Jeremy Corbyn

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

That the difference between conviction politicians and career politicians.

Conviction politicians tell it as they see, they talk and argue about what they believe to be the truth.

Career politicians on the other hand are completely prepared to argue in favour of something which they don't believe in even if they know it to be a lie.

I'm sure it's no accident that many blairite career politicians, like Blair himself of course, were lawyers.

The ability to argue in favour of something which you know to be a lie is part of the job description of a defence lawyer shirley ?

But can you tell me what the Labour party currently believes in?

No, it's a disparate group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, it doesn't believe in any one thing. The fact that he's not just come out and announced what he thinks and has instead taken some time to talk to the party and try to come to some agreements is basically the whole point. He has after all been at the head of the party for 17 days during which he's had a conference to appear at and a cabinet to form.

Sky conducted a poll:

Here was the finding
[img] [/img]

---------------------------

Until the decided to spin it to:

[img] [/img]

I'm rather enjoying the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live ]reaction to Corbyn's speech from the media commentariat[/url]. It's becoming more and more clear that his real enemies are not the tories or the rightwing, but the people who will lose most from this new matter of fact, unspun and unscripted way of doing things. As far as labour are concerned the media are going to lose their role as panto rabble rousers. I can almost see the tories following suit.

So far today the funniest thing I've encountered are your bizarre claims on this thread, which I have to be honest offer little in the way of light entertainment value.

Sorry to have disappointed....will try harder.

dazh - Member

They really need to get over Corbyn winning.

I don't think that's the issue. The blairite-wing number 1 priority is to sabotage Corbyn's quest to be the next Labour prime minister.

They will sabotage his leadership so that he gets replaced by someone they approve of or failing that will sabotage Labour so that it doesn't win the next general election.

What terrifies the blairite-wing more than anything about Corbyn is that he will expose their lie that the only way to win a general election is by aping the Tories.

If Corbhyn nails that lie then Blair, a man with barely any credibility both within the Labour Party and the wider public, will lose that minute credibility that he still has in the eyes of some.

And for Blair to whom ego is almost as important as money that will hurt.

So self selecting poll of people watching the speech only managed a 53% 'win'. Hard to interpret that into anything meaning full at all (in fact it is meaningless). Well apart from the fact that the 20 odd million out at work wouldn't have voted.

Well apart from the fact that the 20 odd million out at work

Haven't had a chance to listen - but were they addressed directly?

No, it's a disparate group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, it doesn't believe in any one thing.

It has to believe in something as a collective otherwise it is pointless. Your quote there could describe virtually any political party, company or organisation, but normally you'd agree on a common set of goals and work towards it.

but normally you'd agree on a common set of goals and work towards it.

Well yes, did you read the bit about where I said...

The fact that he's not just come out and announced what he thinks and has instead taken some time to talk to the party and try to come to some agreements is basically the whole point.

Sorry to have disappointed....will try harder.

Well we're coming up to the pantomime season so keep trying!!.......the light entertainment which hopefully your posts will provide will bring welcome relief!!

Threads have pages to fill so a bit of pantomime fun from your posts will be a godsend while the rest of us get on with the business of posting serious stuff!!

Understood, as I said, will try harder. Thanks for the encouragement - almost heart warming.

molgrips feel free to enlighten me then? Or does he just mean avoiding hard decisions?

That is like me moaning that The tories have not done anything I like. Its settign the bar a little unrealistically not to mention a leading question that shows your disdain. We get it you dont like him ,which is fine, but dont pretend he has failed to win you over and I wont pretend that Boris or Osbornes next speech has not won me over asthat point is a given before they even start.

Nothing he says will appeal to you as you wont be voting labour.

FWIW its a valid point to note the party is a little divided ,especially at MP level, and that he may require more than two weeks ot have a coherent narrative for the party to unite behind

He seems to be pretty democratic so far but that is being spun as him refusing to debate when that was a conference decision

As for saying Corbyn has been driven by the media that is a stretch, all of them will use it to some degree, but ernie has countered that assertion with the facts.

I am sure he will try and use the media as he wants to get a message across [ well when he forms it, but , as the sky vote spin showed, the media is clearly not setting out to help him.
Were that a referendum vote I wonder which posters would be saying it was decisive 😉

It has to believe in something as a collective otherwise it is pointless.

