Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like leftiebollox is here to stay for now, according to Tony Blair:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45438855

So no point voting for New Old Labour and hoping that they'll reform and become more moderate. Wonder if this is the beginning of a breakaway 'SDP MkII' type party?

Our medieval electoral system will preclude a breakaway

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like leftiebollox is here to stay for now, according to Tony Blair:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45438855

So no point voting for New Old Labour and hoping that they'll reform and become more moderate. Wonder if this is the beginning of a breakaway 'SDP MkII' type party?

Our medieval electoral system will preclude a breakaway

One could argue it was proportional representation that caused a breakaway in 2016. Although the act of Labour MP's leaving will weaken them even if the new party is as (un)successful as the SDP.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like leftiebollox is here to stay for now, according to Tony Blair:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45438855

So no point voting for New Old Labour and hoping that they'll reform and become more moderate. Wonder if this is the beginning of a breakaway 'SDP MkII' type party?

Our medieval electoral system will preclude a breakaway

One could argue it was proportional representation that caused a breakaway in 2016. Although the act of Labour MP's leaving will weaken them even if the new party is as (un)successful as the SDP.

2016 breakaway?

Bunch of time servers will hang on for the very last pay cheque. The only rebels will be pensioners who don’t care.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

Oh thought we were talking SDPesque

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

Oh thought we were talking SDPesque

The last SDP type breakaway was the SDP. It is possible that something similar may happen here as moderate Labour figures such as Blair and Umunna seem to be giving up on bringing the party back from the fringes.

rjsterry

All this talk of splitting seems to be catching.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... heresa-may

DeVlaeminck

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

Oh thought we were talking SDPesque

The last SDP type breakaway was the SDP. It is possible that something similar may happen here as moderate Labour figures such as Blair and Umunna seem to be giving up on bringing the party back from the fringes.

I think for that to work it'd need to be something other than a Labour breakaway - for most Labour voters all the fuss over anti semitism is an irrelevance, many actually voted for Brexit and whatever the nature of Corbyn's politics he actually comes across as quite rational on TV. In short I doubt there is a mass of Labour supporters looking for the second coming of Tony Blair.

They may be looking at the success Macron has had presenting himself as new vs old politics - or you could argue Trump in the usa - rather than right vs left but it's difficult to do that with a Parliamentary system like ours and given Blairites were very pro mass immigration that tag may not help them in the current climate.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

Oh thought we were talking SDPesque

The last SDP type breakaway was the SDP. It is possible that something similar may happen here as moderate Labour figures such as Blair and Umunna seem to be giving up on bringing the party back from the fringes.

I think for that to work it'd need to be something other than a Labour breakaway - for most Labour voters all the fuss over anti semitism is an irrelevance, many actually voted for Brexit and whatever the nature of Corbyn's politics he actually comes across as quite rational on TV. In short I doubt there is a mass of Labour supporters looking for the second coming of Tony Blair.

They may be looking at the success Macron has had presenting himself as new vs old politics - or you could argue Trump in the usa - rather than right vs left but it's difficult to do that with a Parliamentary system like ours and given Blairites were very pro mass immigration that tag may not help them in the current climate.

It's not the Labour supporters they need to worry about. For all the bragging about how many thousands of members they have, the current Labour leadership have missed the basic point that you win elections by appealing to people outside your core supporters. They are stuck preaching to the choir.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

All this talk of splitting seems to be catching.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... heresa-may

It's all very well people warning TM that the Conservative party will split if she pushes forward with Chequers but what on earth do they think will happen if she doesn't push through with it?!

That argument is as good a justification for sticking with Chequers as it is for dropping it. Is there any Brexit option that wouldn't be rejected by 80+ Tory MPs.?

john80

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All this talk of splitting seems to be catching.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... heresa-may

It's all very well people warning TM that the Conservative party will split if she pushes forward with Chequers but what on earth do they think will happen if she doesn't push through with it?!

