| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... 13:58 - May 9 with 106096 views | hubble |
..posted by a good friend of mine on Facebook, thought I'd share it on here. He's a former professional footballer (briefly for Birmingham City) and a former copper, working mainly out of Camden police station. He grew up in Kilburn/Queens Park. He's now a writer (among other things).
Worth a read I think, hope you enjoy, whether you agree with him or not, even when he veers off-topic...
"Thoughts of the Week (part 1)
Let’s start with a subheading. ‘Dear, oh dear Diane Abbot!’
In the upcoming General Election campaign and apart from the ‘Leader’ (no, not Gary Glitter) no one is more important for the Labour Party campaign than the Shadow Home Secretary. Why’s this? You ask.
The reason is obvious: Theresa May —the strong woman, Ms subtle, but steely - was the former Home Secretary. A position which she used to inflict near terminal ravages of the nation’s police forces. Under her auspices we saw numbers cut, benefits cut and police stations closed willy-nilly to cash in, short-term, on the booming (especially in London) property market.
The short-sightedness of this policy is astounding. No matter the so-called austerity budget (which only seems to apply to the working classes, while the privileged elite continue to live the life of Riley) the question must be asked as to what will happen when there’s some serious social unrest — and you can feel it stirring. Remember 2011 when the riots broke out? We had anarchy and nihilism on the streets and the police force didn’t cope with it at all. Instead we had a grand mopping up campaign. Suddenly all those poor silly students who had been demonised as hard-core criminals after they smashed the windows of the Tory HQ — and received ridiculously harsh prison sentences for what were in the main first offences - were kicked out of the pokey and replaced by the new batch of rioters. The Criminal Justice system ground to a halt, the prison’s overflowed. The courts were as ram-jam packed as a back-in-the-day David Rodigan dance. In response what did the great Theresa May do? She further decimated the police force. She did the same to the prison service. The vaunted Border Force, our first defence, is comically short of manpower and morale as they attempt to hire staff on Mickey-Mouse contracts. Labour should be slaughtering Theresa May on what she’s done. Instead we got that car crash of an interview on LBC.
To be honest I resisted calls to listen to it for a time. Some of my more right-leaning pals were raving about it, but I thought they were overreacting due to a general contempt for the Hackney MP. I was wrong. When I actually got round to listening to it I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It was stunningly incompetent, mind-blowingly nonsensical, embarrassing and shocking. Is this the Shadow Home Secretary who’s going to lead the challenge to Theresa May’s record? She should have stood down immediately and if not the great leader should have forced her hand, no matter past rendezvous in the sack. Of course it didn’t happen and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has no hope in this election. What a shame it all is because there are loads of issues that they should be taking the government to task on. Just look at that bumbling Tommy Cooper impersonator of a Foreign Secretary, a million miles removed from a serious statesman: Mr Retraction — an embarrassment to the nation.
I’m voting Labour in the coming election, but not for Jeremy, more for the thought of the millions of people who are going to suffer under the coming five years of Tory rule: the working men and women who haven’t seen their wages rise, in real terms, for the last thirty years, while the fat cats, sharks and speculators are minted; the students starting out life saddled with debt; the millions who’ll never be able to afford a home; and in honour of the National Health Service, soon to be dismantled further, but remaining the brightest light in the nation’s modern history. What a rotten, unfair and unbalanced society we’ve become.
|  |
| |  |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:39 - May 10 with 2771 views | R_from_afar |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 07:06 - May 10 by stevec |
Nice sentiments but someone has got to pay for this.
And before you say the rich, from what I can see of Corbyns proposals, he'll only be taking a few billion extra off them at best, which is absolute peanuts in terms of the things you probably want.
Perhaps someone on the Left can enlighten me where the 30-40 billion a year minimum needed will come from and please, none of that bllcks about unpaid taxes by business, most of that relates to failed Companies and you can't grab money that's not there. |
But think about the eye-wateringly costly projects the present government has committed us to:
- HS2
- Trident replacement
- Hinckley C.
If you are of a sensitive disposition, don't even look at the Ts & Cs for the last one on that list. The world's most expensive energy - if they ever manage to build that design of power station - and limited liability for EDF and their contractors if the thing blows up.
RFA |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:40 - May 10 with 2770 views | TheRam |
I try not to get involved in politics on this site, however... I am no Tory supporter, but i did vote for them once (shock horror!) as a self employed working class man i should be a staunch labour supporter, but in my adult life they have offered me nothing. I feel ,The only two politicians in the last 20 years who have actually stuck to their own personal party and personal principle s are Corbyn and Garage, i admire them both for that, yet both are lambasted. Another thing that annoys me, and i don't really get it is that milliband got stick for being athiest, and I'm not here to offend any Christians, but Theresa may and every prime minister prior believe that Jesus Christ hatched from an egg laid by a horse or something equally preposterous. Anyway...I digress... Finally, i will not be voting for myself this time around, my morals have got the better of me, and although i feel I'd be a better home secretary than Diane Abbott on the basis that i could count the fingers on my hand, she and Corbyn will be finally getting my vote x |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:57 - May 10 with 2743 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:27 - May 10 by TacticalR |
I have read his books 'The Liberal Defence of Murder' and the more recent 'Corbyn - The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics'. 'The Liberal Defence of Murder' was a welcome attack on the B-52 Left (Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens etc.). The Corbyn book is mostly a history of Labour's uninspiring record, with the implication that Corbyn would be able to do very little were he ever to get into office. One of the things that was interesting about the Corbyn book was that all the Labour people like Sadiq Khan who attacked Corbyn at the time of the last Labour leadership election had been attacking him all along. |
I've not actually read any of his books, but follow his blog fairly regularly. I met him once and found him quite irritating in person, but try to put that to one side!
