Forum menu
All you’d do by taxing anything that’s deemed a luxury more, is make it even more inaccessible to those on lower wages
Yes because the poor and the working class all aspire to own a Rolex. Do you actually believe this shit you’re spouting or do I have to call troll?
A banker or footballer might buy a Rolex with one days wages and then he might buy one next year and year after. They will pay more tax than someone who buys one every 20 years.
Tax property, tax wealth, & tax land instead of bloody subsidising it!
the guardian: labour on ‘thin ice’ at local elections despite poll lead, warn party chiefs.
It's going to be an interesting one.
Any outcome will not likely see the back of Johnson or Starmer though so expect this miserable trudge all over again until economic collapse; coming soon to a red wall near you.
When we do finally get to recession expect the Tories to make a better run of it. Whereas Labour will be going on about paying for it.
You absolutely can't make it up.
Any government has a chance to now to fix the economy. It should be solid Labour territory.
Yes because the poor and the working class all aspire to own a Rolex. Do you actually believe this shit you’re spouting or do I have to call troll?
As stated earlier, it’s an example that can be replaced with anything at that price.
As for spouting, it’s no worse than stating you’d change the entire tax structure without much thought of all the dodges, a few posts ago you were stating you couldn’t buy or own property offshore, now you want consumption tax where the rich could use a plethora of tax dodges, from company ownership offsetting tax, buying ‘secondhand’, etc, etc
It’s going to be an interesting one.
It will be particularly interesting if, as "Labour chiefs" fear, Labour even lose “red wall” seats.
Councillors are elected for 4 years, 4 years ago when those seats were last up for grabs the "bearded allotment dweller" was party leader - which as we all know was an absolute election disaster for Labour, something which he was personally responsible for and no one else was.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
Or will this awkward fact be simply ignored?
tax wealth and consumption instead.
It's interesting that the French have tried to do this, the creation of the IGF and the IFI (paid by people with world wide net assets of over 1.3 Million euros) pretty much do what you suggest. They were only bought in a couple of years before COVID so it's difficult to analyse the really, but so far have contributed 0.17% of the total tax revenue. They admit that it's an ideological tax, as it actually contributes little to the revenue. As BillMc suggests; consumption taxes badly tilt against the poorer in society
Personally I'm in favour of reforming inheritance tax rules. i.e. no passing houses onto the next generation broadly. The house is just back on the open market. But it'll never get past the public I'd suspect.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
If Labour lose more councillors than they gain (ie do worse than they did in 2018), then Starmer will be replaced this year (you would hope). People are expecting a huge improvement on the 2018 results. Labour doing "just as badly" or "even worse" (or even only slightly better) will be seen as a disaster. What's really odd is that the 2018 results weren't seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
Every poll I've read seems to suggest Labour will gain overall.
I think a lot of that talk is about managing expectations/ getting people out to vote.
What’s really odd is that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
Not really. Thats what happens when the bar is set 12 months earlier where 'not losing as disastrously as expected' is celebrated as some marvellous victory by the faithful...
I've been out delivering letters to postal voters this morning. Does that count as virtue signalling? Or do I need to tweet my solidarity with the people of Palestine? 😉
Every poll I’ve read seems to suggest Labour will gain overall.
Haven't the Tories set the bar where losing less than 1,000 council seats will be seen as a 'good' result? So, they're where labour were post 2017 with Grandad? If this isn't as bad as predicted, then thats a result!
What’s really odd is that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
Four years ago there was a 8% swing to Labour in the local elections, which was 4 times greater than the swing achieved four years earlier under Ed Miliband.
But you think it's really odd that the 2018 results weren't seen as a reason to change the leader?
What I find really odd is how you have apparently forgotten that during the entire time he was leader of the party the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn.
Almost as odd as binners constant rewriting of history.
But you think it’s really odd that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader?
Well, if they weren't... then Labour doing better in these elections isn't going to lead to a change of leader, is it.
