Labour resignations

[Earl Aelfheah]

TBH, the libdems should be the party of the liberal, urban 'blairites'. A real centrist party to the left of the Conservatives. Labour could then go back to representing the traditional working class.

[TheCat]

You know what, I'm actually really starting to warm to Corbyn supporters. I mean how would we get by without inspired political events such as this little gem...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-have-been-writing-poems-about-him-and/

[Earl Aelfheah]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You know what, I'm actually really starting to

> warm to Corbyn supporters. I mean how would we get

> by without inspired political events such as this

> little gem...

>

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/jeremy-

> corbyns-supporters-have-been-writing-poems-about-h

> im-and/

I think you've had a sense of humour failure.

[Blah Blah]

I wouldn't be too sure about that party support for May *bob*. The tories are just better at hiding their differences than Labour, but Europe has widened an already large chasm within the party. Boris, from his comments over the weekend seems to be up to something, by trying to force action on article 50. I wouldn't be sure his ambitions to be party leader have not gone away either. Yes May would win an election today, but in two years? Labour won four council seats last week, two from the Tories and more interestingly, two from the SNP.

Rahrah is right. As much as some may hate Corbyn, policy on education and fracking over the past couple of days are going for that middle ground, and Labour can do well from both those polices. Polls show two thirds of the electorate are against a return to grammar schools for example, and that nationalisation of the railways is a popular idea. This idea that a return to state investment in some areas and ownership in others is fundamentally bad is just nonsense. Most people didn't even know who Jeremy Corbyn was before he became leader. The media have been completely responsible for doing a hatchet job on him. And those problems with the PLP have never been about policy. Personally, I think Clive Lewis is the leader we need. He's on the left but would appeal to middle england. Jeremy gets into trouble on the things he cares most about - defense and foreign policy. Those are things that will lose an election. On domestic policy though, that pay gap has to close. People can not continue to be ripped off by corporations and private landlords etc. The tories have never been interested in doing anything about that.

[JohnL]

The media will do a hatchet job on all Labour leaders that aren't in their pockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is about right: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-six-things-to-avoid-electoral-armageddon-a7328736.html

[Blah Blah]

Yes, a very fair analysis rahrah.

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TBH, the libdems should be the party of the

> liberal, urban 'blairites'. A real centrist party

> to the left of the Conservatives. Labour could

> then go back to representing the traditional working class.

If only the LibDems were able to capitalise on what currently seems like an open goal! There hasn't been such a right/left divide since pre-Kinnock...

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is surprising that the libdems are not doing better with things as they are.

['bout now]

I agree with most of that RRR except the 4 years to get their act together. I imagine the Tories are weighing the risk of another General Election right now and the only thing that will stop them is the possible outcome of an increased UKIP presence in parliament. However as UKIP have already seen one major defection to the Tories and their talisman has retired (for the moment), I think they'll see this as the time to strike.

If so, Labour are f***ed.

[Jeremy]

RRR, LibDem is where my views most naturally sit. But they've always lacked a strong and charismatic leader - certainly not strong enough to break through this ingrained two-party culture. I have some misgivings about Farron too (especially on all the god stuff).

Given the likely success of LibDems in my constituency (i.e. zilch) I'm not sure I'd even bother voting if there was a GE next week.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sure, I think the current first past the post system is not great.

[DaveR]

JC and particularly McDonnell have done a lot of homework and had a lot of advice in recent months. This is a quote from McD on the BBC this morning:

"Our government will create an entrepreneurial state that works with the wealth creators, the workers and the entrepreneurs to create the products and the markets that will secure our long-term prosperity,"

It's obviously crap, and he doesn't believe a word of it, but he can get away with saying it (where a 'Blairite' can't) precisely because his supporters know it's crap and that he doesn't believe a word of it. Will voters be persuaded?

We can expect a lot more of this - moderate but ambiguous statements, and an absence of hard policy commitments. In short, a lot of spin. The irony.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why do you think it's crap? I think it's very pointed actually.. The wealth creators are the workers and the entrepreneurs.

[DaveR]

The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists - they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in the private sector at all. If you think that has changed you're deluded.

[*Bob*]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't be too sure about that party support

> for May *bob*. The tories are just better at

> hiding their differences than Labour

The Cons have always have been better at knowing when to shut up and when to put up - and during their spell in the Wilderness Years of the Labour 'blip' (i.e. the Blair) they've learned new lessons on how to do it better: now more than ever they know Labour only wins when the Tories are weak.

