Join the Labour Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

SecretSqirrel wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

SecretSqirrel 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.

Stevo_666

More evidence that the plan has worked...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-bounce-brexit-a9024116.html

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

More evidence that the plan has worked...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-bounce-brexit-a9024116.html

That's a startling admission from you, Stevo

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

More evidence that the plan has worked...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-bounce-brexit-a9024116.html

The generation only lasts until they ditch him then?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

More evidence that the plan has worked...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-poll-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-bounce-brexit-a9024116.html

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

kingstongraham

What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

What if he's the gateway to someone with wider appeal but still Momentum friendly?

Depends if your hypothetical scenario happens I guess.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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?

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

shortfall

I would count McDonnell as even more worrying than Corbyn personally.

kingstongraham

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.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham 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.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham 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.

Stevo_666

Taxi !
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/105807/john-mcdonnell-jeremy-corbyn-will

You have to admire Chairman MaocDodonnell's optimism

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

Taxi !
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/105807/john-mcdonnell-jeremy-corbyn-will

You have to admire Chairman MaocDodonnell's optimism

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_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Taxi !
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/105807/john-mcdonnell-jeremy-corbyn-will

You have to admire Chairman MaocDodonnell's optimism

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.

robert88

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_666

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?

robert88

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_666

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

Stevo_666

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/

rolf_f

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.

rick_chasey

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 mon

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.

Stevo_666

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?

rjsterry

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.

Stevo_666

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.

Jez mon

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.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

Well if you keep raising the lower thresholds and making big spending promises... I've just listened to John Redwood talking in gushing terms about giving the economy a stimulus. Strange times.