignore my posts, but I'm still going to respond to yours when I feel the need. I must say I'm particularly comfortable with arrangements like that! :aok:

Corbyn staged a sit down to manipulate the news and the public. He got caught.

He's an untrustworthy hypocrite.

That does matter.

And a Lunatic to boot, if you believe that guy Smith, the paragon of virtue. I'm lovin it.:greengrin

Just Alf

24-08-2016, 04:15 PM

Im at work so not seen a lot on this but what i have seen seemed to indicate that the train was indeed stowed oot at the start of the journey with only unused booked seats left... the pic was taken near the end of the journey when it was quieter

Truth will prob be between the 2 extremes (as usual!)

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Hibbyradge

24-08-2016, 04:38 PM

(someone earlier was mocking JCs one million new houses aspiration...it's totally achievable in fact)

Presumably this phrase is the Holy Ground equivelant to a hibs.net FACT!

Achievable or not, it requires a Labour government to give it, and rail nationalisation, any sort of traction.

With the train sitter in charge, it's impossible.

Hibbyradge

24-08-2016, 04:58 PM

And a Lunatic to boot, if you believe that guy Smith

We don't need Smith to tell us that. Corbyn's as much of a political "fruitcake" as most of the bams in UKIP.

I'm lovin it.

No wonder. The train sitter is the best thing that's happened to all of Labour’s opponents.

Except the Trots. They're his friends.

RyeSloan

24-08-2016, 05:41 PM

I suppose he (or his team) 'brought it on himself' in some respects. I just don't it very interesting, it's not a smoking gun proving he's a devious ******* and I don't think most voters think he is either. He didn't (for example) fiddle his expenses like some MPs who have joined in the ludicrous newsroom witchhunt today. But we know the score by now.

Like you, I would also repeal the green belt laws, with the proviso that proper environmental protection is put in place. But the two things that would make the most difference is a FDR style mass social housing building programme (someone earlier was mocking JCs one million new houses aspiration...it's totally achievable in fact) and controls on multi property ownership. Increase low cost housing in rural areas and limit property speculation by foreign capital in the south east. And in terms of the rental market, regulate private landlords and set a housing benefit cap. You sort out housing and you go a long way to sorting out crime, health, education, the welfare bill the list goes on. I think that was more than two things but you see where I'm going :greengrin

Well at least we agree on the green belt!

You'll not fall of yer seat and land next to Corbyn when you learn I'm not hugely supportive of governments turning into house builders or placing controls on how many properties people own but I do agree on your last point. Sadly any action on housing effectively means that you need to lower the cost of them, which will of course lower the price of existing property so we will continue to see government fiddle at the edges as polices that lower the value of most people's main asset is never going to be a vote winner....one of the down sides of democracy I would suggest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jonnyboy

24-08-2016, 06:49 PM

i read kezia dugdale is firmly in the owen smith camp, i wonder what kind of relationship she will have with corbyn when/if he wins his wee tussle with smith :hmmm:

The same as most other Labour MPs. Untenable.

Did I not hear Kez say the other day that she didn't vote for JC the last time; JCknew that but it didn't affect their relationship?

hibsbollah

24-08-2016, 07:11 PM

Did I not hear Kez say the other day that she didn't vote for JC the last time; JCknew that but it didn't affect their relationship?

You did. I'm guessing she voted for Yvette Cooper. Her and JC seem to have 'kept it comradely' so far.

Hibbyradge

24-08-2016, 08:10 PM

Unimportant tittle tattle?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/

lord bunberry

24-08-2016, 11:46 PM

I'm watching Derek Hatton on Hard Talk. Funnily enough he's very pro Corbyn.

cabbageandribs1875

25-08-2016, 02:15 AM

Did I not hear Kez say the other day that she didn't vote for JC the last time; JCknew that but it didn't affect their relationship?

i honestly don't think *JC gives a flying one about any labour politician north of hadrian's wall jb, and the only scottish labour MP he did have in westminster decided to walk the plank of the sinking ship that is the Labour party

note * JC is Jeremy Corbyn, not Jason Cummings :)

oh aye and p.s. came across this interesting article on my travels, albeit 6 months ago :) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/12/40-scottish-labour-mps-we_n_9216594.html

"there was an interview with a shadow cabinet member. this is a current, serving shadow cabinet member, who told us the result in scotland had an upside, "this was after the election and we naively said "how could it possibly have an upside?' "and he said-and this is an exact quote- 'well because it's got rid of 40 F&*&*&G useless MP's'"

the caption along with the photo of murphy is really quite funny

Pete

25-08-2016, 05:42 AM

Well at least we agree on the green belt!

You'll not fall of yer seat and land next to Corbyn when you learn I'm not hugely supportive of governments turning into house builders or placing controls on how many properties people own but I do agree on your last point. Sadly any action on housing effectively means that you need to lower the cost of them, which will of course lower the price of existing property so we will continue to see government fiddle at the edges as polices that lower the value of most people's main asset is never going to be a vote winner....one of the down sides of democracy I would suggest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know. I'm only 40 and I would give up every ounce of equity I have to ensure my kids have somewhere to live that they can call their own.

However, that isn't an option right now as I'm still in debt, so I'd rather they had the choice of either realistically priced ownership or social housing.

Its the 20 years of pushing the idea that residential property investment was a hobby that is now the problem. I don't trust the new landed gentry to solve the problem....as you have said previously, anyone with any cash/influence takes the best route.

Anyway, I'm not sure how simply relaxing the green belt rules will solve the housing crisis if you don't believe in restrictions on property ownership and disagree with a program of state housing (which will pay for itself).

RyeSloan

25-08-2016, 09:41 AM

I don't know. I'm only 40 and I would give up every ounce of equity I have to ensure my kids have somewhere to live that they can call their own.

However, that isn't an option right now as I'm still in debt, so I'd rather they had the choice of either realistically priced ownership or social housing.

Its the 20 years of pushing the idea that residential property investment was a hobby that is now the problem. I don't trust the new landed gentry to solve the problem....as you have said previously, anyone with any cash/influence takes the best route.

Anyway, I'm not sure how simply relaxing the green belt rules will solve the housing crisis if you don't believe in restrictions on property ownership and disagree with a program of state housing (which will pay for itself).

The problem is not with landlords and people renting it has been with landlords seeing their investment as one of capital gain rather than one of income...combined with easy credit to allow people with low capital backing to accumulate large portfolios of property. I have no problems with placing minimum capital requirements on second + home loans to prevent such nonsense but really that should be for the banks to determine not central government (although I'm not sure I trust either to get it correct...). Having something approaching a real interest rate may help matters here as well so rewarding the prudent and savers rather than those with huge debt.

To be honest I'm simply opposed to governments and local councils being house builders and landlords. I don't see that a a government role nor do I think they have the expertise, time or money to be spending on such things. I know others do which is fair enough but there is plenty of examples of councils being rather poor at being social landlords.

The biggest driver of higher and higher housing costs is the artificial restriction of land for development. Remove the green belt restriction and put in place sensible planning laws and the ludicrous premium for land with development approval is significantly reduced, that in turn dramatically reduces the cost of building and therefore the cost of homes. It's this government imposed restriction that has the biggest bearing on house prices so the removal of that should, over time, see a reduction in house prices. More intervention and meddling from government will simply have more unintended consequences and distort the market further.

As I said I'm sure others see different but realistic interest rates, some sensible capital requirements for second home + loans and the removal of the extreme restrictions on development land around our main cities would go a long way to resolving the problem without the need for any further intervention and/or the government to turn into a house builder and property management company.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alex Trager

25-08-2016, 05:07 PM

Viva jez

ronaldo7

26-08-2016, 06:31 AM

It seems the Fringe moved to Glasgow last night. It's a pity the Joke of the Festival has been picked, as Owen Smith came out with a cracker last night.

On the subject of Scottish Labour, Corbyn said he would happily continue to work with Dugdale, who is backing Smith in the leadership election, but the crowd laughed in Smith’s face when he claimed that the Scottish Labour leader is doing a “fantastic job.”

“I’m really worried that a Labour audience is laughing and jeering at the leader of Scottish Labour,” Smith told the crowd. “There’s a lot of entryism but presumably you do support the leader of Scottish Labour, because I think she’s doing a great job,” adding that he was “very, very proud” to have her backing.

More jolly japes here. https://t.co/bkK70Cw2Ol

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 07:52 AM

The Labour purge of party members continues unabated. It seems they have even gone as far to purge local labour councillors.:greengrin

#labourpurge2 is a hoot on Twitter, with people getting banned for liking the Foo Fighters, and if they've used industrial language.

Johanna Baxter who sits on the NEC sits with a spreadsheet on a Saturday night, looking for victims.:greengrin

Such an enlightened party.

Hibbyradge

29-08-2016, 09:29 AM

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 11:26 AM

Amusing, but it's a load of rubbish.

OK.:wink:

17362

It seems Labour can vote with the Tories, but Labour members can't vote for their leader due to a silly tweet.:thumbsup:

This is a good one.

17365

Moulin Yarns

29-08-2016, 01:45 PM

OK.:wink:

17362

It seems Labour can vote with the Tories, but Labour members can't vote for their leader due to a silly tweet.:thumbsup:

Tweeting your support for the Green party is not silly, #justsaying :greengrin

degenerated

29-08-2016, 03:04 PM

Amusing, but it's a load of rubbish.
Hiring right wing journo Alan Rodent from the daily mail as comms director in Scotland is as amusing as it is bizarre.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 03:25 PM

Hiring right wing journo Alan Rodent from the daily mail as comms director in Scotland is as amusing as it is bizarre.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Looks like Kez has given up on the Left leaning yessers to go after the soft tory unionists. Who'd a thunk it eh.

This is like Hibs appointing Traynor as head of comms.:faf:

Betty Boop

29-08-2016, 03:32 PM

Looks like Kez has given up on the Left leaning yessers to go after the soft tory unionists. Who'd a thunk it eh.

This is like Hibs appointing Traynor as head of comms.:faf:
She should resign forthwith.

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 03:41 PM

She should resign forthwith.

Hope not. We can have some fun with this for a few months at least:greengrin

17364

My fav is the bottom left:wink:

What's yours?

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 04:13 PM

Tweeting your support for the Green party is not silly, #justsaying :greengrin

:wink:

degenerated

29-08-2016, 06:44 PM

She should resign forthwith.
Even if she did there's no-one else competent or capable of getting them out of the mess they're in.

They've spent so long fighting the snp that they forgot who the real enemy is, clearly demonstrated by them appointing one of them to guide the party.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Hibbyradge

29-08-2016, 08:14 PM

OK.:wink:

17362

It seems Labour can vote with the Tories, but Labour members can't vote for their leader due to a silly tweet.:thumbsup:

This is a good one.

17365

People who support other political parties shouldn't be allowed a vote.

ronaldo7

29-08-2016, 08:56 PM

People who support other political parties shouldn't be allowed a vote.

Publicly supporting the Green party on a tweet is a rather minor indiscretion, given all that the Parliamentarians have done in the last few years.

Supporting a policy of another party is not something that you should be ostracised for. IMO

The Green parties policy on Land reform is better than that of the SNP's imo, I'll still be voting for the SNP Depute leader in the coming month. Hopefully:greengrin

Hibbyradge

29-08-2016, 10:08 PM

Publicly supporting the Green party on a tweet is a rather minor indiscretion, given all that the Parliamentarians have done in the last few years.

Supporting a policy of another party is not something that you should be ostracised for. IMO

The Green parties policy on Land reform is better than that of the SNP's imo, I'll still be voting for the SNP Depute leader in the coming month. Hopefully:greengrin

Oh come on Ronnie. You know fine well what's been happening with the leadership election.

People who don't support Labour have been joining to gerrymander the leadership election.

That's not democracy and it's right that the NEC tries to combat it.

I'm certain that I'll won't see you tweeting support for any other party than the SNP whether they have the odd policy you agree with or not.

Having said all that, and going back to your original post, banning people because of poor musical taste is something I'd be prepared to seriously consider.

ronaldo7

30-08-2016, 07:03 AM

Oh come on Ronnie. You know fine well what's been happening with the leadership election.

People who don't support Labour have been joining to gerrymander the leadership election.

That's not democracy and it's right that the NEC tries to combat it.

I'm certain that I'll won't see you tweeting support for any other party than the SNP whether they have the odd policy you agree with or not.

Having said all that, and going back to your original post, banning people because of poor musical taste is something I'd be prepared to seriously consider.

:greengrin

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-leadership-election-fee-harriet-harman

Harriet saw the ££££££ signs and couldn't help herself, however the way the NEC have gone about trying to rectify her cock up shows the party is lacking of people behind the scenes having a clue what to do about it.

The removal of real socialists who've been in the party for years tells it's own story, but Jezza with still skoosh it.

If the Blairites get closer this time though, it'll allow them to make a charge for him again next year.

Meanwhile here in Scotland, Kezia is playing a blinder #Roden :greengrin I wonder if he likes the Foo Fighters.:wink:

Hibbyradge

30-08-2016, 07:51 AM

:greengrin

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-leadership-election-fee-harriet-harman

Harriet saw the ££££££ signs and couldn't help herself, however the way the NEC have gone about trying to rectify her cock up shows the party is lacking of people behind the scenes having a clue what to do about it.

The removal of real socialists who've been in the party for years tells it's own story, but Jezza with still skoosh it.

If the Blairites get closer this time though, it'll allow them to make a charge for him again next year.

Meanwhile here in Scotland, Kezia is playing a blinder #Roden :greengrin I wonder if he likes the Foo Fighters.:wink:

The £3 membership decision wasca farce. Wasn't it Miliband's idea?

Which real socialists have been removed? I thought it was just new joiners who were being checked?

Of course, there's still the revenge purge by Corbyn fanboys to come.

I haven’t been keeping a close eye on Scottish politics recently, but I did already point out that Labour isn't your biggest threat anymore.

I don't know a single SNP activist who doesn't want Corbyn to suceed in the leadership election. I wonder why...

AndyM_1875

30-08-2016, 12:25 PM

She should resign forthwith.

No she should not.
Besides who would replace her? It's a job nobody wants and some Corbyn/Momentum type just is not going to cut it if you want to win back votes from the SNP and the Tories because that is where Labour's votes have went.

I can tell you from a close personal friend of mine who campaigned in Fife for Labour in 2016 that Jeremy Corbyn in her words "went down like a bucket of cold sick" on the doorsteps. In that particular constituency Labour had the best candidate but they still lost although Alex Rowley got in on the List vote. People weren't interested. The response on the doorstep was "we're voting for Nicola" and that was that.

degenerated

30-08-2016, 01:27 PM

No she should not.
Besides who would replace her? It's a job nobody wants and some Corbyn/Momentum type just is not going to cut it if you want to win back votes from the SNP and the Tories because that is where Labour's votes have went.

I can tell you from a close personal friend of mine who campaigned in Fife for Labour in 2016 that Jeremy Corbyn in her words "went down like a bucket of cold sick" on the doorsteps. In that particular constituency Labour had the best candidate but they still lost although Alex Rowley got in on the List vote. People weren't interested. The response on the doorstep was "we're voting for Nicola" and that was that.
There's only rowley and findlay that would back corbyn and they are more suited to shifting a piano up a flight of stairs than leading the Scottish branch.
Mind you, dugdale isn't much better.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

AndyM_1875

30-08-2016, 03:25 PM

There's only rowley and findlay that would back corbyn and they are more suited to shifting a piano up a flight of stairs than leading the Scottish branch.
Mind you, dugdale isn't much better.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

Findlay doesn't want it and Alex Rowley just isn't cut out for it, his Peoples Republic of Cowdenbeath image has limited scope. The guy who could have done it (Ken McIntosh) took a thumping great payrise to become Presiding Officer instead.

Corbyn IMHO is either an irrelevance or a hindrance in Scotland for Labour. If anything a symbol of a party at UK level that is falling apart in an pointless argument with itself. It's all the more annoying for Labour supporters as they should be taking the fight to a frankly abysmal Tory party who have just landed the UK in a giant pile of crap and at Holyrood to a number of MSPs on SNP and Tory benches who are basically useless nodding dogs, there to pick up a fat salary for doing the square root of **** all.

Hibbyradge

31-08-2016, 08:30 AM

Inspirational!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/jeremy-corbyn-broke-the-internet-but-only-because-his-digital-ma/amp/?client=safari

Betty Boop

31-08-2016, 07:57 PM

Inspirational!

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/jeremy-corbyn-broke-the-internet-but-only-because-his-digital-ma/amp/?client=safari

Well there's always Smith the big Pharma fanny merchant.

Hibbyradge

31-08-2016, 08:29 PM

Well there's always Smith the big Pharma fanny merchant.

I'm not sure what relevance that has to Old Corbo's hilarious new digital policies, but how and when did Big Pharma suddenly become an insult? :faf:

Best stick with folk who have done nothing else but politics, eh.

Gotta love those career politicians.

ronaldo7

01-09-2016, 07:20 AM

Gotta love Owen right enough.

17378

steakbake

01-09-2016, 08:39 PM

Findlay doesn't want it and Alex Rowley just isn't cut out for it, his Peoples Republic of Cowdenbeath image has limited scope. The guy who could have done it (Ken McIntosh) took a thumping, then got a great payrise to become Presiding Officer instead.