If 2018 was a good result, then doing better, even if only slightly better, would also be a good result. No? I think everyone is expecting much more than that. Matching 2018 would be seen as failure for Labour this May, I think. I suspect most people see it the same way.
the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn
They didn't do enough, in my opinion. There was no good reason to fight a second general election with the same leader. They all (including Starmer) should have stepped back and refused to be in his shadow cabinet. It would have caused a crisis in the party, but the alternative is where we are now, a crisis in the country.
What I find really odd is how you have apparently forgotten that during the entire time he was leader of the party the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn.
I can't remember any time that the PLP nominated a challenger, Corbyn had shored up all those routes to pushing him out, from the exec committee and labour membership, the whole momentum thing came in at that time as well to back him, so those old 'new' labour MPs might have wanted him replaced, but they weren't trying their hardest to get rid of him, they just sat back and did nothing, even after the debacle of the last election, he stayed on as the leader for another 4 months as the PLP just waited for him to step down.
If 2018 was a good result
No 2018 wasn't a particularly good result for Labour, it was however the best local election result since 2012.
If bearded allotment-dwelling grandad was such an electoral disaster then Labour should be celebrating a spectacular result under binners political messiah next week.
they weren’t trying their hardest to get rid of him, they just sat back and did nothing,
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
If bearded allotment-dwelling grandad was such an electoral disaster then Labour should be celebrating a spectacular result under binners political messiah next week.
It all depends on the metrics, around here Labour don't really compete the locals, so what are the hypothetical gains that can be made, and how hard are they being fought.
As for Starmer being a political messiah, he's pretty much unknown in terms of his political abilities so far, but i just see him as being way more sellable to the masses than Corbyn was.
, but they weren’t trying their hardest to get rid of him
Serious? I think you need to have a look again at that?
but i just see him as being way more sellable to the masses than Corbyn was
I think you could claim that he's less "divisive" than Corbyn. I don't do house to house canvassing any more, but friends that still do are telling me that he's (Starmer) doesn't provoke the love him or loathe him reaction, but then lots of folks don't seem have an opinion of him either way, which brings it's own set of issues, I suspect.
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
They had one leadership contest, and look what happened, the NEC allowed Corbyn to be automatically included on the ballot, removing the route for the PLP to not vote him on, and then the influx of voters for the contest through campaigns from momentum, trade unions and so on.
Trying their hardest to get rid of Corbyn may have been their aim, but with only one route available, and that heavily in Corbyn's favour, i'm not seeing how it was much of a threat!
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
Slow learner, I worked out what a waste of time this thread was a long time ago. And now it is discussing Corbyn again, for the 100th time...
for the 100th time…
I'm currently making my way through Who Dares Wins, by Dominic Sandbrook I'm up to the chapter where he looks at the Labour party in 1980, and the struggles between the Bennite and Callaghan factions. The echos from then to now are startling It's remarkably similar to the events of just a few years ago.
Starmer has no excuse to not be doing well currently.
Especially given Epstein 'chum' Mandleson thinks he's completely rewired the Labour Party.
Someone should ask Starmer if he thinks the Cerne Abbas Giant is potentially female and actually has a cervix.
Of course, the dick was added. The figure originally didn't have one. Makes you think.
grimep
Free Member
Someone should ask Starmer if he thinks the Cerne Abbas Giant is potentially female and actually has a cervix.
not everyone is gullible enough to be perpetually outraged by confetced culture war nonsense
well that counts me out
There are people on Twitter who seem to be confused as to whether that’s a genuine LibDem graphic that’s been clipped for that Labour ad there. I wonder if Labour tried to target it at the over 60s…?
Dumb advertising campaign.
There are people on Twitter who seem to be confused as to whether that’s a genuine LibDem graphic that’s been clipped for that Labour ad there
I had to look at it a couple of times. I guess the LibDems will be happy that Labour are advertising on their behalf and that it's not coming out of their own funds.
Who is that photo of though?
Who is that photo of though?
Some geezer who claims to be the LibDem leader. No one knows much about him. I think he is eclipsed by Keir Starmer's huge charisma.
I guess it's aimed at people who voted Tory last time who can't support the Fat One but are more inclined to vote Liberal so Starmsky positions 'his party' to the right of them. Not sure if it's age-specific, there seems to be lots of hang 'em and nuke 'ems under 60.
