Jeremy Corbyn

The only "substantial" bit of TM's plan for Brexit is the amount of chaotic self-harm it will invite early on. It's as if the Tories have found an excellent way to punish the poor using something lots of them voted for. At least in the past, they've been [more] upfront about doing it. However, Brexit is proving to be a colossal opportunity to punish them even more - while telling them that it's their "will" in the first place. Genius!

And come on, comparing Guy to IDS as the same level of nutter from either side? That's a stretch.

I kinda feel for Starmer. One can see that he gets what a clustershite it's all going to be and he's obviously a capable remainer. But this is a cobbled together bit of policy that puts little more than a cigarette paper between Labour and the Tories - coming as it does from clueless rudderless leadership. it looks softer for sure and I imagine a Labour government would go for something altogether softer than the Tories, who, despite being largely remain have to appease their RWNJ wing, get back their losses to UKIP in the electorate, and fulfill their aim to keep capital in the hands of the factory owners and away from the poor as much as possible. I admire the stated aim to guarantee rights of EU citizens here and get the same for U.K. citizens abroad. But for a voter considering a vote where Brexit is the most important issue (and yes, other issues will be brought in, but let's not kid ourselves that this election is about much else other than a Brexit induced power grab), this doesn't give much choice between Labour and Tory.

A centrist Tory-ish voter will likely stay blue for now. I'll only be voting Labour in my constituency to keep Tories out, as well as my MP being good at being an MP and being a remainer in the first place.

Labour are stuck between a dog-turd and a slurry pit on Brexit in their desire to claw back UKIP votes in cities. Their only hope would be to go full on centrist and say they'd offer a second referendum or a progressive alliance with the LDs and SNP. But that can't work in a FPTP system. In larger constituencies with [proper] PR that might stand a chance, but not here.

I don't think Corbyn can survive the battering he's about to get. The only worry is who the lunatics running the asylum would put up in his place.

I guess we'll get a good taste of how things will go with the May 4th elections.

And come on, comparing Guy to IDS as the same level of nutter from either side? That's a stretch.

Not really, they are both bêtes noires as far as the opposite camps are concerned, it is just you happen to be firmly in one camp.

Not really, they are both bêtes noires as far as the opposite camps are concerned

I see what you mean there, but that's not what you said in the first place.

Verhofstadt speech on brexit

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

vs IDS' action plan for brexit

[img] [/img]

page 14 is side splitting
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/road-to-brexit

theres only 1 grown up there (yeah Im selectively quoting but IDS is a plum)

I see what you mean there, but that's not what you said in the first place.

I called them both nutters, a term used by those who oppose them.

Verhofstadt's solution to everything is more Europe, he is as much an ideologue as IDS.

^^^ this. Farage was spot on to describe him as the High Priest of the European [b]Union[/b]

Molly of course rich people have more opportunity that the poor. We are all relatively rich in the UK and have far more opportunity than those in less developed countries

No of course not all poor people are poor through their own inaction. What Inwould say is fhat in the uk they have access to free schooling and healthcare and if they are really poor free housing

TM has been pretty clear on Brexit - her published outline plan etc It was clear we'd be leaving the single market 9 months ago as the EU said that was inseperable with freedom of movement, ditto customs union, budget contributions, ecj etc

I called them both nutters, [s]a term used by those who oppose them.[/s]

TM has been pretty clear on Brexit - her published outline plan etc It was clear we'd be leaving the single market 9 months ago as the EU said that was inseperable with freedom of movement, ditto customs union, budget contributions, ecj etc

[url= https://www.ft.com/content/72ead180-229a-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16 ]But Davis 2 weeks ago said the EMA and EBA might not be leaving London[/url], and they require ECJ/ FOM / budget contributions etc

TM also very clearly promised several times that there would be no early GE........ and here we are rushing through an early GE before the Brexies twig that there be big compromises-a-comin

How is 'the best deal possible' clear?

Molly of course rich people have more opportunity that the poor. We are all relatively rich in the UK and have far more opportunity than those in less developed countries

Do you think this is right, Jam?

Does anyone not think we are living in a world of overlapped political idealogies; confused and complex policies - that we need to wipe the slate clean?

A good example was Martin Lewis talking about the Tory energy price cap idea - effectively meddling with the albeit messed up 'free market' of energy prices. So we have a Tory government trying to adjust the market to help the lower end. Lewis's point was either let's all agree to make the energy prices work for everyone by effectively controlling the market completely removing pricing competition or leave it in the lap of the gods/market and the switching hell we have to endure. But don't enact both together.

