Go Rachel Reeves
In 2013, on becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, she announced that Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives in reducing the benefits bill, with the long-term unemployed having to take a guaranteed job offer or lose benefits.
Reeves is a vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel
Oh dear.
Not really. It’s actually a pretty poor indicator.
No it was a very good indicator. Many people hold xenophobic views, even if they don't identify them as being 'racist' Such as the supposedly 'legitimate concerns about immigration' that people like Margaret Hodge might try to exploit. At the end of the day, it just comes down to fear and ignorance, mainly. It's quite telling that in large towns and cities, with lots of diversity, brexit voting was at its lowest. Because people there are exposed to such diversity, and realise it isn't a threat, so subsequently have less xenophobic opinions. London has a brown Mayor; can you imagine that in some of the Brexit strongholds of the north?
that headline might be misleading
"This includes editors and executives working for The Times, Sunday Times and the Sun newspapers.”
Nah. It's pretty clear that it's not just 'innocent' journalism. And Keunssberg and Peston are hardly impartial! Neither are people like Andrew Neil, Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr, John Humphries etc. They're all sucking from the corporate tory teat, whilst being paid via 'public' money in the form of the licence fee. When those who are supposed to be impartial, aren't, and in fact are part of the wider state propaganda machine, we have a problem.
Any chance we can get this thread back onto Starmer?
He says immediately after giving the dying embers of the argument another good stoke!
The very first paragraph of the article which you so helpfully linked for me to read:
"Anti-fascist campaigners have been celebrating a dismal performance by far-right candidates in elections around the UK, from Scotland to council polls in England."
Which of course is EXACTLY the point I was making, and which you dismissed as unimportant and accused me of living in the past.
So to get back to my original point......the here's something to celebrate......the BNP had a dismal result locally in an area they thought they could do well. How did they do elsewhere?
Any chance we can get this thread back onto Starmer?
Is there any point? He's a lame duck after this weekend's display of Frank Spencer-esque slapstick. He's managed to piss off just about everyone who isn't Peter Mandelson, and allowed himself to be completely outplayed by someone who's widely regarded (unfairly it would appear) as a council estate thicko. The only thing left to discuss is how long it is before the party gets shot of him and who might replace him. Rayner would seem like a shoe-in again, with maybe Burnham waiting in the wings should she screw up. Before that happens though I guess we can expect one last stand from Mandelson and his billionaire backers. They will fail ultimately, but probably not before the party is dragged down further by the associated infighting.
What the obsession with Mandleson? I follow Rayner on twitter (she's impressed me since the election) and half the replies to her posts over the last 24 hours seem to be people claiming that she's following orders from Mandleson. What's that all about?
Hmm... tried pasting some examples, and the tweets are being deleted between me copying and pasting the links to here. What's that about?
it's some thinly veiled anti-Semitism
What the obsession with Mandleson?
You really need that spelling out?
Did he eat your mushy peas?
Oh, I get why many don't like Mandelson (I don't), and don't want him involved in workings of the modern day Labour Party (I don't)... I just don't get why the obsession with attacking front benchers with the idea that they are working for him. Although it could be a bot farm thing, as the tweets I was looking at are mostly gone now.
@dazh - some of the younger forumites might not know who Mandelson is....maybe you could explain it to them?
In even more fantastic news Ben Bradley (Massive increase for charity and food banks in Mansfield - MP, and voter of no more free school meals peasants - fame) is now the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council.
https://twitter.com/NottsCC/status/1391710867859836929?s=19
The shitocracy continues.
dazh
Full MemberThe only thing left to discuss is how long it is before the party gets shot of him and who might replace him.
The second part is the problem though. There's not that much top end talent in the party and a good chunk of what there is, doesn't want the job. This was pretty obvious when they kept trying to bring down Corby,they'd stage a coup then go "Oh, we should probably have thought about who'll take over... anyone?" , now we're further down the list of losers of previous wars with not much progress to show for it.