There are core principles, and there are current policies. The core principles of the Labour party have always been to look after the poor, the vulnerable and the working classes and stop them getting shat on by fate or the rich elite. That's what Corbyn supports openly and what got him elected as leader.

Current policies are in a state of flux, because they have just had a huge change of direction and leadership. Previous leadership was simply focused on becoming elected by telling the electorate what they wanted to hear. Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

Previous leadership was simply focused on becoming elected by telling the electorate what they wanted to hear. Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

....?

?

"The ability to argue in favour of something which you know to be a lie is part of the job description of a defence lawyer shirley ?"
Cheers for that i think if I argued my clients cases the way politicians present their policy's I would get no where with either judges or juries .A defence lawyer is best arguing from facts and principle if you are knowingly presenting a lie you are a) at risk of being struck off for being bent and b) a poor lawyer for putting yourself in that position.

Like him or not JC appears to have reinvigorated interest in politics simply by being straight with people.

if you are knowingly presenting a lie

No offence but surely many lawyers, not you obviously , dont believe what their client has said and what they are presenting and expect them to be found guilty

Is it just that they cannot say look I did but can you say this please and it is just about plausible [ stories] and plausible deniability from the lawyer?

Ie it might just be true however unlikely it seems?

Odd one as clearly some of what the defence say, in adversarial system, is a bare faced lie as they are denying it.

Not a dig at you or the profession in general to be very clear

Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

Were they that bad? I thought they did a good job of talking the talk to keep their core vote onside whilst the detail of their policy told a different story and didn't alienate centre ground voters. If it wasn't for the SNP in Scotland and the perceived threat of an SNP/Lab coalition I think Lab could have been the largest party. Certainly the polls made a Labour SNP coalition look almost inevitable.

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Labour's approval rating hasn't exactly shot through the roof since the new regeme took over which suggests the old guard weren't far off the mark.

So a defence lawyer is stuck off for lying about their client being innocent if their client is found guilty? I'm not convinced!

The story I am always reminded of is how apparently at the start of the Iraq War the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon (a man who I particularly dislike) was asked why the Iraqis hadn't used their weapons of mass destruction, he response was "well we've struck them so quickly that they haven't had the chance to deploy and use them".

After the war had progressed and the Iraqi forces had been clearly defeated again Hoon was asked about WMD, "why" he was asked "haven't we yet found these alleged weapons of mass destruction?".

This time answer was "well the Iraqis had so much warning that we would be taking military action against them that have had plenty of time to hide the WMDs extremely well."

When it was pointed out to Hoon what he had previously said and how this latest claim completely contradicted his original comment he apparently shrugged his shoulders and said "I'm a lawyer....would do you expect?"

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Indeed. The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny (and self-serving). Still as we have seen with the economy, if you fail to diagnose what exactly went wrong and why, you are unlikely to come up with the correct solution.

But is has been a useful (albeit flawed) narrative that the media can peddle even if a basic analysis of voting patterns falsifies the very idea. But since when have facts been important - look what is taken as read north of the wall!!

The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny

I still suffer regular bouts of uncontrollable chuckling.

Still, it helps with my enormous sense of superiority.

On the defence lawyer side issue the key word is "knowingly." You take your clients instructions you present them with conviction even if you believe them to be untrue you are OK you take your clients instructions you present a story that you know to be untrue then you are not OK and will at best be suspended at worst jailed.
Professional duty not to mislead the court legal obligation just like anyone else not to pervert the course of justice. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/criminal-procedure-rules-2011/
Light reading.

Cheers for that i think if I argued my [i]clients[/i] cases the way politicians present their [i]policy's[/i] I would get no where with either judges or juries

Phew, we are succeeding then. Entertainment not lost.

Back to the "serious debate" (no really)

If Ed has chosen to use Heller's words instead of leaving it to our new man, would it have made any difference - the brand new world of politics. Old speeches and compromise galore. The king is dead, long live the king!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34388814 (scroll down)

The SNP spin on it is quite funny too! Who needs BBC3???

Jeremy Corbyn promised to radically change Labour, but the evidence so far is that Labour is changing Jeremy Corbyn.

Mild dislexia is no obstacle in a largely oral trade.

Intentional or not?

The SNP spin on it is quite funny too!

I think I'll give a miss then......my sides are starting to ache.

I think light reading was a lie

Will read that [ ok sim read that] but i think i get the gist - lying is ok but really lying [ and knowing you really are ] is not ok.