Was it you on here that said a while ago that you were part of a reading group at uni that included China Mieville? I was chatting to a friend recently about the 'new weird' genre (following the death of Mark Fisher and his last book The Weird and The Eerie), and she recommend his book The City and The City. I really liked the sound of the premise, but found the writing style difficult to get on with.
I did end up getting into Jeff VanderMeer's 'Southern Reach' trilogy, also described as 'new weird', instead, which is superb. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:02 - May 10 with 2731 views | 1BobbyHazell |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:59 - May 10 by stevec |
1BH, this is all good stuff, actually agree with a fair bit of it BUT.. the party you support still doesn't explain how they will raise the necessary income.
20 UK residents are worth £192bn, 1000 worth combined £658bn, yes its unfair, but taxing those earning over 80k a year won't touch barely any of this, that money is in the bank so to speak. How is Corbyn going to get hold of that, the real money? Not heard a word on that to date.
Classic that The Guardian article suggests in fact that rather than the mega rich, its 'the median earners who all have to pay more' ie me and you. I don't know if you've noticed but most median earners, in fact all median earners, find it nigh on impossible to pay for their lifestyles with present taxation as it is.
It's all just flowery rhetoric from the Left, none of it means fck all.
Finally, if you read The Guardian online this always comes up...
''Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall — we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters — because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure''.
Even the Lefties own newspaper can't raise money to run itself and you reckon clowns like this have the answer to running an entire economy? I doubt if half the regular contributors on LFW who use The Guardian as it's source of information pay for the fckin rag either.
As the man says, you couldn't make it up. |
Steve, I'm going to focus on the first half sentence of your reply because I'm all about the love, peace and unity!
The fact that we agree on the main issues and questions raised in those pieces is all that matters.
I can't answer your (classic Stevec) rant about lefty newspapers or argue with you about the effectiveness of taxing the fairly comfortable as opposed to the super rich. I can tell you that we clearly have enough 'wealth' in this country to not be destroying the infrastructure and services of our communities under the banner of globalisation and illusionary economic enforcement in order to line the pockets of those who already have more money than they could ever f-king spend!!
For the record I'm not attached to the Labour party, I've never voted in a general election before but I will in this one.
Why? Because for the first time in my adult life there is a candidate who talks a little of my language
"Our Westminster system is broken and our economy is rigged. Both are run in the interests of the few."
" Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create."
"Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the corporate interests plundering our NHS. How much more will be privatised if the Tories get another five years?"
"We’re drawing a line. Three decades of privatisation — from energy and rail to health and social care — has made some people very rich but it has not delivered richer lives for the majority."
I'm interested in hearing these sorts of thoughts and philosophies given a platform in mainstream politics because the Establishment Procession of Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg, May have been firmly embedded in the grip of the corporate/financial behemoth that is on a serious wealth and power grab at the moment championing the very issues raised in the articles I posted.
Is Corbyn perfect? Of course not. Can he win? No. Could he really loosen the grip of the global elite on the direction our country is being forced in by those with the real power who pull the politicians strings? Long shot! But he carries more principles of mine than the other puppets, and, in our current democratic/governance system of woefully inadequate representation of all that we are capable of providing for ourselves as a community, that will have to do for now.
Now although you and I often disagree (although not always) I do find it genuinely interesting that someone who has (on this thread and previously) stated a belief in the whole super rich/establishment taking us all for a ride etc etc thing stands up so vociferously for the Tories. I really don't mean this as Tory V Labour thing but you do know that they are the super rich/establishment's party of choice. Always have been, even before the likes of you and me were allowed the vote!
How does that work? Genuine question mate. What is it about Tory policy that you feel is so good for the non wealthy? I don't need to hear about your hatred of 'the left' or labour in your answer, sometimes your posts seem more about passionate anti-labour than actual pro-conservative feelings. What am I, as someone who has never voted for either in his life, missing about what the Tories can do for us and about the issues of wealth distribution that you and I both agree on? Lets narrow things down to our common ground and go from there.
Oh f*ck. I wasn't even going to get involved!
All in love and peace mate. x |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:45 - May 10 with 2673 views | paulparker |
on a side note I thought it was quite nice seeing the number one socialist from the bad lands of Dorset Billy Brag on channel four news last night calling for reform in this years election
I must have missed his previous call for reform when UKIP got 4 million votes and not one seat or MP in the commons |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:13 - May 10 with 2643 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 07:06 - May 10 by stevec |
Nice sentiments but someone has got to pay for this.
And before you say the rich, from what I can see of Corbyns proposals, he'll only be taking a few billion extra off them at best, which is absolute peanuts in terms of the things you probably want.
Perhaps someone on the Left can enlighten me where the 30-40 billion a year minimum needed will come from and please, none of that bllcks about unpaid taxes by business, most of that relates to failed Companies and you can't grab money that's not there. |
I'm certainly not going to claim to have sat and scrutinized this, but this is what Labour are saying regarding paying for its policies:
[Post edited 10 May 2017 15:13]
| | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 16:09 - May 10 with 2585 views | SimonJames |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 15:13 - May 10 by FDC |
I'm certainly not going to claim to have sat and scrutinized this, but this is what Labour are saying regarding paying for its policies:
[Post edited 10 May 2017 15:13]
|
So:
- Tax private schools and health insurance... leading to more people sending their kids to state schools and relying on the NHS to look after them. Resulting in projected tax revenues not materialising and an increased strain on state schools and the NHS.
- Cut CTG received by the pension funds, resulting in less income for pensioners with company or self employed pensions. Resulting in less consumer spending, less tax revenue and more strain on age-related social services.
However, ditching private consultancy in the NHS and using the money to employ more doctors and nurses should be on everyone's manifesto. |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 19:05 - May 10 with 2502 views | stevec |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:02 - May 10 by 1BobbyHazell |
Steve, I'm going to focus on the first half sentence of your reply because I'm all about the love, peace and unity!