This is one thing that Tories do well- they always have a bunch of ambitious players who are impatiently waiting an opportunity to take over. I don't think Labour have had that since Brown. And just think of the level of talent that was in those cabinets and pre-blair shadow cabinets.
Yup, if you want a change of leader right now, then WHO steps in to replace him is the big question. Rayner & Lewis have both been mentioned, I like them both but don't see either making it work.
To win the leadership election Starmer had to make '10 socialist pledge'.
Not because he wanted to, I think he's broken them all, but because that was what was needed to get sufficient backing from Labour Party members.
The Parliamentary Labour Party knows that if there was a leadership election now/soon the left of the party is likely to do well. Although many on the left have dropped out of the party since Starmer's leadership the balance is unlikely to be in their favour.
And then we're back to the selection/election process. Can it return someone who can appeal to the voters, not just the members, and help set them on their path to becoming PM? Or does it trap them into trying to be two people... the members choice and the voters choice, leading, justly, to claims of being an opportunist or being too flexible with their allegiances and policy priorities. Labour needs a leader that will seize opportunities and be flexible enough to attract millions of voters who would never join any party, and definitely wouldn't want to vote for anyone using the word "socialist" when presenting themselves to them.
Labour is two or three parties in the same sack.
Statmer is too Blair
Corbyn was too Corbyn.
Until they can present a unified party they will just keep on giving votes to the conservatives.
There's also the caveat that the far left voting demographic are massive racists too, so that's more votes to the conservatives.
In 2013, on becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, she announced that Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives in reducing the benefits bill, with the long-term unemployed having to take a guaranteed job offer or lose benefits.
You posted that as if it was a bad thing. I think you will find that the majority of low level earning people (below average wage), will agree with that statement. Why should they work for 40 hours a week on £9/hr when their neighbour sits there all day on benefits as they can't be bothered looking for a job.
It's a fallacy that the 'working class' have ideals that benefits should be given out to whoever wants them, I think that is what Labour think, it's not as simple as that. They want a safety net for times of need, but they don't want their taxes paying for people who do not want to work.
Yep agree.
Why should they work for 40 hours a week on £9/hr when their neighbour sits there all day on benefits as they can’t be bothered looking for a job.
Unless they believe that full employment is actually feasible they should be rather grateful. The less people looking for work the more secure their job becomes.
And if they are only earning £9 an hour they are very likely to be receiving benefits themselves, so talk of "reducing the benefits bill" should worry them.
....they don’t want their taxes paying for people who do not want to work.
People earning as little as £9 an hour pay taxes? That is truly appalling.
I think many people have underestimated Rayner.
She has a huge amount going for her as next Labour leader, mainly because the Tories will simply not know how to deal with her either at the hustings or the dispatch box. The electorate will also find it easy to get behind her in a way they never could with Starmer or Corbyn. Potential Labour voters don't want Wolfie Smith or an Insurance Agent
66 to 1 for next PM I reckon it's worth a punt cos it will be coming down.
People earning as little as £9 an hour pay taxes? That is truly appalling.
That's £18+k / yr, of course they pay taxes.
The personal tax allowance is around £11k now, so they'll be paying around £1500 in income tax and roughly £500 in National Insurance , and, of course, the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their earnings on VAT compared to higher earners.
They want a safety net for times of need, but they don’t want their taxes paying for people who do not want to work.
And that's exactly the narrative that leads people to despise each other for no good reason.
And it's also financial illiteracy of the highest order. Your taxes do not pay for public spending.
Just ask yourself a simple question - where did the money come from in the first place to pay the taxes?
There is only one place.
The more we understand we have our finances back to front the more we can break this utter misinformation about how Government spending happens.
Spending is just numbers limited only by inflation and real resources.
Watch Clive Lewis talking complete sense on Novara tonight.
At least he's got some balls, ideas and absolute perspective on what it means to be in the Labour Party.
From about 23mins in.
winston
Free Member
I think many people have underestimated Rayner.
She has a huge amount going for her as next Labour leader, mainly because the Tories will simply not know how to deal with her either at the hustings or the dispatch box.