The idea we have at the moment generally is that people who don't switch lose out. So those that do can benefit. A controlled market would mean the 'switchers' pay more.

Labour under Ed M was offering the same thing!

A mess of ideas and political posturing that ultimately doesn't serve anyone.

(I'm all for reversing back some of this shareholder driven stuff actually as switching products is a massive ball-ache.)

It's just a fact of life molgrips, well life in the real world rather than in utopia. The easiest way to fix wealth/opportunity inequality is to ask all the rich people to leave. The Corbyn/Marxist alternative is to take their money and "redistribute it". Personally I would anticipate rich people would chose option 1. The Corbyn/Marxist type idea is totally dependent upon rich people being unable to leave, probably by forcibly restraining their ability to travel or move assets.

Does anyone not think we are living in a world of overlapped political idealogies

A country of them yes. It's because we have FPTP. So only one party governs and you can't have a blend of policies without one party nicking those of the other.

The eaiest way to fix wealth/opportunity inequality is to ask all the rich people to leave.

Those rich people - certainly at some point needed the 'backs' of less rich people to attain their wealth.

Like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg or ....

Rone that is a very outdated sort of thinking (totally consistent with John McDonnell though).

A country of them yes. It's because we have FPTP. So only one party governs and you can't have a blend of policies without one party nicking those of the other

Well partly for sure. But the way I see it if someone comes up with something new or different to the established norm it's just torn apart by the media.

Rone that is a very outdated sort of thinking

Okay then - call me old fashioned, but how can you have this sort of extreme wealth without exploitation of someone or something?

Where would we be without China for a start?

Mark Zuckerberg

He's done alright for himself.

Yes, with all that success they have around 20,000 employees.

Rone that is a very outdated sort of thinking (totally consistent with John McDonnell though).

Alex - well I certainly don't agree Marxism is the way forward and I picked "outdated" as its been tried and/or rejected pretty much everywhere.

Alex, yes some jobs pay better than others. Systems where everyone "gets the same" have been tried and failed - not least as "some animals where more equal than others"

Where would we be without China for a start?

well I certainly don't agree Marxism is the way forward and I picked "outdated" as its been tried and/or rejected pretty much everywhere.

It's an alternate to capitalism, the two can't really run alongside each other, it's pretty much one or t'other, and the folk who do well from Capitalism are naturally going to make sure that Marxism never gets a foothold, which they've done pretty successfully. it remains "a fact" that more people would do better under an economy run along Marxist ideals.

Does anyone not think we are living in a world of overlapped political idealogies

Thats why its called the middle ground!

Maybe those who hop up and down screaming about how the Tories are 'ultra right wing' and how 'the centre has moved right' due to Blair ought to take a long hard look at (in my opinion foolish) policies like capping energy prices when they pontificate? How on earth is that a right wing policy? Even the Tories ridiculed it for being ridiculously left wing just a couple of years ago, but the fact that they are pursuing it is proof of how Labour under Corbyn has abandoned the middle ground - and how comfortable the Tories feel in putting out populist policies that seize it.

jambalaya - Member

Alex - well I certainly don't agree Marxism is the way forward and I picked "outdated" as its been tried and/or rejected pretty much everywhere.

Alex, yes some jobs pay better than others. Systems where everyone "gets the same" have been tried and failed - not least as "some animals where more equal than others"

John McDonnell is Shadow Chancellor and a Marxist. @nick my view with Marxism is no one will do well out of it, everyone will be worse off.

As for "gone too far" well the bad news is going to get a lot worse as more management jons get offshored. We are far too happy to save a few £ (or even pence) on CRC / Wiggle etc and out the LBS out of business. Far too happy to use an Uber and see relatively decent paying taxi jobs go in an end game which will see driverless taxis. But hey oh lets try and go after "the rich" which have now been defiend as earning £70k pa.

Hmm.. but they aren't the same thing are they?

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/25/vote-labour-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may ]George Monbiot makes a good point[/url]

"Those who tolerated anything the Labour party did under Blair tolerate nothing under Corbyn. Those who insisted that we should vote Labour at any cost turn their backs as it seeks to recover its principles."

