Jeremy Corbyn

[url=www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket]Inconvenient statistics.[/url]

a sort of weeding out of the greedy and the self centred?

No, a weeding out of those who not only pay their own way, but pay for many households that don't pay their own way.

It does seem to be a good idea to get rid of wealth-generating tax payers, doesn't it ?

when anyone with a good business idea sets up elsewhere and anyone with money just moves it offshore or simply leaves.

It sounds like you're confusing Capitalism, not Socialism with that descriptive?

It's been the standard model since Thatcherism

you're still blaming a tiny handful of poor folk for society's ills cranberry?
are you really that gullible?

the taxpayers are subsidising tesco's low wages mate... you think that's ok?

get a ****ing grip you poor sod

It does seem to be a good idea to get rid of wealth-generating tax payers, doesn't it ?

A better way would be zhc, wage repression and workfare, all New Labour babies, but the baton has certainly been taken and ran with since 2010

Tories should be worried, there is now a true alternative 🙂

The shouty, sixth form money-tree party?

a sort of weeding out of the greedy and the self centred?
a deep cleanse of the moral fibre of British society?

fewer self important tossers clagging up the trails?

sounds like a plan!

< I point out where the money comes from >

then:

you're still blaming a tiny handful of poor folk for society's ills cranberry?

Did that make sense in your own head ?

The shouty, sixth form money-tree party?

Even they are preferable to the "Increase the defecit tripplefold with a double dip recession and lose the country its AAA finance rating while reducing the income tax take" party?

Did that make sense in your own head ?

It make sense in anyone other than an economically illiterate right wingers head.

"Increase the defecit tripplefold"

Tories overspending? I'd agree, but I don't think many would.

Did that make sense in your own head ?

By all means disagree with his point or sentiment but to pretend you are to thick to understand it a strange way of attacking his point and defending your own

the taxpayers are subsidising tesco's low wages mate... you think that's ok?

Tax credits for the lower paid (Labour invention) subsidised low Tesco wages. The Living Wage (Tory) started to remove that subsidy. Not sure if I think that's OK or not.

bainbrge - Member

Tax credits for the lower paid (Labour invention) subsidised low Tesco wages. The Living Wage (Tory) started to remove that subsidy

The "national living wage" isn't a tory invention, it's a cynical rebranding of the minimum wage (brought in by Labour) to a level below the [i]actual[/i] living wage.

The increases in minimum wage it brought were in many cases insufficient to offset the changes to the wftc that accompanied it. It was a pretty simple scam founded entirely on the basis that running numbers is more complicated than headlines. As was the declaration that cuts had been cancelled, which turned out to be a flat out lie when the income disregard was halved less than 6 months later.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

[img] [/img]

Looks like the increase trend was around 2009, the aftermath of the global crash

Will I see another Labour government in my lifetime?

I can't see it happen. Oh, don't get me wrong, I would really wish not to have another Tory majority for 18+ years like I still remember having from my teenage years to my mid thirties, but it is now much probable. Gutted

when anyone with a good business idea sets up elsewhere and anyone with money just moves it offshore or simply leaves.

Which Labour policy would make that happen?

Brexit maybe 🙂

with a double dip recession

???

reducing the income tax take

???

Even they are preferable to the "Increase the defecit tripplefold ...

Hang on, aren't they the austerity party?

My point of view is that at this time in the election cycle is the perfect time for this. If the PLP and Corbyn sort it out now then fine...if not then as has been said the labour party is a spent force.

aren't they the austerity party?

You seem to think these two are mutually exclusive- they are not- One could easily increase the deficit and reduce spending- indeed its what they are doing. Given that, oh economic expert, why do you trot out this post truth "point" all the time?

Let's see if he can now tolerate other MPs opinions which differ from his, and actually stick to party policy... Alan Johnson is interesting on how the apparatchiks around JC colluded in stopping JC from really campaigning against Bredit, despite remain being the party policy.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of having the party with the perfect policy yet is unelectable.

ee if he can now tolerate other MPs opinions

The real issue is whether they can tolerate that he is the leader and he has a mandate. To make it out like he has created this situation is a false narrative.> They always opposed him including campaigning against him whilst in the shadow cabinet- no leader can tolerate that sort of opinion.

They always opposed him including campaigning against him whilst in the shadow cabinet-

So perhaps they should have made it clear they couldn't work with him and given him the chance to resign - I dunno, perhaps with a vote of no confidence....

...oh wait.

or perhaps they should have realised that they alone cannot dictate to the party who is leader- one would have assume they had read the constitution.
Having tried the coup they have now been told again they are out of kilter with the party. Again blaming him for this or them attempting unconstitutional measures to usurp him - which apparently you think a leader should tolerate- He is still not the cause of the acrimony their unwillingness to respect the parties wishes is the cause

Forgive me i thought it was debate not you just twisting the facts to blame him for their actions.