That argument is as good a justification for sticking with Chequers as it is for dropping it. Is there any Brexit option that wouldn't be rejected by 80+ Tory MPs.?

A hard Brexit on WTO terms with no money going to Brussel's, less market access, control of immigration and all laws. Difficult trading conditions for global companies attempting to manufacture items across borders. 80+ MPs would vote for that but then a fair few would not support this. I guess controlling immigration and laws affects people in a soft way whereas having no job affects people in a way that can be calculated in cold hard cash.

Stevo_666

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All this talk of splitting seems to be catching.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... heresa-may

It's all very well people warning TM that the Conservative party will split if she pushes forward with Chequers but what on earth do they think will happen if she doesn't push through with it?!

That argument is as good a justification for sticking with Chequers as it is for dropping it. Is there any Brexit option that wouldn't be rejected by 80+ Tory MPs.?

A hard Brexit on WTO terms with no money going to Brussel's, less market access, control of immigration and all laws. Difficult trading conditions for global companies attempting to manufacture items across borders. 80+ MPs would vote for that but then a fair few would not support this. I guess controlling immigration and laws affects people in a soft way whereas having no job affects people in a way that can be calculated in cold hard cash.

I've heard that there is a separate thread on this very subject...

rjsterry

This will be interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -seachange

Having pushed a greater say in policy making for the membership, will he now follow that through?

kajjal

rjsterry wrote:

This will be interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -seachange

Having pushed a greater say in policy making for the membership, will he now follow that through?

If not restricted by UK politics and the UK media Labour would be at worst going for a soft brexit.
Just look how badly the Brexit negotitaions have gone over the past 2 years and the reaction of those who voted leave still supporting Brexit.

surrey_commuter

So a report I read today say s that 60% of people think taxes should be increased to ease austerity.

By my reckoning this is 30 million adults wishing to pay more tax. If the Govt set up and publicised an account then these people could get there wish and pay more money to the Govt. If they all chipped in £1,000 then it would be £30bn a year.

Or could it be that 60% think that somebody else should pay more tax?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

2016 breakaway?

Brexit referendum...

Oh thought we were talking SDPesque

The last SDP type breakaway was the SDP. It is possible that something similar may happen here as moderate Labour figures such as Blair and Umunna seem to be giving up on bringing the party back from the fringes.

I think for that to work it'd need to be something other than a Labour breakaway - for most Labour voters all the fuss over anti semitism is an irrelevance, many actually voted for Brexit and whatever the nature of Corbyn's politics he actually comes across as quite rational on TV. In short I doubt there is a mass of Labour supporters looking for the second coming of Tony Blair.

They may be looking at the success Macron has had presenting himself as new vs old politics - or you could argue Trump in the usa - rather than right vs left but it's difficult to do that with a Parliamentary system like ours and given Blairites were very pro mass immigration that tag may not help them in the current climate.

It's not the Labour supporters they need to worry about. For all the bragging about how many thousands of members they have, the current Labour leadership have missed the basic point that you win elections by appealing to people outside your core supporters. They are stuck preaching to the choir.

Yes but that's a different discussion about how Labour wins an election.

My point was that a new breakaway party would need to take existing Labour voters with it and I don't think the issues which motivate the potential breakaway leadership would lead many actual Labour voters to follow them.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So a report I read today say s that 60% of people think taxes should be increased to ease austerity.

By my reckoning this is 30 million adults wishing to pay more tax. If the Govt set up and publicised an account then these people could get there wish and pay more money to the Govt. If they all chipped in £1,000 then it would be £30bn a year.

Or could it be that 60% think that somebody else should pay more tax?

You are getting confused between increasing taxation and allowing a voluntary donation to the state.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So a report I read today say s that 60% of people think taxes should be increased to ease austerity.

By my reckoning this is 30 million adults wishing to pay more tax. If the Govt set up and publicised an account then these people could get there wish and pay more money to the Govt. If they all chipped in £1,000 then it would be £30bn a year.

Or could it be that 60% think that somebody else should pay more tax?