Fixed that.

Essentially, Labour nodding dogs are better than Tory or SNP ones? They've had their fair kick of the ball. The hope for Labour is that they can redefine and make a bit of a comeback which isn't based on SNP Bad but on something a bit more radical and challenging to the consensus. Instead, they hire the former political editor of the Daily Mail who used to quote his partner in order to provide himself with stories.

The thumping at the general election got rid of a lot of career politicians who were every bit the nodding dogs cluttering up parliament with their sense of entitlement and self importance. Labour is well rid of the likes of Murphy, Harris, Alexander and Curran. Brown is a disaster - he's back promising home rule...again.

Labour got what they deserved. It's a long way back for them, but so far, I don't think they've learned a thing.

Hibbyradge

01-09-2016, 10:01 PM

:greengrin

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/18/labour-leadership-election-fee-harriet-harman

The removal of real socialists who've been in the party for years tells it's own story

Fun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-expelled-from-labour-for-threats-to-cut/

Betty Boop

02-09-2016, 10:40 AM

Inspirational ! :greengrin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cseMu8oY_Y

Hibbyradge

02-09-2016, 11:54 AM

Inspirational ! :greengrin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cseMu8oY_Y

lol

He's speaking to his supporters. That's all he ever does.

Come back when he starts inspiring the electorate because at present, he's still losing ground on the Tories.

ronaldo7

05-09-2016, 07:34 PM

I don't think Owen is sexist. Honest.

https://t.co/2UtZViAchn

Holmesdale Hibs

05-09-2016, 08:41 PM

I don't think Owen is sexist. Honest.

https://t.co/2UtZViAchn

Don't see how that's sexist, just a bit weird that someone who wants to be taken seriously is using twitter in that way.

RyeSloan

05-09-2016, 09:17 PM

I don't think Owen is sexist. Honest.

https://t.co/2UtZViAchn

His Lib Dems comment is a bit weird but I'm at a loss as to how suggesting Nicola would benefit from a gobstopper is sexist I have no idea.

And inferring a reference to a normal family life as automatically suggesting any other set up is abnormal and therefore homophobic is also a bit of a stretch.

ronaldo7

06-09-2016, 06:58 AM

Don't see how that's sexist, just a bit weird that someone who wants to be taken seriously is using twitter in that way.

His Lib Dems comment is a bit weird but I'm at a loss as to how suggesting Nicola would benefit from a gobstopper is sexist I have no idea.

And inferring a reference to a normal family life as automatically suggesting any other set up is abnormal and therefore homophobic is also a bit of a stretch.

As I said, I don't think it's sexist.:greengrin

He's just a bit daft.:greengrin

Hibbyradge

07-09-2016, 09:49 AM

Can it get any more surreal?

She loves me...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/jeremy-corbyn-held-a-press-conference-with-ub40-and-i-have-no-id/

She loves me not...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/jeremy-corbyn-fails-to-win-backing-of-other-ub40

Frankly, having resigned myself to Jezza's retention of the party leadership, I'm now looking forward to more hilarity in parliament and on the various platforms on which he feels comfortable enough to appear.

I wonder what his response will be to the SNPs almost Blairite decision to offer cheap loans to business. Should be funny whatever he says! 😂

Who says politics is boring?

Beefster

07-09-2016, 11:21 AM

hibsbollah

07-09-2016, 11:26 AM

Wait until someone gets the backing of A Flock of Seagulls. That'll be real news.

'Wishing' was a great song of its day. The only tune I managed to play on the recorder to boot.

hibsbollah

08-09-2016, 01:42 PM

I suppose he (or his team) 'brought it on himself' in some respects. I just don't it very interesting, it's not a smoking gun proving he's a devious ******* and I don't think most voters think he is either. He didn't (for example) fiddle his expenses like some MPs who have joined in the ludicrous newsroom witchhunt today. But we know the score by now.

Like you, I would also repeal the green belt laws, with the proviso that proper environmental protection is put in place. But the two things that would make the most difference is a FDR style mass social housing building programme (someone earlier was mocking JCs one million new houses aspiration...it's totally achievable in fact) and controls on multi property ownership. Increase low cost housing in rural areas and limit property speculation by foreign capital in the south east. And in terms of the rental market, regulate private landlords and set a housing benefit cap. You sort out housing and you go a long way to sorting out crime, health, education, the welfare bill the list goes on. I think that was more than two things but you see where I'm going :greengrin

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/theresa-mays-progressive-rhetoric-missing-first-pmqs/
I was pleased that JC raised the housing crisis in PMQs yesterday, performed far better than the alleged safe pair of hands 'prime minister' again. You'd have to be paying close attention to notice though...

Hibbyradge

08-09-2016, 05:20 PM

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/theresa-mays-progressive-rhetoric-missing-first-pmqs/
I was pleased that JC raised the housing crisis in PMQs yesterday, performed far better than the alleged safe pair of hands 'prime minister' again. You'd have to be paying close attention to notice though...

I'd be pleased if he was ever in the position to do something about it instead of raising it as an issue.

Face facts, he will never be able to meaningfully change anything and, when he wins against Smith, just sit back for a moment and contemplate another 9 years of unfettered Tory rule.

No wonder the SNP are supporting Corbyn at every opportunity.

Oh, and PS, if he had any ability as a media operator, we wouldn't have to "look close". He's a dud.

ronaldo7

08-09-2016, 07:34 PM

I'd be pleased if he was ever in the position to do something about it instead of raising it as an issue.

Face facts, he will never be able to meaningfully change anything and, when he wins against Smith, just sit back for a moment and contemplate another 9 years of unfettered Tory rule.

No wonder the SNP are supporting Corbyn at every opportunity.

Oh, and PS, if he had any ability as a media operator, we wouldn't have to "look close". He's a dude.

Fixed that for ya.

:greengrin

Mon Dieu4

08-09-2016, 09:00 PM

I really like Corbyn and think if everyone got onboard with him he would do a fine job, however that's never going to happen and if Smith is the best they have to go up against him then they are snookered

ronaldo7

08-09-2016, 09:04 PM

Well that was a hoot tonight. Owen Smith made Jezza look competent.

Hibbyradge

09-09-2016, 07:36 AM

Fixed that for ya.

:greengrin

:greengrin

He's a dud dude.

But thanks for proving my point. 😉

ronaldo7

10-09-2016, 05:28 PM

Hibbyradge

10-09-2016, 09:42 PM

Holy *****, if this is the height of the talent in the Labour party, we're in for a Tory pumping for the next 20 ***** years.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-leadership-hopeful-owen-smith-8803113

17419

Did you read the article or are you just a headline man?

A headline which Owen Smith didn't write.

You're right about Tory rule though. Corbyn guarantees it.

ronaldo7

11-09-2016, 07:46 AM

Did you read the article or are you just a headline man?

A headline which Owen Smith didn't write.

You're right about Tory rule though. Corbyn guarantees it.

I read the article and couldn't really believe it. It is in the Mirror though, a Labour paper, so I would have thought they'd have got it right for Owen.:greengrin

I am correct about the Tory rule though, with any of them in charge.

Also, just seen Owen on "Andy" Marr show, it seems he wants to go back into the EU. Hypothetical upon hypothetical of course.

https://t.co/OyuIGmiybb

Hibbyradge

11-09-2016, 08:41 PM

http://labourlist.org/2016/09/angela-smith-the-message-from-mosborough-is-very-clear/

ronaldo7

11-09-2016, 09:11 PM

http://labourlist.org/2016/09/angela-smith-the-message-from-mosborough-is-very-clear/

Looks like every party lost votes to the Lib Dems. Apart from the SNP of course.:greengrin

Hibbyradge

11-09-2016, 09:28 PM

More fuddery;

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/11/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-for-distasteful-911-tweet-6122162/

Hibbyradge

12-09-2016, 08:57 AM

This brilliant article pretty much sums up my feelings on the current leadership.

http://benedictcooper.co.uk/have-you-seen-the-light/

ronaldo7

12-09-2016, 04:56 PM

http://labourlist.org/2016/09/angela-smith-the-message-from-mosborough-is-very-clear/

It seems Angela might just have been wrong.:greengrin

https://t.co/cFs9YxU5q0

Hibbyradge

12-09-2016, 08:39 PM

It seems Angela might just have been wrong.:greengrin

https://t.co/cFs9YxU5q0

So that's the Lib Dems as well as the SNP talking Old Corbo up, both hoping he stays as Leader for as long as possible.

I can't think why!

ronaldo7

13-09-2016, 07:07 AM

So that's the Lib Dems as well as the SNP talking Old Corbo up, both hoping he stays as Leader for as long as possible.

I can't think why!

It seems the Truth hurts.:wink:

Hibbyradge

13-09-2016, 07:17 AM

It seems the Truth hurts.:wink:

Is the truth in this case the comments made by the Liberals in support of Corbyn, rather than the comments toward the end of the same article which blame him?

Or the truth that the SNP and Liberals are absolutely desperate to see him remain as leader?

Given that Indyref2 looks a million miles away, I suspect the latter.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14738409.Poll_reveals_support_for_independence__st atic__after_Brexit_vote_as_Sturgeon_accused_of_ret reat/?ref=ebln

Are those polls are wrong in the same way that all the polls showing Corbyn's unpopularity?

I'm sure the Liberals will try to say that their standing in the polls is wrong too.

Pretty Boy

13-09-2016, 10:16 AM

hibsbollah

13-09-2016, 11:00 AM

YouGov polls today don't make great reading for either Corbyn or Scottish Labour. They don't read well for those hoping for a quick 2nd Independence Referendum either.

Edit: Just spotted the link in the post above.

No doubt that the public don't trust Labour in sufficient numbers at the moment. The polls show that since taking over as leader Corbyn fluctuated from 3 points to 8 points behind, give or take. Within touching distance, basically. This then jumped to 16 points behind immediately after the coup. And there is no likelihood of much improvement when Corbyn wins against Smith either, because the public know there's the small matter of the Labour MPs who are at odds with the membership. Until there's a shift in opinion or an outbreak of loyalty I don't see an improvement. The lesson? The public demands public unity from their representatives.

Beefster

13-09-2016, 11:20 AM

No doubt that the public don't trust Labour in sufficient numbers at the moment. The polls show that since taking over as leader Corbyn fluctuated from 3 points to 8 points behind, give or take. Within touching distance, basically. This then jumped to 16 points behind immediately after the coup. And there is no likelihood of much improvement when Corbyn wins against Smith either, because the public know there's the small matter of the Labour MPs who are at odds with the membership. Until there's a shift in opinion or an outbreak of loyalty I don't see an improvement. The lesson? The public demands public unity from their representatives.

Part of the issue being that Corbyn is in no position to demand that public unity, given his record as a backbencher.

hibsbollah

13-09-2016, 11:37 AM

Part of the issue being that Corbyn is in no position to demand that public unity, given his record as a backbencher.

That's the much repeated narrative. JC did indeed vote against Blair on Iraq, NHS creeping privatisation and welfare funding cuts. Which is to be expected. I'd suggest this is a bit different from what's happening at the moment, which is an orchestrated and continued attempt to remove the democratically elected leader, not contributing at PMQs, not contributing on a party platform, and in many respects not actually doing the job they are paid to do. The logical conclusion of the 'he can't demand loyalty!' argument is that only a politician who has slavishly followed his party whip on EVERY MOTION through successive administrations can claim authority as a future leader. Which a) makes no sense b) is an inversion of democracy and c) will produce exactly the same identikit vacuous career politician that the public clearly despises.

Hibbyradge

13-09-2016, 02:18 PM

No doubt that the public don't trust Labour in sufficient numbers at the moment. The polls show that since taking over as leader Corbyn fluctuated from 3 points to 8 points behind, give or take. Within touching distance, basically. This then jumped to 16 points behind immediately after the coup. And there is no likelihood of much improvement when Corbyn wins against Smith either, because the public know there's the small matter of the Labour MPs who are at odds with the membership. Until there's a shift in opinion or an outbreak of loyalty I don't see an improvement. The lesson? The public demands public unity from their representatives.

Being 8 points behind a Tory Party in disarray at that time in an election cycle, is horrendous.

Corbyn caused the coup, not the PLP.

Beefster

13-09-2016, 05:50 PM

That's the much repeated narrative. JC did indeed vote against Blair on Iraq, NHS creeping privatisation and welfare funding cuts. Which is to be expected. I'd suggest this is a bit different from what's happening at the moment, which is an orchestrated and continued attempt to remove the democratically elected leader, not contributing at PMQs, not contributing on a party platform, and in many respects not actually doing the job they are paid to do. The logical conclusion of the 'he can't demand loyalty!' argument is that only a politician who has slavishly followed his party whip on EVERY MOTION through successive administrations can claim authority as a future leader. Which a) makes no sense b) is an inversion of democracy and c) will produce exactly the same identikit vacuous career politician that the public clearly despises.

I'm pretty sure that Corbyn has voted against the Labour whip a fair bit more than you're implying. Either way, I'm not suggesting that only sheep should be leadership contenders (to be fair, Smith is up there with the most insipid leadership candidates for any party in my lifetime). I'm all for politicians voting on principle each and every time. I just find it ironic that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and co have resorted to grumbling about/demanding loyalty.

ronaldo7

13-09-2016, 06:04 PM

Is the truth in this case the comments made by the Liberals in support of Corbyn, rather than the comments toward the end of the same article which blame him?

Or the truth that the SNP and Liberals are absolutely desperate to see him remain as leader?

Given that Indyref2 looks a million miles away, I suspect the latter.

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14738409.Poll_reveals_support_for_independence__st atic__after_Brexit_vote_as_Sturgeon_accused_of_ret reat/?ref=ebln

Are those polls are wrong in the same way that all the polls showing Corbyn's unpopularity?

I'm sure the Liberals will try to say that their standing in the polls is wrong too.

I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, however you can't just link to the local MP without seeing that the locals didn't vote Labour for various reasons.

Some didn't like getting a candidate from another area foisted upon them, some didn't think the local councillors were good enough, and yes, a couple of quotes saying they didn't like Corbyn

Lots of reasons, and sure as hell, the local MP blames Corbyn.

hibsbollah

13-09-2016, 08:02 PM

I'm pretty sure that Corbyn has voted against the Labour whip a fair bit more than you're implying. Either way, I'm not suggesting that only sheep should be leadership contenders (to be fair, Smith is up there with the most insipid leadership candidates for any party in my lifetime). I'm all for politicians voting on principle each and every time. I just find it ironic that Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and co have resorted to grumbling about/demanding loyalty.

I don't see it as ironic or hypocritical at all. When you get power, you want loyalty.

But it's nothing to do with Corbyn 'demanding loyalty'. I'm not sure he's ever actively 'demanded' anything. But if you're Angela Eagle for example, and your constituency party is demanding you respect the membership and support the leadership or face deselection, and you've just lost to Owen Smith (!) in a humiliating leadership challenge which shows your fellow MPs don't value you either, to whom do you place your loyalty? Lots of MPs are facing the reality that whatever their Blairrite peers in parliament say and do, their local parties are mostly for the new leadership. And they can force their MP out if push comes to shove. And these people aren't trots or entryists (is this word even a thing?) they are just energised Labour Party members who are exercising democracy and might feel that they need loyalty and representation as well.

Mibbes Aye

13-09-2016, 08:29 PM

Corbyn and McDonnell have voted against their party some eight or nine hundred times, consistently over the years. That's more than the odd vote on Iraq.

It's utter hypocrisy of them to talk about loyalty. If they were that dissatisfied with Labour Party manifesto policy then they should have resigned the whip.

Of course that would have meant them giving up all the trappings that go with being part of a big, organised party. Maybe that was just a bit too cosy an arrangement to sacrifice for their principles.

Labour isn't a party, it's a movement. I'm sure they could have found themselves a home somewhere else in the movement that better-suited their principles, given how unhappy they were with the policies. But then they risked giving up all the support the Party machine gives its MPs and parliamentary candidates.

One other thing - Corbyn defenders really need to move on from the past. 'Blairite' is an archaic term and meaningless nowadays. No doubt it's a tummytickler for those who still want to hang on their burning sense of injustice about the Iraq vote. No doubt that's why Corbyn defenders use it. And if nothing else, it distracts from how he sold the jerseys in the EU referendum.

More Labour Party members wanted to stay in the EU than wanted Corbyn as leader.

It seems the will of the membership only suits Corbyn in selfish circumstances.

Arrogance as well as hypocrisy then.

hibsbollah

13-09-2016, 08:51 PM

Hibbyradge

13-09-2016, 08:57 PM

"Magical thinkers". It sounds like a compliment...

https://www.byline.com/column/11/article/1250

Mibbes Aye

13-09-2016, 09:07 PM

Wow. There's a lot you've fired off there. A lot of caricaturing going on. I trust you won't be joining me on the phone banks tomorrow? :faf:

Easier to call it caricature than try and argue it isn't true :dunno:

hibsbollah

13-09-2016, 09:52 PM

Easier to call it caricature than try and argue it isn't true :dunno:

I really don't want to argue the toss with you either way. I'm not seeing any likelihood of common ground. And I'm not learning anything new from you guys. So I'm bowing out.