I was having a discussion last night with a fellow socialist about who to vote for, it's not obvious.
The problem with that is that it's very easy indeed for potential LibDem voters to check what LibDem policies on drugs and nuclear weapons are.
By making false claims concerning LibDem policies Labour are just outing themselves as liars, which I would have thought would make potential LibDem voters even less likely to vote for them.
Yep, much better if they promoted their own policies rather than slag off a party that is not even in power. If they proposed liberalising drug laws like in Portugal and getting rid of nuclear bombs I'd be out there with Binners doing the leaflets, and I'd vote for them.
BillMC
Full Memberwell that counts me out
Funnily that ad only appears on a couple of Lib Dem councillors twitters and facebook, also weird it has none of the structure of all the other Labour Party posters or ads on facebook, you'd think it was planted by the Lib Dems to then use for some political gain, there isn't any elections coming up is there?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-lib-dems-decriminalise-drugs-b2067487.html?amp
ernielynch
Free Member https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-lib-dems-decriminalise-drugs-b2067487.html?amp/blockquote >Note that there is no confirmation that these are Labour ads, the Indy went to the Lib Dems and Momentum for comment, but not the Labour party, it's a simple internet piece on their website that hasn't been substantiated.
If it's a Labour Party Facebook post, then please link me to the Labour Party picture or post relating to it.
I guess the LP could always deny it now a bit of the national press has taken it up.
Presumably they could also seek legal advice. It very clearly says "Paid for by the Labour Party".
I guess the LP could always deny it now a bit of the national press has taken it up.
It's an online article that went up a few hours ago, give them a little time!
Presumably they could also seek legal advice. It very clearly says “Paid for by the Labour Party”.
If it is a fake ad picture, then i dare say they might be able to add that in as well!
Again, i just don't believe the info in that, and a quick search of the Labour Party facebook page shows no signs of that picture, searching by the ad number gives you a couple of hits to Lib Deb commentators, so, until proven that it is a legitimate advert by labour, i won't add negative comments to something that quite possibly has been created just for negative comments against Labour.
Partygate, legsgate, porngate.
I Wonder what else is happening?
Given the bill that went through last night wonder if the anti-mask freaks will be shouldering up against proper freedoms?
Amazing how much time we devote to the little picture.
As far as i can tell, it's a faked campaign picture that appeared fully formed 22 hours ago on the @PoliticsJOE_UK twitter feed, and has been retweeted from there.
I see the Mail is busy drawing false equivalence between Starmer/Boris again on party/drink.
It will work and people will say - "they're all the same."
Because, Starmer should have spent more time attacking the Tories over policy and cost of living.
It will work and people will say – “they’re all the same.”
Yep,my True Blue parents were giving it large this morning, before declaring Liz Truss the least worst option for next prime minister.
We live in a universe where no one wants to admit perhaps they made bad political choices - which given the Tories steadfast outward attitude to personal responsibility...
The Tories are close to unsinkable.
The country has shifted so far to the right (along with the corruption) - plainly competent right!-leaning is seen as the defacto way of doing things.
Any other choice is absurd and unworkable, apparently.
This week will be interesting.
Bets?
Utterly depressing and might just stop the Tories (came up as "the tortures" on my mobile just then!)) having catastrophic losses in the elections.
Saving Johnson. Again.
Bets?
Both LibDems and Labour will do well in these local elections. But the Conservatives will still win the next General Election. And by "win" I mean have the most MPs and choose the PM.
I was thinking just next week Kelvin but I agree with you there.
However things can change fast!
Also, the denying and now subsequently admitting Rayner at lockdown 'event' is a massive PR screw-up makes them looks shifty as hell.
This was supposed to be a genuine error in the press statement at the time.
FFS.
What an absolute waste of time this lot are. They will lose ground on the competency stakes fast now.
Starmer is about to get a taste of what Corbyn dealt with day in day out.
Also, the denying and now subsequently admitting Rayner at lockdown ‘event’ is a massive PR screw-up makes them looks shifty as hell.
Aside from this "denying" seems to have been based around a single whatsapp in January/February of this year asking a press bod and them saying no.