The fact that we agree on the main issues and questions raised in those pieces is all that matters.
I can't answer your (classic Stevec) rant about lefty newspapers or argue with you about the effectiveness of taxing the fairly comfortable as opposed to the super rich. I can tell you that we clearly have enough 'wealth' in this country to not be destroying the infrastructure and services of our communities under the banner of globalisation and illusionary economic enforcement in order to line the pockets of those who already have more money than they could ever f-king spend!!
For the record I'm not attached to the Labour party, I've never voted in a general election before but I will in this one.
Why? Because for the first time in my adult life there is a candidate who talks a little of my language
"Our Westminster system is broken and our economy is rigged. Both are run in the interests of the few."
" Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create."
"Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the corporate interests plundering our NHS. How much more will be privatised if the Tories get another five years?"
"We’re drawing a line. Three decades of privatisation — from energy and rail to health and social care — has made some people very rich but it has not delivered richer lives for the majority."
I'm interested in hearing these sorts of thoughts and philosophies given a platform in mainstream politics because the Establishment Procession of Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg, May have been firmly embedded in the grip of the corporate/financial behemoth that is on a serious wealth and power grab at the moment championing the very issues raised in the articles I posted.
Is Corbyn perfect? Of course not. Can he win? No. Could he really loosen the grip of the global elite on the direction our country is being forced in by those with the real power who pull the politicians strings? Long shot! But he carries more principles of mine than the other puppets, and, in our current democratic/governance system of woefully inadequate representation of all that we are capable of providing for ourselves as a community, that will have to do for now.
Now although you and I often disagree (although not always) I do find it genuinely interesting that someone who has (on this thread and previously) stated a belief in the whole super rich/establishment taking us all for a ride etc etc thing stands up so vociferously for the Tories. I really don't mean this as Tory V Labour thing but you do know that they are the super rich/establishment's party of choice. Always have been, even before the likes of you and me were allowed the vote!
How does that work? Genuine question mate. What is it about Tory policy that you feel is so good for the non wealthy? I don't need to hear about your hatred of 'the left' or labour in your answer, sometimes your posts seem more about passionate anti-labour than actual pro-conservative feelings. What am I, as someone who has never voted for either in his life, missing about what the Tories can do for us and about the issues of wealth distribution that you and I both agree on? Lets narrow things down to our common ground and go from there.
Oh f*ck. I wasn't even going to get involved!
All in love and peace mate. x |
1BH, appreciate your reply, that is seriously well put.
So much so, I'm going to have a think about it first.
Love and peace mate. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 22:20 - May 10 with 2421 views | stowmarketrange |
When I started work in 1978 the basic rate of income tax was 33% going up to 98% for the wealthiest earners.Its now only 20% rising to 40%?
Where has all that uncollected tax gone?And think how much it would benefit our public services if we added 5% to basic rate and 10% to the higher bands.
After all what is the point of only paying the lowest tax you can get away with only to have to pay privately for the public services that we used to get for free?
How much extra funds would that raise for cash starved public services? |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 23:22 - May 10 with 2383 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 16:09 - May 10 by SimonJames |
So:
- Tax private schools and health insurance... leading to more people sending their kids to state schools and relying on the NHS to look after them. Resulting in projected tax revenues not materialising and an increased strain on state schools and the NHS.
- Cut CTG received by the pension funds, resulting in less income for pensioners with company or self employed pensions. Resulting in less consumer spending, less tax revenue and more strain on age-related social services.
However, ditching private consultancy in the NHS and using the money to employ more doctors and nurses should be on everyone's manifesto. |
Thanks for starting on a response, SJ.
FDC, you're an intelligent bloke, but that "how it'll will be funded" bit is absolute, economically illiterate, tosh. In practice there is no way on earth that will fund that spending, let alone addressing the ideological aspect of whether it's the state's right/role to add sales tax to lifestyle choices of individuals. Income tax, Sales Tax, Corporation Tax. Two are taxes on wealth, one is a tax on liberty.
The only way Labour can fund that is a huge overhaul of our income tax system, and punishing approach to Corp Tax which, sadly, could impact jobs. The former isn't proposed. The latter they can't implement without losing jobs and thus having a net negative impact on tax revenues.
It's a difficult, fine balance to tread.
I sympathise with the imbalance and unfairness Labour/Corbyn are trying to address (I simply don't sympathise with the direction May is going), but the contents of this manifesto leak is mediocre GSCE level stuff. The indirect impact of it has clearly not been considered or cared for and a lot of it will have the reverse impact to that intended.
I can't see how anyone intelligent can vote for Labour.
I can't see how anyone with empathy, principles or a belief in civil liberties can vote for May/Tories.
The Lib Dems are far from perfect, and Farron should not be their leader, but Christ Alive (weak pun intended), they're the best of a bad bunch. Only ones coming close to being even handed, fair and sensible on most policies. |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 01:20 - May 11 with 2347 views | LazyFan |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:39 - May 10 by R_from_afar |
But think about the eye-wateringly costly projects the present government has committed us to:
- HS2
- Trident replacement
- Hinckley C.
If you are of a sensitive disposition, don't even look at the Ts & Cs for the last one on that list. The world's most expensive energy - if they ever manage to build that design of power station - and limited liability for EDF and their contractors if the thing blows up.
RFA |
You are forgetting Amazon, Starbucks, Vodaphone etc who do not pay anywhere near what they should.
We can instantly retro enable the £4bn gift that Vince Cable (safe hands, we can control the Tories, watch us in power self-destruct) gave Vodaphone straight away. No jobs will be lost as those companies have to physically operate within this country. They are our captive market not the other way around.
