Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not sure of the real world benefits of HS2 but it strikes me that there's something wrong when London and the commuter belt down in the southeast gets millions spent on large-scale infrastructure but large-scale infrastructure that is supposedly aimed at growing business in the north of England is too expensive. Shame we didn't scrap Crossrail back in 2007 and save the budgeted £14.8bn before it was started. Of course we didn't and I reckon it'll cost much more by the end. Stifle development in se? Never! North? Not a problem.

On the bright side, as least Crossrail isn't the Garden Bridge. There is at least a rational justification for Crossrail.

tangled_metal

Any more rational than HS2?

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

I should have mentioned I was scrapping working tax credits.

I would hack away at tax relief on pensions. Yes incentivise people to provide for their old age but £30k per annum is plenty.

i think your on to a vote winner there

what about inheritance tax TH rises? a biggy is reform of council tax, heck of lot of very expensive houses paying just 3 or £400 more than a mid terraced semi.....

Historically have countries saved their way out of economic crisis? or do they invest their way out?

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

Any more rational than HS2?

Ahhh, well. That's more complicated. I think both HS2 and Crossrail have plenty of rational justifications - and plenty of rational justifications not to.

I live in Leeds and travel to London a lot. It's OK. When HS2 arrives, I might benefit for a year or two before I mercifully retire. But all it will do is mean I get a 20 minute lie in as the meetings will start at the same time with or without HS2. So I see no benefit in terms of business from it. Just a slight comfort benefit. I'm not convinced that is really good enough......

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Any more rational than HS2?

Ahhh, well. That's more complicated. I think both HS2 and Crossrail have plenty of rational justifications - and plenty of rational justifications not to.

I live in Leeds and travel to London a lot. It's OK. When HS2 arrives, I might benefit for a year or two before I mercifully retire. But all it will do is mean I get a 20 minute lie in as the meetings will start at the same time with or without HS2. So I see no benefit in terms of business from it. Just a slight comfort benefit. I'm not convinced that is really good enough......

It will move the commuter belt even farther out, and may increase centralisation in London.

rolf_f

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Any more rational than HS2?

Ahhh, well. That's more complicated. I think both HS2 and Crossrail have plenty of rational justifications - and plenty of rational justifications not to.

I live in Leeds and travel to London a lot. It's OK. When HS2 arrives, I might benefit for a year or two before I mercifully retire. But all it will do is mean I get a 20 minute lie in as the meetings will start at the same time with or without HS2. So I see no benefit in terms of business from it. Just a slight comfort benefit. I'm not convinced that is really good enough......

It will move the commuter belt even farther out, and may increase centralisation in London.

Only a little. They had to relocate the planned site for the Leeds HS2 station as they realised the walk between it and the mainline station would cancel out the time benefits of HS2. It's not much more than 10 minutes between the BR and old HS2 station sites so presumably the only beneficiaries in terms of commuting to London will be those living fairly close to HS2 stations - and there are few of those.

bobmcstuff

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not sure of the real world benefits of HS2 but it strikes me that there's something wrong when London and the commuter belt down in the southeast gets millions spent on large-scale infrastructure but large-scale infrastructure that is supposedly aimed at growing business in the north of England is too expensive. Shame we didn't scrap Crossrail back in 2007 and save the budgeted £14.8bn before it was started. Of course we didn't and I reckon it'll cost much more by the end. Stifle development in se? Never! North? Not a problem.

Bizarrely cross rail seems to be on time on budget. I saw a costed argument that politicians love "large scale infrastructure" but that smaller schemes are more cost effective. It was looking at many small improvements to the northern rail network that would greatly enhance mobility of labour.

Having recently moved back to the North West some investment in the east-west travel routes would be pretty good. It's easy for me to get to London (1h45), which is great, but given how close places like Leeds and Sheffield are the journey times should be much shorter than they are.

Getting on with electrifying the train lines would be a start.

