Support NeoGAF

[Purkake4]

This is very depressing to be honest. Corbyn doesn’t realise that he is completely unelectable in a General Election and will end up consigning the Labour party for at least another 10-15 years in political wilderness.

Yup, kind of interesting that the party membership is shooting the party in the foot.

Probably good for the Libdems at least.

 

[sasliquid]

ThoughtsOfSpeaking, What would you say are popular Tory policies?

Edit: Can anyone answer this question?

less taxes

 

[Riddick]

This election is allreeady over, going to be a Landslide

http://cdn1.theweek.co.uk/sites/theweek/files/2016/07/2016_07_25_week_labour_leadership_poll.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]


Hey look, the neoliberal coup didn't work. The damage is already done though and that's exactly what the ruling class wanted: Corbyn, an actual leftist, as far away from the leadership of the country as possible. Which is what would probably happen with Sanders too if he was nominated, the corrupt Democratic scumbags would sabotage their own candidate. I am quite certain of it.

 

[Maledict]

Hey look, the neoliberal coup didn't work. The damage is already done though and that's exactly what the ruling class wanted: Corbyn, an actual leftist, as far away from the leadership of the country as possible. Which is what would happen with Sanders too if he was nominated, the corrupt Democratic scumbags would sabotage their own candidate. I am quite certain of it.

Corbyn's been doing a remarkable job of making sure he's as far away from the leadership of the country on his own to be frank. I'm not sure why anyone would think some nefarious 'establishment' would worry about him - Corbyn is guaranteeing no left wing policies will be enacted in this country in the next decade.

But easier to blame faceless neoliberal boogeymen rather than acknowledge how utterly fucking useless the man is, as leader of a party or a cause.

 

[kmag]

Hey look, the neoliberal coup didn't work. The damage is already done though and that's exactly what the ruling class wanted: Corbyn, an actual leftist, as far away from the leadership of the country as possible. Which is what would happen with Sanders too if he was nominated, the corrupt Democratic scumbags would sabotage their own candidate. I am quite certain of it.

He was already miles away from leadership of the country before any of this started. His party had lead in 3 of 87 post GE2015 polls up to the EU referendum.

Ultimately, people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that about 65%-70% of the country don't want what he's selling at all.

 

[PJV3]

I can now see the reason for him clinging on after defeat, the neoliberal PLP holding him back.

 

[Jezbollah]

Ultimately, people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that about 65%-70% of the country don't want what he's selling at all.

In a nutshell really. He's only leading (and holding ideological appeal) for a few hundred thousand of Labour members, rather than the vast majority of millions of established (and potential) Labour voters.

If the FTPA is indeed hard to overturn, then it's a godsend for Labour. Because if an election was called now, they would be toast.

 

[Coriolanus]

Ultimately, people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that about 65%-70% of the country don't want what he's selling at all.

It is broader than that. Another reading is that a significant segment of the population wants to stay far the fuck away from a dysfunctional party. And that issue is, obviously, not as easily settled, no matter who wins. (or could've won)

I do feel that the one obvious lesson to take from this whole drama is that, while the left already is in a precarious position thanks to their leader... a fractured left is even weaker.

Especially since the PLP can actually do something about the latter, but has proven itself completely fucking inept wrt handling the former

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

ThoughtsOfSpeaking, What would you say are popular Tory policies?

Edit: Can anyone answer this question?

Right now? Lowering Taxes, reducing the welfare budget (regardless of what the reality is), increasing authoritarianism and the surveillance society in a bid to defeat terrorism.

Despite how these things hurt pretty much everyone, you see see alot of cross voter support for them.

However, Tories don't own the approach to tackling these problems.

Let me give you a few examples:-

Reducing benefits over time (not sanctions) for people proven reluctant to find work is symbolic enough to be shown as tough on the people seen to be abusing the system, without hurting everyone.

Creating a new form of anti-terror ASBO, where people under suspicion of terrorism will have their communications montiored, movements restricted and having to report regularly to police is better a blanket snoopers charter that effects everyone. Especially with a independent body set up to provide a check and balance against victimisation and abuse.

Lowering taxes for people under a certain income, while raising taxes for people doing well is better than lowering taxes for corperations and hoping it trickles down.

All of these would seen as "Tory lite" policies but they are still better than what we are currently facing.