Cheers for the link /info

Good idea, don't want to over do it.

BTW crankboy does :. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/criminal-procedure-rules-2011/

Let the blairite politicians off the hook or what?

outofbreath - Member

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Miles off the mark, this, Labour were getting torn apart from inside and out all the way up to the last election. More so in Scotland where most people were questioning their leader's sanity never mind fitness to lead, but nationally too.

Not sure whether this is historical revisionism or people who weren't paying attention, but plenty of people were. And the Party's own initial investigation has already concluded that a third of voters said "we don't know what Labour stand for". That's shitness personified.

Miles off the mark ... Not sure whether this is historical revisionism or people who weren't paying attention

Maybe I wasn't paying attention. All the press/media I recall was saying it was too close to call right up until the exit poll was released.

Perhaps you can point me to a couple of pre-election 'Labour can't win 'cos they are blatently shit' articles that I might have missed.

Q1.Why is Labour always want to change the world?

Q2.Are they practicing naive utopian politics? Are they simply hiding some sort of sinister intentions to raise the red flag one day?

Q3.Why do they want to be full member of a bigger bureaucratic entity like EU?

Q4.Why do they think they can influence others? See Q1.

Q5.Why do people think JC (not Jesus Christ) is radical?

😯

outofbreath - Member

Perhaps you can point me to a couple of pre-election 'Labour can't win 'cos they are blatently shit' articles that I might have missed.

Nah, because you don't get to reinterpret the point like that.

But I can point you to- Ed's Stone, people not believing they could be trusted with the economy (only 16% of voters trusted them most on the economy) , the incredible mishandling of Scotland, the total failure to tackle the Tories on the economy... Let's make 5 key pledges and print them all on cards so everyone knows exactly what our 5 key pledges are, no wait, we missed one, quick... Fundamentally having every agenda set for them and making every argument on the Tories' terms is what defined Ed's leadership. Except for the rare occasions where they tried to lead with something, like One Nation, and the Tories turned it around and used it against them

Or actually, I'll just point you right back at my last post, which you selectively quoted from. A third of all voters said they didn't know what Labour stood for. This isn't failing to get people onside with your ideas; it's failing to communicate your ideas at all. That's a third of voters who can't even [i]disagree[/i] with Labour.

Labour's campaign didn't even get as far as failing to convince people to vote for them.

Channel 4 with Jon Snow talking to/interviewing the young people live at Brighton ...

Crikey, if Labour core supporters are this lot then you old people (35 yr and above) are obsolete. You might as well hang yourself now.

Northwind - Member
A third of all voters said they didn't know what Labour stood for. This isn't failing to get people onside with your ideas; it's failing to communicate your ideas at all. That's a third of voters who can't even disagree with Labour.

Very simple.

If Labour takes UK [b]out of the EU bureaucratic entirely[/b] I will vote Labour instantly and raise the red flag without asking.

Then I shall use my bureaucratic power to subdue all of you for trying to think differently. We shall then argue internally in UK until the cows come home as to how equal we want ourselves to be.

Respect the authoritaaaa ... ! I will be more equal than equal!

The first rule is to have fish & chips as compulsory dinner once a week. 😛

Indeed. The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny

Yeah, right up until the 7th of May the media was telling us Labour were a serious contender and it was too close to call, as were the bookies. We now know all the parties thought the same.

Suddenly on the 8th the media are sagely telling us it was obvious all along Labour were going to lose and it was all Ed M's fault.

Haven't seen such a change of media perspective since Diana died...

Three months before the last general election there was evidence that Labour swing voters weren't supportive of Labour occupying the "centre ground"

[url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/29/three-trumps-could-win-labour-election/ ]Analysis: should Labour abandon the centre ground?[/url]

[i]"Conventional wisdom says Labour should aim for the centre ahead of the general election. New polling suggests this might not be the winning approach"[/i]

[img] [/img]

Of course because the pollsters didn't precisely predict the last general election, although they did fairly accurately predict SNP, LibDem, UKIP, and Green Party support, some will dismiss all poll findings, but the results of the poll above are way outside any reasonable margin of error, certainly outside the margin of error with regards to the general election.

Needless to say those poll findings, of swing voters no less, were completely ignored and Labour went on to the general election.

the media was telling us Labour were a serious contender and it was too close to call, as were the bookies.