Although previously I was living in Aberdeen so transport between cities seems positively brilliant in comparison...

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Any more rational than HS2?

Ahhh, well. That's more complicated. I think both HS2 and Crossrail have plenty of rational justifications - and plenty of rational justifications not to.

I live in Leeds and travel to London a lot. It's OK. When HS2 arrives, I might benefit for a year or two before I mercifully retire. But all it will do is mean I get a 20 minute lie in as the meetings will start at the same time with or without HS2. So I see no benefit in terms of business from it. Just a slight comfort benefit. I'm not convinced that is really good enough......

It will move the commuter belt even farther out, and may increase centralisation in London.

Only a little. They had to relocate the planned site for the Leeds HS2 station as they realised the walk between it and the mainline station would cancel out the time benefits of HS2. It's not much more than 10 minutes between the BR and old HS2 station sites so presumably the only beneficiaries in terms of commuting to London will be those living fairly close to HS2 stations - and there are few of those.

I already have had a couple of people working with me who commute from the near Leicester. If in the future it takes the same time to London from Manchester as from Petersfield, it makes it possible.

rolf_f

KingstonGraham wrote:

I already have had a couple of people working with me who commute from the near Leicester. If in the future it takes the same time to London from Manchester as from Petersfield, it makes it possible.

True - but the increased distance might be free in time terms but it won't be in ticket price terms.

bobmcstuff

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Move Parliament up North saving billions on the refurb plus billions selling Govt buildings in central London. Civil servants can go with them saving billions more on wages.

I think the government had the right idea when they put the Giro in Liverpool, passport offices in Durham, DVLA in Swansea etc.. Just need to move some more!

You'd need to pay the upfront investment though.

mrfpb

bobmcstuff wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Move Parliament up North saving billions on the refurb plus billions selling Govt buildings in central London. Civil servants can go with them saving billions more on wages.

I think the government had the right idea when they put the Giro in Liverpool, passport offices in Durham, DVLA in Swansea etc.. Just need to move some more!

You'd need to pay the upfront investment though.

And all the South East MPs living near Parlaiament will become eligible for the second home allowance on their not so cheap South East homes.

The civil service has been moving offices away from London over the last 20 years or so. Since the crash lots of Depts have also moved staff from rented office acomodation back into Gov't owned buildings and home working+hot desking.

Public sector pay freezes or 1% limit on rises has been on place since 2008 crash (and has increased Agency staff bills as noted by me and others already). Most public sector pensions have already switched from final salary to median salary with increased contributions over longer periods of service in the last five years. (In my time in the public sector my contributions have gone from 5% in 1997 to 9.5% now for lesser benefits)

Reducing housing benefit would lead to lobbying from buy to let landlords (Tory voters) so at best tapering off could be acheived (or we could offer to buy their now unprofitable proerties and move them to Housing Associations - but that goes against Tory instinct not to let the public sector own property).

Tapering of tax credits could be acheived, but if you want to avoid child poverty, then incomes need to be increased in some other way - either by better means testing of childrens benefits or increasing the living wage (putting the burden on employers).

We effectiviely own all the Royal Family's property anyway (apart from the Duchy of Cornmwall) and make billions a year income from it - and pay the Royals a tiny fraction of the income. So seizing it would be no more than a symbolic act anyway. Selling it would be a short term gain for a long term loss of income.

There is no point jumping up and down clainming that the public sector needs cutting. It has been squeezed over and over to make up for the refinancing of the banks. Maybe we should be looking to the finacial services sector to make up the shortfall.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

I would stop wanting to "punch above my weight" and not buy two aircraft carriers whilst ending 3 services and have an integrated force like USMC. scrap Hinckley Point, scrap HS2. recruitment freeze, pay freeze,end the triple lock, close pension schemes to new entrants and change existing members to career average whilst increasing their contributions and worsening benefits. Halve the Housing benefit bill over the next 5 years. regional pay rates.

