Jeremy Corbyn

[i]Self employed / small limited company tne two go together imo[/I]

They don't in HMRC/Govt land, both have distinct rules.

But, I will agree that we've a far too complicated tax system and IMO all income to an individual should be taxed exactly the same no matter where it comes from, and no matter whether that individual is working/not-working or retired. This would also include the 'retirement' of employee NI, with a corresponding rise in income tax.

This would also restrict the Govt on its 'schemes', so income from renting out a bedroom is treated for example the same as renting out a house.

And also citizens are entitle to the same benefits (and state pension), or maybe we could bring it all together as a guaranteed citizens 'income'?

What labour members expect is not a hard-left marxist revolution, but a leadership which listens to them and a government which represents them..

All too easily forgotten is the fact that the job of the LP isn't just to deliver what it's members want - it's constitution is very clear on this:

[i]The party shall bring together members [u]and supporters who share its values[/u] to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all levels of the democratic process.[/i]

What labour members expect is not a hard-left marxist revolution, but a leadership which listens to them and a government which represents them..

As the number of people who join and remain members of political parties has reduced massively over the last few decades, so the members who remain are, politically often rather removed from the mainstream electorate. The labour party membership seems to be made of the remnants of the 80's hard left and a large number of younger people, who have never learned the lessons of the 80's and 90's. The labour party membership is never going to have a government that represents them - the rest of the country have moved on and the votes needed to form a government are in the centre, not on the hard-left wing.

This is why, pre-Milibean the MPs had a large say in selecting the leader (they have, logically a desire to shape a vote-winning party ) and the members voice was much reduced. As long as the party members get to say who the leader is the labour party will be condemned to irrelevance.

him and his sixth form followers

I don't think that is fair - they are a bit more advanced than that.

More like the angry pre-graduate lefties that hung around in the student union bars argueing loudly and banging their fists angrily on the bar, or deploying the ballot boxes during student union elections, but moving them slightly to locations that only the lefty voters knew about.

I remember the type who were completely welcoming to foreigners while handing out abuse to those who came from the 'wrong' part of the UK. Lovely folk 😥

Anyway why is Corbyn still the 'leader', he is so irrelevant he hardly gets any press time anymore.

cranberry - Member
As long as the party members get to say who the leader is the labour party will be condemned to irrelevance.

Without the members who would the PLP pick?

dragon - Member
Anyway why is Corbyn still the 'leader', he is so irrelevant he hardly gets any press time anymore.

Poisened chalice?

Without the members who would the PLP pick?

Well, that is another part of the problem for Labour - they started off with the choice of the right Miliband, picked the wrong one, talent left the party. Lost an election, talent left the party. Picked Corbyn, talent left the party. Picked Corbyn a second time, talent left the party.

Momentum/Unite take-over - Anyone want to guess what will leave the party ?

Soon Rebecca is going to look like part of the talent pool of the party. I am not sure how the party gets out of its self-imposed death spiral, if it can.

I am not sure how the party gets out of its self-imposed death spiral, if it can.

I am not sure it will. Labours chances of getting power went seriously downhill with the loss of Scotland to SNP. You can't lose that many seats and get away with it.

I would guess it will be at least 15 years of Tory government before anyone else has a chance. It is the standard pattern isn't it. Tories in for many terms until their policies become more and more extreme and the population suddenly wakes up to how bad they are for the average person.

"I am not sure how the party gets out of its self-imposed death spiral, if it can."

This.

Corbyn's election will remain an open goal for years after he's gone. What floating voter is gonna vote for a party which is known to be hard left at it's core?

I just don't see the way back.

Having said that, I thought Trump would lose, and I got that wrong. Core party voters can be surprisingly loyal.

The thing is that he's now considered to be such a liability, and so useless, that once you've hit those depths (19 points behind in the latest polls) there's just no coming back from it. Its been a death spiral from day one!

He was on the north west news the other night, visiting a local council. The local labour bods tried to look enthusiastic, but the rictus smiles screamed "will you please * off back to Islington before we all get contaminated by your awful 1970's lefty veneer". About as welcome as a fart in a space suit

Then local news guy interviews him. His first question... and I'm paraphrasing slightly, but... "you're a bit shit, aren't you really? Everyone thinks so. So when are you going to do the decent thing, and * off?"

He then parroted off his usual "blah, blah, blah... elected by the membership... blah, blah, blah... mandated from the people....."