You are getting confused between increasing taxation and allowing a voluntary donation to the state.

no I am not

I am suggesting a mechanism to allow them to increase their contribution to state funding

If it raises tens of billions then all will be well in the world. If it raises next to nothing then it will show that people are not willing to pay more to ease austerity.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So a report I read today say s that 60% of people think taxes should be increased to ease austerity.

By my reckoning this is 30 million adults wishing to pay more tax. If the Govt set up and publicised an account then these people could get there wish and pay more money to the Govt. If they all chipped in £1,000 then it would be £30bn a year.

Or could it be that 60% think that somebody else should pay more tax?

You are getting confused between increasing taxation and allowing a voluntary donation to the state.

no I am not

I am suggesting a mechanism to allow them to increase their contribution to state funding

If it raises tens of billions then all will be well in the world. If it raises next to nothing then it will show that people are not willing to pay more to ease austerity.

Clearly not, there is a big difference between taxation and a voluntary contribution to the state.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So a report I read today say s that 60% of people think taxes should be increased to ease austerity.

By my reckoning this is 30 million adults wishing to pay more tax. If the Govt set up and publicised an account then these people could get there wish and pay more money to the Govt. If they all chipped in £1,000 then it would be £30bn a year.

Or could it be that 60% think that somebody else should pay more tax?

You are getting confused between increasing taxation and allowing a voluntary donation to the state.

no I am not

I am suggesting a mechanism to allow them to increase their contribution to state funding

If it raises tens of billions then all will be well in the world. If it raises next to nothing then it will show that people are not willing to pay more to ease austerity.

Clearly not, there is a big difference between taxation and a voluntary contribution to the state.

so if a man with a clipboard asks you if you would pay more money for better state services and you answer yes then what does the mechanism matter?

Stevo_666

There needs to be a mechanism to do this as it isn't actually possible to voluntarily just pay more tax - there has to be a legal tax reason to do pay more, but I won't go into that now.

It would also help flush out (probably quite an appropriate phrase here ) those who are happy to say that we should pay more tax but aren't willing to do it themselves.

rjsterry

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so if a man with a clipboard asks you if you would pay more money for better state services and you answer yes then what does the mechanism matter?

Are you familiar with collective action problems?

If I chip in a grand it makes no noticeable difference to the money the state receives and I'm down a significant amount. That is very different to me agreeing to chip in that grand if everyone else does likewise. Tax is the mechanism which enforces the agreement.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion why don't we make all tax voluntary - would anyone want to live in that society - maybe a few but I doubt many would ? If you think tax is a good idea at any level at all then why do you refuse to believe some people might think that level should be higher than it is now?

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so if a man with a clipboard asks you if you would pay more money for better state services and you answer yes then what does the mechanism matter?

Are you familiar with collective action problems?

If I chip in a grand it makes no noticeable difference to the money the state receives and I'm down a significant amount. That is very different to me agreeing to chip in that grand if everyone else does likewise. Tax is the mechanism which enforces the agreement.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion why don't we make all tax voluntary - would anyone want to live in that society - maybe a few but I doubt many would ? If you think tax is a good idea at any level at all then why do you refuse to believe some people might think that level should be higher than it is now?

I believe it is impossible to significantly raise the total tax take. If you look at the long term graphs the total % raised really does not vary much. If you want the Govt to have more money then you should look at improving economic growth - this is where Blair got the cash from.

I don’t believe Govt is good at spending money so will always argue for a small state.

If you gave your grand to your local hospital it would have more impact. If a thousand of you all put it on direct debit they could build it into their budget.

TheBigBean

This is one of your odd opinions SC

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of your odd opinions SC

It would be good to overlay the various governments onto that. Might dispel a few myths.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of your odd opinions SC

Other than the odd time it has gone above 40% that is pretty consistent and would suggest there is not much room to push it higher. Growing the economy is a far more viable way to boost Govt receipts.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

It's just a different part of the state. In case you hadn't noticed, your council tax probably went up for this very reason.