 

[Uzzy]

Hey look, the neoliberal coup didn't work. The damage is already done though and that's exactly what the ruling class wanted: Corbyn, an actual leftist, as far away from the leadership of the country as possible. Which is what would probably happen with Sanders too if he was nominated, the corrupt Democratic scumbags would sabotage their own candidate. I am quite certain of it.

You're not wrong. Corbyn's not done a great job of being leader, that's for sure, but he's not been helped much by constant sniping and briefings from sections of the PLP who never wanted him to succeed.

He may not be electable, but the PLP's infighting ever since he came in has probably made that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[twobear]

I feel like maybe the Labour Party has lost its short term memory: we tried a sort of reasonable post-Blair soft left Labour Party with a leader that had broad support from the whole PLP for five years and the effect was to turn a Tory minority into a Tory majority. They even promised to be tough on migration. In the short term, people do not want progressive politics, they want the Tory party.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I feel like maybe the Labour Party has lost its short term memory: we tried a sort of reasonable post-Blair soft left Labour Party with a leader that had broad support from the whole PLP for five years and the effect was to turn a Tory minority into a Tort majority. In the short term, people do not want progressive politics, they want the Tory party.

A Tory majority that can be just as much attributed to the decimation of liberal democrats than can be attributed to a rejection of labour.

Labour didn't do significantly worse than they have ever done. The problem was not there.

 

[twobear]

A Tory majority that can be just as much attributed to the decimation of liberal democrats than can be attributed to a rejection of labour.

Labour didn't do significantly worse than they have ever done. The problem was not there.

I don't see how this disagrees with what I said, except to change 'they want a Tory government' with 'they want anything but a Labour government'.

[edit] Scotland notwithstanding.

 

[nelsonroyale]

A Tory majority that can be just as much attributed to the decimation of liberal democrats than can be attributed to a rejection of labour.

Labour didn't do significantly worse than they have ever done. The problem was not there.

They were hemorrhaging support in Scotland since the last days of Blair...Scotland was significant in getting Labour into power. Also, is there any actual balanced analysis on whether public reception to Labour has been impacted by the infighting versus Corbyn and his policies? I think those two things have been equated by the press and in much of public perception, in a rather misleading manner. Corbyn didn't really wage war on the PLP from the start, his political ideology and policies were at odds with many of the elected members.

 

[Riddick]

Corbyn's been doing a remarkable job of making sure he's as far away from the leadership of the country on his own to be frank. I'm not sure why anyone would think some nefarious 'establishment' would worry about him - Corbyn is guaranteeing no left wing policies will be enacted in this country in the next decade.

But easier to blame faceless neoliberal boogeymen rather than acknowledge how utterly fucking useless the man is, as leader of a party or a cause.

Yes, the "neoliberal boogeyman". It's not as if the establishment Labour dipshits have been sabotaging Corbyn in every. single. fucking step of the way. Gee, I wonder why. And it's not as if they don't respect the democratic will of Labour voters and found the excuse to not only start a coup within the party but also weaken it to prevent Corbyn from ever becoming the PM.

Of course, it's all Corbyn's fault because he's incompatible with the neoliberal status quo within the party while at the same time being compatible with Labour voters despite MSM propaganda and bullshit against him. Fuck the people, it's all about what Blairites and other professional Labour dipshits want.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Yes, the "neoliberal boogeyman". It's not as if the establishment Labour dipshits have been sabotaging Corbyn in every. single. fucking step of the way. Gee, I wonder why. And it's not as if they don't respect the democratic will of Labour voters and found the excuse to not only create a coup within the party but also weaken it to prevent Corbyn from ever becoming the PM.

Of course, it's all Corbyn's fault because he's incompatible with the neoliberal status quo within the party while at the same time being compatible with Labour voters despite MSM propaganda and bullshit against him. Fuck the people, it's all about what Blairites and other professional Labour dipshits want.

^This, hundred percent.

From the moment he was in as party leader, they've shit themselves that the membership didn't vote for who they assumed they would.

It's like a left wing version of Trump getting the nomination in America (No I'm not equating Corbyn the man with Trump at all)

 

[Coriolanus]

Honestly, the ideal scenario would be if both sides could just get past all that happened and come to terms with the fact that corbyn aint going anywhere, and so, the one question that matters is "given that removing him is not an option, how can we improve Labour's position?"