Mibbes Aye

13-09-2016, 10:07 PM

I really don't want to argue the toss with you either way. I'm not seeing any likelihood of common ground. And I'm not learning anything new from you guys. So I'm bowing out.

To be honest I wasn't wanting to argue with you. I maybe meant 'argue' as in 'debate' or 'discuss', rather than 'scrap' or 'pointscore' :greengrin but either way, you're right, it does feel very binary. Strong feelings on both sides.

Beefster

14-09-2016, 05:29 AM

I really don't want to argue the toss with you either way. I'm not seeing any likelihood of common ground. And I'm not learning anything new from you guys. So I'm bowing out.

Bubble wrap was originally designed as wallpaper. Happy to help.

hibsbollah

14-09-2016, 12:22 PM

Bubble wrap was originally designed as wallpaper. Happy to help.

I knew that. I believe it was for its sound insulating properties more than for a wallpaper but I don't want to quibble :greengrin

Pretty Boy

14-09-2016, 04:23 PM

Fair play to Corbyn. Gave May a real beating (no physical violence against woman implied) re grammar schools today.

Hibbyradge

18-09-2016, 02:59 PM

This is a very powerfully-argued piece on why the only option now for those who oppose Corbynite populism is to leave the Labour Party.

Essentially, the argument is summed up by this extract:

"History offers no clear example of the internal undoing of populist fanaticism. It has always been defeated from outside. Labour is now irretrievable: there is no way of reversing the populist entrenchment within."

http://newpolitics.apps-1and1.net/the-perils-of-corbynista-populism

Colr

18-09-2016, 03:02 PM

Hibbyradge

18-09-2016, 04:27 PM

They seem to being a good job of defeating Blairite populism from the inside.

Blair a populist?

Now there's something you don't hear every day. :hilarious

RyeSloan

19-09-2016, 07:54 PM

Is it me or has he the term Blairite been exhumed just for this tedious election?

I thought it's use had died out years ago but now seems rather popular in the Labour Party again, although I assume it's not being used as a term of endearment

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hibbyradge

24-09-2016, 10:56 AM

61.8% this time.

What a futile exercise.

marinello59

24-09-2016, 11:42 AM

61.8% this time.

What a futile exercise.

I thought it would be more.

Colr

24-09-2016, 02:23 PM

61.8% this time.

What a futile exercise.

What a futile challenger.

He won't go until someone of substance is identified in the Labour party who will be prepared to lead it. Blairite jobsworths are showing their mettle by sniping from the side lines as Corbyn disrupts their easy ride.

The good thing about Corbyn is he is bringing some new young people into Labour. He should be campaigning for the voting age to be reduced to 16 while he at it. Should be number 1 item on the manifesto.

(((Fergus)))

24-09-2016, 06:34 PM

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q191/secallen/Screenshot%202016-09-24%2019.13.27_zpske7hykuq.png

Betty Boop

24-09-2016, 09:40 PM

Well done once again Jezza, leader of the largest political party in Europe. :thumbsup:

cabbageandribs1875

25-09-2016, 02:11 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37461892

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has told the BBC she believes a UK party led by Jeremy Corbyn can win a general election.

oh dear kezia, talks mair utter p@sh than her predecessor(crate boy murphy) :agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/jeremy-corbyn-kezia-dugdale-640000-voters-labour-leadership/

Jeremy Corbyn cannot unite us' warns Kezia Dugdale as 640,000 people start voting in Labour leadership contest
backtracking so soon :faf:

cabbageandribs1875

25-09-2016, 02:15 AM

oh aye and well done chuckle brother one beating chuckle brother two, pure comedy

hibsbollah

25-09-2016, 07:49 AM

Well done once again Jezza, leader of the largest political party in Europe. :thumbsup:

Won all three 'categories' of membership easily; 70% of supporters, 59% of full members and 60% of affiliates. Just like last time. Massive democratic mandate AGAIN, proving that the 'trot entryist' pish, is just well, pish.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 10:44 AM

Won all three 'categories' of membership easily; 70% of supporters, 59% of full members and 60% of affiliates. Just like last time. Massive democratic mandate AGAIN, proving that the 'trot entryist' pish, is just well, pish.

He lost the vote amongst longer established members, but won nearly all the new members' votes proving that Trot entryism is alive, well and destroying the Labour Party.

The next few months should be fun, starting with conference.

I'm joining Ronnie with the popcorn!

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 11:19 AM

Corbyn lost heavily to Smith in Scotland, too, and in the 18-24 age group.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-09-24/Exit%20poll-01.png

steakbake

25-09-2016, 11:47 AM

A shocking interview with Dugdale this morning... Following on from the CT debate debacle last week. Surely she's on borrowed time? Who would be the front runners?

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 12:09 PM

A shocking interview with Dugdale this morning... Following on from the CT debate debacle last week. Surely she's on borrowed time? Who would be the front runners?

It doesn't matter anymore. Labour is finished in Scotland for the foreseable future at least. If Scottish Labour Party members don't want Corbyn, what must the electorate think?

It's not really any different in England. The Tories will be in power for a long long time.

I do remember a time when Labour had strong, determined left wing leadership, though. We called that period the Thatcher years!

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 03:47 PM

I do remember a time when Labour had strong, determined left wing leadership, though. We called that period the Thatcher years!

I had to laugh when they wheeled out Lord Kinnock lamenting that he may not live to see another Labour Govt.

This from the man who lost three elections to the Tories on the bounce.

Oh wait!

Is that what you meant by a 'strong, determined left wing leadership'?

Glory Lurker

25-09-2016, 04:11 PM

I thought it would be more.

It would have been if everyone had been allowed to vote! :greengrin

A shocking interview with Dugdale this morning... Following on from the CT debate debacle last week. Surely she's on borrowed time? Who would be the front runners?

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for Kez. She just shouldn't be doing this gig. Not that the Scottish branch of the party really has anyone capable of doing a better job, of course.

steakbake

25-09-2016, 04:21 PM

It would have been if everyone had been allowed to vote! :greengrin

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for Kez. She just shouldn't be doing this gig. Not that the Scottish branch of the party really has anyone capable of doing a better job, of course.

I've actually come round to that view. Initially, yes, you get what you throw your hat in for in politics and the public are an unpitying bunch. But I think time and again, things have gone so pear shaped for her to a stage where it's clear she's not up to it. No doubt a very capable person but not a leader in that way.

Anyone stepping in will have huge challenges: haemorrhaging votes to the Tories and the SNP - they don't know which way to go.

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 04:55 PM

Actually, the perceptive will note that Kinnochio, arithmetically, only lost two elections.

I've always thought that losing to John Major should count at least double.
:greengrin

hibsbollah

25-09-2016, 05:10 PM

I had to laugh when they wheeled out Lord Kinnock lamenting that he may not live to see another Labour Govt.

This from the man who lost three elections to the Tories on the bounce.

Oh wait!

Is that what you meant by a 'strong, determined left wing leadership'?

Its beyond parody that the ones who are banging on about the current leaderships 'unelectability' are the ones who presided over consecutive election defeats. For someone who we are told by the right is 'unelectable', Corbyn is winning quite a few elections! This is clearly annoying some. Pesky old democracy strikes again.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 06:23 PM

I had to laugh when they wheeled out Lord Kinnock lamenting that he may not live to see another Labour Govt.

This from the man who lost three elections to the Tories on the bounce.

Did he?

Edit: I see you corrected yourself.

Of course I was referring to Michael Foot's leadership (and when Momentum, I mean Militant, were screwing things up for Neil Kinnock). I was a Labour activist at the time and had fully supported Foot.

Labour, of course, were hammered, but I'd bet anything they get fewer MPs next time under Corbyn than even the disaster of 83.

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 06:31 PM

Did he?

Not unless you check #1108.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 06:39 PM

Its beyond parody

Another Trot trope, I see.

Corbyn is winning quite a few elections! This is clearly annoying some. Pesky old democracy strikes again.

Mind you, "beyond parody" does apply on occassion. :faf:

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 06:40 PM

Not unless you check #1108.

What do you mean?

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 07:19 PM

What do you mean?

I mean what I say.
I'm struggling to know what you mean by 'a strong determined left-wing leadership.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 07:46 PM

I mean what I say.
I'm struggling to know what you mean by 'a strong determined left-wing leadership.

Sorry, what did you mean by #1108? I'm not meaning to be facetious, I genuinely don't understand the reference.

I explained what I meant by left wing leadership in my earlier post.

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 07:57 PM

Sorry, what did you mean by #1108? I'm not meaning to be facetious, I genuinely don't understand the reference.

I explained what I meant by left wing leadership in my earlier post.

I'm referring to the number which appears in the top right-hand corner of each post.
It's beside a sharp sign.

I'm also referring to your use of the phrase 'strong determined left-wing leadership... in #1104.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 08:03 PM

I'm referring to the number which appears in the top right-hand corner of each post.
It's beside a sharp sign.

I'm also referring to your use of the phrase 'strong determined left-wing leadership... in #1104.

I see. I'm on my phone and those numbers don't appear, hence my confusion.

If you go back to my post, presumably #1104 :dunno:, you'll see an earlier edit.

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 08:06 PM

I see. I'm on my phone and those numbers don't appear, hence my confusion.

If you go back to my post, presumably #1104 :dunno:, you'll see an earlier edit.

Are you new here?
:na na:

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 08:14 PM

Are you new here?
:na na:

:hilarious

I had posted before I saw your rebuttal and thought you were quoting a LP constitutional point about Kinnock's elections or something! Yeah, I know.

Then you missed my edit, adding to the hilarity that is so appropriate on this particular thread! :wink:

ronaldo7

25-09-2016, 08:30 PM

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 08:47 PM

And I wasted a whole box of popcorn.:greengrin

Popcorn is never a waste!

By the way, have Momentum started calling the business friendly, Blairite SNP "Tartan Tories" yet?

It's only a matter of time.

Popcorn at the ready. :greengrin

ronaldo7

25-09-2016, 08:58 PM

Popcorn is never a waste!

By the way, have Momentum started calling the business friendly, Blairite SNP "Tartan Tories" yet?

It's only a matter of time.

Popcorn at the ready. :greengrin

They're too busy formulating plans to put Kez back in her box.:greengrin

07.30 meeting tomorrow where Big Len's mob will be top heavy.:wink:

Prof. Shaggy

25-09-2016, 09:00 PM

:hilarious

I had posted before I saw your rebuttal and thought you were quoting a LP constitutional point about Kinnock's elections or something! Yeah, I know.

Then you missed my edit, adding to the hilarity that is so appropriate on this particular thread! :wink:

You're right. I did miss your edit.

I'm right. I knew you weren't talking about Kinnock or Callaghan for that matter.
The Right Wing of the Labour Party have lost more elections than Michael Foot did.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 10:11 PM

You're right. I did miss your edit.

I'm right. I knew you weren't talking about Kinnock or Callaghan for that matter.
The Right Wing of the Labour Party have lost more elections than Michael Foot did.

lol.

:thumbsup:

Mibbes Aye

25-09-2016, 10:59 PM

Its beyond parody that the ones who are banging on about the current leaderships 'unelectability' are the ones who presided over consecutive election defeats. For someone who we are told by the right is 'unelectable', Corbyn is winning quite a few elections! This is clearly annoying some. Pesky old democracy strikes again.

What about the people who actually won elections for Labour calling Corbyn unelectable? There's no shortage of them. They've been there and done it.

What's most important isn't Corbyn winning 62% of the vote. It's not even Smith winning 63% of the party who weren't entryists and signed up in the last year or so (given how uninspiring Smith is, it shows how little the long-term Labour Party members think of Corbyn!)

The important numbers are what the general public think.

Only 38% think he has a clear vision for Britain.

Only 30% think he has sound judgement.

Only 24% think he is a capable leader.

And only 18% think he would be good in a crisis. 18%.......

The worst thing for Corbyn is all those numbers are down, from this time last year. He gets more unpopular with the public on the key issues as time goes on.

He's unelectable and as a consequence his selfishness and vaingloriousness will only extend the hurt and misery of the most vulnerable in our society.

I can't recall hypocrisy on his scale. At least the Tories are honest about not giving a **** about the marginalised. Corbyn makes the weakest pay for his self-indulgence.

Hibbyradge

25-09-2016, 11:45 PM

What about the people who actually won elections for Labour calling Corbyn unelectable? There's no shortage of them. They've been there and done it.

What's most important isn't Corbyn winning 62% of the vote. It's not even Smith winning 63% of the party who weren't entryists and signed up in the last year or so (given how uninspiring Smith is, it shows how little the long-term Labour Party members think of Corbyn!)

The important numbers are what the general public think.

Only 38% think he has a clear vision for Britain.

Only 30% think he has sound judgement.

Only 24% think he is a capable leader.

And only 18% think he would be good in a crisis. 18%.......

The worst thing for Corbyn is all those numbers are down, from this time last year. He gets more unpopular with the public on the key issues as time goes on.

He's unelectable and as a consequence his selfishness and vaingloriousness will only extend the hurt and misery of the most vulnerable in our society.

I can't recall hypocrisy on his scale. At least the Tories are honest about not giving a **** about the marginalised. Corbyn makes the weakest pay for his self-indulgence.

Good post, 100% correct but you're a red tory so gtf.

Mibbes Aye

25-09-2016, 11:53 PM

Good post, 100% correct but you're a red tory so gtf.

You're nothing but a Bliar :rolleyes:

:greengrin (I'm an eternal optimist and I think the movement will evolve and get over this hiccup of navel-gazing by a mixture of trots and Stop The War sign-ups who mistake Jeremy for a passionate leader, as opposed to a guy, benefiting from a private education but divorcing his wife because she wanted the same for their child, who has always worked in the political bubble, yet claims to speak for working people and who has shown no loyalty to the Labour Party despite benefiting for decades from its support. He's not authentic and I'm amazed that some people can think he is)

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 07:35 AM

What about the people who actually won elections for Labour calling Corbyn unelectable? There's no shortage of them. They've been there and done it.

What's most important isn't Corbyn winning 62% of the vote. It's not even Smith winning 63% of the party who weren't entryists and signed up in the last year or so (given how uninspiring Smith is, it shows how little the long-term Labour Party members think of Corbyn!)

The important numbers are what the general public think.

Only 38% think he has a clear vision for Britain.

Only 30% think he has sound judgement.

Only 24% think he is a capable leader.

And only 18% think he would be good in a crisis. 18%.......

The worst thing for Corbyn is all those numbers are down, from this time last year. He gets more unpopular with the public on the key issues as time goes on.

He's unelectable and as a consequence his selfishness and vaingloriousness will only extend the hurt and misery of the most vulnerable in our society.

I can't recall hypocrisy on his scale. At least the Tories are honest about not giving a **** about the marginalised. Corbyn makes the weakest pay for his self-indulgence.

I think your final two paragraphs make it clear theres not really much room for debate. You lost the election. Again. You hate Corbyn, (apparently more than the Tories? apologies if ive read that wrong). I don't know whether you accept the legitimacy of the double win, or you believe that it was stolen by entryists or something. But it definitely sounds like you'd be better off leaving the party if things are that bad for you.

Hibrandenburg

26-09-2016, 08:26 AM

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 08:33 AM

Hibbyradge

26-09-2016, 08:58 AM

Obviously there's support for Corbyn. Whether or not he can ever win an election is another matter but obviously the majority of labour voters want to go with Corbyn. Labour MPs who are not capable now of accepting and acting on the wishes of their electorate can hardly be expected to do so if they party was to come to power. If what they believe is contradictory to that of the membership then it's either time to change or leave.

Or they could choose to stay in the "broad church" and try to change it from within. Of course, as we have already evidenced on this thread, the "broad church" is a fallacy.

I think there will be a combination of these options, but the future for the Labour Party does look bleak.

Here's an article which discusses the dilemma;

https://medium.com/@Daniel_Sugarman/to-stay-or-to-leave-points-labour-moderates-should-consider-44bbcdd27e62#.4chaaxa2d

AndyM_1875

26-09-2016, 11:58 AM

Popcorn is never a waste!

By the way, have Momentum started calling the business friendly, Blairite SNP "Tartan Tories" yet?

It's only a matter of time.

Popcorn at the ready. :greengrin

Momentum do spout the most abysmal student politics nonsense.

However on this one they just might have a point:greengrin:offski:

High-On-Hibs

26-09-2016, 01:06 PM

cabbageandribs1875

26-09-2016, 01:16 PM

some poll saying 59% of labour voters think it's unlikely labour would win the next general election under corbyn, 45% think it's unlikely labour will EVER win another general election :hilarious

i'm backing the 45% :greengrin

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 03:40 PM

Obviously there's support for Corbyn. Whether or not he can ever win an election is another matter but obviously the majority of labour voters want to go with Corbyn. Labour MPs who are not capable now of accepting and acting on the wishes of their electorate can hardly be expected to do so if they party was to come to power. If what they believe is contradictory to that of the membership then it's either time to change or leave.

:agree: self evidently.

Yet Corbyn and McDonnell chose not to do that, voting against their elected leaders and manifesto policy nearly 1000 times between them.

More Labour voters wanted to stay in the EU than wanted Corbyn as leader, yet he sold the jerseys in the referendum.

That's where the charge of hypocrisy arises.