The right know EXACTLY how to deal with Angela.
Apparently she's an ugly, thick, povvo single mum leftie and Northern with it. Oh, Corbyn's mate too.
That's appears to be the opinion of many on here and on several other forums I frequent.
A shame, I think she's very good indeed.
The personal tax allowance is around £11k now, so they’ll be paying around £1500 in income tax and roughly £500 in National Insurance , and, of course, the lower paid pay a higher proportion of their earnings on VAT compared to higher earners.
The Sheriff of Nottingham has been made Chancellor of the Exchequer! Poverty is no excuse for not paying your taxes!
Btw unemployment doesn't exempt you from paying VAT, so I'm not sure of the relevance of the VAT comment.
But yeah, it's pretty tough for those at the bottom of the ladder. Even for those on in-work benefits. There's no denying it.
A shame, I think she’s very good indeed.
I think she’s very good as well. I don’t think she has what it takes to become PM, but absolutely want her in government. And Clive Lewis. Neither would solve any of Labour’s problems if leader though (but they’d keep my vote for sure). I’m not watching the Novaramedia piece, because I think they are part of the problem, but I’ve not yet heard Lewis speak and not agreed with him. He does use language that plays well with the those on the left, but would fall on deaf ears with so many other voters, that’s his biggest weakness if he wants to step up to the challenge of leading a party while we still have FPTP. Preaching to the converted isn’t enough.
TBH I think Rayner, Lewis, and Starmer are all people I'd love to see in a front bench. But leadership is a very different job, as Starmer and Miliband (and Hague, and others) prove.
You posted that as if it was a bad thing.
That is because it is a bad thing. Sounds great to make simple statements around benefits (And clearly appeals to people with no empathy) but in reality it is not simple and people go without food, get into debt they can never get out of, become homeless etc,. because of various government policies being "tough on reducing the benefits bill"
All depends on what she meant (way back then). For example, every government should be aiming to increase how much tax they are collecting. By that I mean that if more of us are working, and there isn’t downward pressure on wages, then that should mean more tax is being paid. Likewise, that could also mean less benefits should be being claimed. I don’t agree with that as an aim though, “benefits” as a means of redistribution rather than just a “safety net” is something the Blair/Brown government got right, in my opinion, even though so many people slammed tools such as tax credits as “subsidising low wage paying companies”.
I’m not watching the Novaramedia piece, because I think they are part of the problem,
Part of what problem? What on earth do you think they've done wrong?
Some of the best journalism I've seen in the last 12 months - especially on the pandemic.
They back everything up.
.
For example, every government should be aiming to increase how much tax they are collecting.
Not if inflation is low. (Less 2%) All you are doing is extracting moneyfrom circulation and contracting the economy. It is not a generic aim based on nothing - or shouldn't be.
The wealthy should be taxed of course but not to pay for public things - but to create a more level playing field for spending power, and ability to own assets.
What on earth do you think they’ve done wrong?
The public see Labour in terms of factions at war, rather than taking the battle to the Tories. Novara get their clicks by feeding that, as much as, if not more than, the right wing media channels.
All you are doing is extracting moneyfrom circulation and contracting the economy.
No you're not. Unless you think tax money is just burnt. Depends what else is done. I still think UBI is the way forward... and that would involve an increased tax take, more than balanced by the reliable income that everyone would receive no matter their earning situation. Taxation can be part of increasing economic activity, if the government chooses to do so.
Part of what problem?
I would imagine that the owners of the Telegraph, the Sun and The Mail are pretty content with the coverage of the Labour party that Novara Media put out.
No you’re not. Unless you think tax money is just burnt
Yes you are. It's not burnt, it's added to the spreadsheet to subtract from the total that needs to be created in order to fulfill government spending commitments.