You do realise that the Tories only won with a slim majority of 11 seats don't you?

And that the media were telling us that Labour were very unlikely to win a majority. There is no need to re-write history outofbreath.

It is of course true however that most people went to their polling stations on May 7 under the mistaken belief that the Tories would not win the general election.

Had they not thought that some at least would certainly have voted differently, although the figure obviously can't be quantified. In that respect I have no doubt the the opinion polls, inaccurate opinion polls as it turns out, did affect the result of the general election.

You do realise that the Tories only won with a slim majority of 11 seats don't you?

Which is 100pc consistent with my point. The post election 'Labour were obviously shit, Milliband was obviously shit' narrative is utter bollocks.

Labour were a gnat's chuff away from power sharing with the SNP with Miliband as PM. They did a pretty good job. If the media knew it was a crap campaign destined to lose they certainly didn't say so in any large numbers before the election.

Save your breath 😉 especially if you are out of it!! Let the revisionists have their bit of fun. It's been a long time and the wave of nostalgia is overwhelming.

Looking at Labour & JC (not Jesus Christ) is a bit like saying to them ...

[img] [/img]

(Ref: [url= http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tm2nb ]This site[/url])

😆

outofbreath - Member

Which is 100pc consistent with my point. The post election 'Labour were obviously shit, Milliband was obviously shit' narrative is utter bollocks.

You think Miliband was [i]good[/i]? You think a party that leaves a third of all voters baffled on voting day is doing a good job? I am just absolutely baffled by this tbh. He did a terrible job, and managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory against an unpopular tory party which had universally failed to deliver on its economic policies, overseen a massive rise in the national debt, and was running with lead policies like "We'll cut £12 bn of public spending but no, we won't tell you how, because spoilers!" and "We're all in this together so time to cut taxes on million pound houses". Hurrah for Ed.

Northwind - Member
... and managed to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory against [s]an [/s][s]un[/s][b]popular[/b] tory party which had universally ...

There fixed that for you. 😛

You do realise that the Tories only won with a slim majority of 11 seats don't you?

But Labour lost by alot even with the SNP they are well short of a majority - 288 vs tories on 330. They only gained a net one seat from the Tories, lost 9 (including Corby) and gained 10. Scotland is of limited relevance they have to win in England and Wales to have a majority (with the help of the SNP).

so time to cut taxes on million pound houses

Work out the stamp duty on a million pound house and then show me a cut.

overseen a massive rise in the national debt

Bloody austerity, eh?

Which is 100pc consistent with my point. The post election 'Labour were obviously shit, Milliband was obviously shit' narrative is utter bollocks.

Labour were a gnat's chuff away from power sharing with the SNP with Miliband as PM. They did a pretty good job. If the media knew it was a crap campaign destined to lose they certainly didn't say so in any large numbers before the election.

Well it's quite a bizarre point to make. You seem to be suggesting that Labour fought an excellent campaign, and that, indeed, was the general consensus before election day (I have no idea where you get that from). And that it was only [i]after[/i] the election that claims were made that it was a shit campaign.

Criticism of election campaigns usually occur [i]after[/i] the day of the election - if the political party has failed to achieve its intended goals. It's part of the normal postmortem of "what went wrong?".

In case of Scotland Labour fought such a bad campaign, and the likely result was so bleedin' obvious long before election day, that criticism occurred before polling day. Even the Labour Party realised that they faced wipe-out in Scotland.

I genuinely don't understand what your problem is ?

You want everyone to say that Labour fought a fantastic campaign and not to criticise it ?

But Labour lost by alot even with the SNP they are well short of a majority - 288 vs tories on 330. They only gained a net one seat from the Tories, lost 9 (including Corby) and gained 10.

Well if you think that Labour did very badly last May mefty, and I don't deny that it wasn't a good result btw, then the fact the Tories only managed to get a majority of 11 shows just how unpopular the Tories are.

With Labour doing very badly any reasonable person would expect the Tories to win by a landslide.

Unless of course people weren't very impressed with the Tories.

ernie_lynch - Member
Unless of course people weren't very impressed with the Tories.

People's impression of Labour is even worst south of Scotland.

Let assume SNP wiped out Labour in Scotland ... oh they did. 😮

Terribly sorry Mefty- make that "cuts for people buying a £937000 house". Because that makes all the difference. 4.6 times the national average, rather than 4.9 times.

teamhurtmore - Member

Bloody austerity, eh?

