Forum menu
Seems like the 'thick as mince' and 'politically naiive' Angela Rayner has just significantly boosted her role and her profile. Whilst it comfirms my criticism of her as a careerist looking after herself, I hope she uses her new found fame and power for good ends, and in particular to push back on any greater involvement of Mandelson in the party. She may well be leader before the next election is called rather than after. One thing's for sure, Starmer has all the authority of a poor mans IDS. A fancy city lawyer being outmanoevred by an ex care-worker. That's got to sting a bit.
Have they said what her new post is then? Health? Education? Foreign affairs? They sound like the posts being reshuffled. Would like to see Nandy take over the Home affairs job, personally, but it doesn’t sound likely.
Yes thank you for that Kelvin but I already knew that the Labour Party had won the New Addington ward by-election, I actually mentioned it, remember?
My point was that the BNP only got 55 votes, in an area they thought they stood a chance. These days the BNP can only afford to be very selective as to where they stand.
Btw I love this very predictable "the Conservative Party is now a far-right neo-nazi racist party" by people desperately attempting to explain something which they clearly don't understand.
They spout nonsense like that and then appear to be completely baffled as why people are no longer listening to them.
No one gives a shit about the BNP… they no longer need to exist, we don’t even have to see them on our ballot papers up here any more. Washed up and washed away. Their voters help bump up the Tory vote instead these days. You getting excited about their inability to draw a crowd any more is just more of your reporting from the past… most of these post of yours on recent pages sounds like they have been delayed by years after you hit send.
So, Rayner is in the Shadow First Secretary of State role… I look forward to her tearing Raab a new one. I hope Johnson gets some nice long holidays soon…
I look forward to her tearing Raab a new one.
Gove you mean. Raab is the foreign secretary, still shadowed by Lisa Nandy who Starmer also wanted to sack but couldn’t because he has no authority. His days are numbered.
No one gives a shit about the BNP… they no longer need to exist
Because no one hates black people anymore?
Or because the Conservative Party is now a neo-nazi racist party just like the BNP?
Gove you mean.
No, I mean Raab. Gove is Cabinet Secretary. Raab stands in as defecto deputy PM if Johnson is missing, that’s why I think it makes sense to make Raynor his opposite number. I’d rather she was shadowing a big department brief, but hey.
Because no one hates black people anymore?
Or because the Conservative Party is now a neo-nazi racist party just like the BNP?
Loving your stupid questions Earnie. When I say loving, I mean bored senseless by your approach.
most of these post of yours on recent pages sounds like they have been delayed by years after you hit send.
Here's an idea Kelvin, if you weren't so quick to hit send perhaps you wouldn't have to edit your posts so extensively.
What’s happening with Thornbury?
Reshuffle fun.
Perhaps with her love of St George’s crosses she’s joined the BNP?
No, I mean Raab. Gove is Cabinet Secretary
You should read the news..
”Rayner emerged with a significantly beefed-up role, handed the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster role shadowing Michael Gove as well as a newly created post as shadow secretary for the future of work.”
Thanks, I hadn’t read that. So that’s four roles she’ll be in? Busy times ahead…
Moving Dodds to a thinking rather that talking role seems wise.
Loving your stupid questions Earnie. When I say loving, I mean bored senseless by your approach.
Oh it's petty personal insults time because I challenge the echo-chamber's narrative that the British working-class, and the Tory Party, are all neo-nazi racists.
Well I guess it's predictable.
No, I’m just not answering your “because no one hates black people”, “are the Tories neo-Nazis now” bullshit questions. No one said anything of the sort. Tedious.
That’s probably as likely to be down to Karen on Facebook as it is Rupert Murdoch
And where does Karen on Facebook get the idea from?
I'm the the only person who actually thinks Angela Rayner is a bit MILFY??
And where does Karen on Facebook get the idea from?
Louise
No one said anything of the sort. Tedious.
Perhaps you don't remember what you said. Quote :
"There’s no need for the BNP these days"
It is perfectly reasonable to ask why.