So its clear that no matter how bad it gets, he'll cling on like a particularly determined chug-nut

I'd imagine that this goes on in different parts of the country from time to time, but less and less, until even little local papers won't bother to cover his visits any more. Why would they? Its not like he's got anything to say. And unless he's visiting a 6th form common room, absolutely nobody is going to be glad to see him

I think all this talk of 15/20-years of tory government, etc is nonsense.
If the recent past has told us anything, it's that anything can turn around in an instant.

One of the most eye-opening things for me recently though is that the more right-wing you are, the more impervious to scandal you become.
All the stuff being thrown at Trump and nobody seems to care, except all the people who never liked him in the first place. As soon as someone on the left gets a tiny bit of scandal, all the centrists seem to leap on it.
It seems that as soon as you are accepted as being right wing - you are expected to be pretty mercenary/morally corrupt or you're not doing it right.

and, of course, even if he falls on his sword after a calamitous election performance, the structure that milli put in place for electing a new leader will lead to the same kind of freakish result. Yes, less contaminated, but still no more likely to be electable by the wider population, and that's even before any wider Lansmann stitch up of the machinery of the party.

"seems to care, except all the people who never liked him in the first place. As soon as someone on the left gets a tiny bit of scandal, all the centrists seem to leap on it."

Trump has the lowest approval ratings ever. I'm not sure you can offer him as an example as popular with Centrists.

Not sure Trump is right wing either. He's basically been elected on Corbyn's economic policy.

There may never be enough popcorn.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tom-watson-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-momentum-secret-plan-hard-left-deputy-leader-a7638806.html ]Tom Watson just pulled the pin out of the hand grenade [/url]

Let battle commence. At least the phoney war can make way for the real thing now. Hopefully this will lead to the inevitable split. Corbyn, the grizzled old lefties, and 6th formers going one way, the grown ups the other

Statement of the Obvious really Binners. As I have posted before I rate Tom Watson very highly.

The PLP no inatuoms where meant to ensure leadership candidates where capable of leading the party in Parliament and forming policy that was electable at a GE. Corbyn was nominated by many MPs who knew he was neither of those things.

Momentum has always been about entryism.

Alex I fear you are dangerously optimistic, Labour is closer to becoming as ineffective electorally as Scottish Labour than it is to forming even a coalition Government. As parties shrink in terms of MPs they lose funding (wages, short money etc) and also people need work and the best MPs/ministers just get other jobs. Look at the Lib Dems they get less questions at weekly PMQ's than do the SNP

Arrgghhh

I knew I shouldn't have reopened this thread.

Corbyn is not hard left by any rational assessement.

Watson is a dinosaur that is in the wrong party and has not a clue - he is the problem not corbyn. All he keeps on doing with statements like that is giving the tory press ammo

The problem remains the rebels in the labour party not corbyn. All they have done is give the right wing press ammo

a split may well come - and watch all the right winger vanis from parliamentas no one wants tory lite

It is a bit [i]like rain on your wedding day or a free ride when you've already paid[/i] that Tom Watson is the last remaining non-nutter available to stand up against [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10480602/The-Falkirk-scandal-15-facts-you-need-to-know.html ]secret plots with Unite[/url]

All they have done is give the right wing press ammo

Have you read the Nick Cohen article Uncle Jezza? As he points out, the Tory press don't bother with Corbyn at all. Like Theresa, the rest of the Tory party, and everyone who's reached political puberty, they ignore him. He's an irrelevance who gets zero press coverage. Come an election, they'd savage him. Right now all they have to do is keep feeding him more rope.

It tells you everything you need to know that Momentum/Unite want to change the leadership election rules so that you only need 5% support within the parliamentary party to get on the ballot. It presently stands at a whopping great 15%. Yet they know full well that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of reaching that figure, because they're all batshit mental, and politically clueless! The electorate knows this. So do Labour MP's.

That's ambition for you eh? Securing 5% support within the party you allegedly lead? It seems that they seem to be heading to the same percentage support within the electorate as a whole.

Still big in the 6th form though, eh? And that's all that matters...

[img] [/img]

Not sure Trump is right wing either.

Of course the Tory party and "press" ignire him, the longer he's in charge the better. That was the point we where all making back in the original post Milliband leadership contest and why I was close to paying £3 to vote for him.