Spoiler

balls to the walls anti-brexit seems kinda obvious at the moment

comes a point where you simply have to make the best of the hand you're dealt.
-

as far as scotland goes, is there data that indicates that an alliance with the SNP would cost more votes than what such a move would net?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Tories tried it recently to get rid of John Bercow

? I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

I said the May government could effectively call a vote of no confidence in itself to trigger an early GE, since she has the numbers to do it. Phi said that since the FTPA has provision that once a vote of no confidence is passed an early GE can be prevented if there is a second motion restoring confidence within the next two weeks, they would have to keep an eye on the chamber in case Labour snuck in and passed a motion of confidence in that time.

It seems bizarre to me that the opposition would do that, even if they were extremely unprepared for a GE since it would look like they were endorsing the govt.

I don't think the Tories recently did this?

Edit:

ThoughtsOfSpeaking, What would you say are popular Tory policies?

Edit: Can anyone answer this question?

I think the one that has affected my daily life the most is probably the increase in the tax free allowance. My wife and I both noticed the extra money in our pay packets.

Another good one is the Help to Buy scheme they set up. We've basically managed to get £1000 from the govt towards our new house simply by shuffling our savings around into ISAs.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

? I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

I said the May government could effectively call a vote of no confidence in itself to trigger an early GE, since she has the numbers to do it. Phi said that since the FTPA has provision that once a vote of no confidence is passed an early GE can be prevented if there is a second motion restoring confidence within the next two weeks, they would have to keep an eye on the chamber in case Labour snuck in and passed a motion of confidence in that time.

It seems bizarre to me that the opposition would do that, even if they were extremely unprepared for a GE since it would look like they were endorsing the govt.

I don't think the Tories recently did this?

Ah sorry, I thought you meant the idea of a sneak-vote was bizarre.

 

[Par Score]

ThoughtsOfSpeaking, What would you say are popular Tory policies?

Edit: Can anyone answer this question?

• Holding an EU referendum, which has probably fucked our economy for a few decades.
• Cutting benefits for the pooerst, the disabled, and the otherwise disadvantaged.
• Lowering taxes on those lucky to be earning more than the tax free allowance, trickling up to the richest in society by cutting inheritance tax as well.
• Reducing the levels of immigration that are the only thing keeping the economy from collapsing under the weight of our aging population.
• A Help To Buy scheme that only served to maintain the ridiculous housing bubble, helping wealthy people get on the housing ladder at the expense of the poor.
• Increased surveillance over every aspect of our daily lives under the guise of fighting terrorists and kiddy fiddlers.

All of these policies are loathsome in the extreme, but they also all command strong majority support in the population.

 

[travisbickle]

I think the one that has affected my daily life the most is probably the increase in the tax free allowance. My wife and I both noticed the extra money in our pay packets.

Another good one is the Help to Buy scheme they set up. We've basically managed to get £1000 from the govt towards our new house simply by shuffling our savings around into ISAs.

Sorry guys but this is what I meant. I direct policy, that wasn't u-turned, that did something for a voter. Not nebulous "they like lower taxes."

The Tories haven't reduced welfare spending as they need to put more into pensions because interest rates are shit and they triple-locked that pledge. And they haven't reduced immigration, or not anywhere near Theresa May's pledge.

 

[Xun]

• Holding an EU referendum, which has probably fucked our economy for a few decades.
• Cutting benefits for the pooerst, the disabled, and the otherwise disadvantaged.
• Lowering taxes on those lucky to be earning more than the tax free allowance, trickling up to the richest in society by cutting inheritance tax as well.
• Reducing the levels of immigration that are the only thing keeping the economy from collapsing under the weight of our aging population.
• A Help To Buy scheme that only served to maintain the ridiculous housing bubble, helping wealthy people get on the housing ladder at the expense of the poor.
  [*]Increased surveillance over every aspect of our daily lives under the guise of fighting terrorists and kiddy fiddlers.

All of these policies are loathsome in the extreme, but they also all command strong majority support in the population.

I despise the Tories, but New Labour were exactly the same with this.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I think the one that has affected my daily life the most is probably the increase in the tax free allowance.