Let me know if you want any more

It would be good to see actual numbers to demonstrate that those cuts add up to 10% of overall spending. Also, some explanation of where recruitment will be frozen, where pay will be frozen (that isn't already frozen). Changes to unaffordable pensions seems sensible but will have consequences - it is effectively a pay cut, so expect even more people leaving public services. Lastly how would you go about halving housing benefit? I realise this becomes a bit of a project in itself, but it's very easy to rattle off a list of names.

It is a mixture of immediate cuts and longer term savings. Rather than putting together a costed plan I was trying to demonstrate the level to which we are living beyond our means and the kind of unpopular decisions that will need to be taken.

HB - I would announce is reducing by 10% so people can adjust.

I would freeze all recruitment and make people jump through hoops to get sign off. Even slowing down the process will save a couple of % off the wage bill.

Scrap the royal family and seize their assets to be sold off.

Move Parliament up North saving billions on the refurb plus billions selling Govt buildings in central London. Civil servants can go with them saving billions more on wages.

Gotta say I was genuinely hoping for something more specific. On recruitment, we already have shortages in essential services - are you saying we need even fewer people? Combine that with the vast swathe of contracted out public services where recruitment is already a private matter and I'm not convinced there are big or even modest savings to make, unless you can provide more than a wish that it was so.

On HB, do explain precisely what you mean by "people can adjust". Who is adjusting to what? Are you expecting the hundreds of private landlords to just drop their rents? Or are HB claimants to make up the difference or be banished to a sufficiently low rent area?
This all still just sounds like rhetoric - as the current government has found it is much easier to say you are cutting spending than to actually do it.

On Crossrail, having gone from West Ealing to Plumstead - just under 20 miles and roughly the same route as Crossrail - by existing public transport, at an average speed of about 12mph, I can see the benefits it will bring.

HS2 is more about capacity than speed.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

I should have mentioned I was scrapping working tax credits.

I would hack away at tax relief on pensions. Yes incentivise people to provide for their old age but £30k per annum is plenty.

i think your on to a vote winner there

what about inheritance tax TH rises? a biggy is reform of council tax, heck of lot of very expensive houses paying just 3 or £400 more than a mid terraced semi.....

Historically have countries saved their way out of economic crisis? or do they invest their way out?

Votes won't come into it - I will need to be an unelected dictator.

Inheritance tax is an irrelevance that is too easily avoided by those with real money.

Council tax I would reform in conjunction with stamp duty on property so that it is fiscally neutral but would make the housing market less dysfunctional. Stamp duty I would remove all thresholds and allowances and charge everybody 2% on everything. Council Tax I would increase the number of categories upwards.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sorry, I thought we had already moved on from that point. I was trying to suggest that if one wanted to increase tax receipts one might be better off looking outside personal income tax.

Fair enough - as mentioned the parable relates to personal tax as it is presumably one that most people can relate to. But the wider point applies to Mersaults plan.

I'm happy to hear and comment on peoples ideas for raising more (or spending less, which is just as valid from a point of view of balancing the books)...

I doubt it is possible to significantly increase overall taxation and a boost in growth rates is unlikely. Therefore we need to cut costs but we seem to be incapable of having a grown up conversation. I imagine we will bumble along as we have been until overall debt levels reach a point where harsh decisions can be taken. The debt markets will let you know when we reach this point.

I have always said that we need to cut spending and that involves some hard decisions. There is always resistance to it on here but there are quite a few countries that live pretty well with a small state.

Trouble is for every 'worthwhile' state employee you need all the support behind that - IT, HR, catering, admin etc etc. And once you set up departments, their natural instincts are ok,e any other - self justification, self preservation and expanding the empire. Hence public spending seems to be like a hydra.

And as you say there are limits to how much more tax can be collected.

It needs to be changed if we are to have long term sustainable public finances.