Case in point- the tories lied their way through their last term, using austerity as the Universal Excuse to batter through their ideologically led changes. And yet as you say, never attempted to deliver the austerity that they promised and claimed to be delivering, which led them to fail to meet all of their economic promises. And yet this is the party that were perceived as the ones to trust with the economy, because Labour were doing such a [i]marvellous[/i] job of countering their transparent bullshit.

The big cuts happen at 250,001 and 500,001, the big rises above £1 million so your implicit suggestion it is a cut for millionaires is disingenuous.

Well if you think that Labour did very badly last May mefty, and I don't deny that it wasn't a good result btw, then the fact the Tories only managed to get a majority of 11 shows just how unpopular the Tories are.

It is very rare for a serving PM to increase his majority, so it was a major achievement. However, the Tories were incredibly unpopular and it takes a long time to regain your support, gradually things are improving for them but it is a long road.
It also shows the Tories stack up a lot of votes in constituencies they win, this though was ameliorated by Labour only getting one seat for 700,000 votes in Scotland.

mefty - Member

The big cuts happen at 250,001 and 500,001, the big rises above £1 million so to suggest it is a cut for millionaires is disingenuous.

Not disingenous, just imprecise- the actual breakeven point is (accoirding to Osborne) £937000, which I'd rounded off for brevity since it makes absolutely no difference to the actual [i]point[/i].

But since we're on the subject- £250000 is also higher than the average UK house price, and £500000 2 and a half times. Exactly where the big cuts are most needed, yeah? Since we're all in this together, yeah? But we'd better cut benefits for teenagers to fund it.

People's impression of Labour is even worst south of Scotland.

I don't usually read any of your posts Chewwy unless it's by accident, and I comment on them even less. But your last 2 line post was a real little beauty even by your unique standards.

To turn reality on its head and claim that Labour had less support "south of Scotland" than in Scotland, and presumably be blissfully unaware of the stupidity of that comment is really quite an achievement.

I had to read it repeatedly as I couldn't believe that you had made that comment, I thought "I must be misreading it". But no, no matter how many times I reread it that is precisely what you wrote 😆

It is very rare for a serving PM to increase his majority, so it was a major achievement. However, the Tories were incredibly unpopular and it takes a long time to regain your support, gradually things are improving for them but it is a long road.

So you are agreeing that the Tories are very unpopular but the fact that they aren't quite as unpopular as they were previously is a "major achievement" ?

Yeah right.

I don't suppose you put the bar so low for Labour eh ?

BTW the swing to the Tories in May was 0.8% (a major achievement) at that rate it's gonna be a very "long road" indeed before the Tories stop being unpopular.

But we'd better cut benefits for teenagers to fund it.

No they raised stamp duty on big houses to fund it, hit the banks and clobbered tax avoiders making a neutral package transferring the burden to the richest from the less well off, albeit not the worst for this measure. Your wonderful Scottish government did something very similar, albeit levels were lower because property is.

ernie_lynch - Member

People's impression of Labour is even worst south of Scotland.

I don't usually read any of your posts Chewwy unless it's by accident, and I comment on them even less. But your last 2 line post was a real little beauty even by your unique standards.

😆 I know not many people read my comments but I just want to comment because something is just not right ... can't really pin point exactly but something is not right with Labour. You know sometimes something makes you uncomfortable but you are not really sure what it is ... ya, that feeling.

To turn reality on its head and claim that Labour had less support "south of Scotland" than in Scotland, and presumably be blissfully unaware of the stupidity of that comment is really quite an achievement.

I just re-read it ... arrghhh ... Ya, that sounds stooopid indeed. Should be England & Wales etc (NI?) ... not including Scotland coz that's an "independent" country.

I had to read it repeatedly as I couldn't believe that you had made that comment, I thought "I must be misreading it". But no, no matter how many times I reread it that is precisely what you wrote

Which one?
SNP wiped the floor of Labour in Scotland? They did, didn't they? 😆

Bottom line - What's so radical about JC (not Jesus Christ) and with Labour wanting to change the world with their ideology? 😯

mefty - Member

Your wonderful Scottish government did something very similar, albeit levels were lower because property is.