So tad stupid but its not like Starmer or Rayner had stood up in the chamber and announced she hadnt been there.
Even by the hates standards its a weak story but guess they are a bit rattled by the suggestions from Labour that they might do something about nondom status. Not the sort of thing that great patriotic newspaper wants to hear given its owner.
This week will be interesting.
I think it will particularly interesting in London, but London appears currently to be at odds with the rest of the UK.
The latest London wide poll puts Labour 27 points ahead of the Tories, but in terms of share of the vote Labour and the LibDems are almost unchanged compared to 4 years ago. However the Tories share of the vote has fallen significantly and the Greens appear to have gained.
Where it starts getting particularly interesting imo is in Inner London, the old London County Council area. Here, where the UK government is based, Labour has a staggering 50 point lead over the Tories.
With a population of three and a half million, larger than the population of Wales, Inner London must surely have the greatest concentration of Labour votes in the UK.
But then it gets even more interesting when you look how well the Greens are doing in Inner London. The latest poll puts the Greens on 11%, two points behind the Tories on 13% .
I would expect pollsters to have a margin of error of about 2% so that imo puts the Tories and Greens pretty much neck and neck. I know it won't happen and the Greens won't beat the Tories in Inner London but it's nice to know that it is a vaguely realistic dream.
I personally won't be voting Labour next Thursday, not after what they have done in Croydon. But Labour will almost certainly retain control of Croydon Council, despite all the scandals surrounding their time in office, such is the level of anti-Tory feelings in London.
Instead I will be very reluctantly voting Green. And in the Croydon mayoral election I will be voting for an independent candidate who was expelled from the Labour Party for calling for resignations in connection to the Croydon Council fiasco.
It won't make any difference but it might perhaps reduce Labour's smugness. Maybe similarly the Greens will benefit from Labour's huge 50% lead in Inner London and overtaking the Tories won't be a totally crazy fantasy.
Edit:
Aside from this “denying” seems to have been based around a single whatsapp in January/February of this year asking a press bod and them saying no.
Irrespective of the detail look at how it's being framed though.
The damage is there.
Hang on... are the papers really trying to equate an April 2021 meeting where no rules were broken, with all the repeated law breaking that went on in number 10 in 2020, and was denied repeatedly in parliament and in interviews?
Just take a look. Is it really surprising? They're not just equating they are positioning to the "Labour are just as bad " part of the argument.
The key bit is timing. Whereas people were getting fed up of discussing Johnson's antics (just listen to the UKs most popular radio talk show) and now this with Rayner comes out this close to the elections
Irrespective of the detail. The weighting given by Newspapers against the left is criminal.
Either way the timing is terrible and even if it was a genuine mistake Labour have played into the Tories hands.
Hang on… are the papers really trying to equate an April 2021 meeting where no rules were broken,
Its mostly the mail but yes. I think this is about the fifth time it has been dusted off although admittedly this time it does have a bit of new information namely that Rayner was there with the revelation that some press officer said to a journalist in a whatsapp she wasnt a couple of months back.
No sign that the police were lied to and definitely no evidence of them lying to the house about it.
Good to see the careful spinning with the mail skirting around the truth as much as possible but then the activists etc removing the ambiguity and going straight for the lies.
Its mostly the mail but yes.
Ah. Making it clear that that policy of ending life-long non-dom status was still Labour policy has gone down as well as could be expected at the paper owned by a life-long non-dom then.
We will be full swing recession by then I reckon.
Can't see this being a good strategy.
But then again we are heading into a shit storm "let's pass it to Labour to try and fix."
Tories destroy - Labour have to fix, every time.
The 'right' don't do complex problems.
Earlier i discussed a little the Scottish dimension to all this
Sarwar has come out with a piece of self defeating nonsense. " no deals or coalitions with anyone" His problem is local elections in scotland do not produce majorities on councils. You have to deal with someone or sit on the sidelines.