I am told in Govt that everybody agrees with the idea of cuts but refuses to implement the specifics. You and I have been through enough downturns to know that 10% could be knocked off total public sector spending and nobody would notice the difference.

So where would you reduce spending specifically?

I would stop wanting to "punch above my weight" and not buy two aircraft carriers whilst ending 3 services and have an integrated force like USMC. scrap Hinckley Point, scrap HS2. recruitment freeze, pay freeze,end the triple lock, close pension schemes to new entrants and change existing members to career average whilst increasing their contributions and worsening benefits. Halve the Housing benefit bill over the next 5 years. regional pay rates.

Let me know if you want any more

It would be good to see actual numbers to demonstrate that those cuts add up to 10% of overall spending. Also, some explanation of where recruitment will be frozen, where pay will be frozen (that isn't already frozen). Changes to unaffordable pensions seems sensible but will have consequences - it is effectively a pay cut, so expect even more people leaving public services. Lastly how would you go about halving housing benefit? I realise this becomes a bit of a project in itself, but it's very easy to rattle off a list of names.

It is a mixture of immediate cuts and longer term savings. Rather than putting together a costed plan I was trying to demonstrate the level to which we are living beyond our means and the kind of unpopular decisions that will need to be taken.

HB - I would announce is reducing by 10% so people can adjust.

I would freeze all recruitment and make people jump through hoops to get sign off. Even slowing down the process will save a couple of % off the wage bill.

Scrap the royal family and seize their assets to be sold off.

Move Parliament up North saving billions on the refurb plus billions selling Govt buildings in central London. Civil servants can go with them saving billions more on wages.

Gotta say I was genuinely hoping for something more specific. On recruitment, we already have shortages in essential services - are you saying we need even fewer people? Combine that with the vast swathe of contracted out public services where recruitment is already a private matter and I'm not convinced there are big or even modest savings to make, unless you can provide more than a wish that it was so.

On HB, do explain precisely what you mean by "people can adjust". Who is adjusting to what? Are you expecting the hundreds of private landlords to just drop their rents? Or are HB claimants to make up the difference or be banished to a sufficiently low rent area?
This all still just sounds like rhetoric - as the current government has found it is much easier to say you are cutting spending than to actually do it.

On Crossrail, having gone from West Ealing to Plumstead - just under 20 miles and roughly the same route as Crossrail - by existing public transport, at an average speed of about 12mph, I can see the benefits it will bring.

HS2 is more about capacity than speed.

Before every restructure you can not believe you can survive with less people yet we always do.

Back of an envelope maths makes me think that HB is distorting the whole market so I see private landlords as making the adjustment. Though it has to be said that people not on HB make decisions on where they live by what they can afford so it does not seem that unreasonable.

Nobody said it was going to be easy

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

I should have mentioned I was scrapping working tax credits.

I would hack away at tax relief on pensions. Yes incentivise people to provide for their old age but £30k per annum is plenty.

i think your on to a vote winner there

what about inheritance tax TH rises? a biggy is reform of council tax, heck of lot of very expensive houses paying just 3 or £400 more than a mid terraced semi.....

Historically have countries saved their way out of economic crisis? or do they invest their way out?

Votes won't come into it - I will need to be an unelected dictator.

Inheritance tax is an irrelevance that is too easily avoided by those with real money.

Council tax I would reform in conjunction with stamp duty on property so that it is fiscally neutral but would make the housing market less dysfunctional. Stamp duty I would remove all thresholds and allowances and charge everybody 2% on everything. Council Tax I would increase the number of categories upwards.