The BNP is a neo-nazi racist party whose thugs attracted a very small level of support a while back and even less now.
The claim is constantly be made on here that the British people have recently become more racist in the way they vote. I see no evidence of that.
You say there's no need for the BNP anymore so I ask why.
Obviously you don't want to answer the question, which is fine, but instead of ignoring it you choose petty personal insults as a response.
There’s no need for the BNP these days anyway, the Tories have mopped up their policies and voters now.
Is what I said. If you want things to be harder for immigrants, for whatever reason, then the Tory party promise that. The BNP support dried up well before that though. They have been a spent force for years now. The news is that they even bothered trying to contest a ward, not that just about everyone ignored them. They are gone, an irrelevance, not even a distraction. The BNP fail to make an impact in a local council election isn’t news to anyone living in 2021.
And what’s all this about…
I challenge the echo-chamber’s narrative that the British working-class, and the Tory Party, are all neo-nazi racists.
If there is some kind of consensus that the working class are all neo-Nazis, including my own family, you will be able to quote lots of us making that rediculous claim, won’t you. Back when the BNP were actually being paid any attention, I didn’t even consider many of their voters to be neo-Nazis, even when it turned out key people in the organisation were. I definitely don’t think that all the Tory Party, or anything other than a teeny tiny proportion of its voters are. And I don’t think working class people are any more likely to fall into that kind of hateful ideology than any other class.
Louise
I see, if you can't directly address the argument, just deflect and waffle - how tremendously Johnsonius.
Rachel Reeves said:
'Our economic recovery must be fair. We must transform lives & back businesses in every part of our country. Together we can create the secure jobs & strong infrastructure we need. Everyone deserves a stake in Britain's future.'
This insipid drivel could have been burbled up by anyone from any party. Can't see it firing them up in Batley. Stake and chips maybe.
The Batley by-election should be a Labour shoe-in. They still need to turn up and canvas though. If they keep the metropolitan elite MPs away it will be okay. Thornberry, Starmer et al should stay well away.
No one gives a shit about the BNP… they no longer need to exist, we don’t even have to see them on our ballot papers up here any more. Washed up and washed away. Their voters help bump up the Tory vote instead these days.
I can concur on this. I'd never seen BNP candidates or campaigning till I moved here to their heartland 20 years ago - neighbouring towns featured on Channel 4 documentaries about them, their "Red White and Blue" Festival was just up the road.
Then "we" returned Kilroy Silk as the first UKIP MEP. Now we have a Tory MP and council. The open racists disappeared behind other flags years ago now.
The BNP fail to make an impact in a local council election isn’t news to anyone living in 2021.
Which of course is exactly my point. The last BNP councilor was 3 years ago in 2018 in the North of England.
Yet despite that there are people, including on here, who repeat this ridiculous claim that recent election results proves that the British people have become more racist.
When it's pointed out to them that the openly racist anti-multiculturalism BNP has seen its tiny level of support completely vanish, they counter that by claiming that the Tory Party has replaced the BNP as the new racist anti-immigration anti-multiculturalism party.
And yet the reality is actually the opposite, ie, the level of racism within the Tory Party is probably at the lowest level it has ever been.
Four members of the present Tory Cabinet are BAME MPs, that's 17 percent - a higher percentage than the in the wider population. And twice as much as there has been in all the Labour Cabinets put together.
Which is a very far cry from the days when the Tories won the Smethwick election on the slogan "if you want a **** for a neighbour, vote Labour". Or when Thatcher won a general election on the promise that Britain wouldn't be "swamped" by foreigners.
Yes I am aware that Johnson's journalistic instincts and need to be "amusing" leads him to make comments concerning watermelon smiles and letterboxes, but it doesn't detract from the much wider picture.
I am also acutely aware of the appalling and utterly disgraceful Windrush Scandal. A situation where, perfectly legally and in law, a Pole who came to the UK 6 years ago, for example, can have more legal rights than a Jamaican who came to the UK as a child 60 years ago.