That was a LibDem policy, and getting it through the coalition agreement was arguably the cause of the LibDem's collapse (they got the higher tax allowance, but had to give up on tuition fees - which lead to their doom)
I think Cameron realised the tax free allowance was a very good way to get support from poorer people while sticking to their "standing up for honest working people" schtick. It probably helped him prevent the working class from switching en mass to UKIP.

But in general, low taxation, being tough on law and order and being tough on "scroungers"* are the three immutable Tory policies that are hugely popular with the public.

*defined as immigrants, benefit claimants and public sector workers, rather than tax dodgers and pension fund raiders

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Sorry guys but this is what I meant. I direct policy, that wasn't u-turned, that did something for a voter. Not nebulous "they like lower taxes."

The Tories haven't reduced welfare spending as they need to put more into pensions because interest rates are shit and they triple-locked that pledge. And they haven't reduced immigration, or not anywhere near Theresa May's pledge.

I was going to reply to Par Score, they may want to reduce immigration but they sure as hell haven't! What was it last year? 330,000 net immigration?

Edit:

That was a LibDem policy, and getting it through the coalition agreement was arguably the cause of the LibDem's collapse (they got the higher tax allowance, but had to give up on tuition fees - which lead to their doom)
I think Cameron realised the tax free allowance was a very good way to get support from poorer people while sticking to their "standing up for honest working people" schtick. It probably helped him prevent the working class from switching en mass to UKIP.

Oh, was it? Fair enough, I just always heard Osborne announcing it in the budget (obviously) and so I assumed it was a Tory policy.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Blue dog Democrats. Reagan Democrats.

How many of those exist, though?

Travis: How is lowering taxes "nebulous"? It means people have more money in their pocket to pay bills or go on holiday or spend in shops or whatever it is they want to spend their money on. Generally it's much easier to point to the beneficiary's of public spending because the money gets taken from the many and given to the few. It's harder to demonstrate that the opposite - not taking it from people and then not spending it - has beneficiaries, because some people don't seem to consider people keeping more of the money they earned to be a benefit, for some reason. The examples of Tory policies that do directly help people are almost all examples of big-state activity - Help to Buy, forcing small businesses to have pension schemes that they pay into, 0.7% of GNI going to foreign aid etc. But unless your position is "the more the government does, the better" ad infinitum then clearly there's some benefit to people keeping more of their own money. This remains true even if you think it's not worth the sacrifices re: public spending.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I feel like maybe the Labour Party has lost its short term memory: we tried a sort of reasonable post-Blair soft left Labour Party with a leader that had broad support from the whole PLP for five years and the effect was to turn a Tory minority into a Tory majority. They even promised to be tough on migration. In the short term, people do not want progressive politics, they want the Tory party.

You are mostly right, especially about how maybe the problem is simply that people like the Tories.

But Ed was considered the hard left 'union' candidate (his brother was the soft-left candidate) and had a perpetual struggle to be taken seriously (not helped by the media, as usual). He tried moving towards the soft-left and away from being seen as a union man, but no-one really believed it.

I think Corbyn was an experiment in mobilising the core left-wing vote that needed to happen, just like the Tories had to try Hague, IDS and Howard.
The problem is that:
1) Unlike Hague/IDS/Howard, Corbyn won't give up when the polls swing massively against him
2) There is no credible Labour alternative to Corbyn

Cameron turned the Tories around by modernising the party so it wasn't just a party of old fogeys, appealing to "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells".

Labour need someone with that sort of broad appeal and credibility. I hate to mention him, but that's why Blair won, after nearly two decades of Tory rule.

 

[travisbickle]

How many of those exist, though?

Travis: How is lowering taxes "nebulous"? It means people have more money in their pocket to pay bills or go on holiday or spend in shops or whatever it is they want to spend their money on.

Nebulous as in hazy and not specific, like your statement doesn't work if the taxes that are cut are in the form of pension tax relief.

 

[phisheep]

I said the May government could effectively call a vote of no confidence in itself to trigger an early GE, since she has the numbers to do it. Phi said that since the FTPA has provision that once a vote of no confidence is passed an early GE can be prevented if there is a second motion restoring confidence within the next two weeks, they would have to keep an eye on the chamber in case Labour snuck in and passed a motion of confidence in that time.

It seems bizarre to me that the opposition would do that, even if they were extremely unprepared for a GE since it would look like they were endorsing the govt.