Would you still charge 2% on second/third homes plus the buy to let market?
I've been reading that Bournemouth is now the 10th most unaffordable place in the world to live. This based on the average house price/median wage formula. As an ex-resident of the town and with my mother still living there, I can easily see why this is the case. Two universities have fuelled a buy to let market where small to medium family homes have been snapped up by investers and then let out to students. I cannot fault them for doing this. However it has actually removed a huge proportion of the 'affordable ' homes from the market, and consequently driven prices to 8.9 times the median wage in the area. Apart from the odd bank and insurance head office the towns economy is based on the leisure/holiday industry which are notoriously low salaries, thus making private ownership of a property an ever disappearing over the horizon aspiration.
To exasperate the situation further there is actually very little room to expand the town as it's hemmed in by flood plains and forestry.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

HS2 is more about capacity than speed.

So they say but then I have to say that as long as you book a couple of days in advance seating isn't a problem on the East Coast in my experience. I question whether the money spent on HS2 is the best way to achieve the maximum amount of capacity improvement generally. Eg perhaps better to invest more to reduce the need people have to charge around the country. I wonder how it stacks up against many other options once you remove the 'grand project' glory factor that those involved can bathe in.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

what seems to happen with public sector pay freezes is that the more skilled leave to go into the private sector and those left end up claiming more in working tax credits etc.
same with pension cuts, poorer people end up claiming more, its a problem with a low wage low skilled economy, easy to see how much more is being paid out in tax credits and housing benefit that paying less, investing less ends up costing more.

I should have mentioned I was scrapping working tax credits.

I would hack away at tax relief on pensions. Yes incentivise people to provide for their old age but £30k per annum is plenty.

i think your on to a vote winner there

what about inheritance tax TH rises? a biggy is reform of council tax, heck of lot of very expensive houses paying just 3 or £400 more than a mid terraced semi.....

Historically have countries saved their way out of economic crisis? or do they invest their way out?

Votes won't come into it - I will need to be an unelected dictator.

Inheritance tax is an irrelevance that is too easily avoided by those with real money.

Council tax I would reform in conjunction with stamp duty on property so that it is fiscally neutral but would make the housing market less dysfunctional. Stamp duty I would remove all thresholds and allowances and charge everybody 2% on everything. Council Tax I would increase the number of categories upwards.

Would you still charge 2% on second/third homes plus the buy to let market?
I've been reading that Bournemouth is now the 10th most unaffordable place in the world to live. This based on the average house price/median wage formula. As an ex-resident of the town and with my mother still living there, I can easily see why this is the case. Two universities have fuelled a buy to let market where small to medium family homes have been snapped up by investers and then let out to students. I cannot fault them for doing this. However it has actually removed a huge proportion of the 'affordable ' homes from the market, and consequently driven prices to 8.9 times the median wage in the area. Apart from the odd bank and insurance head office the towns economy is based on the leisure/holiday industry which are notoriously low salaries, thus making private ownership of a property an ever disappearing over the horizon aspiration.
To exasperate the situation further there is actually very little room to expand the town as it's hemmed in by flood plains and forestry.

Yes - I see those issues being more flexibly dealt with through Council Tax. I am already taking £10bn pa out of the private rental market so I think local level tweaks would be more beneficial.

tangled_metal

Isn't HS2 about the west coast? East coast had a lot of improvement decades ago and over 20 years ago Leeds to London train times were a lot quicker than west coast route to London of equivalent distance.

IMHO east coast line is good enough to stand without improvement. West coast line isn't, it's in desperate need of improvement.

Of course you could say southeast and east coast improvements is ok but not the west.

Part of HS2 IIRC is related to dealing with Birmingham new street bottleneck. IIRC there's a new Birmingham station for HS2 removing the need to go through BNS. that in itself is a good reason.

Whether HS2 or other means there needs to be an adjustment to English development. The north and other areas are still below 2008 levels i believe. If you cut spending IMHO use savings for capital infrastructure in the north that realistically improves growth there. One of my few leftie bollox views, I'll turn right again shortly!

bobmcstuff

mrfpb wrote:

Reducing housing benefit would lead to lobbying from buy to let landlords (Tory voters) so at best tapering off could be acheived (or we could offer to buy their now unprofitable proerties and move them to Housing Associations - but that goes against Tory instinct not to let the public sector own property).