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 03:55 PM

Yet Corbyn and McDonnell chose not to do that, voting against their elected leaders and manifesto policy nearly 1000 times between them.

More Labour voters wanted to stay in the EU than wanted Corbyn as leader, yet he sold the jerseys in the referendum.

That's where the charge of hypocrisy arises.

The parallel you're drawing is with Then; an old rebel MP voting with his conscience against Blairs policies which were getting whipped through anyway with no problem, and Now; a concerted pre-planned programme of undermining the whole party leadership by 172 MPs!

I had an email in my inbox from JC from three days before the referendum pleading with me as a Labour voter to vote Remain. He was the 3rd most visible campaigning politician in the country in the week before the referendum behind only Farage and Boris Johnson.

That's where your charge of hypocrisy falls flat on its arse.

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 04:01 PM

The parallel you're drawing is with Then; an old rebel MP voting with his conscience against Blairs policies which were getting whipped through anyway with no problem, and Now; a concerted pre-planned programme of undermining the whole party leadership by 172 MPs!

I still have an email in my inbox from JC from three days before the referendum pleading with me as a Labour voter to vote Remain. He was the 3rd most visible campaigning politician in the country in the week before the referendum behind only Farage and Boris Johnson.

That's where your charge of hypocrisy falls flat on its arse.

If you are that unhappy with your Party that you vote against it several hundred times then it doesn't matter if it's you or twenty 'comrades', it maybe questions whether that's the right Party for you.

Of course it would be a challenge to give up all the support that a big, national party machine offers, wouldn't it?

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 04:09 PM

If you are that unhappy with your Party that you vote against it several hundred times then it doesn't matter if it's you or twenty 'comrades', it maybe questions whether that's the right Party for you.

Of course it would be a challenge to give up all the support that a big, national party machine offers, wouldn't it?

Frankly, if that's the charge sheet against him it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm delighted he voted against Blair, as are probably the hundreds of thousands that have come back to the fold because of him.

Anyway, he's won.

Pretty Boy

26-09-2016, 04:26 PM

Corbyn needs to up his game and attack a Tory party that would be feeling the force of the crisis headlines if it wasn't for Labour tearing itself apart. There are numerous issues they can be 'got at' on and we need more performances and arguments in the grammar school debate mould from him. Likewise the PLP need to accept Corbyns mandate amongst the membership and supporters and back him on policy unless it's a genuine conscience issue. There must still be plenty common ground where compromise can be found if both sides are willing.

If by the next GE things are no further forward then I'm sure even the most devoted Corbyn fan would accept he has to go, I'm sceptical that he can win over enough of the public to pose a serious electoral threat but the party heirarchy now have to give him the best possible chance to do so.

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 04:36 PM

Frankly, if that's the charge sheet against him it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm delighted he voted against Blair, as are probably the hundreds of thousands that have come back to the fold because of him.

Anyway, he's won.

I noticed that :greengrin

I genuinely hope he now takes a bit of responsibility for a change and works to stop the party tearing itself apart. Despite the email you mention he has always been a Eurosceptic and I don't think for one second he was disappointed with the referendum result, hence him pushing for Article 50 to be triggered straight away. He could have and should have done more - it's what his members wanted and needed. More importantly he has to take more visible and meaningful action to curb the talk of retribution against MPs. He has no place to question the loyalty of others, given his past behaviour. This includes serious action to clamp down on the abuse that's particularly being directed at female MPs.

When you say he's won though, it's the country that's lost. If you go back a few posts you will see the national polling figures. Less than a quarter think he is a capable leader. Less than a fifth think he would be good in a crisis. And those figures are down from a year ago - as he becomes better-known public confidence in him goes down.

His presence essentially guarantees a Tory majority at the next general election. It's the political equivalent of the fans voting for Terry Butcher to be made manager.

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 05:12 PM

I noticed that :greengrin

I genuinely hope he now takes a bit of responsibility for a change and works to stop the party tearing itself apart. Despite the email you mention he has always been a Eurosceptic and I don't think for one second he was disappointed with the referendum result, hence him pushing for Article 50 to be triggered straight away. He could have and should have done more - it's what his members wanted and needed. More importantly he has to take more visible and meaningful action to curb the talk of retribution against MPs. He has no place to question the loyalty of others, given his past behaviour. This includes serious action to clamp down on the abuse that's particularly being directed at female MPs.

When you say he's won though, it's the country that's lost. If you go back a few posts you will see the national polling figures. Less than a quarter think he is a capable leader. Less than a fifth think he would be good in a crisis. And those figures are down from a year ago - as he becomes better-known public confidence in him goes down.

His presence essentially guarantees a Tory majority at the next general election. It's the political equivalent of the fans voting for Terry Butcher to be made manager.

The polls are a reflection of the internecine strife in the party; I'm sure you know that perfectly well. He isn't going to get high approval ratings when there is open civil war in the party, that would be ludicrous. As we've already said, The polls went from 3-8 behind, to 16 behind immediately after chicken coup. Why? because the public demands unity. As for up here, Corbyn inherited the Labour disaster in Scotland. Pretending this was going to get turned round overnight is again, ludicrous.

Online abuse happens. Trolls exist everywhere, including on here, and claiming its any more likely to come from Corbyn supporters than the other lot is ridiculous and disgraceful. Theres no more evidence of that than there is of anti-Semitism; total smear and propaganda and to be honest and it demeans your argument, as does the personal stuff you said previously about his wife. Really? :dunno:

You've talked a lot about what he 'needs' to do to win the PLP round. Its the other way round IMO. The likes of Ian Murray need to come out and tell his constituents if he respects the memberships mandate. If not, why should I support him as my MP? He would be an irrelevance, the equivalent of a cuckoo in the nest. Leadership doesn't just come from the top of an organisation, it comes from all levels. Or it should.

ronaldo7

26-09-2016, 06:48 PM

He won the election fair and square (again), despite the media's best efforts.

Either dry your eyes and get on with the fact that he is leader, or go off in a sulk and support a party closer to your ideology. There's a fair few in the south these days.

I've seen a few folk move from Labour to the Tories since the Corbyn annihilation of Smith. The twittersphere is a hoot.

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 09:00 PM

The polls are a reflection of the internecine strife in the party; I'm sure you know that perfectly well. He isn't going to get high approval ratings when there is open civil war in the party, that would be ludicrous. As we've already said, The polls went from 3-8 behind, to 16 behind immediately after chicken coup. Why? because the public demands unity. As for up here, Corbyn inherited the Labour disaster in Scotland. Pretending this was going to get turned round overnight is again, ludicrous.

Online abuse happens. Trolls exist everywhere, including on here, and claiming its any more likely to come from Corbyn supporters than the other lot is ridiculous and disgraceful. Theres no more evidence of that than there is of anti-Semitism; total smear and propaganda and to be honest and it demeans your argument, as does the personal stuff you said previously about his wife. Really? :dunno:

You've talked a lot about what he 'needs' to do to win the PLP round. Its the other way round IMO. The likes of Ian Murray need to come out and tell his constituents if he respects the memberships mandate. If not, why should I support him as my MP? He would be an irrelevance, the equivalent of a cuckoo in the nest. Leadership doesn't just come from the top of an organisation, it comes from all levels. Or it should.

Your claim that his low polling is a consequence of the MPs not backing him is nonsense IMO.

He's just not a good leader, he's not competent. And most people can see that.

The questions they are responding to aren't about unity, they're about whether he would be any good in a crisis or is a capable leader. And ridiculously high numbers just don't believe in him.

He's admitted he only stood because it was his turn from the 'awkward squad'. He's shown a complete lack of leadership skills and that's why people don't trust him to be a PM.

He's an empty vessel as leader and the only thing he will deliver is Number Ten to the Tories, which is a disgrace.

I'm disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the misogyny that Corbyn seems to turn a blind eye to, from his camp. People aren't making it up. And maybe you could point out where I said trolling was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp? You've said that's ridiculous and disgraceful but I didn't actually say that, so why are you suggesting I did? What I would say is I'm quoting national polls and you're constructing straw men.

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 09:36 PM

I'm generally not one for posting links, I would rather argue my cause in my own words but I've literally just read this and it very directly links into the points above about Corbyn's incompetence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/26/corbyn-calls-for-return-of-mental-health-post-he-left-unfilled

hibsbollah

26-09-2016, 10:13 PM

Your claim that his low polling is a consequence of the MPs not backing him is nonsense IMO.

He's just not a good leader, he's not competent. And most people can see that.

The questions they are responding to aren't about unity, they're about whether he would be any good in a crisis or is a capable leader. And ridiculously high numbers just don't believe in him.

He's admitted he only stood because it was his turn from the 'awkward squad'. He's shown a complete lack of leadership skills and that's why people don't trust him to be a PM.

He's an empty vessel as leader and the only thing he will deliver is Number Ten to the Tories, which is a disgrace.

I'm disappointed that you are so quick to dismiss the misogyny that Corbyn seems to turn a blind eye to, from his camp. People aren't making it up. And maybe you could point out where I said trolling was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp? You've said that's ridiculous and disgraceful but I didn't actually say that, so why are you suggesting I did? What I would say is I'm quoting national polls and you're constructing straw men.

I never said you said trolling was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp. I said you said online abuse was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp. And you did say it was something Corbyn 'needed to address'...So no, I'm not using a straw man. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you just misread my post.
Corbyns team's Misogyny? yes, I'm quick to turn a blind eye to it, because I haven't seen any evidence that it exists. Unless you can provide some?

I'm not denying the reality of the polls. The Labour Party is a disaster zone at the moment. I am denying your interpretation of why they are where they are and who's fault it is. Most importantly, I also acknowledge the possibility, in fact likelihood, that public opinion will change from time to time. Can you?

Everything else I can see from your post is repetitive, he's an empty vessel, he's unelectable, he's going to deliver it to the Tories and so on. I don't know what you expect me to do about your disconnect between your views and the majority of Labour Party members. ('A mixture of trots and stop the war sign ups'? Do you really believe this or are you just using hyperbole for effect?) You need to decide what to do about that.

Mibbes Aye

26-09-2016, 11:10 PM

I never said you said trolling was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp. I said you said online abuse was more likely to come from the Corbyn camp. And you did say it was something Corbyn 'needed to address'...So no, I'm not using a straw man. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you just misread my post.
Corbyns team's Misogyny? yes, I'm quick to turn a blind eye to it, because I haven't seen any evidence that it exists. Unless you can provide some?

I'm not denying the reality of the polls. The Labour Party is a disaster zone at the moment. I am denying your interpretation of why they are where they are and who's fault it is. Most importantly, I also acknowledge the possibility, in fact likelihood, that public opinion will change from time to time. Can you?

Everything else I can see from your post is repetitive, he's an empty vessel, he's unelectable, he's going to deliver it to the Tories and so on. I don't know what you expect me to do about your disconnect between your views and the majority of Labour Party members. ('A mixture of trots and stop the war sign ups'? Do you really believe this or are you just using hyperbole for effect?) You need to decide what to do about that.

44 women MPs wrote an open letter to him asking him to do more to counter the intimidation, including rape and death threats they've been facing - it's an open letter so it's in the public domain. Many have spoken individually about the threats they've faced, I'm sure you know that.

I'm guessing you don't know any of them personally but no doubt you will dismiss them as plotters :rolleyes:

You seem to have no answer to the point that the general public don't trust him, don't rate him, other than to say things might get better. But his numbers have got worse since he assumed office and you can blame that on whatever you like, but they've still got worse. And they won't get better because he's not competent.

Which means the next election will be handed on a plate to the Tories and we will just have to wait and see whether self-indulgence continues to triumph over pragmatism. I know which course will be better for the poor and vulnerable in our society. Do you?

hibsbollah

27-09-2016, 12:12 AM

44 women MPs wrote an open letter to him asking him to do more to counter the intimidation, including rape and death threats they've been facing - it's an open letter so it's in the public domain. Many have spoken individually about the threats they've faced, I'm sure you know that.

I'm guessing you don't know any of them personally but no doubt you will dismiss them as plotters :rolleyes:

You seem to have no answer to the point that the general public don't trust him, don't rate him, other than to say things might get better. But his numbers have got worse since he assumed office and you can blame that on whatever you like, but they've still got worse. And they won't get better because he's not competent.

Which means the next election will be handed on a plate to the Tories and we will just have to wait and see whether self-indulgence continues to triumph over pragmatism. I know which course will be better for the poor and vulnerable in our society. Do you?

I'm aware of the letter. I don't think its any evidence of what youre suggesting, which is that his supporters are at the heart of it.

Ive done a lot better than you at answering our respective points. You just haven't bothered with any of mine, which is fair enough. At the risk of repetition, his personal approval ratings are bad. And they got worse after the coup. Do you think there may be some cause and effect here? Do you think if, say, Yvette Cooper Andy Burnham and some other 'big hitters' (I say this only in relative terms) from the 'right wing' of the party had a collective show of unity and shadow cabinet togetherness, (or even joined the shadow cabinet) how he was viewed by the public might be different? The answer is obvious. Without his MPs behind him, he doesn't look like a prime minister in waiting. No **** Sherlock. I return to the thing about Leadership, you need to show it throughout a successful organisation, not just at the top.

Please don't get going on the poor and the vulnerable being neglected under Corbyn :faf: The 'poor and the vulnerable' got shafted by the previous Labour administration. What happened to child poverty indices? Why did the NHS sell off start on Labour's watch? Traditional Labour voters left in droves and 15% of the electorate still don't even bother to vote. Two election defeats followed. Theres only one Labour party model that's 'unelectable' these days and you can trace it right back to Philip Gould.

The elephant in the room is Socialism. There hasn't been a socialist alternative in British politics for a very long time. Understandably, lots of people don't like socialism because its not in their interests. Corbyn is a socialist, we've all known hes a socialist and proud of it for years. There is a large majority of Labour MPs who aren't socialists, who are educated by a generation of 1990s and early 21st century Labour politicians and apparatchiks not to use the word because it signals unelectability. The PLP use words like 'wealth redistribution' occasionally, but making the poor less poor by manipulating the tax system was as far as that went. They were baffled and stunned when they never noticed 100/1 shot and avowed socialist Corbyn was more popular than they were amongst the ordinary membership. However much you might want to pretend we're all 'trots and stop the war-ers', lots of traditional left of centre voters left the Labour Party when they felt shafted by Blair and now theyre back because they feel democratic representation again. There's a schism, it was inevitable and it needs to be dealt with.

Without an acknowledgement of this dynamic, a lot of the rest of the debate is just wind and pish.

Mibbes Aye

27-09-2016, 01:04 AM

I'm aware of the letter. I don't think its any evidence of what youre suggesting, which is that his supporters are at the heart of it.

Ive done a lot better than you at answering our respective points. You just haven't bothered with any of mine, which is fair enough. At the risk of repetition, his personal approval ratings are bad. And they got worse after the coup. Do you think there may be some cause and effect here? Do you think if, say, Yvette Cooper Andy Burnham and some other 'big hitters' (I say this only in relative terms) from the 'right wing' of the party had a collective show of unity and shadow cabinet togetherness, (or even joined the shadow cabinet) how he was viewed by the public might be different? The answer is obvious. Without his MPs behind him, he doesn't look like a prime minister in waiting. No **** Sherlock. I return to the thing about Leadership, you need to show it throughout a successful organisation, not just at the top.

Please don't get going on the poor and the vulnerable being neglected under Corbyn :faf: The 'poor and the vulnerable' got shafted by the previous Labour administration. What happened to child poverty indices? Why did the NHS sell off start on Labour's watch? Traditional Labour voters left in droves and 15% of the electorate still don't even bother to vote. Two election defeats followed. Theres only one Labour party model that's 'unelectable' these days and you can trace it right back to Philip Gould.

The elephant in the room is Socialism. There hasn't been a socialist alternative in British politics for a very long time. Understandably, lots of people don't like socialism because its not in their interests. Corbyn is a socialist, we've all known hes a socialist and proud of it for years. There is a large majority of Labour MPs who aren't socialists, who are educated by a generation of 1990s and early 21st century Labour politicians and apparatchiks not to use the word because it signals unelectability. The PLP use words like 'wealth redistribution' occasionally, but making the poor less poor by manipulating the tax system was as far as that went. They were baffled and stunned when they never noticed 100/1 shot and avowed socialist Corbyn was more popular than they were amongst the ordinary membership. However much you might want to pretend we're all 'trots and stop the war-ers', lots of traditional left of centre voters left the Labour Party when they felt shafted by Blair and now theyre back because they feel democratic representation again. There's a schism, it was inevitable and it needs to be dealt with.

Without an acknowledgement of this dynamic, a lot of the rest of the debate is just wind and pish.

Corbyn is unelectable, why don't you respond to that? Four-fifths of his MPs, 200,000 of the party members and three-quarters of the general public don't believe he's capable. I guess they're all wrong and you are right.

When Labour was electable there was massive progress on child and pensioner poverty, there was the minimum wage and massive investment in new schools and hospitals. You posted a while back saying that Labour governments had never done anything progressive. I responded (but I note you didn't reply) pointing out how much socially progressive legislation had been enacted by all the Labour administrations - Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown. Why didn't you reply?

To change things for the better means being in power. Corbyn can't deliver that. Which means he can't deliver social justice or betterment for the marginalised. All he can do is be self-indulgent about his principles. And he's not even competent at that, given his backtracking today over Trident.