I don't think it would be anywhere near as bad as it looks at first sight.

Remember, to even get to this stage, we'd need to have had the Tories voting for a no-confidence motion against themselves. And it is certainly within the remit of HM Opposition to oppose whatever it is that the government wants. That's the way I would spin it anyway.

Ah sorry, I thought you meant the idea of a sneak-vote was bizarre.

That's what I thought Quiche meant too.

For the other thing, you'd probably have to go back to Ramsay MacDonald to get anything even close.

Travis: How is lowering taxes "nebulous"? It means people have more money in their pocket to pay bills or go on holiday or spend in shops or whatever it is they want to spend their money on. Generally it's much easier to point to the beneficiary's of public spending because the money gets taken from the many and given to the few. It's harder to demonstrate that the opposite - not taking it from people and then not spending it - has beneficiaries, because some people don't seem to consider people keeping more of the money they earned to be a benefit, for some reason. The examples of Tory policies that do directly help people are almost all examples of big-state activity - Help to Buy, forcing small businesses to have pension schemes that they pay into, 0.7% of GNI going to foreign aid etc. But unless your position is "the more the government does, the better" ad infinitum then clearly there's some benefit to people keeping more of their own money. This remains true even if you think it's not worth the sacrifices re: public spending.

I'm very sympathetic to this line of thinking, but I think it has limits.

In principle, and over the long term, then it is a sensible aim. But only so long as it tends towards a "trickle-up" rather than a "trickle-down" approach. That is, it needs to be targetted at the poorer in society rather than the richer, it needs to be sufficient to translate into disposable income rather than to vanish into rounding errors, and it needs to not be a substitute for risk-based social welfare (consider the difference between insurance-based and state-provided healthcare for example).

Where it falls down is in the "more of your own money" bit. Because really, the going rate for the job is whatever you get paid after tax. It really wasn't your own money to start with in any meaningful sense. It is this sort of argument that has (at least I think it has, I've never seen anyone else argue this!) led more-or-less directly to the big inequalities in society that have grown over the last 50 years or so - what happened was the government put in punitive taxation on high earners (83% marginal on earned income), companies increased the gross pay to compensate and then when taxes came down again the employees kept the money despite having never actually earned the increment. And that entirely artificial differential carried on over the decades.

There's a perpetual problem with this because with a progressive income tax system, any reduction aimed at the poorer gets taken up in full by the richer as well, and the headline is "tax cuts for millionaires". I'd be entirely in favour of changes to the tax system that sharply reduce income tax for low earners while limiting the benefit to high earners, perhaps by requiring companies to claim back all or part of the benefit above some threshold. It would be complicated in the short term, but lead to better long term outcomes.

 

[Jackpot]

Of course, it's all Corbyn's fault because he's incompatible with the neoliberal status quo within the party while at the same time being compatible with Labour voters despite MSM propaganda and bullshit against him. Fuck the people, it's all about what Blairites and other professional Labour dipshits want.

You used "MSM" unironically.

Get out of your bubble.

 

[Riddick]

You used "MSM" unironically.

Get out of your bubble.

Haha, I'm the one who should get out of his bubble because I'm calling out mainstream media and their propaganda? What is this, opposite day?

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Yes, Fuck the people, it's all about what Blairites and other professional Labour dipshits want.

The "people" don't want Corybn.

 

[Riddick]

The "people" don't want Corybn.

The polls and the FACT that he was elected in that position say otherwise.

 

[haxamin]

Yeah, I'm gonna need a link to that page pal. Sounds like it could be fun.

They're a total cult at this point, utter denial of the facts. As someone said, right up there with truthers in the level of delusion on show. Corbyn's ideas are largely good, but he's nowhere close to being the right guy to make them happen. He harms his own cause, and it's a shame he will inevitably be sticking around to tear the party, he will make his attitudes untouchable and poisonous in British politics for a long time.

Search Nomentum on fb.

The polls and the FACT that he was elected in that position say otherwise.

Polls? You're kidding, right?

 

[Riddick]

Search Nomentum on fb.


Polls? You're kidding, right?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-more-double-support-owen-smith

Yes, polls.

 

[Piecake]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-more-double-support-owen-smith

Yes, polls.