Cancelling all PFI contracts by a Bill through parliament, will of course save the NHS and our Defence billions. Thus allowing them to restaff and resource within existing budgets.
Time for a bit Rail Nationalisation with the extra to invest in getting the country going again. You know from A to B like it used to be. Also one deal with RMT so, they cannot arbitrage franchises against each other to keep increasing the salaries of drivers. Which will mean less strikes.
Releasing the legal shackles on councils to borrow at the lowest rates in a generation. But legally tied for only building new homes and schools to get our building industry going again. And giving councils the £££ incentive to up middle finger to nimbies (like the ones stopping us building our academy).
Ending the unfair one-way law that forces us to waste millions trying to ship our most talented hackers to the US, because they have a fetish for UFO's. Thus in turn rediscovering our patriotic identity of being Great and not reliant on the failed US Empire.
Not wasting money being dragged into expensive wars we cannot win....ever!
When that money could be spent on legal cyber snooping and protecting our borders and educating people away from radicalisation.
Which means we won't need the secret courts either. Another great saving.
Less going out and more coming in.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 01:35 - May 11 with 2343 views | LazyFan |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:59 - May 10 by stevec |
1BH, this is all good stuff, actually agree with a fair bit of it BUT.. the party you support still doesn't explain how they will raise the necessary income.
20 UK residents are worth £192bn, 1000 worth combined £658bn, yes its unfair, but taxing those earning over 80k a year won't touch barely any of this, that money is in the bank so to speak. How is Corbyn going to get hold of that, the real money? Not heard a word on that to date.
Classic that The Guardian article suggests in fact that rather than the mega rich, its 'the median earners who all have to pay more' ie me and you. I don't know if you've noticed but most median earners, in fact all median earners, find it nigh on impossible to pay for their lifestyles with present taxation as it is.
It's all just flowery rhetoric from the Left, none of it means fck all.
Finally, if you read The Guardian online this always comes up...
''Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall — we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters — because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure''.
Even the Lefties own newspaper can't raise money to run itself and you reckon clowns like this have the answer to running an entire economy? I doubt if half the regular contributors on LFW who use The Guardian as it's source of information pay for the fckin rag either.
As the man says, you couldn't make it up. |
I agree middle earners should not pay more and low earners should not be taxed at all.
On my other reply I detail how we could get more money so, I leave you to that post.
But here the reply is the Guardian is not a left wing newspaper. Sorry to disappoint.
In fact in 2010 it backed the Liberals, which meant a hung election and the Tories in a ConDem pact. Where Clegg and Cable went back on everything and did what the Tories wanted. Hence the collapse of the Liberal vote.
Also Guardian articles are constantly anti-Corbyn, with the readers comments replying to them slating the writers and saying the paper is New Labour (Blue Labour). So, their readership do not consider them left-wing any more.
As for asking for money I agree.
Don't give them anything, it does not represent the left.
Drop them hard.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:53 - May 11 with 2280 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 23:22 - May 10 by Hunterhoop |
Thanks for starting on a response, SJ.
FDC, you're an intelligent bloke, but that "how it'll will be funded" bit is absolute, economically illiterate, tosh. In practice there is no way on earth that will fund that spending, let alone addressing the ideological aspect of whether it's the state's right/role to add sales tax to lifestyle choices of individuals. Income tax, Sales Tax, Corporation Tax. Two are taxes on wealth, one is a tax on liberty.
The only way Labour can fund that is a huge overhaul of our income tax system, and punishing approach to Corp Tax which, sadly, could impact jobs. The former isn't proposed. The latter they can't implement without losing jobs and thus having a net negative impact on tax revenues.
It's a difficult, fine balance to tread.
I sympathise with the imbalance and unfairness Labour/Corbyn are trying to address (I simply don't sympathise with the direction May is going), but the contents of this manifesto leak is mediocre GSCE level stuff. The indirect impact of it has clearly not been considered or cared for and a lot of it will have the reverse impact to that intended.
I can't see how anyone intelligent can vote for Labour.
I can't see how anyone with empathy, principles or a belief in civil liberties can vote for May/Tories.
The Lib Dems are far from perfect, and Farron should not be their leader, but Christ Alive (weak pun intended), they're the best of a bad bunch. Only ones coming close to being even handed, fair and sensible on most policies. |
I assume at some point labour are going to have to announce their intention to increase Corp tax and tax on top 5% earners, and the media will go bat shit crazy. Personally I'd be intensely comfortable with that. We have some of the lowest taxation in the world currently. Obviously we shouldn't forget the interests represented by the media.
Don't forget the postwar government was able to establish a hell of a lot from a far worse position. It's not a zero sum game, it's Keynesian economics.
I'm not really sure what you mean by taxes on liberty?
On my phone so will have to dash. Re the LibDems though, sorry I just don't see them as a progressive party, and have no doubt they'll jump at the chance of getting into bed with the Tories again. They're smiling Tories really. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:35 - May 11 with 2251 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 08:53 - May 11 by FDC |
I assume at some point labour are going to have to announce their intention to increase Corp tax and tax on top 5% earners, and the media will go bat shit crazy. Personally I'd be intensely comfortable with that. We have some of the lowest taxation in the world currently. Obviously we shouldn't forget the interests represented by the media.
Don't forget the postwar government was able to establish a hell of a lot from a far worse position. It's not a zero sum game, it's Keynesian economics.
I'm not really sure what you mean by taxes on liberty?
On my phone so will have to dash. Re the LibDems though, sorry I just don't see them as a progressive party, and have no doubt they'll jump at the chance of getting into bed with the Tories again. They're smiling Tories really. |
Utter rubbish that last comment. Do yourself a favour and do a bit of research on social liberalism, classical liberalism, the old Liberal party, the old Social Democrats...and then compare it to Conservative ideology, either One Nation Toryism or traditional Conservatives.