I'm not sure you're Labour, I am sure that the self-indulgence and navel-gazing we've signed up for guarantees the Tories will be returned to power at the next election. What then?

Moulin Yarns

09-10-2016, 01:59 PM

More turmoil in Labour today I see.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37602161

steakbake

09-10-2016, 02:51 PM

Seems like we are heading for another Labour coup and mass resignations tomorrow. Absolutely useless opposition at a time they need to step up.

Pretty Boy

09-10-2016, 07:37 PM

Seems like we are heading for another Labour coup and mass resignations tomorrow. Absolutely useless opposition at a time they need to step up.

I'm no Corbyn fan, people may have noticed, but the PLP really need to back him in the short to medium term and actually allow him to attempt to provide an opposition.

This in fighting isn't helping their cause any more than Corbyns. If anything it will cost them the traditional left wing vote for the forseeable and turn off undecided types who dislike the disloyalty.

Unless there is a genuine conscience issue with regards policy they should be trying to attack a deeply divided Tory party rather than each other.

Colr

11-10-2016, 05:55 AM

I'm no Corbyn fan, people may have noticed, but the PLP really need to back him in the short to medium term and actually allow him to attempt to provide an opposition.

This in fighting isn't helping their cause any more than Corbyns. If anything it will cost them the traditional left wing vote for the forseeable and turn off undecided types who dislike the disloyalty.

Unless there is a genuine conscience issue with regards policy they should be trying to attack a deeply divided Tory party rather than each other.

The PLP really do come across as self serving middle class career politicos.

If Corbin does anything, I hope he improves the quality of Labour MPs

Hibbyradge

11-10-2016, 09:30 AM

The PLP really do come across as self serving middle class career politicos.

If Corbin does anything, I hope he improves the quality of Labour MPs

Maybe that's what he was doing when he gave another keynote speech to the SWP last week.

Searching for quality. 😂

Mind you, his promotion of Diane Abbot suggests that his idea of quality might be at odds with everyone Elise's.

Hiber-nation

11-10-2016, 02:51 PM

Maybe that's what he was doing when he gave another keynote speech to the SWP last week.

Searching for quality. 😂

Mind you, his promotion of Diane Abbot suggests that his idea of quality might be at odds with everyone Elise's.

All I do is shake my head when I see her on TV. There's very little else you can do. Poor old Labour, it's absolutely tragic.

Colr

12-10-2016, 10:16 PM

I've seen a few folk move from Labour to the Tories since the Corbyn annihilation of Smith. The twittersphere is a hoot.

Rather depends on where you think Labour need to go. Do you want to back the party most likely to win short term or to do the right thing long term.

Pretty Boy

01-11-2016, 06:41 AM

I probably deserve a kicking for bumping this thread but...

This inevitability took a little longer than I expected but it's finally happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/31/momentum-loses-momentum-as-members-condemn-founder

ronaldo7

01-11-2016, 07:33 AM

]I probably deserve a kicking for bumping this thread but[/B]...

This inevitability took a little longer than I expected but it's finally happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/31/momentum-loses-momentum-as-members-condemn-founder

Not really.

The Labour party are still filling column inches. Take Keith Vaz, the MP of Rent boy/cocaine investigations, he decides he wants to stand on the committee which oversees courts and the legal system. All this, after being forced to stand down from the Home affairs committee.

He could maybe get a steer from Marie Rimmer who's up on charges of assault in Glasgow this Wednesday.

Lots more to come from this dysfunctional bunch.

Hibbyradge

01-11-2016, 11:01 PM

ronaldo7

02-11-2016, 06:30 AM

RyeSloan

02-11-2016, 08:13 AM

This article did make me laugh!

The trots and the far left bams have become so fond of blaming Tony Blair for anything and everything that now his influence is to blame for the rifts in Momentum!

This is the type of stuff that you couldn't imagine in your wildest dreams! [emoji23][emoji23]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/mo-mentum-mo-problems

So let me get this right...various sub groups are complaining that their influence at the proposed conference will be diluted by the fact that the leadership has proposed that all members get to vote and decide 'policy'.

And are doing so by complaining about certain people having too much influence.

Sounds to me like they don't like the idea simply because they know the 20,000 are not likely to be aligned to their specific views (Marxist dudes especially!)

Power games by the looks of it...

Pretty Boy

02-11-2016, 09:32 AM

So let me get this right...various sub groups are complaining that their influence at the proposed conference will be diluted by the fact that the leadership has proposed that all members get to vote and decide 'policy'.

And are doing so by complaining about certain people having too much influence.

Sounds to me like they don't like the idea simply because they know the 20,000 are not likely to be aligned to their specific views (Marxist dudes especially!)

Power games by the looks of it...

Personally I think it's about time they started showing some loyalty to the leadership......

Hibbyradge

02-11-2016, 10:01 AM

Personally I think it's about time they started showing some loyalty to the leadership......

:faf:

:thumbsup:

lucky

02-11-2016, 07:02 PM

Not really.

The Labour party are still filling column inches. Take Keith Vaz, the MP of Rent boy/cocaine investigations, he decides he wants to stand on the committee which oversees courts and the legal system. All this, after being forced to stand down from the Home affairs committee.

He could maybe get a steer from Marie Rimmer who's up on charges of assault in Glasgow this Wednesday.

Lots more to come from this dysfunctional bunch.

Rimmer verdict of Not Proven. You must be gutted that she has not been guilty

ronaldo7

02-11-2016, 07:04 PM

Rimmer verdict of Not Proven. You must be gutted that she has not been guilty

Not proven, very apt for the Jury to Abstain on a Labour MP.:wink:

cabbageandribs1875

02-11-2016, 07:29 PM

Not proven, very apt for the Jury to Abstain on a Labour MP.:wink:

yet another labour politician that tried to stick her big beak and even bigger gob in to another countries business, it must be a labour thing

lucky

02-11-2016, 08:17 PM

Not proven, very apt for the Jury to Abstain on a Labour MP.:wink:

I'm sure the Nats being investigated and chargered would be delighted with that but as we all know at least 1 is going down

marinello59

04-11-2016, 08:54 AM

yet another labour politician that tried to stick her big beak and even bigger gob in to another countries business, it must be a labour thing

Where's Angus Robertson this week?

marinello59

04-11-2016, 08:56 AM

Not proven, very apt for the Jury to Abstain on a Labour MP.:wink:

:greengrin
Seriously though, how on earth did that case even reach a courtroom. Nobody involved in it came out well, nothing more than a playground spat.

ronaldo7

04-11-2016, 03:52 PM

:greengrin
Seriously though, how on earth did that case even reach a courtroom. Nobody involved in it came out well, nothing more than a playground spat.

None more so than the Labour party themselves. It seems they want other parties to crack down when people get involved with the law, but they can keep the whip, and carry on as if nothing's happened, even when they're on the "Justice" committee.

Double standards at play me thinks.:wink:

lucky

04-11-2016, 05:59 PM

Or the fact this should never have reached court. An argument at a polling station or robbing thousands of fellow travelers. I know which is a lot more serious

Hibbyradge

05-11-2016, 05:37 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/itvnews/status/794876532799848448/video/1

:facepalm:

Hibby Bairn

05-11-2016, 07:59 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/itvnews/status/794876532799848448/video/1

:facepalm:

Corbyn, hopeless. May, hopeless. Lib Dem guy, invisible. UKIP, near death.

No wonder people are turning for people like Trump. A huge void in political leadership.

No wonder SNP and Sturgeon are riding at all time highs in the polls.

ronaldo7

05-11-2016, 08:03 PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/itvnews/status/794876532799848448/video/1

:facepalm:

It seems both Tory parties are running for cover.:greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/do-you-want-interview-instead-9200401

Hibby Bairn

05-11-2016, 08:44 PM

It seems both Tory parties are running for cover.:greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/do-you-want-interview-instead-9200401

Quite like Ponsonby.

ronaldo7

05-11-2016, 08:53 PM

Quite like Ponsonby.

He dealt with it very well IMO.:greengrin

ronaldo7

21-12-2016, 02:14 PM

Jamie Reed MP for Copeland to quit parliament and take up a job within the Nuclear Industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390152

lucky

21-12-2016, 07:05 PM

Jamie Reed MP for Copeland to quit parliament and take up a job within the Nuclear Industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390152

This could be interesting for all 4 main parties.
Labour need to hold
Tories with their % poll lead should take it
UKIP if they are going to make the breakthrough then it should be in seats like this 58% voted to leave
Lib Dems can they continue their recent good run

It's a three way fight, a lot could depend on who the candidates are and local connections

hibsbollah

21-12-2016, 07:55 PM

This could be interesting for all 4 main parties.
Labour need to hold
Tories with their % poll lead should take it
UKIP if they are going to make the breakthrough then it should be in seats like this 58% voted to leave
Lib Dems can they continue their recent good run

It's a three way fight, a lot could depend on who the candidates are and local connections

Strongly pro-Brexit constituency, lots of jobs in the nuclear industry. Obviously the resignation is a nightmare bit of timing for Labour (probably not accidental) and they are clearly going to lose it to one of the other parties. Probably this represents the starting gun for chicken coup II.

lucky

21-12-2016, 09:11 PM

Strongly pro-Brexit constituency, lots of jobs in the nuclear industry. Obviously the resignation is a nightmare bit of timing for Labour (probably not accidental) and they are clearly going to lose it to one of the other parties. Probably this represents the starting gun for chicken coup II.

Real challenge for Labour. But a good strong local candidate might see them hold on. The Tories and UKIP could cut each other's throats here but it wouldn't surprise me it lead to another challenge. The name I'm hearing is Vernon Coaker as the new leading light of progress

One Day Soon

21-12-2016, 09:41 PM

Strongly pro-Brexit constituency, lots of jobs in the nuclear industry. Obviously the resignation is a nightmare bit of timing for Labour (probably not accidental) and they are clearly going to lose it to one of the other parties. Probably this represents the starting gun for chicken coup II.

There won't be another challenge. It's Comrade Corbyn all the way to the next election unless he's handed the black spot by Len McCluskey - and even he doesn't control Momentum. The mad left have all the rope in the world now and no-one else to blame.

Next stop John McDonnell I should think.

hibsbollah

22-12-2016, 05:39 PM

There won't be another challenge. It's Comrade Corbyn all the way to the next election unless he's handed the black spot by Len McCluskey - and even he doesn't control Momentum. The mad left have all the rope in the world now and no-one else to blame.

Next stop John McDonnell I should think.

This inexplicably turned up in my inbox but I think it was meant for you...

Dear One Day Soon,

As we approach the end of the year I want to take the opportunity to thank each and every Labour Party member and wish you all a very merry Christmas.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is that the Labour Party's biggest asset in meeting our challenges is you, our members and supporters.

The party has never grown faster — with more new members in the last 20 months than in the previous 20 years.

New members and old, together, are a formidable force in British society and politics. When we campaign together we have great results.

In the last year we forced the Tories to drop their appalling plan to cut Personal Independence Payments for those with disabilities and they were forced to retreat on cuts to Working Tax Credits.

We have forced back their plan for 'every school an academy', defeated Tory changes to Sunday trading, and forced them to put their plans for Brexit before Parliament and the country.

In recent weeks, we have campaigned for our National Health Service and social care, which are in crisis due to Tory cuts and mismanagement.

The truth is that the rules of politics and the economy are rigged. Over the last decade most people have seen their living standards stagnate or fall, while an elite few prosper. There may be a new Prime Minister in Number 10 but the rules are still rigged against the majority of the British people.

Six years of austerity has hit public services, living standards and opportunities for many people. The Tories' long-term economic plan has been all pain for little gain. Public service cuts for the many, to fund tax cuts for the few.

The consequences are stark: increased poverty and street homelessness, oversized classes in many of our schools and 120,000 children spending this Christmas in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own.

It does not have to be like this.

Labour would invest to grow our economy, raise wage levels and ensure no one and no community is left behind.

Brexit is a huge challenge for our country. We have to heal the divides in our country — and speak for both those who voted Leave and Remain, to stop the Tory vision for Brexit — of a country where workers are easier to exploit and taxes easier to avoid. We will not obstruct the democratic decision to Leave, but we will oppose policies that harm our people.

It is our party, our movement, that will unite people to change Britain for the better, and give us the chance to bring more humanity and peace to a troubled world.

Let us work together — and enjoy the common endeavour we are embarked on.

Thank you for all that you do for our party, and I hope you have the opportunity to spend some time with loved ones over the Christmas period.

Jeremy Corbyn

One Day Soon

22-12-2016, 09:04 PM

This inexplicably turned up in my inbox but I think it was meant for you...

Dear One Day Soon,

As we approach the end of the year I want to take the opportunity to thank each and every Labour Party member and wish you all a very merry Christmas.

If there is one thing that is certain, it is that the Labour Party's biggest asset in meeting our challenges is you, our members and supporters.

The party has never grown faster — with more new members in the last 20 months than in the previous 20 years.

New members and old, together, are a formidable force in British society and politics. When we campaign together we have great results.

In the last year we forced the Tories to drop their appalling plan to cut Personal Independence Payments for those with disabilities and they were forced to retreat on cuts to Working Tax Credits.

We have forced back their plan for 'every school an academy', defeated Tory changes to Sunday trading, and forced them to put their plans for Brexit before Parliament and the country.

In recent weeks, we have campaigned for our National Health Service and social care, which are in crisis due to Tory cuts and mismanagement.

The truth is that the rules of politics and the economy are rigged. Over the last decade most people have seen their living standards stagnate or fall, while an elite few prosper. There may be a new Prime Minister in Number 10 but the rules are still rigged against the majority of the British people.

Six years of austerity has hit public services, living standards and opportunities for many people. The Tories' long-term economic plan has been all pain for little gain. Public service cuts for the many, to fund tax cuts for the few.

The consequences are stark: increased poverty and street homelessness, oversized classes in many of our schools and 120,000 children spending this Christmas in temporary accommodation without a home to call their own.

It does not have to be like this.

Labour would invest to grow our economy, raise wage levels and ensure no one and no community is left behind.

Brexit is a huge challenge for our country. We have to heal the divides in our country — and speak for both those who voted Leave and Remain, to stop the Tory vision for Brexit — of a country where workers are easier to exploit and taxes easier to avoid. We will not obstruct the democratic decision to Leave, but we will oppose policies that harm our people.

It is our party, our movement, that will unite people to change Britain for the better, and give us the chance to bring more humanity and peace to a troubled world.

Let us work together — and enjoy the common endeavour we are embarked on.

Thank you for all that you do for our party, and I hope you have the opportunity to spend some time with loved ones over the Christmas period.

Jeremy Corbyn

If utterly mundane narration delivered by an ineffectual puppet won elections, this would be blinding. I doesn't and this won't.

But the lentillista political class feel good about it so that's alright then.

hibsbollah

22-12-2016, 09:42 PM

If utterly mundane narration delivered by an ineffectual puppet won elections, this would be blinding. I doesn't and this won't.

But the lentillista political class feel good about it so that's alright then.

Ffs man crack a smile.

One Day Soon

23-12-2016, 10:08 AM

Ffs man crack a smile.

I just can't when it comes to Corbyn in particular, but also the state of politics more widely.

Scotland, UK, Europe, US and globally - the political leaders and parties are brutally awful. Everywhere demagogues, tyrants and unprincipled populists seem to be on the rise. Prince Charles was right (not often I can say that), we are living through echoes of the 1930s.

Facts, science and evidence led decision making are now held in contempt and shysters posing as leaders happily lie to the social media enabled mob of public opinion, which then echoes back and amplifies the lies. I don't think there has ever been such a uniform caste of smarmy, plausible, unprincipled, totally out of their depth political leaders across the globe as there are now.

I feel this will end very badly.

I can crack a smile over Peter Kay, the Two Ronnies, Hibs winning the Cup or seeing Brit Olympic medal winning footage. I just can't on the political stuff - I see nothing there but danger.

All that aside, have a Merry Christmas!

hibsbollah

23-12-2016, 12:02 PM

snooky

23-12-2016, 05:19 PM

I see Gordon Brown on telly tonight delivering food parcels to the poor in Kirkcaldy.
The equavelent of King Herod opening up a nursery chain.
The man has no shame.

Colr

23-12-2016, 06:28 PM

I see Gordon Brown on telly tonight delivering food parcels to the poor in Kirkcaldy.
The equavelent of King Herod opening up a nursery chain.
The man has no shame.

He had good intentions. Quite a few of the good things that came out of the New Labour government were down to him like surestart and staying out of the €

The 2008 financial sector collapse would have been much worse but for the action he took.

Hibbyradge

23-12-2016, 07:50 PM

I see Gordon Brown on telly tonight delivering food parcels to the poor in Kirkcaldy.
The equavelent of King Herod opening up a nursery chain.
The man has no shame.

That's a ridiculous comment.

lucky

23-12-2016, 08:48 PM

I see Gordon Brown on telly tonight delivering food parcels to the poor in Kirkcaldy.
The equavelent of King Herod opening up a nursery chain.
The man has no shame.

Really? Can you explain this?

stoneyburn hibs

23-12-2016, 08:53 PM

That's a ridiculous comment.

