Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1304305307309310335

Posts

  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    Because it's not Left enough for them.

    #ToriesforCorbyn
    That is what this thread is about.
    Spot on and pretty obvious from the first post on the thread :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    Robert88 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Corbyn and his gang? No. Clearly spots can be changed, though, as the party didn't have this problem to anything like this degree when Smith, Blair, Brown or Miliband.

    Milliband is Jewish.

    I guess back in 2015 a whole load of antisemites paid their 3 quid.

    Great thread.

    Not sure what your point is about Miliband. Anyway membership numbers increased from 190,000 in 2015 to 515,000 in 2016. That influx appears to have fundamentally changed the party. In many ways, but ultimately for the worse.

    Presumably because the party was infiltrated by large numbers of Tories and Brexiters. Like I said things were a lot saner in the 60's, across the board.

    This.

    The point about Milliband was indeed to demonstrate that the nature of the party has changed since 2015. As stated above the easy access to membership does appear to have been exploited by tories, brexiteers and antisemites. The leadership should be able to deal with this.
    Not good enough!

    I think this misses the point that it isn't Tories and Brexiters who joined and took over, it was the left, ex SWP, RCP etc. They now have the leadership, so why would they do anything to stop themselves?

    Why would the left want to destroy the Labour Party?

    They don't, they want to change it. And take the existing party organisation structures along with them. It's the same as the erg and brexit hardliners taking the conservative party (or trying), only without the democracy that makes it possible.

    The left and right have learned that in a democratic system, those who show up to vote get their way.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,264
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That's a startling admission from you, Stevo :)
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    The generation only lasts until they ditch him then?
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    That's a startling admission from you, Stevo :)
    There are two ways of looking at it RJS. I'm taking the positive view of £3 well spent :)
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?
    Depends if your hypothetical scenario happens I guess.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?
    Depends if your hypothetical scenario happens I guess.

    I wouldn't be surprised if once they have completed the takeover and remade the party structures, he goes and someone slightly less worrying, but less politically useless takes over.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?
    Depends if your hypothetical scenario happens I guess.

    I wouldn't be surprised if once they have completed the takeover and remade the party structures, he goes and someone slightly less worrying, but less politically useless takes over.
    Such as?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?
    Depends if your hypothetical scenario happens I guess.

    I wouldn't be surprised if once they have completed the takeover and remade the party structures, he goes and someone slightly less worrying, but less politically useless takes over.
    Such as?

    John McDonnell, Jon Cruddas, Clive Lewis.
    and then the next thing you know
  • shortfallshortfall Posts: 1,718
    I would count McDonnell as even more worrying than Corbyn personally.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    shortfall wrote:
    I would count McDonnell as even more worrying than Corbyn personally.

    Fair point in some regards, mainly because he is less politically useless.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    shortfall wrote:
    I would count McDonnell as even more worrying than Corbyn personally.

    Fair point in some regards, mainly because he is less politically useless.
    But not less worrying.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,351
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    shortfall wrote:
    I would count McDonnell as even more worrying than Corbyn personally.

    Fair point in some regards, mainly because he is less politically useless.
    But not less worrying.

    On economic policy, obviously he's the same as Corbyn, but I'd be less worried about him talking to other world leaders than Magic Grandpa.
    and then the next thing you know
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 2,240
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Whilst I could see a vote of no confidence possibly succeeding, I don't see every MP that isn't Con or DUP uniting behind a Corbyn led coalition.
    But Bojo does only have no deal at his Brexit disposal. If that can be thwarted, he has nothing.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    morstar wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Whilst I could see a vote of no confidence possibly succeeding, I don't see every MP that isn't Con or DUP uniting behind a Corbyn led coalition.
    But Bojo does only have no deal at his Brexit disposal. If that can be thwarted, he has nothing.
    Looks like Bojo has one more thing at his disposal than Corbyn. Unless you count sitting on the fence.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    For the first time in my life I'm going to vote Labour.

