The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

corporation tax is a tax on profits,

Which are currently taking a massive hammering from Covid and Brexit - it's even been in the news!

Like I said, another punch in the face - it would stifle businesses desperate to recover. Wait 'til they've recovered, then tax them on that greater safety net.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

particularly so since the left got behind Starmer in his appointment as leader

For nearly 5 minutes, too.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. If I start a business selling gravy to discerning diners and employ a sump oil drainer to harvest my loveliness, or if I am I dunno, the NEC group and invest in another conference hall, or dining facilities or whatever then I create jobs and work and those people pay taxes and stop being unemployed. Or the Gov't supports on-shore wind or solar, or whatever - ditto. Trickle down was about "don't tax the rich so much and then they'll lspend their money on Rollers and Mercs and Rolexes and poor folk will benefit, so we don't need to give them income allowance" - a load of old rot, basically.

I deleted it because I didn't think trickle down was a fair description - but there's a fine line between the two things.  It's a leap to assume that not taxing the US investment company Blackstone (the NEC group) means they'll invest in facilities and jobs and not use the money to pay a dividend to shareholders and or use the saved capital to invest in buying out student accommodation in the Netherlands or enforce additional lay offs to rationalise the company for a future sale.

The idea that corporate benevolence will save the economy is I think one that's demonstrably failed. It's a policy that was a keystone of moderate Conservatism before the Conservatives went jackboot, batshit crazy - it's not what I want out of the Labour party.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Which are currently taking a massive hammering from Covid and Brexit - it's even been in the news!

Like I said, another punch in the face - it would stifle businesses desperate to recover. Wait 'til they've recovered, then tax them on that greater safety net.

Again, the budget is going to pass. The Conservatives are proposing something that is not going to make a huge difference to bottom lines, and which is favoured by the British public by a nearly 7:1 margin. I don't agree with you that this fairly small increase is 'a punch in the face', but even if it was, Labour need to get out of the habit of pretending they are in government. Who is this supposed to be impressing?

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

For nearly 5 minutes, too.

Is that how long it took him to find a blue tie?

 

[bickster]

If the left voted for Starmer who were the 27.6% of the votes that voted for Long-Bailey?

Sure some of them did but I think the "left voted in Starmer line" is somewhat overegging the pudding

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It's a leap to assume that not taxing the US investment company Blackstone (the NEC group) means they'll invest in facilities and jobs and not use the money to pay a dividend to shareholders and or use the saved capital to invest in buying out student accommodation in the Netherlands or enforce additional lay offs to rationalise the company for a future sale.

The idea that corporate benevolence will save the economy is I think one that's demonstrably failed. 

Indeed. I agree. The difficulty is (and I tried to put some of it in an earlier post) that Blackstone may (or may not) use profit to pay dividends to shareholders or spend it on Dutch weed dens. Equally, say, John Lewis who (normally) pay their staff a bonus every year could not do so this year and are potentially closing a bunch of stores as their profits have plunged. So Corporation tax increases at this moment will most penalise British based businesses that are struggling and leave multinationals largely unscathed. Surely better not punch john Lewis in the face right now and to instead look at how to stop Amazon, Google, Apple, Starbucks etc syphoning off huge sums while paying next to no Corporation tax? Globalisation and multinationals take advantage and British ground based businesses get hit twice - once by the Comp from Amazon etc. and again by having to (rightly) pay Rates, Corp Tax etc.

Whether Labour, Tory or whoever, Government needs to adapt to the reality.

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Labour need to get out of the habit of pretending they are in government. Who is this supposed to be impressing?

Oppositions need to show over a period of time that they would be a genuinely viable alternative to the the voting public, otherwise they don't get in. I assume that's what KS & Labour is endeavouring to do, here.

[dAVe80]

34 minutes ago, bickster said:

If the left voted for Starmer who were the 27.6% of the votes that voted for Long-Bailey?