They are not remotely the same. Neoliberalism is entirely a different thing to liberalism. It misses the key point in social liberalism, and itNs not espoused by any Lib Dems.
"Smiling Tories"....you've been brainwashed, mate. Complete nonsense.
On the tax point, Corp Tax is a very difficult balance to tread, 26% is probably not going to have a net negative impact (ie more firms leaving, reducing employment thus reducing income tax, and increasing the burden on the welfare state). Whether it recoups the additional tax revenues Labour suggest is highly questionable. Th bigger issue is recouping Corp Tac which has been avoided through legal loopholes. But closing those could have the same impact as increasing Corp Tax greatly abdxsee big firms (and not simply Banks) disappear. Don't forget professional services are Britain's biggest export, if Professional Services firms leave, the Treasury's coiffers will be hit hard! A huge chunk of tax revenue comes from workers in this sector. They'll be no funding for anything in that manifesto then...and a huge drop in standard of living for all.
Funding HAS to come from income tax. Lib Dems have already announced a penny on the pound income tax. Yet another reason why they're nothing like smiling Tories. But, I agree, our tax system does need an overall that redistributes wealth. The bandings should be revised. At a rough approximation, I'd like to see 42% on earnings over £100k, 44% at earnings over £250k. 50% at earnings over £1m and 55% of earnings over £5m (p.a.) Sonething along those lines, but you need the salary data of the country to do it. All loopholes for people to avoid income tax ( a la Jimmy Care) to be closed. Finally, and the most left field thing I'd do, is I'd create a law, tying board level Director and CEO bonuses to performance over 3 years, to be paid only every 3 years. It will force a much more long term focus amongst big business leaders (which should have a positive affect on employment) and it will make them more civic minded. It potentially will increase social mobility, as those senior leaders purely in it for the money, will go elsewhere. It will reduce the merrygoround of senior execs too. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:08 - May 11 with 2231 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 09:35 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
Utter rubbish that last comment. Do yourself a favour and do a bit of research on social liberalism, classical liberalism, the old Liberal party, the old Social Democrats...and then compare it to Conservative ideology, either One Nation Toryism or traditional Conservatives.
They are not remotely the same. Neoliberalism is entirely a different thing to liberalism. It misses the key point in social liberalism, and itNs not espoused by any Lib Dems.
"Smiling Tories"....you've been brainwashed, mate. Complete nonsense.
On the tax point, Corp Tax is a very difficult balance to tread, 26% is probably not going to have a net negative impact (ie more firms leaving, reducing employment thus reducing income tax, and increasing the burden on the welfare state). Whether it recoups the additional tax revenues Labour suggest is highly questionable. Th bigger issue is recouping Corp Tac which has been avoided through legal loopholes. But closing those could have the same impact as increasing Corp Tax greatly abdxsee big firms (and not simply Banks) disappear. Don't forget professional services are Britain's biggest export, if Professional Services firms leave, the Treasury's coiffers will be hit hard! A huge chunk of tax revenue comes from workers in this sector. They'll be no funding for anything in that manifesto then...and a huge drop in standard of living for all.
Funding HAS to come from income tax. Lib Dems have already announced a penny on the pound income tax. Yet another reason why they're nothing like smiling Tories. But, I agree, our tax system does need an overall that redistributes wealth. The bandings should be revised. At a rough approximation, I'd like to see 42% on earnings over £100k, 44% at earnings over £250k. 50% at earnings over £1m and 55% of earnings over £5m (p.a.) Sonething along those lines, but you need the salary data of the country to do it. All loopholes for people to avoid income tax ( a la Jimmy Care) to be closed. Finally, and the most left field thing I'd do, is I'd create a law, tying board level Director and CEO bonuses to performance over 3 years, to be paid only every 3 years. It will force a much more long term focus amongst big business leaders (which should have a positive affect on employment) and it will make them more civic minded. It potentially will increase social mobility, as those senior leaders purely in it for the money, will go elsewhere. It will reduce the merrygoround of senior execs too. |
My take on the current LibDems party was that classical liberals like Kennedy are a bit thin on the ground these days, but it sounds like your closer to it than I am so I'll defer to your knowledge. I don't think it's controversial to say that the LibDems would enable another tory government in coalition though, is it? Hasn't that been explicitly confirmed in fact?
Re Corp Tax, maybe you're right, I don't know. But it is currently far far lower than elsewhere, in fact wasn't it at about 30% under thatcher? | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:23 - May 11 with 2219 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:08 - May 11 by FDC |
My take on the current LibDems party was that classical liberals like Kennedy are a bit thin on the ground these days, but it sounds like your closer to it than I am so I'll defer to your knowledge. I don't think it's controversial to say that the LibDems would enable another tory government in coalition though, is it? Hasn't that been explicitly confirmed in fact?
Re Corp Tax, maybe you're right, I don't know. But it is currently far far lower than elsewhere, in fact wasn't it at about 30% under thatcher? |
It was 28% under Blair, I believe. It was Osbourne who slashed it. I agree it should be increased, but it's not a simple equation. Big Business can just leave, and there are loopholes. There is a fine balance to tread between encouraging job creation and maximising revenues from Corp Tax.
In terms of Liberalism, you do really need to do your research. I don't mean that in a condescending way, just that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
From your numerous posts, you are more of a social liberal than a classic liberal. So, I'm confused why you like Kennedy. Classic Liberals are closer to Conservative ideology (although by no means the same or similar), when it comes to the economy, than Social Liberals. Social Lib Dems tend to agree with Keynesian economics. So, if you do, which you've said, and you want a fairer society, as you've said, you're a Social Liberal.
Most of the remaining Lib Dem MPs, including Farron, are Social Liberals. Even the Classic Liberals ("Orange Bookers"), still believe in core aspects of Social Liberalism, just do different degrees to the pure Social Liberals.