Those who tolerated anything the Labour party did under Blair tolerate nothing under Corbyn. Those who insisted that we should vote Labour at any cost turn their backs as it seeks to recover its principles.

Perhaps it's because:

Yes, Jeremy Corbyn is disappointing. Yes, his leadership has been marked by missed opportunities, weakness in opposition and (until recently) incoherence in proposition, as well as strategic and organisational failure.

Daz I tried but couldn't manage to get past the first three paragraphs. All the Labour grandees warned the party that a Corbyn leadership would lead to this they can hardly be exoected to turn 180 degrees and say a vote for him is a good idea,

Perhaps it's because

So because Corbyn is a dithering incompetent, that justifies handing more power to the most rightwing tory leader in a generation? For the likes of labour moderates, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

No one is handing power to the Tories more than Corbyn, Momentum and the people who voted him in. He was ALWAYS going to be an electoral disaster, it was blindingly obvious. That's why people like me thought very seriously about spending £3 to vote for him.

So because Corbyn is a dithering incompetent, that justifies handing more power to the most rightwing tory leader in a generation?

No (and your quote didn't even mention voting for another party). It does however explains why people tolerated Blair's leadership but not JC's which is what your quote is questioning. ...and in spite of the fact Blair won an election post Iraq, almost nobody has forgiven him for Iraq. Most people want to see him on trial so it's not like tolerance for Blair was limitless anyway.

Perhaps it's because:

It's because of image. That's all. Look at all the negative imagery flying around the guy. Mostly from Binners though to be fair.

Look at all the negative imagery flying around the guy.

Which doesn't matter as long as he never gets a job where getting himself positively portrayed in the media is utterly critical... Ahhhh wait...

Daz I tried but couldn't manage to get past the first three paragraphs.

Really? Was it that hard to read or that boring . I guess it explains a lot.

George Monbiot makes a good point

It is highly unlikely he has, but I checked and as anticpated he hasn't. Any argument that relies on the suggestion that Theresa May is the most right wing leader of Tories in sometime is clearly ludicrous. She wants to cap energy prices and she seems to be pretty interventionist. Free Marketeers are not impressed.

Depends on how you define right wing. Her anti-immigration stance is pretty strong.

Her anti-immigration stance is pretty strong.

Depends on how you define right wing. I don't think I am being unfair to say Ernie L is against Freedom of Movement and he doesn't have a right wing bone in his body.

Any argument that relies on the suggestion that Theresa May is the most right wing leader of Tories in sometime is clearly ludicrous.

Ludicrous if you believe the fiction that she's a one-nation tory who has the interests of normal people at heart. All that 'vicar's daughter' nonsense is the same as Thatcher being a shopkeeper's daughter. She's worse than the rightwing in many ways. They at least have some beliefs, however misguided they are. Chairman May only cares about her own ambition and power, and will do whatever is required to maintain that, including encouraging hatred of foreigners, and the wholesale demonisation of anyone who dares to oppose or disagree with her. She will allow the rightwing to do whatever they want as long as they tolerate her as leader. That much more dangerous than the likes of more moderate tory PMs like Cameron or Major, and probably even Thatcher.

She wants to cap energy prices and she seems to be pretty interventionist. Free Marketeers are not impressed

Well that's where i started my post but as Martin Lewis explained. It won't work.

It's either fairer for everyone or free-market pricing.

It's a token policy. Both sides will be guilty of that and certainly Ed M tried more or less the same policy proposal.

I would say she's still strongly to the right and throwing a cookie like this is more about creating a media headline. Just like her inauguration speech which was almost with a social consciounce. But it's Malcolm Tucker PR, not a move to the left.

Got agree with Daz. Theresa May has not just allowed some pretty unsavoury rightwing, intolerant racist language and attitudes to enter the mainstream, she's positively encouraged it. Along with the hysterical 'Enemies of the People' attitude of the right wing press to suppress dissent. All for her own ends. As we know this is always ends well.

Not to worry though. Its the last PMQ's before the election shortly. Expect a souring oratory from Jeremy to point out this, and all the other faults she possesses, while clearly articulating his bold vision for the future of the country, as he continues his relentless march towards power. All as the Maybot quakes before him, seeing her political future crumbling.

Well... something like that.....

"I've just got a letter......from a Mrs Trellis of North Wales....."

His postbag is still quite full. Now we know why he doesn't have chance to do much else. What with reading all those, and then there's the allotment.....

Jezza rants.
Angus asks a question.