Something which Keir Starmer is scandalously quiet over. The middle-class liberals who are usually so hyper-sensitive over alleged racism (eg watermelon smiles) appear to have very little concern for laws that discriminate in favour of people from white European countries over people from black Caribbean countries.
Are you claiming that Starmer, and the rest of Labour's team, haven't spoken out about windrush and other injustices against people from Caribbean countries? The Tories managed to get a "there is no institutional racism" report published, all while the legal and political battles on behalf of victims of the windrush scandal roll on and on.
geordiemick00
Free Member
I’m the the only person who actually thinks Angela Rayner is a bit MILFY??
Raising the quality of the debate. 🙂 But in answer to your question, yeah, I think you are. Doesn't float my boat (or anything else for that matter) - and that's before she opens her mouth. Both her and Anneliese Dodds are two MPs that don't help the Labour cause at all IMHO. Both difficult to listen to - and not in a challenging, thought provoking way.
Someone from an EU country who applies for "settled status" has more legal rights than someone from the Windrush Generation who applies for "leave to remain in the UK indefinitely".
I only know that because I myself have had to apply for "settled status", not because Starmer hit the headlines over the issue.
I see no reason why as a white European I should have more rights than someone from a black commonwealth country.
All true... but that's UK government policy. Conversely, many people 'from' commonwealth countries have always had rights denied to people from European ones (voting rights for example). The UK government sets immigration policy, and runs the Home Office as it sees fit. The buck stops with the UK administration when it comes to how it deals with people from Commonwealth countries, and how it treats their UK born and bred descendents, it always has. And, back on topic, Starmer and other Labour front benchers have repeatedly criticised the actions taken against these, in most cases, undisputedly British citizens. If the British government treats immigrants and its own citizens so poorly, and there are racist undertones to their policy decisions and the administration of those policies, there's no one making them do so from outside the UK.
Personally I think their influence, particularly in the age of social media and ever diminishing readerships, is hugely over-exaggerated, both by themselves and by those who seek a convenient bogeyman
I always try to base my own opinions on fact, as much as is possible, or at least do my own research by reading different points of view etc. But a statement like this is indicative of just how little many people actually know about the influence on our society, by very powerful wealthy elites. People like Murdoch, and others (many of whom remain almost invisible), have had such a grip on politics since parliament was first formed. It is worth noting that Rupert Murdoch, whilst not even a UK citizen, has far greater access to the British PM, than virtually any other British person.
The average person would be lucky to meet with their local MP once a year, never mind anyone in the upper echelons of government. To say that the influence of the likes of Murdoch and other media barons etc, is 'over exaggerated', is either hopelessly naive, ignorant, stupid, or in denial. Or just simply bullshit. Just a couple of minutes lazy Googling, would have saved the embarrassment of posting such bewildering rubbish.
I know that you like to cast Murdoch et al as evil masterminds manipulating the population, but it’s a chicken and egg situation that you’ve got the wrong way around
No. Either you're just saying that as a wind-up, or it's YOU who have things the wrong way round.
Blair was a very close friend of Rupe's, wasn't he?
The claim is constantly be made on here that the British people have recently become more racist in the way they vote. I see no evidence of that.
Well, Brexit was a pretty good indicator of the level xenophobia in our society, as much of it was driven by racism, pure and simple. But this does open up a whole new debate around whether the UK is 'more racist' now, or whether it's just that such attitudes are more openly voiced, as inherent racism within people and communities, has become emboldened? I think it actually has much more to do with class; as our society becomes fractured into ever smaller subsets of the greater class system, so people are finding themselves increasingly alienated from the identities they once took for granted. What is it to be 'working' or 'middle' class these days? The lines seem increasingly blurred. I see people from very working class backgrounds, proudly announcing those credentials, whilst actually living a much more middle class lifestyle and having middle class 'values' (whatever they are). Seems that the constant glorification of the working classes (as promoted in popular culture, the media etc) leads people to believe it's great to be of a subservient class whose role it is to do the donkey work to generate wealth for others. But as these identities are exposed and challenged, so people are less secure within such and become more defensive, leading to the fear and insecurity which fuels xenophobia. It's always better to have 'others' for hate to be directed towards, rather than scrutiny falling on oneself.