Point of order: David Milliband would have lost the same way as his bro.

[img] [/img]

Hazel Blears is looking well, isn't she?

Possibly yes, the economic credibility had been shot to bits by Brown post financial crises but I wonder whether David might have fended off the SNP threat rather better.

edit: cfh 🙂

That's life in Salford for you Flashy....

[img] [/img]

@binners yes who knows? Yet some are so sure he would've won. I think he had a few too many skeletons in the closet/ banana skins.

.. but he was more popular with voters and his party than Mr Ed. So, if anyone had a chance of rescuing the party it was him.

Do you think that David would have changed the voting rules, so that the inmates got to decide who should run the asylum ?

After this wonderful video, Jezz We Can will need to spend today making jam:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/843947779957248000/video/1

Did he set out to satirise this ?

Watson is a dinosaur that is in the wrong party and has not a clue - he is the problem not corbyn. All he keeps on doing with statements like that is giving the tory press ammo

Tom Watson has his own mandate from the same people who elected JC

Momentum seeks to ensure members have a greater voice in the party as it is its mass membership that will help Labour win the next general election.

That's Jon Lansman.

Cloud Cuckoo. Is he a teapot?

Crack on with it 🙂

Watson is a dinosaur that is in the wrong party and has not a clue - he is the problem not corbyn.

A statement that in so few words perfectly summarises the total and complete detachment from reality of your average Corbyn fanboi/apoligist/supporter/lefty mentalist.

Don't tell me.... its only the bastard PLP that stands in the way of Jezza, John and Dianne... oh.... and good old Len.... totally reversing their catastrophic polling, and leading the revolution with a massive labour landslide, as they march a grateful nation to the sunny socialist uplands

😆

Baroness Shakrabati, you forgot her binners. Sir Keith seems to have stopped towing the Corbyn line too.

It wasn't so much that Labour lost in Scotland they have been totally obliterated. Its at the point that voters there see no point voting Labour as "they can't win". That's the danger Labour faces in England and Wales now too.

Speaking to our local labour party bods, they just have an air of resigned despair. They know whats coming. They fully expect to be decimated in the local elections in May. losing swathes of councils across the north, that have been labour since the dawn of time. To a sitting, second term Tory govenment. Previously unimaginable before Jezza's 'Project'. Now just expected.

But even then, I doubt it'll make much impact in the Islington Bunker...

[img] [/img]

The only light at the end of the tunnel is that Andy Burnham will be elected as Manchester mayor. By employing the same tactic as Sadiq Khan in London. Distancing himself from the Corbyn madhouse, while not being openly publicly hostile. Basically doing what the electorate are doing. Just ignoring him

I doubt we'll be seeing Jezza up here to 'help out' with the campaign anyway. I expect they've been told in no uncertain terms that they're not welcome. Corbyn wanted his place-man as candidate - The totally anonymous, useless (a man in his own mould) and corrupt Tony Lloyd. So there's no love lost

Agreed binners. The Labour highlights will be Kahn and Burnham and hopefully for the Labour Party enough members will see that is the sort of politician they need going forward.

On a lighter note 🙂

[img] [/img]

I like Burnham but he looked completely lost in both the
leadership elections he has contested.

Jezza once again thinking outside the box at PMQs with a series of questions about police funding. I suppose it's not like anything else is going on today.

finger on the pulse yet again?

Jezza once again thinking outside the box at PMQs with a series of questions about police funding

Yeah, but look at his massive man[s]hood[/s]date!

Phwoar, eh? Phwoar!

I preferred it when he looked like he wasn't trying. Brown blazer, biro in pocket etc. "Jill from Lewes has wrote to me about bin collections..." etc

I'm starting to think Corbyn is some genius satirical plan by Chris Morris.

He's being interviewed by Andrew Neil on BBC1. My 13 year old daughter has a firmer handle on the economics and principles of the EU.

He's like some bloke disinterestedly rambling about it in the pub. He thinks getting out of the EU will allow a labour government to get involved in the state funding and intervention of certain industries. The 70's just phoned Jezza. They want their policies back...

[img] [/img]

Can you hear that noise? That's the sound of Kier Starmer smashing his face repeatedly into his desk

I do now actually believe he's a Tory stooge

He's like some bloke disinterestedly rambling about it in the pub.

Don't agree. He seems fairly composed to me.

