Blairites staging a coup...

[Zhivago]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

[Sandydragon]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

[Zhivago]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

[Zhivago]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

[Digby]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

I noted somewhere else that Labour already hold 90 something (93 I think) of the 100 constituencies with the lowest voter turnout in the country. So even if Corbyn is correct, and that's a big if, the biggest impact he could expect to have is to lose marginal seats and win some safe Labour seats with bigger majorities. How trailing by over a hundred seats, being likely to lose seats, and having no chance to take back Scotland isn't going to see a leader dropped in the merde it seems only Jeremy, John, Diane and oddly the Unions don't get.

[Sandydragon]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

[Zhivago]

We do. But even with the best policy program in the world, there has to be some basic leadership skills. You cannot win a GE just by your own supporters voting for the party. At some point a leader needs to sweep up the undecideds or even take voters off the opposition. Blair managed to do that by making Labour appear to be trustworthy on the economy and crime and all the other areas that Labour as perceived to be poor at. He did enough to persuade floating voters that he could be trusted and Conservative voters not to worry too much if their party lost.

Corbin cannot bridge that gap. I don't like the program he advocates, but even if I did, the chance of him persuading anyone to follow him rather than another leader is minute.

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

[Zhivago]

And regarding this 20% nomination rule - of course it doesn't include the leader, otherwise he'd just resign and use the 12.5% rule that's there for when there's a vacancy. Horribly anti-democratic attempt, and should fail miserably if there's any justice left in the world.

[Sandydragon]

Which aspects exactly? The anti-war stuff? I can understand that given your career.

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

He also ruled out using nuclear weapons at any point. That's not something to make public.

He has also voted against every use of force by the west, including the liberation of Kuwait. In fact he went out of his way to try to stop the war once it had started.

Actions speak louder than words, no?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

[Sandydragon]

The idea is that there's an untapped reservoir of votes that Corbyn can tap into. These votes will apparently be new voters or those who have voted in frustration for the likes of UKIP because they were not being listened to.

The obvious problem is that it ignores our electoral system. They need to convert yellow (both shades) and blue seats to red seats. There's absolutely no sign of them doing so. The numbers certainly don't seem to me to add up.

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Or they could cheat like the Tories and fiddle their election expenses so they have more campaigners in the marginal constituencies...

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

there's no culpability. expenditure like that clearly isn't local. If you wheel in lots of National politicians then it's part of the national campaign, even if the local MP is there as well. The only question I'd have is whether there are big posters with the local candidate on them with national slogans on. That would seem to me to be local campaigning so it would be accounted for locally.

[Digby]

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

Hard to say when I don't recall him setting out an alternative budget, but based on past statements printing money to fund capital investment through a national investment bank, national maximum wage, cutting tax relief in a fashion which drops R&D by around 150% the value of the tax relief, the way too high figures he spouts on tax not collected due to fraud/avoidance, building social homes and boosting home ownership, the assumption that the markets will be fine with his radical reform and indeed his observation that under his watch and as per of his legacy there need be radical reform rather than laying some groundwork.

If you want specifics then ask JC to tell us some over his vague waffling in values in lieu of saying anything (though hardly just a problem in Corbyn)

[kk67]

We clearly differ over the relative importance of perceived competence vs the political programme advocated.

Yes.
The rural UK seems so happy with a corrupt status quo. I say status quo,....but they've just taken a massive leap into the dark.
It seems that their desire for a status quo has led them down,.....down, down,....

I was wondering how the Landed Gentry had managed to convince their serfs to vote away their EU subsidy....it's amazing how potent the immigrant card can be in rural communities.
We really aren't that different to the US. When you see how New Yorkers view the rest of their country you do feel for them.

[UGagain]

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

Hard to say when I don't recall him setting out an alternative budget, but based on past statements printing money to fund capital investment through a national investment bank, national maximum wage, cutting tax relief in a fashion which drops R&D by around 150% the value of the tax relief, the way too high figures he spouts on tax not collected due to fraud/avoidance, building social homes and boosting home ownership, the assumption that the markets will be fine with his radical reform and indeed his observation that under his watch and as per of his legacy there need be radical reform rather than laying some groundwork.

If you want specifics then ask JC to tell us some over his vague waffling in values in lieu of saying anything (though hardly just a problem in Corbyn)

Where do you think money comes from?

How else do sovereign governments with fiat currencies spend money?

They spend it into existence by marking up accounts in the banking system by keystroke then they tax most of it out of existence. What's left behind is the net savings of the non-government sector aka the deficit.

There's nothing scary about it, the sky won't fall and given the vast idle resources lying around will have no inflationary effect.

[UGagain]

I was thinking more of th economics, but a blanket support of pacifism would also concern me.

Funny, because his words on pacifism are "No, I wouldn’t describe myself as a pacifist, but I would describe an act of violence, an act of war, as absolutely a very last resort." To me, that seems a reasonable position to take, and doesn't sound like a 'blanket support of pacifism'... would you not agree?

What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

He also ruled out using nuclear weapons at any point. That's not something to make public.

He has also voted against every use of force by the west, including the liberation of Kuwait. In fact he went out of his way to try to stop the war once it had started.

Actions speak louder than words, no?

A rather large part of the population agree with all those stances.

(The "liberation of Kuwait" is a joke right?)