35 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sure some of them did but I think the "left voted in Starmer line" is somewhat overegging the pudding

I would agree. No one I know in my CLP, or in the wider Labour movement, who I'd consider to be be on the left voted for Starmer. Or at least they didn't own up to it. I think we all recognised what he is. We saw that he said the right things, but we knew what was coming. I gave him a chance, and I'm still yet to publicly criticise him (this forum aside, where I remain a little bit more anonymous), but he's done still done nothing to win me over. I stay in the party though. Certainly for the foreseeable future. Even with him as leader, and the purges, and shutting down of debate, the left is still alive in the party. Those of us committed to making the change we want are still there. There still isn't a political entity with the same power as the Labour Party that we can use to make the change we need. So we stay, and we wait, and we organise. The party belongs to me and any other ordinary member as much as it does to Starmer, so he's not forcing me out. 

[HanoiVillan]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

Oppositions need to show over a period of time that they would be a genuinely viable alternative to the the voting public, otherwise they don't get in. I assume that's what KS & Labour is endeavouring to do, here.

I'm sure that's what they think they're doing, yes.

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

the left is still alive in the party. Those of us committed to making the change we want are still there. There still isn't a political entity with the same power as the Labour Party that we can use to make the change we need. So we stay, and we wait, and we organise.

I guess the flip side is that those to the right of you in Labour would sort of say similar (probably expressed differently) - say when Corbyn was leader, for example. And for as long as that situation remains, where there's two factions each trying to gather supremacy over the other, the real enemy is allowed to wreak absolute havoc on the nation.

So as someone who isn't a member of any political party, but who hates the Tories, I desperately want to see another party present some kind of viable alternative to baby eating. All I see from Labour is numpties like that Welsh fellow who stood against Corbyn, then (now) people already trying to get rid of Starmer. To call it dysfunctional is an understatement. And that's a shame for good people like you, a shame for non-aligned people and a shame for the Country.

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

10000000% - it needs to split and where possible agree to stand down candidates where a Tory can get in, preferably under a wider pact with the Lib Dems and Greens. Sounds like suicide but the current electorate still back the populist even after he fumbled 100k needless deaths, Labour cannot win the old fashioned way so it's time to try something new - doubt it will happen under New Labour 2.0 sadly, they are stuck in the past. 

This is where I can only see it ending up with Labour backing PR and going into a PR pact with other parties. The alternative is Tories in forever. A socialist party vs Labour Party is only going to be damaging to all left of centre.

2 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

Britain is a very conservative country

That's the funny thing. Left policies are *very* popular in the UK. So the British people think left and vote right. 

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

 the far left on one edge and the centre-right on the other.

I don't think there's a far left in Labour. There's maybe like 100 - 200 people who you could call actual old school hardened Marxists. Everyone else is a social liberal caught up in the polarisation of politics. Perhaps I'm only seeing it from my bubble and it isn't like that but from all the names I see mentioned and all the people who come to be discussed, there's just (almost) nobody who wants anything further left than the 2017 Labour manifesto. And that's pretty centrist.

2 hours ago, bickster said:

If the left voted for Starmer who were the 27.6% of the votes that voted for Long-Bailey?

Sure some of them did but I think the "left voted in Starmer line" is somewhat overegging the pudding

Corbyn got 251,417 votes of 422,664 cast in 2015 and 313,209 of 506,438 in the 2016 challenge. Long Bailey got 135,218 of 490,595 votes cast in 2020. Only half of the people who voted for Corbyn voted for Long Bailey. Where else did half of Corbyn's votes go if not to Starmer?

[bickster]

50 minutes ago, darrenm said:

This is where I can only see it ending up with Labour backing PR and going into a PR pact with other parties. The alternative is Tories in forever. A socialist party vs Labour Party is only going to be damaging to all left of centre.

That's the funny thing. Left policies are *very* popular in the UK. So the British people think left and vote right. 

I don't think there's a far left in Labour. There's maybe like 100 - 200 people who you could call actual old school hardened Marxists. Everyone else is a social liberal caught up in the polarisation of politics. Perhaps I'm only seeing it from my bubble and it isn't like that but from all the names I see mentioned and all the people who come to be discussed, there's just (almost) nobody who wants anything further left than the 2017 Labour manifesto. And that's pretty centrist.