Either way, both types, would be far far more competent at managing a balanced and fair economy and open and tolerant society, than a govt including Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The first two have a very chequered history regarding their principles around violence and causing harm to others, whilst all 3 are grossly incompetent and intellectually limited when it comes to politics, negotiation and compromise.
Oh, and, yes, it is nonsense to say the Lib Dems would enable another Tory govt. I'm sure Farron has said repeatedly that the Lib Dems will not go into coalition with either Labour or Conservatives.
The ONLY reason they should consider doing either is to guarantee legislation (not a stupid plebiscite on the wrong type of electoral reform) changing our electoral system to proportional representation. That will guarantee a fairer, more representative govt of the people. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:09 - May 11 with 2203 views | FDC |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:23 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
It was 28% under Blair, I believe. It was Osbourne who slashed it. I agree it should be increased, but it's not a simple equation. Big Business can just leave, and there are loopholes. There is a fine balance to tread between encouraging job creation and maximising revenues from Corp Tax.
In terms of Liberalism, you do really need to do your research. I don't mean that in a condescending way, just that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
From your numerous posts, you are more of a social liberal than a classic liberal. So, I'm confused why you like Kennedy. Classic Liberals are closer to Conservative ideology (although by no means the same or similar), when it comes to the economy, than Social Liberals. Social Lib Dems tend to agree with Keynesian economics. So, if you do, which you've said, and you want a fairer society, as you've said, you're a Social Liberal.
Most of the remaining Lib Dem MPs, including Farron, are Social Liberals. Even the Classic Liberals ("Orange Bookers"), still believe in core aspects of Social Liberalism, just do different degrees to the pure Social Liberals.
Either way, both types, would be far far more competent at managing a balanced and fair economy and open and tolerant society, than a govt including Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The first two have a very chequered history regarding their principles around violence and causing harm to others, whilst all 3 are grossly incompetent and intellectually limited when it comes to politics, negotiation and compromise.
Oh, and, yes, it is nonsense to say the Lib Dems would enable another Tory govt. I'm sure Farron has said repeatedly that the Lib Dems will not go into coalition with either Labour or Conservatives.
The ONLY reason they should consider doing either is to guarantee legislation (not a stupid plebiscite on the wrong type of electoral reform) changing our electoral system to proportional representation. That will guarantee a fairer, more representative govt of the people. |
My point re corporation tax was that even under Thatcher it was much higher than it currently is, so increasing the rate now is hardly that radical.
Thanks for the profiling (  ) but i'm not a liberal of any flavor, and nor am I a Keynsian despite supporting Labour at this election. Whilst I think the current trajectory under the Tories is frankly disastrous, I don't actually see how a social democracy built upon Keynsian economics (e.g. the Spirit of '45 type politics of Ken Loach et al) is viable long-term, since the [Marx Klaxon] material conditions upon which it was premised are no longer there. But, like I say, I am supporting Labour right now, and that's because at this point a Labour win would at least provide some breathing space.
Re saying the LibDems said they would go into coalition with the Tories again, I stand corrected. I think they ruled out a coalition with Labour before ruling a coalition with the Tories, maybe that's I was think of.
Re your comments on Corbyn and McDonnell and violence, well there's an awful lot to say here; firstly I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but I'm assuming it's something to do with lazy tabloid accusations of being terrorist sympathisers? (I apologize if this isn't what you mean - I have to admit I'd be a bit surprised). It also opens up the topic of different ways of understanding justice and violence (immiseration as state violence, for example). But maybe that's all for another time (maybe after lunch ) | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:23 - May 11 with 2156 views | SimonJames |
In the 30 years since I did my Economics degree I've moved towards the view that forms of Direct Taxation such as Income Tax and Corp Tax are too imprecise and the knock-on effects of their use are too wide-ranging to properly analyse and control.
Money replaced the barter system as a way of facilitating a more streamlined exchange of goods and services. And it's at the point of consumption where I think it's likely to be the most efficient way to support our fiscal system.
A certain amount of income tax is necessary to contribute towards public spending. And since most people's employment is based on an exchange of time for money, taxing people a percentage of their income is like a substitute for them giving up some of their time to work for the benefit of the state and society.
But I don't think Corp Tax is necessary if the profits are paid out as wages and investment returns, as they can be recouped further down the line from income tax and Indirect taxes.
By raising the bulk of taxes at the point of consumption (e.g. sales tax/VAT and tariffs) we have the ability, for example, to charge people more for spending on things like excess sugar consumption, alcohol and tobacco (and charge less for spending on keep fit equipment) thereby easing the pressure on the Health Service due to related illnesses.
We can tax irresponsible spending (eg. Lamborghinis and Scum Season Tickets) at higher rates.
Most of all, we reward frugal spenders - and in a world of over 7BN we need to find some way of curbing excess consumption.
(Running a system like this would have been difficult in the past, but should be much easier now in this era of powerful computer networks and sophisticated algorithms.) | |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:40 - May 11 with 2138 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:23 - May 11 by SimonJames |
In the 30 years since I did my Economics degree I've moved towards the view that forms of Direct Taxation such as Income Tax and Corp Tax are too imprecise and the knock-on effects of their use are too wide-ranging to properly analyse and control.
Money replaced the barter system as a way of facilitating a more streamlined exchange of goods and services. And it's at the point of consumption where I think it's likely to be the most efficient way to support our fiscal system.
A certain amount of income tax is necessary to contribute towards public spending. And since most people's employment is based on an exchange of time for money, taxing people a percentage of their income is like a substitute for them giving up some of their time to work for the benefit of the state and society.
But I don't think Corp Tax is necessary if the profits are paid out as wages and investment returns, as they can be recouped further down the line from income tax and Indirect taxes.