As ridiculous as Brown saying during the Indy referendum that if you vote Yes it's a pension time bomb?

snooky

23-12-2016, 10:08 PM

One Day Soon

23-12-2016, 10:15 PM

Marco Tardelli?

Have a good un yourself you lickspittle, servile Unionist Blairrite cant:aok:

Ahhhhhhh, Marco Tardelli. Yep definitely smiling now.

'mon the lickspittlers.

lord bunberry

23-12-2016, 10:57 PM

I just can't when it comes to Corbyn in particular, but also the state of politics more widely.

Scotland, UK, Europe, US and globally - the political leaders and parties are brutally awful. Everywhere demagogues, tyrants and unprincipled populists seem to be on the rise. Prince Charles was right (not often I can say that), we are living through echoes of the 1930s.

Facts, science and evidence led decision making are now held in contempt and shysters posing as leaders happily lie to the social media enabled mob of public opinion, which then echoes back and amplifies the lies. I don't think there has ever been such a uniform caste of smarmy, plausible, unprincipled, totally out of their depth political leaders across the globe as there are now.

I feel this will end very badly.

I can crack a smile over Peter Kay, the Two Ronnies, Hibs winning the Cup or seeing Brit Olympic medal winning footage. I just can't on the political stuff - I see nothing there but danger.

All that aside, have a Merry Christmas!
I'm sorry, but how can you include Scotland in that list? I agree 100% with everything you say in that very well put together post. What I don't understand is why you include our country in that list, we're far from perfect, but what our government is proposing is a country where everyone is welcome and we're free from nuclear weapons. You might not agree with independence, but you surely can't argue that an independent Scotland will be a far better place to live for non Scots than a foreign citizen in a post brexit Britain. I also think things may well end badly, but it won't end badly because the government of our country instigated anything. Our downfall will result in our alliances with countries and leaders that our government have no reason to support. Maybe it's time for self interest and petty beliefs to take a back seat.

lucky

24-12-2016, 12:22 AM

Sorry, but I think this latest action was no more than a publicity stunt - just like all the rest of the baby kissers.
Maybe if we'd got a photo of him doing this posted on FB by a passer by however, the BBC cameras and press were there.
I'm sure he did it with the best of intentions - but for whom?

Signed: "Cynics R Us" :wink:

But what's in it for him? Apparently they've help this charity for years. It's actually very sad that this time last the charity help 100 kids at Christmas this year it's 800. Any publicity that helps raise cash and awareness has got to be good.

Hibbyradge

24-12-2016, 11:34 PM

https://medium.com/@Layo_91/momentum-they-fly-so-high-nearly-reach-the-sky-then-like-my-dreams-they-fade-and-die-a2efab45ac2c#.bsvhunbke

Holmesdale Hibs

26-12-2016, 09:33 PM

As ridiculous as Brown saying during the Indy referendum that if you vote Yes it's a pension time bomb?

Didn't hear that one. Although I suppose he was technically correct, only he didn't mention that voting No would result in the pension time bomb and we're stuck with it regardless of the outcome of any Indy referendum.

lord bunberry

26-12-2016, 09:46 PM

Didn't hear that one. Although I suppose he was technically correct, only he didn't mention that voting No would result in the pension time bomb and we're stuck with it regardless of the outcome of any Indy referendum.
I'm surprised you didn't hear it. He mentioned it whilst giving his vow that he had no authority to give and no power to implement.

Holmesdale Hibs

26-12-2016, 10:20 PM

I'm surprised you didn't hear it. He mentioned it whilst giving his vow that he had no authority to give and no power to implement.

Maybe I did and have fogotten it, although it's quite a blatant lie so surprised it didn't stick. Mind you there was so many lies I lost track and didn't follow the campaign too closely as couldn't vote.

I remember Brown's first campaign speech quite late one when he seemed to reinvent himself as a chirpy stand up comedian.

snooky

26-12-2016, 10:49 PM

Maybe I did and have fogotten it, although it's quite a blatant lie so surprised it didn't stick. Mind you there was so many lies I lost track and didn't follow the campaign too closely as couldn't vote.

I remember Brown's first campaign speech quite late one when he seemed to reinvent himself as a chirpy stand up comedian.

And oh how we laughed. :clown:

One Day Soon

30-12-2016, 11:26 AM

I'm sorry, but how can you include Scotland in that list? I agree 100% with everything you say in that very well put together post. What I don't understand is why you include our country in that list, we're far from perfect, but what our government is proposing is a country where everyone is welcome and we're free from nuclear weapons. You might not agree with independence, but you surely can't argue that an independent Scotland will be a far better place to live for non Scots than a foreign citizen in a post brexit Britain. I also think things may well end badly, but it won't end badly because the government of our country instigated anything. Our downfall will result in our alliances with countries and leaders that our government have no reason to support. Maybe it's time for self interest and petty beliefs to take a back seat.

I include Scotland in that list because our leaders are just as shallow, clueless and spin/social media obsessed (if not more so) as all the others. And like all the others they have no coherent answers to our most pressing problems.

Dominating the news cycle with excellent spin, lots of selfies and an abundance of social media postings is not the same thing as having a coherent analysis of our economic weaknesses and a credible plan for addressing them right now. If you put the leaders of all the Scottish political parties together in a room none of them would be able to outline a meaningful approach to achieving growth in our economy - and yet it is our single biggest challenge.

I'm not interested in what they are proposing for circumstances which don't exist (independence). Anyone can be in favour of anything they like in the context of a future world that doesn't exist. I'm interested in what they are doing right now as a government and opposition with the powers they do have in the real world.

Colr

30-12-2016, 01:16 PM

Glory Lurker

30-12-2016, 05:07 PM

Focuses on handouts rather than hope.

Genuine question - what constitutes "hope" in this context?

Hibbyradge

02-01-2017, 01:26 PM

Genuine question - what constitutes "hope" in this context?

This maybe?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/02/len-mccluskey-corbyn-should-consider-his-position-if-polls-dont-improve?client=ms-android-samsung

Colr

03-01-2017, 02:08 PM

Genuine question - what constitutes "hope" in this context?

I was alluding to a message which has a vision of opportunity and growth rather than taking some money from richer people and giving it to less rich - a paternalistic approach to re-distributive socialism.

Whereas there is a place for that, it's not an approach which has voters swinging behind them. The three landslides Labour won in the 1990s and 2000s were built off education, education, education which was about greater opportunity for people's children - dealing with social mobility, in a way. They put a lot of money into that in schools and surestart programs and people voted for what they saw.

The current message feels like a middle class - wannabe elite trying to buy folk off and it's being eaten into by UKIP saying things will be better for working people if they get rid of foreigners or in Scotland, the SNP, who give a much better impression of being on people's side.

It's a lack of vision that's relevant to the current issues and a positive message articulated to give a positive outlook which, I think, is a better way to win votes.

Betty Boop

07-01-2017, 03:10 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1lFnMgXgAIAjpa.jpg:large

hibsbollah

07-01-2017, 06:06 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1lFnMgXgAIAjpa.jpg:large

He wants to save the NHS? What a ******* he is focusing on these unelectable issues.

ronaldo7

07-01-2017, 08:27 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1lFnMgXgAIAjpa.jpg:large

The NHS in England seems to be in a dire state at the moment. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemies.

https://t.co/SD3WGNPfsL

Colr

07-01-2017, 10:12 PM

He wants to save the NHS? What a ******* he is focusing on these unelectable issues.

He wants to save it from the involvement of the private sector. I don't think he has the slightest idea how improve the NHS. It doesn't need saved because its not being got rid off. It needs re-imagined and he doesn't have the first idea where to start.

Mibbes Aye

07-01-2017, 11:57 PM

He wants to save it from the involvement of the private sector. I don't think he has the slightest idea how improve the NHS. It doesn't need saved because its not being got rid off. It needs re-imagined and he doesn't have the first idea where to start.

:agree:

Good post. It's got to the point of an existential crisis for the NHS yet the supposed Labour leader can't describe a thing.

It's the NHS and he's meant to be the leader of the Labour Party, yet he can't articulate any sort of message other than 1970s tropes.

He is failing Labour voters and he is failing the public.

Joke of a leader.

hibsbollah

08-01-2017, 09:10 AM

:agree:

Good post. It's got to the point of an existential crisis for the NHS yet the supposed Labour leader can't describe a thing.

It's the NHS and he's meant to be the leader of the Labour Party, yet he can't articulate any sort of message other than 1970s tropes.

He is failing Labour voters and he is failing the public.

Joke of a leader.

Its this kind of angry ad hominim attack without any actual substance to it that has the average voter turning its back on what you purport to support. You may as well add 'he's failing himself and failing his family to your second last sentence. And a' 1970s trope' is just straight out of a cliché Tory rag songbook.

Mibbes Aye

08-01-2017, 06:43 PM

Its this kind of angry ad hominim attack without any actual substance to it that has the average voter turning its back on what you purport to support. You may as well add 'he's failing himself and failing his family to your second last sentence. And a' 1970s trope' is just straight out of a cliché Tory rag songbook.

Yeah, it's me and my ad hominem attacks,right enough.

What's ad hominem about it? I'm criticising his failure to articulate a clear vision. That's a core part of leadership and he's failing to deliver. He was elected to lead the party but he isn't doing so.

That's notwithstanding his absolute failure to hold the Tories to account over the crisis in the NHS.

Corbyn might help soothe the fevered brows of those who think that the first priority of government should be to try Tony Blair for the Iraq War but here and now, in the real world and in 2017, Corbyn is failing the Labour Party.

It's telling that even McCluskey is distancing himself. Corbyn has taken a lend of the party his whole parliamentary career. Perhaps it's not too late for him to do the decent thing and resign. Then maybe we can move the party on from self-indulgent navel-gazing and start acting like a genuine Opposition and try to convince the electorate that there is a potential Government in waiting there.

And yes, 1970s tropes is what we get from him. I note you just dismiss it as Tory cliches rather than articulating the compelling and plausible policy vision Corbyn has been repeating.

But then he would have to have been repeating a compelling and plausible policy vision wouldn't he? and we both know he has not.

He's not a leader and he's never been loyal to the Party that he was happy to use for his posturing self-aggrandisement. Time for him to give it up before he does any more damage to the movement.

hibsbollah

08-01-2017, 07:12 PM

Mibbes Aye

08-01-2017, 08:33 PM

Yes, I've heard these black and white opinions from you before.
He clearly IS a leader because he's won the leadership election, TWICE. Just by repeating again and again that he's not a 'real' leader, he's a joke leader, doesn't address the mass support he has from the membership, and fundamentally, doesn't mean it's true.

Your NHS argument is bizarre. He destroyed May at PMQs, he highlighted the Tories weak points and he has it at the front of his priorities, as he should at it is at the head of most voters concerns. Even the media agree he was successful dealing with May on social care in England too. Is he my perfect leader? No. But he's getting a lot more right than wrong.

You think he should do the decent thing and resign? :faf: and who do you think the membership would vote for then? The central issue in all of this is not Corbyn the caricatured individual. It's the fact that the labour movement is not going to put up with Tory Lite anymore. The policies are what matter. If Corbyn resigns, the likelihood is another socialist will be elected. Who will be pilloried as mercilessly as Corbyn has been.

Until you acknowledge that there are even a tiny few crumbs of positives that have come with his election (huge membership increases are apparently a bad thing, as they must all be donkey jacket wearing, lentil swilling trots), you just come across as a bitter propagandist.

The Tories are tanking Labour in the polls despite having led the country for seven years and had a free run at what bordered on ideological warfare because they successfully sold a story that the recession was all Gordon Brown's fault. Corbyn has presided over a slump in the party's fortunes because he doesn't have a message that people can believe in,or engage with.

But the self-indulgent navel-gazing will go on and the unpopularity will be blamed on internal discontent and the leadership challenge. As if that is unique to Corbyn.... and ignoring the rank hypocrisy of Corbyn and the entryists accusing anyone else of disloyalty!!

Corbyn hasn't been pilloried mercilessly, far from it - don't be ridiculous. By comparison, Ed Miliband got a much harder time. Yet for all his weaknesses he defeated Cameron in the Commons over Syria and he was brave enough to publicly challenge Murdoch and Dacre. In those situations he showed leadership,something that is lacking in Labour now.

If Corbyn is such a leader then why are the polls showing Labour thirteen points behind a car crash of a Tory administration?

hibsbollah

08-01-2017, 10:39 PM

The Tories are tanking Labour in the polls despite having led the country for seven years and had a free run at what bordered on ideological warfare because they successfully sold a story that the recession was all Gordon Brown's fault. Corbyn has presided over a slump in the party's fortunes because he doesn't have a message that people can believe in,or engage with.

But the self-indulgent navel-gazing will go on and the unpopularity will be blamed on internal discontent and the leadership challenge. As if that is unique to Corbyn.... and ignoring the rank hypocrisy of Corbyn and the entryists accusing anyone else of disloyalty!!

Corbyn hasn't been pilloried mercilessly, far from it - don't be ridiculous. By comparison, Ed Miliband got a much harder time. Yet for all his weaknesses he defeated Cameron in the Commons over Syria and he was brave enough to publicly challenge Murdoch and Dacre. In those situations he showed leadership,something that is lacking in Labour now.

If Corbyn is such a leader then why are the polls showing Labour thirteen points behind a car crash of a Tory administration?

Ah, the polls. You clearly follow the polls, as I do, so you probably also know that Labour went off the cliff after the 'chicken coup' of last summer. Prior to this, Labour under Corbyn was faring the same or slightly better than under Miliband. Somewhere between 3-7%back. Its there as public record. So when you look at the timeline it is a disunited Labour Party that the public are rejecting. Now you can blame Corbyn for the majority of Labour MPs revolting against his leadership, and against the membership. Many people do. There is another interpretation; that the architects of the coup itself are also responsible for the coup. Both for the shambles of the aftermath and the total absence of any sort of engagement with the membership of the Party since then. Its frankly pathetic for people in Labour to whinge 'Corbyn never showed Blair any loyalty, why should I show him any?'. Have some self respect. Loyalty isn't something that needs to be bought and paid for.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

There are two realities that need to be confronted when understanding whats going on. 1. A majority of Labour MPs are opposed to the current leadership. 2. An overwhelming majority of Labour Party members are supportive of the current leadership. If you dont acknowledge both realities you come up with silly suggestions like 'Corbyn should do the decent thing and resign'.

So by all means point out the polls dont look good for Labour. (although 7 points adrift on Dec 18th doesn't suggest a recovery by 2020-four years away! is impossible. And as we all know, the sight of John Curtis dragging himself to news studios after elections where polling got it spectacularly wrong again is becoming as familiar as a fart in a burrito house). Just apply some balance as to why and how we arrived where we are.

Hibbyradge

09-01-2017, 03:11 PM

Ah, the polls. You clearly follow the polls, as I do, so you probably also know that Labour went off the cliff after the 'chicken coup' of last summer. Prior to this, Labour under Corbyn was faring the same or slightly better than under Miliband. Somewhere between 3-7%back. Its there as public record. So when you look at the timeline it is a disunited Labour Party that the public are rejecting. Now you can blame Corbyn for the majority of Labour MPs revolting against his leadership, and against the membership. Many people do. There is another interpretation; that the architects of the coup itself are also responsible for the coup. Both for the shambles of the aftermath and the total absence of any sort of engagement with the membership of the Party since then. Its frankly pathetic for people in Labour to whinge 'Corbyn never showed Blair any loyalty, why should I show him any?'. Have some self respect. Loyalty isn't something that needs to be bought and paid for.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

There are two realities that need to be confronted when understanding whats going on. 1. A majority of Labour MPs are opposed to the current leadership. 2. An overwhelming majority of Labour Party members are supportive of the current leadership. If you dont acknowledge both realities you come up with silly suggestions like 'Corbyn should do the decent thing and resign'.

So by all means point out the polls dont look good for Labour. (although 7 points adrift on Dec 18th doesn't suggest a recovery by 2020-four years away! is impossible. And as we all know, the sight of John Curtis dragging himself to news studios after elections where polling got it spectacularly wrong again is becoming as familiar as a fart in a burrito house). Just apply some balance as to why and how we arrived where we are.

There is a third reality.

Corbyn, himself, is hugely unpopular with the electorate. In fact, he is actually less popular than Theresa May with Labour voters!

Ahead of the Copeland by-election, a seat Labour has held since 1935, the Tories are already using him in their campaign. They have issued posters with a picture of Corbyn with the words' "Decommision Nuclear Power Stations immediately".

(Hopefully Labour will hold, but if the Tories, who are bookies favourites, do win, it will be the first time the Government will have made a gain in a by election since 1982 and that was while the Falkland War was being fought.)

In 2020 all the stuff about the IRA, his "friends in Hamas, refusal to sing the national anthem etc will feature heavily in the Tory campaign, so the possibility of a reversal of the current polls is virtually nil.

hibsbollah

09-01-2017, 03:28 PM

There is a third reality.

Corbyn, himself, is hugely unpopular with the electorate. In fact, he is actually less popular than Theresa May with Labour voters!

Ahead of the Copeland by-election, a seat Labour has held since 1935, the Tories are already using him in their campaign. They have issued posters with a picture of Corbyn with the words' "Decommision Nuclear Power Stations immediately".