You have a very narrow definition of 'the people' then

 

[nelsonroyale]

You have a very narrow definition of 'the people' then

Polls are fickle beasts. Currently Labour are toxic as a party, things can change momentously in 6 months...

 

[haxamin]

The "people" don't want Corybn.

Corbyn's been doing a remarkable job of making sure he's as far away from the leadership of the country on his own to be frank. I'm not sure why anyone would think some nefarious 'establishment' would worry about him - Corbyn is guaranteeing no left wing policies will be enacted in this country in the next decade.

But easier to blame faceless neoliberal boogeymen rather than acknowledge how utterly fucking useless the man is, as leader of a party or a cause.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-more-double-support-owen-smith

Yes, polls.

The people is in no way representative of registered labour supporters. I can't believe this needs to be repeated.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/759045162072956928

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758260063823953922

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/759048719526268929

and so on

 

[Piecake]

Polls are fickle beasts. Currently Labour are toxic as a party, things can change momentously in 6 months...

I honestly don't see it.

How many British are socialist/communist or far enough Left that they would be fine voting for a socialist? That is simply a minority view, one that is born out in the polls.

Sure, polls can fluctuate and change on ideas or candidates that they are unsure of or do not have enough information, but I think basically everyone has a firm understanding where they sit politically.

I mean, how many people do you know who has significantly changed their views and stances on politics? I sure haven't met a whole lot. Therefore, I think it is wishful thinking and highly highly improbable that there are going to be a mass of converts to Corbyn's cause. Not to mention that it doesn't make much sense given that the excuse that Corbyn supporters give as to why Corbyn is doing so bad is because of the biased media. Even if there are a lot of potential converts and people are far more politically malleable than I think, how do you get converts when the media is biased against Corbyn?

It doesnt make a lot sense either way.

Plus, the people who don't feel that Labour represents them anymore thanks to the election of Corbyn can simply vote Lib Dem. Its not like in the US where voting for a third party helps the other party win.

 

[Azzanadra]

I honestly don't see it.

How many British are socialist/communist or far enough Left that they would be fine voting for a socialist? That is simply a minority view, one that is born out in the polls.

Sure, polls can fluctuate and change on ideas or candidates that they are unsure of or do not have enough information, but I think basically everyone has a firm understanding where they sit politically.

I mean, how many people do you know who has significantly changed their views and stances on politics? I sure haven't met a whole lot. Therefore, I think it is wishful thinking and highly highly improbable that there are going to be a mass of converts to Corbyn's cause. Not to mention that it doesn't make much sense given that the excuse that Corbyn supporters give as to why Corbyn is doing so bad is because of the biased media. Even if there are a lot of potential converts and people are far more politically malleable than I think, how do you get converts when the media is biased against Corbyn?

It doesnt make a lot sense either way.

Plus, the people who don't feel that Labour represents them anymore thanks to the election of Corbyn can simply vote Lib Dem. Its not like in the US where voting for a third party helps the other party win.

I think its for the best, Labor should go back to justifying the name- standing up for the working man and not being the party for powermaniacs to impress US republicans. I think Labor might have a good chance next election if the non-partisan guys who would go between conservative and New labor end up splitting the votes (the new labor guys will go over to the Lib Dems), assuming Corbyn stays that is (which I hope he does).

 

[haxamin]

Is it me or does Owen Smith look a little bit like John Oliver?

 

[Walshicus]

Is it me or does Owen Smith look a little bit like John Oliver?

The guy from Community? Little bit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-jeremy-corbyn-more-double-support-owen-smith

Yes, polls.

I don't think anyone is denying he's popular with labour members. It's the other ~35m people on the electorate that are his problem.

 

[system11]

• Increased surveillance over every aspect of our daily lives under the guise of fighting terrorists and kiddy fiddlers.

I love how people keep dragging this one out.

Do you know who opposed this? Only the LD and see what their supporters did to them for it. Labour have supported every single part of the surveillance creep.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I love how people keep dragging this one out.

Do you know who opposed this? Only the LD and see what their supporters did to them for it. Labour have supported every single part of the surveillance creep.

New Labour was undoubtedly extremely authoritarian, increasing control over everyone's lives (one can look at the ton of new laws that Blair passed). Corbyn's Labour also voted for the Snooper's Charter.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm very sympathetic to this line of thinking, but I think it has limits.