This attitude is why labour collapsed in Scotland - they have spent the last 15 years sat on the back benches sulking instead of engaging. this absolutist position is nonsense and the voters can see thru it. All it means is a labour vote is going to be wasted
Labour won’t be doing anything, in parliaments in Scotland or the UK, without working with other parties. True across many councils all over England and Wales as well. This “winner takes all” attitude to representation and policy making might be simple to understand and “sell”, but so often evaporates when it hits reality. Time for some honesty.
Labour collapsed in Scotland because of the way the SNP shaped itself and its policies to the left, and on the back of the push, and overall failure of the independence vote. The SNP didn't have the baggage of an overarching party centred in London with policies affecting Scotland and had a real sweep after the independence/brexit votes, Labour were just naturally the ones who would lose votes to this, the unionists/right wingers in Scotland wouldn't vote SNP in a million years anyway.
As for the no deals talk, it makes sense, why would Labour, prior to the elections almost signal defeat before it's happened, the SNP and Labour aren't friends in Scotland, and you only start talking deals when it actually matters!
It'll be interesting to see how Scotland votes though, there is a bit of apathy for the SNP these days in certain areas, but there is still that chance of a second indy vote, and the SNP are putting in a real shift to keep what they have.
Labour collapsed because of the bain principle and sulking on the back benches and to say no deals just shows they are not serious. IOf course they will have to do deals - like the 5 coalitions they run councils with at the mom,ent. Are they just going to hand over control of those councils and sulk in opposition more?
Time for some honesty.
indeed - Sarwar is taking the scots electorate for fools
You guys do realise that its multi member constituencies in Scotland for councils and there is precisely zero chance of labour getting more than half the seats on any council - even the SNP with twice the vote do not
You guys do realise that its multi member constituencies in Scotland for councils and there is precisely zero chance of labour getting more than half the seats on any council – even the SNP with twice the vote do not
Yeah, i've had a few of the voting adverts come through from folk i know who are standing locally in my old place, weirdly all the Tory councillors haven't got the word conservative on their ads!
My first part was really aimed at the parliamentary standing, the local elections is going to be a test to see if Labour can bring back some of the SNP voters who switched, to be honest i just think of Glasgow with this, as i lived there when the whole Labour / SNP thing was getting heated, but to be fair there was a lot more politics than just politics going on with any vote there!
Did anyone else try and listen to Starmer on the Radio4 Today Programme this morning? I started nodding along agreeing with him... and then just mentally switched off. I have no idea what he said for most of the interview. He's like some kind of meditation facilitator. Probably his biggest chance (on the radio) to get people out to vote in the local elections, and he'd have been better off doing a Johnson and finding somewhere else to be.
It was terrible. He is terrible as an opposition leader.
I mean how many open goals have the Torys presented over the last year and not only did he miss but basically declined to even kick the ball.
Yes in an ideal world politics would be polite chit chat about this minor policy change and that slight funding gap but we have a hostile force in occupation here - they tore up the rule book years ago and we need a bit more than 30 minutes of waffle about energy bills and NI. If you are going to talk about energy bills, at least point the finger at Cameron and his lack of foresight on power, green energy and pretty much everything.
Where was the anger about the PPE scandal, test and trace,worst covid death toll in Europe, the destruction of the NHS, the exams fiasco, public services being decimated, HS2 balls up......and a squillion other things that are a direct result of the Torys failing to GAS that I've forgotton about because I'm so angry and disappointed in the labour party.
Should have put Angie up - at least she's got some balls
Where was the anger about the PPE scandal, test and trace,worst covid death toll in Europe,
He did a bit on the £6bn lost on dodgy contracts fwiw. This country is actually mid Euro distribution for death toll and Starmer has fallen foul of using this line:
https://fullfact.org/health/keir-starmer-angela-rayner-uk-covid-death-toll-europe/
...and he talked about cost of living, insanity of raising taxes to kill growth over the past decade etc etc. But it you've switched off you've switched off.
But it you’ve switched off you’ve switched off.
The problem is not entirely what he says, but how he says it. He comes across as a disinterested technocrat rather than a potential leader. Even when he does get angry or a bit animated he sounds pompous, a little bit desperate, and completely disengenous. Being a political party leader is a role you have to play, and Starmer is a terrible actor.
dazh - who would you have instead?