On a 'gut feeling' note - McDonnell is one of the least appealing political characters on just about every level that I've seen for a long, long time. Chancellor of the Exchequer..? You must be joking!

[????]

The things that actually encourage wealth creation among entrepreneurs are - low CGT, Low business tax, light regulation, tax breaks on business investment and flexible labour laws - now, what do we think is going to be Labour's policy on all/most of them?

John McD/Corby, Momentum - all socialists (with a far few marxists thrown in) we have empirical evidence from the whole of the last century and the first 16 years of this on just what a success socialism has been when it comes to wealth creation....

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The things that actually encourage wealth creation

> among entrepreneurs are - low CGT, Low business

> tax, light regulation, tax breaks on business

> investment and flexible labour laws - now, what do

> we think is going to be Labour's policy on

> all/most of them?

Yes, that encourage wealth creation 'among[st] entrepreneurs'. The fact that John McDonnell pointedly described wealth creators as "...the workers and the entrepreneurs" is notable. It's in stark contrast with the neo-con idea of trickle down economics, where there is no recognition of the value workers also create.

[Earl Aelfheah]

In other words.. I'm sure that his view would be that low tax (fewer protections for the poorest, and poor public services, education, health care and housing), light regulation and 'flexible labour law' (i.e. low wages, precarious working conditions), are not good, either for the economy in aggregate, or the kind of society that we might want. One might argue that it's not really that good for innovation, aspiration or the kind of entrepreneurship one might want to encourage long term either.

[Earl Aelfheah]

By the way, I'm no fan of John McDonnell, but neither am I a fan of the economic dogma / market fundamentalism of many neo-conservatives.

[Earl Aelfheah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and

> JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists -

> they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in

> the private sector at all. If you think that has

> changed you're deluded.

You think they're communists, who want to deliver a command economy? I seriously doubt it. I am not afraid of 'reds under the bed'. I suspect that they believe in regulating certain markets and an argument for state control of certain key industries such as health care, education and transport.

The idea of a mixed economy, was not considered quite so extreme or heretical until pretty recently. Unfortunately we've swung to the right as a country and are moving closer to the dogmatic US model, rather than the more open minded and thoughtful Northern European one.

[Blah Blah]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and

> JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists -

> they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in

> the private sector at all. If you think that has

> changed you're deluded.

But that is also saying that a person can not shift their perspective over a lifetime. Do you still think the way you did, and believe in everything you believed in 20 years ago Dave? (I am assuming on your age but you know what mean). I know I don't. Peter Hitchens was a marxist and trotskyist in his student years. Look at him now!!!

I've met John McDonnell a few times. In person, he is very charming and very bright. But I also know there is a raging bull in there too.

Pure socialism relies on the state to own and provide everything. Do you really believe that is what John and Jeremy want to turn the eocnomy into? Because I think that is an equally deluded idea too. Our economy is a partnership between state and private business, just as it always has been and always will be. All Jeremy and John are seeking to do, is redress the balance between the two - because that is the ONLY way to generate wealth for the economy outside of income tax. It is also the only way to close equality and pay gaps and all the other things that keep most people struggling to make ends meet. So the pronciple at least is right. We may disagree though on how to achieve it. The one thing I do know for sure though, is that the Tories care nothing for any of that.

[Blah Blah]

Indeed rahrah. It's choice between putting all the wealth in the hands of the employer, or in the hands of the employee. When employees are paid better, they spend on local services, products, housing etc - the money stays within the economy and in turn drives growth. When the corporation takes all the profit, it gets squirrelled offshore, not only avoiding paying tax, but taking money out of the economy. This is what McDonnell seeks to address. Yes there's a fine line between incentive and disincentive, when it comes to corporate and busness tax etc, but at the same time, companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc are not going to pull out of any country just because they will make less profit. The corporate mentality is to dominate every market. This is why Starbucks was quite to agree a tax payment deal once called out on it.

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> companies like Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc

> are not going to pull out of any country just

> because they will make less profit. The corporate

> mentality is to dominate every market.

I think there are plenty of companies that could easily pull out of the UK without diminishing their market share...

[Blah Blah]

Starbucks isn't going to close its stores though, Amazon it's warehouses etc.