When you're asked to score enthusiasm out of 10 to know things are grave.

He seems fairly composed to me.

"Willing to admit there are unknowns."

I respect that in Politicians.

Willing to admit there are unknowns?

The whole thing is a ****ing mahoosive unknown!

But then he's already written Theresa a blank cheque, so I don't suppose anything he has to say is of much relevance. Which given that he had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say is probably just as well

The whole thing is a ****ing mahoosive unknown

Yes but which politician of any pursuasion would ever say that? Or anything like that - they would come across as hysterical, and have their faces projected on to the moon or a turnip by the Sun.

All politicians are subject to a fine line of dialogue aren't they? They can't really express themselves like we can.

Only a few MPs ever get close - Dennis Skinner / George Galloway spring to mind, and we've seen what the newspapers do to them.

[quote=rone said]
Only a few MPs ever get close - Dennis Skinner / George Galloway spring to mind, and we've seen what the newspapers do to them.

Both Brexiteers too.

I have heard Sturgeon when asked a difficult complex question say ( I paraphrase) " Thats a very difficult question with no easy answers, my personal instinct is this, we will have to consult with experts and formulate a policy as a party"

Perciliar article written by JC here:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/jeremy-corbyn-there-is-an-alternative-to-bargain-basement-brexit-1-8465486

On the one hand I agree with a lot of the content. On the other it doesn't sound like he's written it - It contains stuff he's hardly managed to mention in PMQs - i.e. an actual rebuttal of May's "Bankrupt Britain" line.

Maybe he has written it - and that's why it's like a brain dump.
Full of errors that should have been picked up by a profreader too.
"But there is no evidence of that whatever"
"Other of our goals"
It's a bit hyphen-happy too.

Given Corby's stated opinions in that piece, his determination to enforce a three line whip to ensure that the labour party, waves the government through to do the complete opposite of what he wants, is even more inexplicable.

Or maybe I'm looking for clarity from someone who just doesn't do clarity, especially not on Europe

I can see that he wanted to honour the result of the referendum.
Also - if he'd have said 'we'll block a tory brexit' but if we get into power we'll brexit safely for you', he would have got absolutely nowhere.
This fight was lost last spring. Cameron is initially to blame. Then the EU for not throwing him a bone in his 'negotiations'. Now May is going to use it to bleed everyone dry.

Thing is, I'm still no clearer what Corbyn is for. I know he's against nuclear, and at odds with most of his colleagues but I haven't seen a passionate vision from him on anything. He seems to treat the possible break up of the union as an academic exercise, is nominally pro Europe but also anti. and is clear he wants to hold the government to account despite doing the complete opposite for over a year.

Thing is, I'm still no clearer what Corbyn is for.

Thats you, me, and everyone else then

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

He is pro;
Making jam. Sugar free, obviously , as he's totally anti-sugar on health grounds.
Taking a day in lieu if he takes a phone call on a Sunday.
Motorbike holidays.
Grey shell suits.
Stem angles.
His magnificent man[s]hood[/s]date.

But of course, whenever he's on TV he's only asked about Trident, Shoot-to-kill, Anti-semitism, etc. So it's no surprise that you don't know what they are.

CFH - you missed out manhole covers - or was that your last one?

So if zero hour contracts are banned, what will the new higher limit be? 1hr? 10hr? 37hr?

Isn't Ken the one re manhole covers? And Hitler, obviously.

PS: Alex can you link to those policies on a more reliable source, like the Labour Party website for instance?

You forgot the last bullet point

• The planting of more magic money trees

You forgot the last bullet point

• The planting of more magic money trees

Quite. Besides, "a green economy creating a million jobs" isn't a policy, it's pie in the sky waffle. I could just as easily say that I'll create a pie economy creating ONE BILLION jobs.

Kick profit makers out of our* NHS? Really? Where does the line get drawn? Diesel in an ambulance, only from a state petrol station? Medical devices? No, you can't have any profit for your company, employees or product development, we only pay cost. Or buy from a state owned medical device manufacturer. Silly pie in the sky waffle, not a policy.

*Please would politicians stop this? It's the NHS. Saying our every time you say NHS doesn't make it any more important than it already is. Nor does it mean you can lay claim to it any more than anyone else.

Afaik neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party have issued a manifesto since the 2015 GE.
Both parties have begun the Policy Forum process that is meant to form a manifesto leading up the 2020 GE.