By raising the bulk of taxes at the point of consumption (e.g. sales tax/VAT and tariffs) we have the ability, for example, to charge people more for spending on things like excess sugar consumption, alcohol and tobacco (and charge less for spending on keep fit equipment) thereby easing the pressure on the Health Service due to related illnesses.
We can tax irresponsible spending (eg. Lamborghinis and Scum Season Tickets) at higher rates.
Most of all, we reward frugal spenders - and in a world of over 7BN we need to find some way of curbing excess consumption.
(Running a system like this would have been difficult in the past, but should be much easier now in this era of powerful computer networks and sophisticated algorithms.) |
Raise tax on scum season tickets? Where do I vote? |  |
| |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:42 - May 11 with 2134 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:23 - May 11 by SimonJames |
In the 30 years since I did my Economics degree I've moved towards the view that forms of Direct Taxation such as Income Tax and Corp Tax are too imprecise and the knock-on effects of their use are too wide-ranging to properly analyse and control.
Money replaced the barter system as a way of facilitating a more streamlined exchange of goods and services. And it's at the point of consumption where I think it's likely to be the most efficient way to support our fiscal system.
A certain amount of income tax is necessary to contribute towards public spending. And since most people's employment is based on an exchange of time for money, taxing people a percentage of their income is like a substitute for them giving up some of their time to work for the benefit of the state and society.
But I don't think Corp Tax is necessary if the profits are paid out as wages and investment returns, as they can be recouped further down the line from income tax and Indirect taxes.
By raising the bulk of taxes at the point of consumption (e.g. sales tax/VAT and tariffs) we have the ability, for example, to charge people more for spending on things like excess sugar consumption, alcohol and tobacco (and charge less for spending on keep fit equipment) thereby easing the pressure on the Health Service due to related illnesses.
We can tax irresponsible spending (eg. Lamborghinis and Scum Season Tickets) at higher rates.
Most of all, we reward frugal spenders - and in a world of over 7BN we need to find some way of curbing excess consumption.
(Running a system like this would have been difficult in the past, but should be much easier now in this era of powerful computer networks and sophisticated algorithms.) |
But then you're taxing freedom of choice. What right does a govt has to determine what should and shouldn't be taxed higher or lower. If you reduce freedoms, especially where no direct harm is caused to anyone (ie. moderate drinking of alcohol, choice of car to purchase, etc), then you are lowering living standards. Personal freedom of choice is hugely important in my view, and it is not, and never was, the purpose of govt to dicate things.
Of course Income Tax and Corp Tax are imprecise, but they are (supposedly) proportionate taxes against what you receive to live your life (and make your choices) and what the state needs to provide for the whole society and those less fortunate. It's still the best approach.
Ideally, if you wanted to truly tax lifestyle, without impacting freedom, and in a way that was proportionate to what one "has", so as to support those who "have not", then we need to find a way to tax assets.
A "Mansion Tax" was a half cut approach to this. It was stupid, imprecise and targeting the wrong sort of wealth given it's value can change significantly and it can't be released into exchangeable wealth easily.
Really, it's assets such as stocks, shares, property portfolios, ltd company holdings, etc, which need to be taxed at an individual level somewhere.
Someone earning a couple of hundred grand isn't "rich" per se. Someone earning less, but with £millions in stocks, and shares, a property portfolio is. They are earning money off their money, able to release that wealth in exchange for good and services as and when they need/want to, and can manage these assets in such a way to avoid tax.
Having a more up to date income tax system that better reflects the variety of income earnt by the population, and which contributes a greater amount to govt, given our pubic spending deficit on key state services (NHS, Pensions, Welfare), coupled with a complex, nuanced way of taxing assets, would be the fairest and more appropriate way to tax people.
Taxing choice and freedoms is a slippery slope in terms of civilians liberty, govt control, maintaining a world with a variety of different types of employment, which all impact standard of living immensely, in my opinion. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:48 - May 11 with 2123 views | Hunterhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 11:09 - May 11 by FDC |
My point re corporation tax was that even under Thatcher it was much higher than it currently is, so increasing the rate now is hardly that radical.
Thanks for the profiling ( ) but i'm not a liberal of any flavor, and nor am I a Keynsian despite supporting Labour at this election. Whilst I think the current trajectory under the Tories is frankly disastrous, I don't actually see how a social democracy built upon Keynsian economics (e.g. the Spirit of '45 type politics of Ken Loach et al) is viable long-term, since the [Marx Klaxon] material conditions upon which it was premised are no longer there. But, like I say, I am supporting Labour right now, and that's because at this point a Labour win would at least provide some breathing space.
Re saying the LibDems said they would go into coalition with the Tories again, I stand corrected. I think they ruled out a coalition with Labour before ruling a coalition with the Tories, maybe that's I was think of.
Re your comments on Corbyn and McDonnell and violence, well there's an awful lot to say here; firstly I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but I'm assuming it's something to do with lazy tabloid accusations of being terrorist sympathisers? (I apologize if this isn't what you mean - I have to admit I'd be a bit surprised). It also opens up the topic of different ways of understanding justice and violence (immiseration as state violence, for example). But maybe that's all for another time (maybe after lunch ) |
What are you then? Pray tell.
On the Corbyn, McDonnell front, they have made a number of direct quotes and appearances concerning the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria, which I don't think are acceptable. I am pro-Palestinian, but I don't condone violence or support Hamas. I think there is a line on many of the topics mentioned above, which both crossed.
On Abbot, I just can't stand her. She is a proven racist, hypocrite and she is simply not up to the job in terms of intellect and competence. And yet she combines this by managing to be extremely condescending. There are others in the Labour party I have time for, but these three....no. | | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 13:57 - May 11 with 2047 views | essextaxiboy |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 23:22 - May 10 by Hunterhoop |
Thanks for starting on a response, SJ.