Nice one. What actually happened- the Scottish government unveiled plans to fix stamp duty rates/steps, but didn't include the tax cuts for higher value houses (the break point on the original policy was £325000- IIRC it was roughly tax neutral, it just removed the failings of the old system and shifted some of the tax burden upwards. Could be wrong) Westminster nicked the idea wholesale but changed the numbers so that the breakeven point was [i]3 times[/i] higher, and so that it cost £800m quid to implement.

And declared it to be [i]fair[/i], because it still incorporated the stamp duty fix. Even though the Tory version meant that the average value house buyer saved £650 while someone buying a house costing 3 times the average saved [i]9 times[/i] more.

(incidentally, I remember when it was announced, lots of people seemed to think his was purely because house prices are higher in England. This is bobbins. The average house price in Scotland is £167000, in England £204000, but the multiplier the Tories added was roughly 300% not the 20% needed to compensate for that difference. No it's not because of London prices either, not that it would make any sense if it were)

Re who pays for it- the £800 million quid that this tax change cost, could have been spent on something else, because maths. No one policy is really paid for by one thing or another but when tax cuts for the well off coincide with cuts for the less well off, they're paying the price. The stamp duty cuts came very close to the announcement of a billion pounds of cuts and freezes in working age welfare.

So yeah. This is one sorry example of the economic policies that the Tories got away with, handing tax cuts to the well off (yes, an average housebuyer is well off) and cutting benefits for the less well off, and calling it fair, and at the same time justifying it all with Saint Austerity while actually increasing public spending. Two howling, blatant lies which Ed Miliband- who [i]apparently[/i] was really good at his job- failed to challenge.

Incidentally; I went back to an old STW thread to crib numbers, because I couldn't be bothered to look them up afresh. And it was full of people slagging Labour off, before the election. Must be a figment of my imagination?

Case in point- the tories lied their way through their last term, using austerity as the Universal Excuse to batter through their ideologically led changes. And yet as you say, never attempted to deliver the austerity that they promised and claimed to be delivering, which led them to fail to meet all of their economic promises*.

Case in point 2: good job that more honest politicians north and south of the border do not attempt to curry favour by pretending to offer an alternative to something that doesn't exit.

Case in point 3: and that no one would be stupid enough to fall for such a crazy idea and then deliver someone else a landslide based on a totally false premise

That really would be a crazy political situation that could only be made up!!!! They will be claiming that income inequality is rising next.

* wonder what impact running one of the most accommodative fiscal policies in the developed world had in UK's absolute and relative economic performance? Or may be that was just the extraordinary and distorting monetary policy (who is going to continue that one????) or may be just plain luck????

overseen a massive rise in the national debt

Bloody austerity, eh?

I do feel sorry for politicians. It's the same in local government. People complain that not enough is being spent and they complain that too much is being spent. Often it's the same people expressing both views. Reminds me of the Bear Tax from the 'Simpsons' episode.

Corbyn was a lot more politicianey on BBC breakfast. Power's going to his head! 🙂

Osbourne's property stamp duty changes where a significant increase on higher value properties and we now have some of the highest taxes on high value properties in the world. By comparison the Swiss purchase tax is around 2% even for a £2m+ equivalent property and the French charge around 8% on lower value properties of £150-200k but nit higher rates on very high value properties.

The stamp duty argument here is clutching at straws in trying to fabricate a critism of the Tories. Osbourne's move totally deflated calls for an annual "mansion" tax which in reality is a tax on flats in central London.

Reference above to national average house prices shows the total irrelevance of such a statistic which masks huge regional variations

teamhurtmore - Member

Case in point 2: good job that more honest politicians north and south of the border do not attempt to curry favour by pretending to offer an alternative to something that doesn't exit.

Oh, tory austerity certainly exists, it's just not at all what it claims to be. As you well know.

jambalaya - Member

Osbourne's property stamp duty changes where a significant increase on higher value properties

So apparently £937000- 4 and a half times the national average- isn't a higher value property? I'll file this alongside "Ed Miliband did a great job".

Yes, for much higher value properties there was an increase but it's impossible to deny that this was a tax cut (which cost the treasury £800 million, according to the government) which only benefitted the well off (ie, property buyers) and which disproportionately benefitted the very well off.

Corbyns Speech. A rehash of old, even ancient, previously rejected material and poorly delivered with frequent mumbling. It was reported many of the senior Labour Party members didn't even stay for it (Cooper, Kendall , Umana, Hunt ?), only Andy Burnham could be seen. Unity ?