All leaders in all parties have to deal with a diversity of opinions amongst their MPs. And whilst the party writes policy (which JC hasn't been good at sticking to himself) in the British system we the electors technically vote for the person the MP is, not the party. We don't have a PR type party list system. And the idea that all MPs can be micromanaged by their constituency party is silly. Deselection is the democratic way to deal with that, and we saw how well that worked in making labour electable in the 80s.

This does lead to problems, as with Cameron triggering a referendum to assuage dissenters in his own party. But JC does need to show he can be pragmatic rather than dogmatic, if only to appear electable and able to deal with the whole art of compromise which comes with power.

He does have to be pragmatic but if folk take away their toys and say no i wont work with you or for you then how on earth does he show that and how exactly do you think a leader shoudl deal with such levels of dissent after having just been voted leader for the second time

Essentially he is the boss now and if the PLP wont listen and act as they should then they are the ones making the truble

they party has spoken AGAIN and they really lead to listen.

Under Corbyn everyone will be poorer but it will be a more equal society when anyone with a good business idea sets up elsewhere and anyone with money just moves it offshore or simply leaves

You pass this off as fact. It's not.

If you think the status quo is just and the spiral out of EU is the right decision, fine, I can live with your opinion. But don't write off what no one can prove just yet it undermines the debate.

I run a business and the only thing that makes me want to leave is the general trend towards the mean spirited world that the Tories have sewn. And not the other way around.

[img] [/img]

Start with little steps

1. Form a functioning shadow cabinet
2. Lead 1 effectively
3. Review the above in 12 months

Oh, and dont forget - governments represent us, not the other way around, so its their interests that really matter not this incessant internal BS

Chances of those 3 things happening

1. slim to non-existent
2. Ha ha haaaaaaaaa... seriously?
3. We can probably dispense with that. See above.

or perhaps they should have realised that they alone cannot dictate to the party who is leader- one would have assume they had read the constitution.
Having tried the coup they have now been told again they are out of kilter with the party. Again blaming him for this or them attempting unconstitutional measures to usurp him - which apparently you think a leader should tolerate- He is still not the cause of the acrimony their unwillingness to respect the parties wishes is the cause

Forgive me i thought it was debate not you just twisting the facts to blame him for their actions.

You've used the word blame a few times. Is blame important in this?

Quickest way to solve this problem is for Corbyn to go and be replaced by someone the MPs can work with and who swing voters in marginals will vote for. Arguing about who's to blame for the problem isn't going to make it go away.

outofbreath - Member

You've used the word blame a few times. Is blame important in this?

Well, yes. If you want to avoid the same thing happening again, sometimes you do have to apportion blame where it belongs and especially know who the architects of a problem were.

(if you prefer, you can say "culpable" or "responsible" to avoid the evocative words blame or fault, but it amounts to the same thing)

Blame? That probably lies with the bloke who's ill-thought-through rule change led to Labour Party policy being written in the student union...

[img] [/img]

Well if we must discuss blame:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/who-are-the-morons-who-nominated-jeremy-corbyn-for-the-labour-leadership-contest-10406527.html

Blame? That probably lies with the bloke who's ill-thought-through rule change led to Labour Party policy being written in the student union...

That's unfair. Nominations by MPs was the safeguard. It was impossible to predict a situation where MPs would nominate a candidate such as JC. The same thing could happen in the Tory party - but their MPs had the sense not to nominate Boris to 'broaden the debate'.

The people who misunderstood why Labour lost the last election?

Blame? That probably lies with the bloke who's ill-thought-through rule change led to Labour Party policy being written in the student union...

I presume you know that Ed Miliband brought in the rule change as a result of Blairite pressure to reduce the influence of the unions and despite strong opposition from the left of the party? If we're doing the blame game then the blairites might want to look closer to home.

You've used the word blame a few times. Is blame important in this?

Quickest way to solve this problem is for Corbyn to go and be replaced by someone the MPs can work with and who swing voters in marginals will vote for.

Arguing about who's to blame for the problem isn't going to make it go away

Do you ever address what I say or do you just pick one word and then say what you think again?

If we're doing the blame game then the blairites might want to look closer to home.

There is no place for that sort of posting on this thread

Why do you think the solution is his resignation?

Because the MPs have no mechanism to oust him, they've tried everything.

why do you think they have the right to oust him and oppose the wishes of the party membership?

Because the MPs have no mechanism to oust him, they've tried everything.

why do you think they have the right to oust him

?

They weren't elected by the party membership.

MPs do have a mechanism to oust him- democracy. Put forward a credible candidate and work to convince the electorate that they're the right choice. But they don't seem to have thought of that.

They weren't elected by the party membership.

Don't be daft. They chose to stand as labour candidates, and that is mostly why they won. They could have chosen to stand as independents or for another party. They didn't, because they knew they'd have a better chance of winning as labour candidates. Being a labour candidate and MP comes with some responsibilities, like respecting the party's rules and constitution, as well as it's history and principles. They can't disown the rules of the party just because they don't like the leader. If they feel they can no longer represent the labour party as MPs, they should resign the whip, and their seats and stand as independents in a new election. It's pretty simple.