RugbyRebels

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

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: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 wrote: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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
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 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
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 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: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 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
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/

Zhivago wrote:
What exactly is the economic policy you disagree with?

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

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
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)

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: 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?

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

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.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote: 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.

Sandydragon wrote:
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.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
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?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: 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.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
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.