    Chiefly because I find stevo's constant drip fed attempts to habituate me so nauseatingly condescending.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Robert88 wrote:
    For the first time in my life I'm going to vote Labour.

    Chiefly because I find stevo's constant drip fed attempts to habituate me so nauseatingly condescending.
    :)

    But surely an investment mogul like yourself would be cutting your nose off to spite your face by doing that?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Robert88Robert88 Posts: 2,722
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    For the first time in my life I'm going to vote Labour.

    Chiefly because I find stevo's constant drip fed attempts to habituate me so nauseatingly condescending.
    :)

    But surely an investment mogul like yourself would be cutting your nose off to spite your face by doing that?

    That's why I am not a present day Tory innit? They all put themselves first and the rest nowhere.

    You just nailed it.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Robert88 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    For the first time in my life I'm going to vote Labour.

    Chiefly because I find stevo's constant drip fed attempts to habituate me so nauseatingly condescending.
    :)

    But surely an investment mogul like yourself would be cutting your nose off to spite your face by doing that?

    That's why I am not a present day Tory innit? They all put themselves first and the rest nowhere.

    You just nailed it.
    Clearly there's no sweeping generalisation centreleftiebollox in your statement above :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Rolf FRolf F Posts: 16,126
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/

    Whereas Bojo wants to go on a huge spending spree but won't be hiking taxes to achieve it. Is the magic money tree approach to spending money really more responsible than proposing to spend money you actually have?

    I have no objection to a tax hike in principle but of course the problem is that, Tory or Labour, you'd have incompetent idiots choosing how to spend the revenue.

    And, of course, post Brexit instead of it going to parts of the country that need it (via the EU) it will all go on Cross Rail 3, 4, 5 and 6.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 43,800 Lives Here
    Rolf F wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/

    Whereas Bojo wants to go on a huge spending spree but won't be hiking taxes to achieve it. Is the magic money tree approach to spending money really more responsible than proposing to spend money you actually have?

    I have no objection to a tax hike in principle but of course the problem is that, Tory or Labour, you'd have incompetent idiots choosing how to spend the revenue.

    And, of course, post Brexit instead of it going to parts of the country that need it (via the EU) it will all go on Cross Rail 3, 4, 5 and 6.

    https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/22/whil ... n-reality/
    Second, even if you accept that, over time, the deficit did need to come down, the claim that we have made sacrifices which now enable us to spend more (or tax less) is internally contradictory.

    For example, Boris Johnson has proposed reversing the Cameron-Osborne cuts in police numbers. But, if it is sensible and affordable to pay for a decent level of policing next year, then it was sensible and affordable to do so last year – the impact on the Government’s long-term fiscal position would essentially have been zero. Government which, like the UK’s, can borrow easily at low interest rates, can and should take a long-term view – we neither need to nor should we decide how much to spend on vital public services by reference to this year’s deficit.
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/


    To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

    It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/


    To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

    It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.
    Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,264
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/


    To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

    It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.
    Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?

    Difficult to judge as there is almost zero information on the actual proposals in the article.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 36,299
    rjsterry wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/


    To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

    It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.
    Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?

    Difficult to judge as there is almost zero information on the actual proposals in the article.
    What's new when it comes to potential Labour policy declarations? Let's go on the point about higher taxes for anyone earning over £28k a year.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And just to show why we need to remain vigilant in the fight against leftiebollox: that's a lot of people going to get taxed more.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/9717227/john-mcdonnell-eyes-income-tax-bombshell/


    To paraphrase a line from the article "a staggeringly high number of people earn more than the average public sector wage"

    It's not really staggering is it, its just how averages work. If anything a right wing paper should be saying its a staggeringly low number, and using it to argue that public sector employees are overpaid.
    Maybe, but that's not the point I was making. Do you think what is being proposed is a good idea?

    Given our education system is turning out journalists who are confounded by the way averages work out, we clearly need to spend more on our education system. So raising taxes doesn't seem like a stupid idea.

    The last paragraph also points out that it isn't actually labour party policy.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
Sign In or Register to comment.