(Hopefully Labour will hold, but if the Tories, who are bookies favourites, do win, it will be the first time the Government will have made a gain in a by election since 1982 and that was while the Falkland War was being fought.)

In 2020 all the stuff about the IRA, his "friends in Hamas, refusal to sing the national anthem etc will feature heavily in the Tory campaign, so the possibility of a reversal of the current polls is virtually nil.

What I take from your last paragraph is that once the Tory press start to misrepresent your point of view, and give you a hammering at election time, you have virtually no chance of electoral success. If that's the case, there is no point ever, of doing anything except things the Tory press will find favour with.

As a voter, that's not a position I'm willing to accept anymore. Neither are most of the Labour movement.

Hibbyradge

09-01-2017, 06:56 PM

What I take from your last paragraph is that once the Tory press start to misrepresent your point of view, and give you a hammering at election time, you have virtually no chance of electoral success. If that's the case, there is no point ever, of doing anything except things the Tory press will find favour with.

You know fine that's not my point.

Having policies which the Tory press disapprove of is one thing. Doing/saying things that the vast majority of the population find repellent is another.

Labour got elected in 1997 with a manifesto which included the promise of job creation, investment in the NHS, more spending on education, nursery places for youngsters and safeguarding the environment. Oh, and the promise of a "new politics" too, iirc.

The Tories hated those measures, but Labour won handsomely.

(Interestingly, Labour Party membership doubled from 200k to over 400k in the lead up to that election, and they paid a lot more than £3 to join.)

Regardless of the platform Labour stand on in 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will not win and, even more worryingly, the party could be decimated.

The likelihood is that labour will come third In Scotland, possibly winning no seats at all ffs, and the north of England is a real worry.

I've depressed myself now, so I'm going out for a pint!

hibsbollah

09-01-2017, 08:09 PM

You know fine that's not my point.

Having policies which the Tory press disapprove of is one thing. Doing/saying things that the vast majority of the population find repellent is another.

Labour got elected in 1997 with a manifesto which included the promise of job creation, investment in the NHS, more spending on education, nursery places for youngsters and safeguarding the environment. Oh, and the promise of a "new politics" too, iirc.

The Tories hated those measures, but Labour won handsomely.

(Interestingly, Labour Party membership doubled from 200k to over 400k in the lead up to that election, and they paid a lot more than £3 to join.)

Regardless of the platform Labour stand on in 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will not win and, even more worryingly, the party could be decimated.

The likelihood is that labour will come third In Scotland, possibly winning no seats at all ffs, and the north of England is a real worry.

I've depressed myself now, so I'm going out for a pint!

You have no idea what's going to happen in 2020. Neither do I. . And less of the 'you know fine well' talk. It's rude and totally unnecessary.

Hibbyradge

09-01-2017, 09:08 PM

You have no idea what's going to happen in 2020. Neither do I. . And less of the 'you know fine well' talk. It's rude and totally unnecessary.

No I don't know exactly what will happen in 2020, but a bkind man on a charging horse could see Corbyn isn't going to win.

What you're asking is for us to hope a miracle happens and the UK electorate will somehow decide to completely change their political outlook and vote for a man who they currently despise.

hibsbollah

09-01-2017, 09:51 PM

No I don't know exactly what will happen in 2020, but a bkind man on a charging horse could see Corbyn isn't going to win.

What you're asking is for us to hope a miracle happens and the UK electorate will somehow decide to completely change their political outlook and vote for a man who they currently despise.

I'm not 'asking' for anything. I'm sure you'll vote based on what inspires you regardless.

Hibbyradge

09-01-2017, 10:55 PM

I'm not 'asking' for anything. I'm sure you'll vote based on what inspires you regardless.

Sorry, my mistake.

I thought I'd read somewhere that you campaigned for the Labour Party.

Hibbyradge

10-01-2017, 10:29 AM

hibsbollah

10-01-2017, 10:39 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/10/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-maximum-wage-law?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Wage caps, now?

Being rich is not the problem. Being poor that is the problem. Putting a cap on earnings will not solve poverty,

The use of taxation is one of the methods (amongst others) to share wealth of a nation and reduce poverty. A cap is a nonsense.

And we're now pro-Brexit? :wtf:

Its not that radical an idea. It works fairly well in Switzerland, and I'm not sure if it's actually legislated in Scandinavia but Swedish and Finnish society works fairly well on the premise that the guy who operates the coffee machine is paid about the same as the guy who does the accounts in the same department. Mrs Bollah remarked on this when she was in Stockholm before Xmas. Her colleagues response? 'We' re an equal society'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/

He never said anything about being pro Brexit. He's talking about limiting free movement of labour in certain circumstances, which is why Caroline Lucas is giving him a hard time.

JeMeSouviens

10-01-2017, 10:44 AM

Its not that radical an idea. It works fairly well in Switzerland, and I'm not sure if it's actually legislated in Scandinavia but Swedish and Finnish society works fairly well on the premise that the guy who operates the coffee machine is paid about the same as the guy who does the accounts in the same department. Mrs Bollah remarked on this when she was in Stockholm before Xmas. Her colleagues response? 'We' re an equal society'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/

He never said anything about being pro Brexit. He's talking about limiting free movement of labour in certain circumstances, which is why Caroline Lucas is giving him a hard time.

A wage cap? The Swiss had a referendum on one but rejected it, so it definitely doesn't work fairly well there!

Hibbyradge

10-01-2017, 11:06 AM

Its not that radical an idea. It works fairly well in Switzerland, and I'm not sure if it's actually legislated in Scandinavia but Swedish and Finnish society works fairly well on the premise that the guy who operates the coffee machine is paid about the same as the guy who does the accounts in the same department. Mrs Bollah remarked on this when she was in Stockholm before Xmas. Her colleagues response? 'We' re an equal society'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/

He never said anything about being pro Brexit. He's talking about limiting free movement of labour in certain circumstances, which is why Caroline Lucas is giving him a hard time.

"Britain can be better off outside the EU".

Granted, he hasn't actually said that yet, technically it's only the pre-speech publicity, but that sounds very much like support for Brexit to me. It's certainly not even close to opposition.

His supporters can continue to argue semantics all they like, but the message the electorate hears is the important thing.

hibsbollah

10-01-2017, 04:19 PM

A wage cap? The Swiss had a referendum on one but rejected it, so it definitely doesn't work fairly well there!

Well OK I'm busted there :greengrin but it was a serious legislative proposal, and the concept of legislating against astronomical wages has been implemented in Scandinavian social democratic economies, in the form of progressive taxation. Not in any way loony left.

Hibbyradge

10-01-2017, 05:57 PM

Well OK I'm busted there :greengrin but it was a serious legislative proposal, and the concept of legislating against astronomical wages has been implemented in Scandinavian social democratic economies, in the form of progressive taxation. Not in any way loony left.

That's what I said above.

Taxation - super.

Wage caps - stupid.

hibsbollah

10-01-2017, 06:33 PM

That's what I said above.

Taxation - super.

Wage caps - stupid.

I understand your point of view. Lots of sensible economists would also disagree with you. In the UK we don't have tax levels that redistribute wealth; are you in favour of a Scandinavian style (say 60%) income tax rate? If not, what would you do to address the ever growing disparity between rich and poor?

Hibbyradge

10-01-2017, 07:20 PM

I understand your point of view. Lots of sensible economists would also disagree with you. In the UK we don't have tax levels that redistribute wealth; are you in favour of a Scandinavian style (say 60%) income tax rate? If not, what would you do to address the ever growing disparity between rich and poor?

The gap between rich and poor interests me less than the fact that there are people in this country who, despite their best efforts, are on the breadline.

Wage caps, ie stopping people becoming excessively rich, would do nothing to help the poor. Sure the gap might fractionally reduce, but folk in poverty would still be in poverty.

I have no problem with changing the tax regime for the highest earners, but suggesting that they're not allowed to earn more than £X smacks of the politics of envy.

I am interested in the basic income idea, but I don't know enough about it yet.

Vault Boy

11-01-2017, 12:36 AM

hibsbollah

11-01-2017, 07:22 AM

The gap between rich and poor interests me less than the fact that there are people in this country who, despite their best efforts, are on the breadline.

Wage caps, ie stopping people becoming excessively rich, would do nothing to help the poor. Sure the gap might fractionally reduce, but folk in poverty would still be in poverty.

I have no problem with changing the tax regime for the highest earners, but suggesting that they're not allowed to earn more than £X smacks of the politics of envy.

I am interested in the basic income idea, but I don't know enough about it yet.

Theres nothing about the maximum wage that makes it more symptomatic of 'the politics of envy' more than any sort of taxation that targets the super rich. Is a 60% tax rate 'the politics of envy'?

Why do you think a maximum wage 'do nothing to help the poor'? In 2009 a couple of LSE professors published a book called The Spirit Level demonstrating that there was a direct correlation between reducing the gap between rich and poor and societal gains in health, education, happiness indicators etc affecting all strata of society, rich and poor. The Spirit Levels findings were taken on board and referenced by Milibands Labour and the Tories at the last election, so its not the preserve of any one political point of view. In simple terms, you need to narrow the gap '(reduce relative poverty) before you can even think about reducing absolute poverty. A maximum wage is a mechanism to achieve this aim. Assuming its an aim you consider worth supporting.

Your normal gripe with Corbyn is that he's not targeting issues that the public care about. But polling evidence shows there is public revulsion to excessive boardroom pay levels. By saying that Govt contracts will only be offered to companies that have a handle on boardroom pay levels (the 20:1 policy)he is at least focusing on an issue that the apparently public care about. As he did with the NHS and social care for the elderly, which the Tories are weak on.

Hibernia&Alba

11-01-2017, 12:25 PM

One Day Soon

11-01-2017, 12:53 PM

Yeah, it's me and my ad hominem attacks,right enough.

What's ad hominem about it? I'm criticising his failure to articulate a clear vision. That's a core part of leadership and he's failing to deliver. He was elected to lead the party but he isn't doing so.

That's notwithstanding his absolute failure to hold the Tories to account over the crisis in the NHS.

Corbyn might help soothe the fevered brows of those who think that the first priority of government should be to try Tony Blair for the Iraq War but here and now, in the real world and in 2017, Corbyn is failing the Labour Party.

It's telling that even McCluskey is distancing himself. Corbyn has taken a lend of the party his whole parliamentary career. Perhaps it's not too late for him to do the decent thing and resign. Then maybe we can move the party on from self-indulgent navel-gazing and start acting like a genuine Opposition and try to convince the electorate that there is a potential Government in waiting there.

And yes, 1970s tropes is what we get from him. I note you just dismiss it as Tory cliches rather than articulating the compelling and plausible policy vision Corbyn has been repeating.

But then he would have to have been repeating a compelling and plausible policy vision wouldn't he? and we both know he has not.

He's not a leader and he's never been loyal to the Party that he was happy to use for his posturing self-aggrandisement. Time for him to give it up before he does any more damage to the movement.

Outstanding post.

Jeremy Corbyn, for when a political party really just does not give a FF***KK about being in Government any more.

hibsbollah

11-01-2017, 01:48 PM

I think I'd prefer progressive taxation to a maximum wage which the very rich would get around via an army of tax experts, financial advisors and lawyers.

In 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum wage. When faced with a revolt by the super rich, who screamed communism, he struck a compromise: a top marginal income tax rate of 94%. Close the crazy tax loopholes and enforce the law in a progressive tax system. Introduce a REAL living wage for all.

Its not a case of and/or. A belief in progressive taxation is surely self evident if you want to call yourself left of centre in any meaningful sense. I took that as read. A maximum wage isn't going to have the same impact in a fiscal sense as increasing the top rate, but it has importance for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Why should organisations receive contracts for government work when their directors are paying themselves obscene sums while the rest of the workforce are paid close to the living wage?

I'm glad it's actually being debated nationally.

Hibernia&Alba

11-01-2017, 02:25 PM

Its not a case of and/or. A belief in progressive taxation is surely self evident if you want to call yourself left of centre in any meaningful sense. I took that as read. A maximum wage isn't going to have the same impact in a fiscal sense as increasing the top rate, but it has importance for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Why should organisations receive contracts for government work when their directors are paying themselves obscene sums while the rest of the workforce are paid close to the living wage?

I'm glad it's actually being debated nationally.

I think those of us who are on the left need to be canny with strategy. In principle I'd support a maximum wage, but the Tories and their friends in the press would have a field day with it. It would be easy to portray the policy as punitive and counterproductive. Furthermore, those it applied to would find ways of bypassing it. Progressive taxation is easier to argue for on the basis of fairness. Multi-millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay much more than a maximum of 45% income tax. On anything above, say, £1 million per annum, a marginal rate of 80 or 90% is surely reasonable? Even in America, the supposed home of low taxation, it was done for decades. The greatest expansion of economic growth and prosperity in America and Britain - the post war boom - happened under very progressive taxation regimes. The right like to talk about equality of opportunity, but that's only possible within more egalitarian societies. in 2017 the two major factors which determine one's chances in life are the level of the mother's education and postcode: that is unacceptable. When a small number of very wealthy individuals can buy the best of everything whilst the majority face cuts, there can't be equality of opportunity. I think arguments for progressive taxation on the basis of fairness would be more successful than a combined maximum wage and progressive taxation strategy which the right would use to spread fear. We need the first step of a fair taxation system before we can think about maximum wage, IMHO.

Hibbyradge

11-01-2017, 03:10 PM

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_5874dc95e4b0cf4ed40fd29b?

Awful.

hibsbollah

11-01-2017, 03:28 PM

I think those of us who are on the left need to be canny with strategy. In principle I'd support a maximum wage, but the Tories and their friends in the press would have a field day with it. It would be easy to portray the policy as punitive and counterproductive. Furthermore, those it applied to would find ways of bypassing it. Progressive taxation is easier to argue for on the basis of fairness. Multi-millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay much more than a maximum of 45% income tax. On anything above, say, £1 million per annum, a marginal rate of 80 or 90% is surely reasonable? Even in America, the supposed home of low taxation, it was done for decades. The greatest expansion of economic growth and prosperity in America and Britain - the post war boom - happened under very progressive taxation regimes. The right like to talk about equality of opportunity, but that's only possible within more egalitarian societies. in 2017 the two major factors which determine one's chances in life are the level of the mother's education and postcode: that is unacceptable. When a small number of very wealthy systems can buy the best of everything whilst the majority face cuts, there can't be equality of opportunity. I think arguments for progressive taxation on the basis of fairness would be more successful than a maximum wage and progressive taxation strategy which the right would use to spread fear. We need the first step of a fair taxation system before we can think about maximum wage, IMHO.

I dont disagree with a lot of that, if an egalitarian society is the outcome how you get there isn't as important.

You worry that 'the tories and their friends in the press would have a field day' with the maximum wage. Unfortunately, they would have a field day with a a marginal rate of 80-90% as well, probably more so! The notion that Murdoch in particular or the rest of the media in general is ever going to present Labour policies in a good light is unfortunately a bit naïve.

RyeSloan

11-01-2017, 04:04 PM

Hibernia&Alba

11-01-2017, 04:47 PM

80-90% tax rates are a ridiculous concept that really wouldn't work anyway and thats before you consider the moral argument of who the hell the state is that thinks it has the right to take 90% of a successful persons earnings (no matter how much they earn)

Excessive exec pay is a real issue though but you have to ask why that's the case...as ever a lot of it comes down to unintended consequences of legislation. Rules designed to align exec pay to performance have merely had the effect of inflating pay at those levels add in the rules on remuneration voting and the rise of shareholdings being held in nominee accounts and you have a right mess.

This depends upon what you mean by a 'successful person'. Brain surgeons, university professors and nuclear physicists, for example, are all very high achievers, but they aren't multi-millionaires or billionaires. We mustn't fall into the trap of believing that money is how we judge success and human worth. Some of the highest income earners are not particularly brilliant but are the beneficiaries of supply and demand; but that isn't the only method of gauging success. It's one instrument that determines allocation, but is but part of the equation. We mustn't think markets provide a complete answer to the issue of provision and society. Once you reject the idea that the market, supply and demand, is the basis for organisation of society and how we should rewarded human effort, then the natural question is what should we do instead?

Market forces reward those who can sell large numbers of product, but that's only one measure of value. The brain surgeon has nothing to sell: there is no demand for brain surgery as the latest fad or convenience, so the market won't reward the brain surgeon as it does, say, the inventor of the paper clip. But who is the more successful? The market says the inventor of the paper clip deserves a greater allocation of resources than the brain surgeon - I happen to disagree.

Market forces often rewards the trivial greatest, as there is demand for throwaway consumer goods. I think it's a blunt instrument in the full calculation of an individual's worth. It rewards a minority greatly whilst restricting the choices of employees who must sell their labour to receive an allocation of resources. How many millions are forced to take jobs they hate, as there is no alternative in the system of demand and supply? For the majority there is a restriction or an absence of freedom. Capital, the 'successful' as expressed by market forces, wants that labour as cheaply as possible and with the maximum surplus value in return i.e. profit. The moment we view each other as economic units we dehumanise each other; and, furthermore, it isn't democratic. The beneficiaries of supply and demand have complete control over the survival of those they employ under that system of society. They decide who should receive an income and who shouldn't; whose family should eat and whose shouldn't.