Didn't we know there wouldn't be unity? Who wants unity between blairites and the new shadow cabinet? They'll have to take a back seat for the moment and that's perfectly fine.

A rehash of old, even ancient, previously rejected material

STW's own spindoctor at work!

Basically - so what?

poorly delivered with frequent mumbling

😆

Is that a serious critique ?

btw I'm very impressed that you sat through and listened to a one hour speech by Jeremy Corbyn, that's what I call dedication - even I couldn't manage that.

It was reported many of the senior Labour Party members didn't even stay for it (Cooper, Kendall , Umana, Hunt ?)

I can't see why? After they all proved so universally appealing to the membership of the party

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/tristram-hunt-ducks-out-of-leadership-race-after-discovering-hes-a-tory-2015052198479 ]Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out[/url]

😆

ernie_lynch - Member

poorly delivered with frequent mumbling

Is that a serious critique ?

Posted 2 minutes ago # Report-Post

Yes, Many veteran speechmakers from the UN, from the house of Lords agree with me...(Or a reply to that effect is coming) We only got a minute, he is going to have to do better than that. Actually he isn't, Kezia is rapidly coming across as a less charming Jim Murphy, so he is probably best fighting the battles that he might win.

Many veteran speechmakers from the UN, from the house of Lords agree with me...

You may mock jambalaya but he has contacts with MI5 doncha-know.

Maybe he should take some pointers from histories less mumbly orators

[img] [/img]

😆

That John McTernan that the BBC keep rolling out is really starting to annoy me, although his facial response on that 'money tree' vine that's doing the rounds is pretty funny.

and poorly delivered with frequent mumbling

Unlike Ed Millibean who everyone was afraid was about to swallow his tongue? Or DaveCam who looks like he's about to burst a vein in his head?

Nothing wrong with a bit of calm. I just wish he didn't seem a bit confused about the job he seems to have reversed into.

Nothing wrong with a bit of calm. I just wish he didn't seem a bit confused about the job he seems to have reversed into.

Indeed. But a pretty formidable task ahead - beyond most.

The media headwind will remain intense - the Times photo was a clear indicator as was The Economist cover. And then there is the rest of the party. He will be quoting John Major before too long, "b######s"

Thankless task frankly.

Oh, tory austerity certainly exists, it's just not at all what it claims to be. As you well know.

I prefer to agree with Varoufakis (at least on this point) since it is an inaccurate description of current policy. And as for those who claim, "Vote for me as we are the only genuine alternative to [s]Tory Austerity[/s] something that doesn't exist.", one can but smile!!!!

Still it works - hence we get the politicians we deserve (with the obvious exception 😉 )

Trident. More chaos with Corbyn ruling out using it, shadow defense minister saying thats unhelpful, Abbit stating shes surprised at the critism and now Corbyn saying nuclear weapons didn't help the US on 9-11. This oast comment will provide critics an easy to target to say Corbyn doesnt understand the difference between various threats to a countries security. Corbyn dodged any debate or decision on Trident as we can clearly see why.

Chaos? I'd say it's brought absolute clarity.

Maria Eagle was less convinced but may be it wasn't as clear in the conference hall?

So Burnham also joining the anti-freedom of movement brigade!!

Abbit stating shes surprised at the critism and now Corbyn saying nuclear weapons didn't help the US on 9-11

He's got a point though. They didn't, and they won't the next time either. Trident is about as much use in countering the threat we face as my cats. And they're all asleep on my bed at the moment. But they didn't cost £100 billion quid so I'll let them off.

Christ! Even Putin is telling us where the ACTUAL threat is coming, and will continue to come from. And he's also pointing out that we should be singing from th same hymn sheet. So will we be needing those nukes against him then?

I don't know if you caught the news last night, but the Taliban is now running most of Afghanistan again. You know... the country we invaded to rid of the Taliban. So that went well. Iraq and Syria are over-run with Jihadists.

But hey ho... lets spank £100 billion on some big penis extensions which are utterly, totally and completely ****ing useless against the enemy we're now facing 🙄

JC doesn't get the nuclear deterrent at all, see when asked about whether he would push the button he replied.

JC: Would anybody press the nuclear button?

But that's not the point, the point is for it to work people have to believe you would.