Taxation can be part of increasing economic activity
Only in combination with spending. The rightwingers are right in that tax is a brake on economic growth. If you take money out of the economy it can't be invested/spent on salaries/goods/services/whatever. If govt spending doesn't exceed tax income then the economy will contract (the graphs show this clearly). If the govt 'spent' the tax income then the only thing that would change is the rate of money creation, so there's no real difference. The govt chooses who to give money to, and who to take money from, it's as simple as that.
As an addendum to the above, the more a government taxes, the more power it has. Not because it has more income, but because it's forced to spend more in order to prop up growth. That's why rightwing small government types don't like tax. The really silly thing however is that if we measured economic activity in other ways, we could successfully contract the economy to make it environmentally sustainable whilst protecting jobs and real incomes. GDP growth (and ever higher govt spending and taxation) is a stupid metric on which to base economic policy.
Only in combination with spending.
Well... duh!
What the obsession with Mandleson?
it’s some thinly veiled anti-Semitism
Whilst Madelson and other prominent Jewish figures do receive appalling abuse, I doubt most of the revulsion towards him has anything to do with anti-Semitism. Because I doubt most people even know or care about him being Jewish. Whilst anti-Semitism, along with all forms of racism and prejudice, is a terrible thing and must be taken seriously, weaponising it just to silence any justifiable criticism is plain wrong. Not saying that's what you were doing, but that's often how it is used. I wouldn't want Madelson anywhere near politics, simple because he's a thoroughly nasty, mendacious little ****.
"I'm intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes"
Nice. Let's not forget he's also an apologist for war crimes, as well as being complicit in those.
One problem with speaking out after a long time in the shadows, is that old ghosts come to haunt you:
Oh dear.
Is it really too much to ask that Labour not be a safe space for such nasty ****s?
Someone else made the comment about Labour being 2 or 3 parties in one, trying to appeal to too broad a church. This is true; unfortunately, it's the powerful, wealthy right of the party that has disproportionate influence, and has caused the real damage. These people would be far more at home in the tory party. Therefore, the drive should be to push this fringe minority, for that's what they are, out, and into the political wilderness. Maybe they can go and join Change UK, and moan about 'funny tinged' people.
I’m not watching the Novaramedia piece, because I think they are part of the problem
Part of what 'problem'? Offering up opinions that conflict with your own narrow world view? I try to look at a broad range of opinions, to help form and influence my own, because I believe you should have an open mind, and be objective. Deliberately ignoring one particular media outlet because they don't say what you want to hear, kind of sums up why Labour are where they are right now; not listening to people. Sorry, what was the problem again?
I would imagine that the owners of the Telegraph, the Sun and The Mail are pretty content with the coverage of the Labour party that Novara Media put out.
Perhaps they should instead report on wheat harvests and tractor production.
Offering up opinions that conflict with your own narrow world view?
Who said that I disagree with the "opinions" they publish? They get their clicks by feeding into and amplifying differences within the Labour party. Easy way to keep their readership clicking and liking. But they help reinforce the wider public's view of Labour, and the left more generally. It's a business model that works, good luck to them. But they are part of the problem Labour faces.
Who said that I disagree with the “opinions” they publish?
How do you know what they are, if you don't read them?
Well… duh!
Kelvin you said taxation was spent. It's not. The government spends before it taxes. That's how it works.
Perhaps they should instead report on wheat harvests and tractor production.
Russian agriculture joke...
The farmer says “Oh Commissar, the wheat crop is so bountiful that stacked on top of each other they reach all the way to Heaven.” The commissar stopped and said “Have you forgotten your communist teachings!? There is no God!” To which the farmer said “Exactly, that’s why there’s no wheat.”
Boom, and quite possibly, Tish...
Because I doubt most people even know or care about him being Jewish.
I don't think he himself cared or knew he was Jewish until he realised he could use it for political ends to help his billionaire friends.
I’m not watching the Novaramedia piece, because I think they are part of the problem
Missed this. From someone who presents himself as an objective, intelligent observer of politics that's a pretty silly position to have. I occasionally read Daily Mail pieces and before the paywall was a keen Times reader (it's still the best Sunday paper IMO). If you're looking for objective unbiased journalism you won't find it.