For 35 years we've had a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which at the same time has undermined democracy.

So we need to think about how we define success and the value of human beings. Supply and demand isn't a panacea which always allocates justly and which should be accepted as axiomatic. Money isn't the only way we can determine how we live. It's a man made system, not a law of nature. So which men (and women) does it benefit and at whose expense?

hibsbollah

11-01-2017, 05:08 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/10/jeremy-corbyn-maximum-pay-panel

Some interesting points in the link above about maximum pay, including examples where it is in place right now.

RyeSloan

11-01-2017, 07:01 PM

This depends upon what you mean by a 'successful person'. Brain surgeons, university professors and nuclear physicists, for example, are all very high achievers, but they aren't multi-millionaires or billionaires. We mustn't fall into the trap of believing that money is how we judge success and human worth. Some of the highest income earners are not particularly brilliant but are the beneficiaries of supply and demand; but that isn't the only method of gauging success. It's one instrument that determines allocation, but is but part of the equation. We mustn't think markets provide a complete answer to the issue of provision and society. Once you reject the idea that the market, supply and demand, is the basis for organisation of society and how we should rewarded human effort, then the natural question is what should we do instead?

Market forces reward those who can sell large numbers of product, but that's only one measure of value. The brain surgeon has nothing to sell: there is no demand for brain surgery as the latest fad or convenience, so the market won't reward the brain surgeon as it does, say, the inventor of the paper clip. But who is the more successful? The market says the inventor of the paper clip deserves a greater allocation of resources than the brain surgeon - I happen to disagree.

Market forces often rewards the trivial greatest, as there is demand for throwaway consumer goods. I think it's a blunt instrument in the full calculation of an individual's worth. It rewards a minority greatly whilst restricting the choices of employees who must sell their labour to receive an allocation of resources. How many millions are forced to take jobs they hate, as there is no alternative in the system of demand and supply? For the majority there is a restriction or an absence of freedom. Capital, the 'successful' as expressed by market forces, wants that labour as cheaply as possible and with the maximum surplus value in return i.e. profit. The moment we view each other as economic units we dehumanise each other; and, furthermore, it isn't democratic. The beneficiaries of supply and demand have complete control over the survival of those they employ under that system of society. They decide who should receive an income and who shouldn't; whose family should eat and whose shouldn't.

For 35 years we've had a huge redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which at the same time has undermined democracy.

So we need to think about how we define success and the value of human beings. Supply and demand isn't a panacea which always allocates justly and which should be accepted as axiomatic. Money isn't the only way we can determine how we live. It's a man made system, not a law of nature. So which men (and women) does it benefit and at whose expense?

Fair points and I should have added 'from an income perspective' after 'successful'! Success can be measured in many ways and as we all know money doesn't bring happiness!

It is interesting though to note that although the rich have got richer they also pay more of a percentage of total income tax than they have ever before so on one hand you can say the gap has increased but on the other hand the burden of funding the state has also shifted dramatically up the scale.

State intervention in terms of salary caps and maximum ratios is not something I'm ever going to advocate as I'm sure that no matter how well intentioned the unforeseen consequences will simply mean it won't work. Im also fundamentally opposed to the state deciding what people can and can't earn.

I certainly agree executive pay is out of control but quite how the genie is put back in the bottle on a global scale I'm not sure but there is clearly scope for reviewing the ridiculous share option schemes that most seem to receive in lieu of salaries and revisiting the regulations that have encouraged the monumental increase in the first place!

Finally I also think we have to be pragmatic in that just focussing on the rich will get us no where...there also needs to be a serious reevaluation and reeducation of how wealth is created. Simply capping top earners or taxing silly amounts like 80% of income will do nothing to make the nation wealthier nor do I think it would do much for general living standards. There may be an argument for it to be a small part of a much bigger change but I don't see many plans for anything beyond the headlines of capping and taxing that would fundamentally change people's lot.

Hibernia&Alba

11-01-2017, 07:28 PM

Fair points and I should have added 'from an income perspective' after 'successful'! Success can be measured in many ways and as we all know money doesn't bring happiness!

It is interesting though to note that although the rich have got richer they also pay more of a percentage of total income tax than they have ever before so on one hand you can say the gap has increased but on the other hand the burden of funding the state has also shifted dramatically up the scale.

State intervention in terms of salary caps and maximum ratios is not something I'm ever going to advocate as I'm sure that no matter how well intentioned the unforeseen consequences will simply mean it won't work. Im also fundamentally opposed to the state deciding what people can and can't earn.

I certainly agree executive pay is out of control but quite how the genie is put back in the bottle on a global scale I'm not sure but there is clearly scope for reviewing the ridiculous share option schemes that most seem to receive in lieu of salaries and revisiting the regulations that have encouraged the monumental increase in the first place!

Finally I also think we have to be pragmatic in that just focussing on the rich will get us no where...there also needs to be a serious reevaluation and reeducation of how wealth is created. Simply capping top earners or taxing silly amounts like 80% of income will do nothing to make the nation wealthier nor do I think it would do much for general living standards. There may be an argument for it to be a small part of a much bigger change but I don't see many plans for anything beyond the headlines of capping and taxing that would fundamentally change people's lot.

But that's because they take far more of the national income now. Isn't it the case, for example, that the richest 60 people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion? Of course they're going to pay a higher proportion of the TOTAL take overall, when the richest few take such a huge share of income. But as a share of their own income (not the overall amount of taxation paid) top earners pay much less. Obviously somebody paying 45% top income rate is going to paying a lesser proportion of their income than if they were paying 60%. Since the monetarist formula began in 1980, the richer have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, there's no question of that. The higher up the pay scale you are, the better you have done in real terms since Thatcherism. The market has become all - resources are allocated based upon buying and selling; but what of those who don't have a product to sell yet are highly skilled in their job? The allocation of resources based upon buying and selling cannot work for everybody, yet those who aren't trying to sell us anything but who provide vital goods and services are allocated less. Market forces only understand supply and demand; there isn't the required nuance of all human activity. Many things cannot be valued according to supply and demand.

As for making the national wealthier, I would reiterate my point about the post war boom which occurred during the period of the most progressive taxation system in history. You can only have proper growth if all are participating - millions of people. Having an impoverished working class and debt laden middle class makes it impossible; billionaires don't buy a million televisions or a million cars. It requires the ability of all to participate.

RyeSloan

12-01-2017, 06:46 AM

But that's because they take far more of the national income now. Isn't it the case, for example, that the richest 60 people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion? Of course they're going to pay a higher proportion of the TOTAL take overall, when the richest few take such a huge share of income. But as a share of their own income (not the overall amount of taxation paid) top earners pay much less. Obviously somebody paying 45% top income rate is going to paying a lesser proportion of their income than if they were paying 60%. Since the monetarist formula began in 1980, the richer have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, there's no question of that. The higher up the pay scale you are, the better you have done in real terms since Thatcherism. The market has become all - resources are allocated based upon buying and selling; but what of those who don't have a product to sell yet are highly skilled in their job? The allocation of resources based upon buying and selling cannot work for everybody, yet those who aren't trying to sell us anything but who provide vital goods and services are allocated less. Market forces only understand supply and demand; there isn't the required nuance of all human activity. Many things cannot be valued according to supply and demand.

As for making the national wealthier, I would reiterate my point about the post war boom which occurred during the period of the most progressive taxation system in history. You can only have proper growth if all are participating - millions of people. Having an impoverished working class and debt laden middle class makes it impossible; billionaires don't buy a million televisions or a million cars. It requires the ability of all to participate.

Thanks for the reply...I don't think we are that far apart really!

Markets can create distortions but a market distorted by grand policies like salary caps and punitive tax rates (and current actions like QE) creates distortion upon distortions. Basically I don't trust governments and politicians to be able to intervene on such a scale successfully, I see no evidence in their existing policies, particularly in their tax rules that suggests they have an idea of how to create a more equal society in terms of wealth or incomes.

Consumers have also been encouraged to borrow and borrow some more, all in an effort to 'support' the economy. Add in ruinous policies on housing and I begin to wonder if it is the 'free' market that is to blame or the constant meddling of governments.

As for my point on income tax there is no doubt that there is effectively less and less people contributing more and more. It's not about the portion of income they are paying but the portion of the total tax take. At the same time the rich are being pilloried they are being relied on more and more. Successive governments have made the pool of net contributors smaller and smaller and done nothing to consider how that is sustainable in the long term.

Anyway I'm not saying everything is rosey as it's not and agree wholeheartedly that a number of things are out of kilter, we maybe just diverge when it comes to proposed solutions or maybe as to what is at the root of the problems!

hibsbollah

12-01-2017, 09:29 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/jan/11/pmqs-verdict-jeremy-corbyn-has-best-of-home-fixture-labour-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Another 'takedown' at PMQs.

Betty Boop

12-01-2017, 11:25 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/jan/11/pmqs-verdict-jeremy-corbyn-has-best-of-home-fixture-labour-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Another 'takedown' at PMQs.

Yea he's in his stride now. WIiped the floor with May. :greengrint

Hibernia&Alba

12-01-2017, 02:11 PM

Thanks for the reply...I don't think we are that far apart really!

Markets can create distortions but a market distorted by grand policies like salary caps and punitive tax rates (and current actions like QE) creates distortion upon distortions. Basically I don't trust governments and politicians to be able to intervene on such a scale successfully, I see no evidence in their existing policies, particularly in their tax rules that suggests they have an idea of how to create a more equal society in terms of wealth or incomes.

Consumers have also been encouraged to borrow and borrow some more, all in an effort to 'support' the economy. Add in ruinous policies on housing and I begin to wonder if it is the 'free' market that is to blame or the constant meddling of governments.

As for my point on income tax there is no doubt that there is effectively less and less people contributing more and more. It's not about the portion of income they are paying but the portion of the total tax take. At the same time the rich are being pilloried they are being relied on more and more. Successive governments have made the pool of net contributors smaller and smaller and done nothing to consider how that is sustainable in the long term.

Anyway I'm not saying everything is rosey as it's not and agree wholeheartedly that a number of things are out of kilter, we maybe just diverge when it comes to proposed solutions or maybe as to what is at the root of the problems!

But again, that's because those at the top are earning massively more with each passing year, whereas income for the majority is either stagnant or falling. That's neoliberalism in action.

RyeSloan

12-01-2017, 03:21 PM

But again, that's because those at the top are earning massively more with each passing year, whereas income for the majority is either stagnant or falling. That's neoliberalism in action.

Hmm I don't think we are going to agree on this [emoji6]

Due to tax policy (not income increases in one area of the population) over 40% of working age people in the U.K. now pay no income tax. In addition we now have a situation where more than half of UK households receive more in welfare and pensions than they pay in tax.

On the flip side the fiscal drag at the 40% threshold and the pension tax relief changes means as few as 300,000 people are responsible for more than 25% of the tax income.

That's not neoliberalism it's deliberate government policy.

There is plenty of other stats that show the burden of paying income tax has been steadily shifted up the pay scale and in addition it's interesting to note that by the ONS stats the richest 5th of tax payers lose 23.5% of their income to direct taxation while the figure for the poorest 5th is only 9.7%. This somewhat explodes the myth that the tax system is favouring the rich, it takes more of their income and they pay a massive percentage of the total tax take compared to the size of the group.

The real issue is not direct taxation but indirect taxation as this takes no account of the persons ability to pay. VAT is probably the biggest culprit here and these types of taxes are extremely punishing on the poorest 5th accounting for 28% of their income.

So it's pretty clear to see that less and less people pay income tax and of those that do the few at the top are paying more and more of the total. Adding further taxes and caps etc is going to do nothing to relief the pressure on the poorest and may actually impact them negatively if the increased taxes or capped earnings actually result in a decrease of revenue from the very portion of tax payers that are so critical to the governments finances.

Mibbes Aye

12-01-2017, 03:53 PM

Ah, the polls. You clearly follow the polls, as I do, so you probably also know that Labour went off the cliff after the 'chicken coup' of last summer. Prior to this, Labour under Corbyn was faring the same or slightly better than under Miliband. Somewhere between 3-7%back. Its there as public record. So when you look at the timeline it is a disunited Labour Party that the public are rejecting. Now you can blame Corbyn for the majority of Labour MPs revolting against his leadership, and against the membership. Many people do. There is another interpretation; that the architects of the coup itself are also responsible for the coup. Both for the shambles of the aftermath and the total absence of any sort of engagement with the membership of the Party since then. Its frankly pathetic for people in Labour to whinge 'Corbyn never showed Blair any loyalty, why should I show him any?'. Have some self respect. Loyalty isn't something that needs to be bought and paid for.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

There are two realities that need to be confronted when understanding whats going on. 1. A majority of Labour MPs are opposed to the current leadership. 2. An overwhelming majority of Labour Party members are supportive of the current leadership. If you dont acknowledge both realities you come up with silly suggestions like 'Corbyn should do the decent thing and resign'.

So by all means point out the polls dont look good for Labour. (although 7 points adrift on Dec 18th doesn't suggest a recovery by 2020-four years away! is impossible. And as we all know, the sight of John Curtis dragging himself to news studios after elections where polling got it spectacularly wrong again is becoming as familiar as a fart in a burrito house). Just apply some balance as to why and how we arrived where we are.

I like it when you post something like people shouldn't refer to Corbyn being disloyal, because, erm, well you haven't really given a reason :greengrin

He happily took all the trappings that went with being a member of a large, well-resourced party but turned his nose up at following the whip hundreds of times. It's all a bit self-serving and hypocritical really, isn't it?

You can't keep blaming the leadership challenge for the polls, it doesn't wash. If nothing else, there has been remarkable public unity since the last challenge. And while Corbyn won comfortably, both times, the fact remains that at both elections 40% of members didn't want him. Do you think that figure is higher or lower now?

My issue with him is he is simply not a leader.

You mentioned polls - you will know all the ones that specifically rate his competence as a leader, people's trust in him in a crisis etc etc. His figures are rank, aren't they? Not the figures of a man the country sees as a leader. You can't really blame anyone else for those.

This lack of leadership has been writ large over the last week, with the rather botched reboot where he couldn't manage to articulate the same clear message on pay from what he said in the morning to what he said in the afternoon.

Again though, as I've already said, it's on the NHS that his lack of leadership is weakest.

For the last seven days the NHS in England has dominated the domestic news. Dominated in terms of the existential crisis it faces. Yet the public statement that brought the focus, that really skewered the government was the British Red Cross calling it a 'humanitarian crisis'.

Corbyn didn't do anything at PMQs other than ride on the coattails of the Red Cross. They were the ones leading the opposition to the government, not the Leader of the Opposition.

It's stuff like that which highlights just how ineffectual he actually is.

Hibernia&Alba

12-01-2017, 03:54 PM

Hmm I don't think we are going to agree on this [emoji6]

Due to tax policy (not income increases in one area of the population) over 40% of working age people in the U.K. now pay no income tax. In addition we now have a situation where more than half of UK households receive more in welfare and pensions than they pay in tax.

On the flip side the fiscal drag at the 40% threshold and the pension tax relief changes means as few as 300,000 people are responsible for more than 25% of the tax income.

That's not neoliberalism it's deliberate government policy.

There is plenty of other stats that show the burden of paying income tax has been steadily shifted up the pay scale and in addition it's interesting to note that by the ONS stats the richest 5th of tax payers lose 23.5% of their income to direct taxation while the figure for the poorest 5th is only 9.7%. This somewhat explodes the myth that the tax system is favouring the rich, it takes more of their income and they pay a massive percentage of the total tax take compared to the size of the group.

The real issue is not direct taxation but indirect taxation as this takes no account of the persons ability to pay. VAT is probably the biggest culprit here and these types of taxes are extremely punishing on the poorest 5th accounting for 28% of their income.

So it's pretty clear to see that less and less people pay income tax and of those that do the few at the top are paying more and more of the total. Adding further taxes and caps etc is going to do nothing to relief the pressure on the poorest and may actually impact them negatively if the increased taxes or capped earnings actually result in a decrease of revenue from the very portion of tax payers that are so critical to the governments finances.

The poorest don't earn enough to pay income tax, or at least only pay little, so that accounts for that. But why are the richest 20% of earners only paying 23.5% of their income in tax, when their earnings have rocketed in the last 35 years? The higher up the earnings scale, the faster their income has grown. What matters is inequality and the proportion of earnings each individual is contributing based upon their earnings. Inequality is growing all the time, and the poor are actually getting poorer again. IMHO, income tax is far too low at the top, and it's totally unacceptable in a society that is being severely damaged by the austerity agenda which has produced an explosion in homelessness, food banks and a crisis in the NHS. You cannot have equality of opportunity in a vastly unequal society, and the UK is one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. When you have a top 1% earning tens of millions per year and employing lawyers and accountants to pay only a fraction of the 45% top rate, something is wrong. I don't see how anyone who earns a seven figure salary every year could object a top marginal income tax rate of 80% or so. They wouldn't pay it on all their earnings but only on earnings beyond that required for a fantastic lifestyle. Half the world's population live on $1.50 per day; let's be reasonable here. This is a man made system of allocation of resources, which can be changed in favour of a more equitable distribution. We don't have to accept there's no alternative to mass poverty and great inequality.