Yvette Cooper?
Wes Streeting?
Jess Phillips?
who would you have instead?
I've said many times that the only shadow cabinet member capable of connecting with the voters is Rayner. I don't particularly like the way she has fallen in behind Starmer and completely denied her past sucking up to Corbyn, and she's a careerist for sure, but she's the only one with the authentic backstory, passion and the understanding of life for people in the bottom half of society. She'll put off a lot of chattering middle class snobs, but would make up for that by winning support from the young and the non-voting working class.
Yvette Cooper?
Wes Streeting?
Jess Phillips?
Joke list?
I think the key is - we have who we have. But we want him to be a HELL of a lot better.
"Joke list?
I think the key is – we have who we have. But we want him to be a HELL of a lot better."
So about as useful as my answer then really.
I agree with dazh and you actually - we do have who we have and we have Rayner. The fact she was attacked so viciously recently by the right wing media shows there is something there they are scared of. It almost makes more sense to have her as the figurehead and Keir as the deputy. Boris and his cronies really don't understand her, underestimate her and haven't got many angles they can attack her on without the optics looking very badly for them. Keir on the other hand as a fellow member of the establishment is easy to read.
So about as useful as my answer then really.
I'd go for Clive Lewis.
It's nothing new to get questioned on here about who you would want instead when the current Starmer doesn't come up to scratch - but is irrelevent because Starmer is the leader at the most desperate time.
And actually Lisa Nandy has at least shown some guts recently.
I would have said Rayner but I reckon the press would constantly smear her so would be an interesting battle but would probably sideline the politics.
(Do also remember Starmer was apparantly the guaranteed solution to Corbyn. 20pts ahead etc.)
The fact she was attacked so viciously recently by the right wing media shows there is something there they are scared of.
They're terrified of her. Which is why they've already started the smear campaign and are painting her as a working class sl**. She can turn the unbridled mysogyny she exposes into a lot of votes.
The problem is not entirely what he says, but how he says it.
Absolutely this. How has he not got the hang of these media appearances yet?!? He's just not good enough at this stuff. As a plan B... I'd really like Labour to present themselves more as a front bench team, and reject this presidential style nonsense. I'd rather he was replaced before a general election... but Labour just isn't built that way, is it.
Still... some how... he's polling as the most popular politician in the UK... so... I dunno... ignore me. Not sure he's done anything today to help councillors get elected though.
Nandy is an utter idiot ( see her ignorant statement on scotland). No way on earth. Lewis a sexist nonentity ( but otherwise good instincts). Raynor I have a little more respect for but she is not PM material IMO
This is the main issue - the total lack of talent and no one willing to question the orthodoxy in the party ( followers not leaders)
The point being just what we all think on here about a future leader bears no resemblance to how they actually perform.
Starmer was utterly lionised as the absolute solution on here (not by me) - and yet look how it's turned out.
So it doesn't really matter what we think versus reality.
An almost useless debate.
Back to Starmer - he doesn't even look bothered to me, and done way more harm than good currently by not focussing on the things that count - rather than playing this steady hand long-game leader that James O'Brien thinks is so amazing.
I'm not hugely interested or excited about leaders unless the party show some invention over solid future investment ideas. Everything else is just a grind of the current decaying political system.
So going from a 10 -20 pt deficit in the polls to a 5-10 pt lead? Being the highest rated politician by the english public?
He has got it to stick that Johnson is an untrustworthy liar and made Johnson look very foolish
Again I ask - who could do better?
to me the issue is still the orthodoxy in the labour party is "give them what they want" ie follow the public mood whereas they should be leading the public mood but this is not down to Starmer - this has been labour orthodoxy for 20 years
I'm sorry but Keir has not got it to stick that Johnson is a liar. Johnson has done that by himself as he is literally so untrustworthy that even some Tory voters have had enough.
Same goes for being the highest rated politician - he's just a least worse option.
As Rone said above, he almost sounds like he's not bothered. I got the feeling when he was talking in the R4 interview this morning when he said he didn't become the leader to be in opposition that he was trying to convince himself of that statement!