How long has Corbyn got left?

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Fucking hell indeed!

Where's Nuno?

 

[BillyDee]

Says "historical", then includes a fictional character at the end...

 

[Papper]

The corbynite nonsense that it was Brexit that lost the election and all else was rosy was just that. Nonsense from the deluded.

It lost the marginals that had voted heavily to leave the EU in the referendum. A combined Lab/Lib vote in these areas would not have prevented the Cons.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

If you think it was Brexit alone that lost, then that is delusional.

The simple fact is that Boris Johnson was on the hook in an unhelpful chamber and couldn’t win a vote. He should have been left to suffer like that for months. Prorogue had been successfully challenged. Accepting the election was utterly stupid.

 

[Papper]

If you think it was Brexit alone that lost, then that is delusional.

The simple fact is that Boris Johnson was on the hook in an unhelpful chamber and couldn’t win a vote. He should have been left to suffer like that for months. Prorogue had been successfully challenged. Accepting the election was utterly stupid.

As a leaver then yes accepting the election was incredibly stupid but delaying the inevitable was too. I feel the direction of Parliament had to be handed back to the people but it remains to be seen if a credible left wing option can be forged or that a leader who will also look out for the subjugated in places like Palestine can be found. There are certain people in the Labour higher elechons I would not trust to run a bath let alone reduce divisions across society. If the future is a return to Blairism then they should be looking at a Lab/Lib merger but I suspect that will be heavily rejected again in favour of a 'credible' left wing alternative.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

There won’t be a lib/lab merger. Not a chance.

 

[Papper]

There won’t be a lib/lab merger. Not a chance.

I suspect the next big issue will be proportional representation although recent events in Westminster will have done the cause no favours.

 

[Tony Towner]

There's no signs of hunger for PR in the wider electorate and you certainly aren't getting it when a Government has an 80 seat majority. Blame Clegg for being so power hungry he agreed to that an embarrassment of an option being put before the country

 

[Papper]

There's no signs of hunger for PR in the wider electorate and you certainly aren't getting it when a Government has an 80 seat majority. Blame Clegg for being so power hungry he agreed to that an embarrassment of an option being put before the country

It seems to be Farage's new toy. I'm open minded to it - maybe it should be put to referendum.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Farage is dead in UK politics. Johnson no longer needs him.

There will be no change to the voting system with an 80 seat majority.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Tories win more elections because that's all they're about. They adapt to changing circumstances rather than concern themselves with principles. They killed the far right in the early 80s by becoming more anti-immigration and they've seen off UKIP and Farage by turning into them. If that means expelling all the one nation Tories so be it.

The opposition on the other hand, just fall out with each other.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Well, I understand where you are coming from.

However, what is the point of a party if it isn't about winning elections? I see no point at all in "we have principles, and we can shout about how principled we are from the political wilderness".

Utterly pointless.

And the opposition didn't fall out with each other at all. EVERY other opposition party was entering into pacts to try and keep the Conservatives out. Momentum refused to get involved in that and got deservedly burned. It's a shite situation in labour, and the sooner a more mainstream labour is back the fucking better for British politics.

Best things that could happen:
1) tell McCluskey to keep his big fucking oar out. The man is poison to any chance of winning power.
2) have a manifesto rather than a Christmas present list. Promise so fucking much as Corbyn did this time, and people are going to assume that you are going to under-deliver. Electoral suicide.
3) learn from 1983. learn from 2019. And ESPECIALLY learn from 1997. IF THE PUBLIC view Labour as extreme left wing, they will never win. It doesn't matter if the Momentum circle-jerk echo chamber thinks they are centrist. The public doesn't.

 

[visage]

Saw a quote elsewhere today that stood out. From Denis Healey:

'We are not just a debating society. We are not just a socialist Sunday school. We are a great movement that wants to help real living people on this Earth at this present time. We shall never be able to help them unless we get power. We shall never get power unless we close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country.'

It is not sufficient to simply set out ones stall and wait for the voters to come to you. Leadership is about persuasion. It is about speaking to people who disagree with you. About convincing the unconvinced. Not demonising them. Not telling them to fuck off.

Win power so that your noble aims have teeth. Winning the argument is not enough, and never will be.

 

[Papper]

Tories win more elections because that's all they're about. They adapt to changing circumstances rather than concern themselves with principles. They killed the far right in the early 80s by becoming more anti-immigration and they've seen off UKIP and Farage by turning into them. If that means expelling all the one nation Tories so be it.

The opposition on the other hand, just fall out with each other.

All parties should focus on managing population growth (in the context of supply and demand of public services) and there are many factors contained in that.
All parties need representatives who can go on the media explain policy and not come across as complete idiots - ie they need to be credible.
All parties need representatives that do not come across as divisive - see Abott and Thornberry for details

Austerity - I would not have borrowed I would have preferred the rate of personal tax to increase across the board for all those above £20K and a super tax on companies that report excessive profits. I would not penalise certain people who have made good it comes across as resentful. To raise corporation tax was absolutely insane given the onus on all to raise wages.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

So you don’t want to penalise those that have “made it good” but want a tax rise across the board for everyone earning over £20k, which is significantly below the average wage in this country?

Okaaay

 

[Deleted Cyber]

The tax system is unfair. It should be more incremental.
Abbott ,Thornberry, Corbyn. Results speak for themselves.
The infrastructure of the UK is financed to support a 60 million population. Unfortunately there are 72 million . So its a maths problem that is getting worse and enabled the far right to blame the foreigners. The points system will help. But the infrastructure needs more money and investment so that means more taxes.

Legalise weed, grow it on an industrial scale using the land currently set aside by farmers for EU subsidies that will end, tax it and licence people to buy it from chemists and pay a monthly subscription of 15 quid as a licence fee. It would make a fortune.

 

[visage]

No.

If you have 10% more people you receive 10% more tax that you can use to provide 10% more services, so nobody misses out.

 

[Papper]

So you don’t want to penalise those that have “made it good” but want a tax rise across the board for everyone earning over £20k, which is significantly below the average wage in this country?

Okaaay

I would set it above what is deemed the national living wage therefore appx £20k. I would be more concerned with the median wage than the average wage.

 

[visage]

And 15 quid a month = 180 quid a year. Even if every man, woman and child adopted a serious weed habit you're talking about less than 1% of GDP.

And, of course, were that to happen I'm not convinced UK productivity wouldnt take a hit, if you'll pardon the phrasing.

 

[Papper]

No.

If you have 10% more people you receive 10% more tax that you can use to provide 10% more services, so nobody misses out.

That's what they have been doing. The trouble is the majority of jobs created are low paid and the cost of public services has risen above 10%. In effect total the costs and the revenues and divide by the amount that use public services and as a collective we are taking out more than what we are giving.