Housing benefit is already very small (about 3.3% of government spending in 14/15) and homelessness has been rising (16% in the last year apparently, although it seems that this is also linked to reduced in-work benefits and sanctions to jobseekers etc).

I'd support housing associations operating on a non-profit basis. Charities possibly.

I've seen the increase in homelessness in my area with my own eyes and I think others would probably agree (?).

Stevo_666

On a slightly lighter note, Corbyn got some honest feedback from a bunch of Liverpool supporters on his latest train journey
https://order-order.com/2017/01/23/another-awkward-corbyn-train-journey/

I suppose at least he didn't pretend that he couldn't get a seat this time.

rjsterry

Anyone else hear Diane Abbott tying herself in knots over the Art.50 vote on Today, this morning? Apparently it is wrong to ignore the views of the nation as a whole, but fine to ignore the views of your constituents that you actually represent. When it was pointed out that the Labour candidate for the Stoke by-election had fairly robust views on Brexit that were counter to the views of Stoke constituents, and that this might be difficult to reconcile, she reverted to a "nothing to do with me, guv" shrug. It was like a particularly excruciating scene from The Thick of It. I think I may have detected a note of pity in Nick Robinson's voice.

rick_chasey

If I was Corbyn, I'd say privately go with whichever way your constituency went, and publicly hound May as hard as possible on getting the specifics out into parliament.

Garry H

rjsterry wrote:

Anyone else hear Diane Abbott tying herself in knots over the Art.50 vote on Today, this morning? Apparently it is wrong to ignore the views of the nation as a whole, but fine to ignore the views of your constituents that you actually represent. When it was pointed out that the Labour candidate for the Stoke by-election had fairly robust views on Brexit that were counter to the views of Stoke constituents, and that this might be difficult to reconcile, she reverted to a "nothing to do with me, guv" shrug. It was like a particularly excruciating scene from The Thick of It. I think I may have detected a note of pity in Nick Robinson's voice.

Yep. Taking up that condescending tone when she didn't seem to know what the feck she was trying to say. "Look" this and "look" that. Complete tw@.

Stevo_666

Some said Europe might be the end of the tpTories. Its looking more likely to be the end of Labour...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/jeremy-corbyn-faces-mutiny-over-article-50
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/jeremy-corbyn-labour-article-50-liverpool-rebellion

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some said Europe might be the end of the tpTories. Its looking more likely to be the end of Labour...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/jeremy-corbyn-faces-mutiny-over-article-50
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/28/jeremy-corbyn-labour-article-50-liverpool-rebellion

To be fair, I don't think either party has resolved that internal conflict, but the Conservatives do seem to be a lot better at keeping a lid on it (most of the time).

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

To be fair, I don't think either party has resolved that internal conflict, but the Conservatives do seem to be a lot better at keeping a lid on it (most of the time).

Exactly.

ballysmate

To resurrect an old thread.

Bit disappointed tbh. Had hoped for more, but I suppose we mustn't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/vo ... labour-24/

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

To resurrect an old thread.

Bit disappointed tbh. Had hoped for more, but I suppose we mustn't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/vo ... labour-24/

Can't grumble too much. Tories have been in the low 40's for a while but that's also some record lows for Labour so still a chunky lead. And everyone else is still nowhere.

Stevo_666

Come on Labour - we need Jezza to stay

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-by-elections-paul-nuttall-ukip-tony-blair-a7587371.html

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Come on Labour - we need Jezza to stay

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-by-elections-paul-nuttall-ukip-tony-blair-a7587371.html

Clearly UKIP and Labour are trying to out do each other like junkies at an NA meeting -

Labour: "We self destructed faster than you - our leftie Corbyn habit dragged us to the gutter",
Ukip: "No, we picked a scouser who managed to pee off everyone in liverpool by posturing about Hillsborough, and a party donor who outrright insulted them. We sank lower!"