This is democracy, dude. You don't get to decide what other people can vote for.

You can pretend that his landslide victory and the huge numbers of new and returned Labour Party members mean nothing. But it's just wishful thinking at best.

People have seen through neoliberalism and the warmongering.

You apparently still think that the economy depends on the rich. Not everyone is so naive.

[UGagain]

Maybe Corbyn would care to accommodate more given he was elected by a few hundred thousand and the MPs by millions. Or more preferably he could go join the Socialists and leave Labour to the grown ups, and of course once safely in the fold of the SWP he'd even find he'd be accommodated.

How is that not exactly what he did? Filled his positions with an attempted mix of Blairites and his lefties? He's already started talking about things like budget surpluses and balancing books, and he put his name to the remain campaign. Regardless of how well you think he has done in these efforts, they are still efforts.

What have the Blairites done to compromise? From day one it has been attack attack attack, a constant undermining of his leadership and from what I can tell not even a single attempt to listen to his side of things or work together.

Labour's own polling has them losing as much as 1 vote in every 3 they gained at the last election, thus the grown ups in the party see very little scope to move on issues as Jeremy would direct.

At this point the party should split if the member base want such a lefty leader. Though of course those in the centre and on the right of the party are very nervous about losing union funding, still, if they really want to stand on principle they should walk away.

Care to to link to your source on that?

[UGagain]

Without doubt were everything owned by the State

Where you start to move a bit further left than I imagined...

I know 160bn doesn't correspond to 90bn, but you could wipe out a lot of corporate welfare (and justification for it) by removing income tax. I'm someone who has no problem with an individual earning 250k, 750k, whatever. I do have a problem with income that's designed to avoid taxation, though. So make salaries tax free, and close the loopholes. It may not work, but I think it's worth looking into a bit.

I'm not sure I'd favour an economy that were only a tiny percentage of what it might otherwise be, but if it were state controlled and you buy and sell from and to the state it'd be a reasonable claim there'd be no need for taxes and the state could just pay you net.

Nonsense.

Taxes are how the currency issuer removes its currency (government liabilities) from the economy and the banking system.

[UGagain]

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

Just about everyone in the country now has more disposable income than was the case 30-40 years ago. Yes the very rich are getting rich at a much faster rate and that's undeniable, and i'd happen to agree that's a problem though that is deniable, but economic policy in recent decades (even accounting for the banking crisis) isn't close to hurting just about anybody. And to evidence that claim we can look at what's now often included an acceptable standard of living review, it now tends to entail a holiday, a mobile phone, a computer, birthday (and I think Christmas) presents, labour saving devices such as a washing machine (and to compare have a look back at much time was spent typically by women on addressing washing in the 50s/60s), meals out/taekway for some days albeit not many, a car.... And really that we're thinking in terms of what makes you live rather than what does it take to survive is a big, big shift in thinking.

This is of course a load of lies.

Living standards, especially for the bottom 30% have been declining steadily under the neoliberal cosh since 1975/6 ish. Unemployment has been way above historical trend over the entire period.

Since the GFC living standards for the bottom 90% are declining, while the fortunes (and the political influence/social power) of the .01% sky rocket.

There are more people living in poverty today than at any time in human history.

Having a few entertainment products is not the same as achieving a high standard of living.

People have seen through this Tory spin and they're voting against it.

You're going to have to come up with some new fables.

[UGagain]

Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

[Sandydragon]

Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

[Sandydragon]

That's a very interesting allegation. I very much doubt that Insp Knacker is at any stage going to want to have a trial in which they argue about whether a battle bus visit is local or national expenditure. I'd be astonished if the Labour Party was accounting for such thing as local expenditure as well.

I'll spare your astonishment. It seems they are just as culpable. I suspect that rules need to be clarified.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/16/labou ... -spending/

there's no culpability. expenditure like that clearly isn't local. If you wheel in lots of National politicians then it's part of the national campaign, even if the local MP is there as well. The only question I'd have is whether there are big posters with the local candidate on them with national slogans on. That would seem to me to be local campaigning so it would be accounted for locally.

Given the current discussions over battle buses, I'd suggest that some clarity is required.

[Digby]

Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

You probably don't even think about this statement. It is, to you, a self evident truth. Unquestionable and logical. It is just a fact to you.

As it is to many. Certainly the majority of posters here.

The problem is that it's completely untrue. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

And it's not mathematically possible.

The rich are rich by virtue of taking more out (income) than they put in (spending). So they are in reality a drain on the economy.

Secondly, taxes don't 'pay for' any government services or benefits. That's just a hoax being played on you by the rich who want you to think you depend on them.

Taxes are paid with money that the government has spent into existence.

The rich depend on government spending. So, you're absolutely, completely, 100% upside down.

Now what were you saying about the economic policies of Jeremy Corbyn?

HMRC would disagree with you.

It's not altogether new thinking that the rich take money out of the system, Aristotle used to bang on about accrual of wealth such money wasn't invested back into the wider economy just to date how long such thinking has been around. And actually the German economy has typically been much better than ours at making wealth available to new business starts ups and manufacturing, and they've realised some benefits on the back of that.

As to whether the rich pay their share, well that's going to depend on how one frames the question, but the actual answer is probably yes and no, or it depends.

[morepork]

The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.