The source material for the JC policies (which is the question asked) was from the Jeremy Corbyn Leadership campaign last summer.

http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/policies

"The source material for the JC policies (which is the question asked) was from the Jeremy Corbyn Leadership campaign last summer."

The leader doesn't dictate policy, it has to be agreed with the party. I would question if anything on that list is current policy.

...but I'm still interested in what people think the minimum legal contract working hours should be.

It's not the number of hours - it's the denial of a contract to those that seek it.
i.e. Currently all the benefits of zero-hours contracts are with the employer.

So you need something in place to prevent workers from being exploited. e.g. if you've worked X hours a week for Y weeks on zero-hours, then you should be offered a contract/permanent position.
i.e. go from the status of 'worker' to 'employee'.

Last time I heard, over 30% of people on zero hours contracts work 30 hours a week or more.

(Ed Milliband proposed that Y=12 weeks)

"It's not the number of hours - it's the denial of a contract to those that seek it.
i.e. Currently all the benefits of zero-hours contracts are with the employer.
So you need something in place to prevent workers from being exploited. e.g. if you've worked X hours a week for Y weeks on zero-hours, then you should be offered a contract/permanent position.
i.e. go from the status of 'worker' to 'employee'.
Last time I heard, over 30% of people on zero hours contracts work 30 hours a week or more.
(Ed Milliband proposed that Y=12 weeks)"

So after zero hour contracts have been abolished, zero hours contracts will still be available and perfectly legal.

Interesting use of the word 'abolish'.

So do you want them to stay?
Do you like the proposal?
Or are you just trying to score points?

I was in the pub with a Government Mandarin the other day who is leaving to pastures new, so was slighly indiscreet. He said they don't even bother preparing Ministers for Labour front bench questions anymore as they are an irrelvance, they focus on the SNP and backbenchers.

I think anyone who didn't know who anyone was, watching PMQ's, would come away with the impression that the SNP were definitely the official opposition, and the bumbling bloke, mumbling into the despatch box, never once looking up from the notes he's clearly reading word for word, was just the stand-in representative from some fringe lefty group.

For the last 12 months, the only MP's Theresa May has had to worry about are either Scottish, or sat behind her. Its a tragedy for democracy really. Good job theres not much of any importance going on, that really, really needs an effective opposition to keep in check eh?

So do you want them to stay?

Yes.

As I understand it, it used to be that workers didn't require a contract. So casual workers just didn't bother with a contract and so zero hours contracts didn't exist. Then some legislation changed (was it the working hours rules?) and everyone had to have a contract by law. Because of that casual workers needed contracts, but they stated 0 hours.

So now, if contracts are legally required, but you don't want to ban casual work altogether then you have to pick a minimum.

What minimum do you pick? Make minimum contracts 1 minute? 1 hour? 16 hours? 37 hours?

So yeah I want 0 hours contracts to remain legal. ...and I'm willing to bet that when Corbyn sits down and thinks about it for more than 60 seconds he will understand the problem and he will too.

Kick profit makers out of the NHS. So no;

Medicines or Medical Equipment

Shall I go on ?

oob - I'll rephrase. Do you want the balance of employer/worker rights and advantages to stay as they are with regard to employer responsibilities for people currently working under zero hour contracts?

Kick profit makers out of the NHS. So no;

Medicines or Medical Equipment

Shall I go on ?

You've already missed the point, so don't bother.

Extra clue: nobody will actually "kick" anybody or anything - it's a figure of speech.

i.e. Currently all the benefits of zero-hours contracts are with the employer.

Not entirely true. I have a second job and am on a zero hours contract. I only work 13-15 days a year for this second job and it works brilliantly for me, and employer also.

I get some some extra play money occasionally and my secondary employer can fill in the occasional need in a niche market.

That's not to say some people are being screwed over on zero hours minimum wage. What could perhaps work better was to state that zero hours contracts must be supplied at least 2x minimum wage...

- it's a figure of speech.

No, it's one of "Jeremy Corbyn's Policies". Says so at the top of the list.

What could perhaps work better was to state that zero hours contracts must be supplied at least 2x minimum wage...

"it's a figure of speech."

"I'll rephrase."

jonnyboi was right.

Corbyn was the only one with policies in the leadership contests. You can pretend otherwise (and yes he has turned out crap) but its the truth.