FDC, you're an intelligent bloke, but that "how it'll will be funded" bit is absolute, economically illiterate, tosh. In practice there is no way on earth that will fund that spending, let alone addressing the ideological aspect of whether it's the state's right/role to add sales tax to lifestyle choices of individuals. Income tax, Sales Tax, Corporation Tax. Two are taxes on wealth, one is a tax on liberty.
The only way Labour can fund that is a huge overhaul of our income tax system, and punishing approach to Corp Tax which, sadly, could impact jobs. The former isn't proposed. The latter they can't implement without losing jobs and thus having a net negative impact on tax revenues.
It's a difficult, fine balance to tread.
I sympathise with the imbalance and unfairness Labour/Corbyn are trying to address (I simply don't sympathise with the direction May is going), but the contents of this manifesto leak is mediocre GSCE level stuff. The indirect impact of it has clearly not been considered or cared for and a lot of it will have the reverse impact to that intended.
I can't see how anyone intelligent can vote for Labour.
I can't see how anyone with empathy, principles or a belief in civil liberties can vote for May/Tories.
The Lib Dems are far from perfect, and Farron should not be their leader, but Christ Alive (weak pun intended), they're the best of a bad bunch. Only ones coming close to being even handed, fair and sensible on most policies. |
Thats a broad brush you are using there re Tory voters.
I have strong principles , they have cost me a packet over the years believe me ....... |  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:27 - May 11 with 2014 views | Brightonhoop |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 10:23 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
It was 28% under Blair, I believe. It was Osbourne who slashed it. I agree it should be increased, but it's not a simple equation. Big Business can just leave, and there are loopholes. There is a fine balance to tread between encouraging job creation and maximising revenues from Corp Tax.
In terms of Liberalism, you do really need to do your research. I don't mean that in a condescending way, just that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
From your numerous posts, you are more of a social liberal than a classic liberal. So, I'm confused why you like Kennedy. Classic Liberals are closer to Conservative ideology (although by no means the same or similar), when it comes to the economy, than Social Liberals. Social Lib Dems tend to agree with Keynesian economics. So, if you do, which you've said, and you want a fairer society, as you've said, you're a Social Liberal.
Most of the remaining Lib Dem MPs, including Farron, are Social Liberals. Even the Classic Liberals ("Orange Bookers"), still believe in core aspects of Social Liberalism, just do different degrees to the pure Social Liberals.
Either way, both types, would be far far more competent at managing a balanced and fair economy and open and tolerant society, than a govt including Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott. The first two have a very chequered history regarding their principles around violence and causing harm to others, whilst all 3 are grossly incompetent and intellectually limited when it comes to politics, negotiation and compromise.
Oh, and, yes, it is nonsense to say the Lib Dems would enable another Tory govt. I'm sure Farron has said repeatedly that the Lib Dems will not go into coalition with either Labour or Conservatives.
The ONLY reason they should consider doing either is to guarantee legislation (not a stupid plebiscite on the wrong type of electoral reform) changing our electoral system to proportional representation. That will guarantee a fairer, more representative govt of the people. |
Largely agree Hunter but I dont buy into the idea Big Business will 'leave.'
Who on earth is going to walk away from a several Billion pound business selling to the UK population? Amazon took £6.3 Billion profits from sales to UK online shoppers in 2016. I just cannot envisage them or anyone else walking away from such a lucrative market due a tax hike. If the loop holes were closed and they paid a genuine 20% on UK sales that would generate around £1.2 Billion for the Exchequor alone, instead they got away with paying around £12 Million in tax last year. That imho is where the problem lays.
Interesting thread, and amazingly largely peaceful so far. [Post edited 11 May 2017 14:29]
|  | | |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 14:33 - May 11 with 2002 views | DWQPR |
| On Diane Abbot, why we should vote Labour anyway, and more... on 12:48 - May 11 by Hunterhoop |
What are you then? Pray tell.
On the Corbyn, McDonnell front, they have made a number of direct quotes and appearances concerning the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria, which I don't think are acceptable. I am pro-Palestinian, but I don't condone violence or support Hamas. I think there is a line on many of the topics mentioned above, which both crossed.
On Abbot, I just can't stand her. She is a proven racist, hypocrite and she is simply not up to the job in terms of intellect and competence. And yet she combines this by managing to be extremely condescending. There are others in the Labour party I have time for, but these three....no. |
And let's not forget Corbyn's cringing praise of Fidel Castro after his death, describing him as a champion of social justice who had a few flaws. So torturing and killing thousands of political opponents is just a flaw or an act of fantastic social justice?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jeremy-corbyn-hai
The bloke in my view is an anti-Semite, the decision on his pal and fellow anti-Semite Livingstone in terms of just kicking the can down the road rather than suspending him is proof and of course when people keep telling me he is a kind and gentle person, his direct provocation against the British at the height of the Northern Irish troubles in bringing Gerry Adams to the Houses of Parliament just a a few short years after the assassination of Aiery Neave, a woman of war two hero is in my view forever unforgiveable. Corbyn is sly, he will present the facade of a genial elderly man but he will let his cohorts do his bidding for him. My view is that he doesn't give a damn about this election but his greater focus is on realigning the Labour Party in his style. This election came too soon for him to use Momentum to infiltrate the local Labour Associations to get their men and women in and oust existing MP's who totally oppose Corbyn so that at the next election he can then stand down as leader in the knowledge that there will be at least a couple of candidates that will obtain enough votes to stand for leadership. What is happening to the Labour Party is nothing short of a coup, albeit a long and calculated one and it will split their vote forever, which even though their politics has never floated my boat, will be bad for democracy as I think everyone agrees that a strong opposition is vital in politics. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