Well, Brexit was a pretty good indicator of the level xenophobia in our society
Not really. It's actually a pretty poor indicator. You can support Brexit without being racist, in the same way that you can support immigration controls without being racist. And you can support remaining being in the EU and be racist. Like the majority of Tory MPs in 2015.
There are much better indicators. For example I find it highly unlikely that anyone who was a committed bigot wouldn't vote for Britain's second highest profile bigot.
So how did Tommy Robinson do when he stood for election in the North West of England 2 years ago? I can't imagine anyone who wasn't a bigot voting for him.
Despite having the level of media coverage that most politicians can only dream of, and standing during a period of allegedly unprecedented bigotry, he only managed to get 2% of the vote, came 8th, and lost his deposit.
A total humiliation. Presumably he only agreed to stand because he believed that bigotry, specially in the North of England, had suddenly become popular.
And to fair to him in most European countries the bigot with the second highest profile can generally expect to have an elected position.
Nick Lowles, the CEO of Hope Not Hate, said the results showed how politically irrelevant the British far right has become in recent years. After the BNP’s collapse in 2010, many supporters were swept up by Ukip and then the Brexit party, he said, while some of the same voters had since switched to the Conservatives.
“With [Boris Johnson’s] pro-Brexit and rightwing populist agenda, which includes strong anti-immigration messaging and deliberate manipulation and hyping of a cultural war, there is currently very little political space for traditional far-right parties obsessed with racial nationalism and Islamophobia,” he said.
“The BNP tapped into political discontent that existed in many white working-class communities, and while these voters were strongly opposed to immigration and a multiracial society, they were also uneasy about the BNP’s more extreme views. When offered slightly more moderate versions of the same … anti-immigrant and nationalist messages, these voters quickly jumped ship.”
Any chance we can get this thread back onto Starmer? Especially as the reshuffle and elections throwing up all sorts of questions and concerns about this leadership and what should happen next. There should be plenty to talk about that's on topic.
Blair was a very close friend of Rupe’s, wasn’t he?
Yes. Is it just coincidence that in living memory for ~70%* of the population only a single person has won a general election for Labour, and that person happened to be godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's kids?
*Based on ONS population stats, and the assumption that age 8 is the earliest you might have some memory of who the prime minister is.
Yes. Is it just coincidence that in living memory for ~70%* of the population only a single person has won a general election for Labour, and that person happened to be godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch’s kids?
So Starmer needs to be replaced with a mate of Murdoch. Maybe that was the case 24 years ago but does being a friend of Murdoch have as much standing these days with Facebook, Twitter etc,.?
Maybe being friends with Zuckerberg may be more helpful
that employees of Murdoch’s newspapers met with Government Ministers or their advisors a staggering 206 times in the last 2 years. This includes editors and executives working for The Times, Sunday Times and the Sun newspapers.”
So "employees" in that sentence includes reporters for whom meeting with the Govt is their day job. The same as Kuenssburg and Peston (who've probably had just as many meetings)...I agree with you that Murdoch has influence but that headline might be misleading
Rummaging around a in box of ruined toys is the cabinet shuffle.
It will make not a jot of difference.
Rachel Reeves. Ugh. She won't be splashing the cash. She's on the fiscal prudence bullshit side - that will run well in the face of the Tory spend.
Why not just go the whole hog and get Ian Austin back?
Hoping by the end of the year there will be a leadership challenge and be rid of this ineptitude.
Hoping by the end of the year there will be a leadership challenge and be rid of this ineptitude.
And as always be careful what you wish for. Which current Labour MP would you back as leader?
THE big question.
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.