Corbyn got 251,417 votes of 422,664 cast in 2015 and 313,209 of 506,438 in the 2016 challenge. Long Bailey got 135,218 of 490,595 votes cast in 2020. Only half of the people who voted for Corbyn voted for Long Bailey. Where else did half of Corbyn's votes go if not to Starmer?

Similarly plenty of people who voted for Corbyn were not on the left, works both ways. They too wanted change but didn't like the change that happened.

[OutByEaster?]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Similarly plenty of people who voted for Corbyn were not on the left, works both ways. They too wanted change but didn't like the change that happened.

And therein lies the problem with lurching from one extreme of the party to the other.

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

 

That's the funny thing. Left policies are *very* popular in the UK. So the British people think left and vote right. 

 

Disraeli worked that one out about 150 years ago.

[HanoiVillan]

Starmer looked like an inevitable winner from the start of the process.* He had by far the highest approval rating among party members, and higher name-recognition. He positioned himself with something to please everyone, so there was little to organise against for any faction. Despite the bitterness of factional infighting in the Labour party, lots of members - probably a majority - pay little active attention to politics, so it was always likely Starmer would win and mostly by a wide margin, among all parts of the party.

*EDIT: Should edit to say that there was one point where internal polls suggested a tightening of the race, but it didn't turn into anything.

Edited February 26, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[darrenm]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Similarly plenty of people who voted for Corbyn were not on the left, works both ways. They too wanted change but didn't like the change that happened.

Fair point. Another thing I've only just thought about:

I would have voted for Starmer. But as soon as it was clear he would win with a comfortable majority I then voted Long Bailey because I wanted to help the result be closer so that Starmer felt he had to consider both sides.

I don't know if that was any more widespread than just me and a small number of others or if it actually gave Long Bailey more numbers because it was clear Starmer would win.

[Jareth]

One in the eye for Oldknow - glad.

The alleged leakers of a controversial Labour party report into its handling of antisemitism should not be named because it would risk harm to potentially innocent individuals, the high court has ruled.

The case was brought by the former senior Labour staffer Emilie Oldknow, who had taken the party to court in an attempt to force it to disclose the identity of the leaker of the report, which contained hundreds of private WhatsApp messages. Oldknow has been ordered to pay the Labour party’s costs and has been refused permission to appeal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/01/alleged-leakers-of-labour-antisemitism-report-should-not-be-named-rules-judge

[Davkaus]

I just had my council tax propaganda leaflet through from LAbour on the day the council tax bill landed.

As well as strongly opposing the tories plans to HIKE COUNCIL TAX, Labour is *outraged* about the local councils having to CUT LOCAL SERVICES.

No increases to any kinds of tax, no reductions to any kind of services. I don't usually buy in to this magic money tree rhetoric, but come on lads.

 

[Ingram85]

28 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I just had my council tax propaganda leaflet through from LAbour on the day the council tax bill landed.

As well as strongly opposing the tories plans to HIKE COUNCIL TAX, Labour is *outraged* about the local councils having to CUT LOCAL SERVICES.

No increases to any kinds of tax, no reductions to any kind of services. I don't usually buy in to this magic money tree rhetoric, but come on lads.

 

Maybe the magic money tree that has billions of pounds that you don’t buy into could be better used instead of wasting it all on contracts for phantom ppe from sock businesses owned by the friends of and shareholded by pieces of scum in government. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Ingram85

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 26/02/2021 at 12:52, blandy said:

Which are currently taking a massive hammering from Covid and Brexit - it's even been in the news!

Like I said, another punch in the face - it would stifle businesses desperate to recover. Wait 'til they've recovered, then tax them on that greater safety net.

They don't make sense as a Party,  they say the complete opposite in the morning on the news.  Extend e,y,z to all business etc.  for 6 months to infinity.

Very poor opposition at the moment.  Trapping themselves mostly.