In principle, and over the long term, then it is a sensible aim. But only so long as it tends towards a "trickle-up" rather than a "trickle-down" approach. That is, it needs to be targetted at the poorer in society rather than the richer, it needs to be sufficient to translate into disposable income rather than to vanish into rounding errors, and it needs to not be a substitute for risk-based social welfare (consider the difference between insurance-based and state-provided healthcare for example).

Where it falls down is in the "more of your own money" bit. Because really, the going rate for the job is whatever you get paid after tax. It really wasn't your own money to start with in any meaningful sense. It is this sort of argument that has (at least I think it has, I've never seen anyone else argue this!) led more-or-less directly to the big inequalities in society that have grown over the last 50 years or so - what happened was the government put in punitive taxation on high earners (83% marginal on earned income), companies increased the gross pay to compensate and then when taxes came down again the employees kept the money despite having never actually earned the increment. And that entirely artificial differential carried on over the decades.

There's a perpetual problem with this because with a progressive income tax system, any reduction aimed at the poorer gets taken up in full by the richer as well, and the headline is "tax cuts for millionaires". I'd be entirely in favour of changes to the tax system that sharply reduce income tax for low earners while limiting the benefit to high earners, perhaps by requiring companies to claim back all or part of the benefit above some threshold. It would be complicated in the short term, but lead to better long term outcomes.

You're right of course but...

- We already have a situation where those in the 45% bracket lose some/all of their tax free allowance, so even in progressive tax systems it is possible to target them at the lowest earners. If you're smart and taper it well (which, IIR, we do not do at three 45% bracket) you avoid situations where people actually take home less money despite nominally earning more.

- What you say re: high earners suggests that the relationship between pay and earnings - ie the going rate - is fairly woolly; otherwise it would have gone down against once the obscenely high rates went down. After all, how many people got pay increases when the 10p tax rate disappeared into the 22p one? Beyond that of course, this conversation wasn't strictly about income tax but more broadly about taxation, and there are many other instances where it clearly is your money; car tax, VAT, a chunk of your air fare etc.

That said, I broadly agree that it needs to be aimed at the poorest. However there was an interesting phone in on LBC that basically came down to how being middle class ain't what it used to be, and that so, so many middle class people and family's still end up with nothing in their wallet by the end of each month. Their lifestyles are better than the poor, naturally, but where it used to be assumed that middle class people were closer to upper class than working, it's now basically the other way around. Which is all my way of saying that I don't think we need to be too picky about who we target tax cuts at, as long as they aren't the very wealthy, because almost everyone else will spend it all anyway.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

The polls and the FACT that he was elected in that position say otherwise.

Go do some door knocking for Corbyn. Please, it's good for the party and it'll burst your bubble, or at the very least strain it to the point of incredulity.

He's not popular with the people. A couple of hundred thousand Zealots is not popularity.

 

[Riddick]

The people is in no way representative of registered labour supporters. I can't believe this needs to be repeated.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/759045162072956928

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/758260063823953922

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/759048719526268929

and so on

You have a very narrow definition of 'the people' then

I don't think anyone is denying he's popular with labour members. It's the other ~35m people on the electorate that are his problem.

It's funny how many posters in this forum suddenly care about the opinion of rightwingers and independents/undecided when they need to support the liberal pseudo-left while in every other instance they vilify them (sometimes they have a good reason to but still).

Anyway, the fact that Corbyn has a problem with the general public exists because, like I said, the neoliberal dipshits that control the party constantly question and sabotage him as proven by this pathetic coup. And they will continue to do so because they're corrupt to the core and bought.

 

[Piecake]

It's funny how many posters in this forum suddenly care about the opinion of rightwingers, independents/undecided when they need to support the "liberal" pseudo-left while in every other instance they vilify them (sometimes they have a good reason to but still).

Regardless, the fact that Corbyn has a problem with the general public exists because, like I said, the neoliberal dipshits that control the party constantly question and sabotage him as proven by this pathetic coup. And they will continue to do so because they're corrupt to the core and bought.

I think it is pretty natural for people to care about facts. You said that Corbyn has the support of the people, but right-wingers, and independents/undecided are people too. Your statement was just utterly incorrect.

 

[twobear]

It's funny how many posters in this forum suddenly care about the opinion of rightwingers and independents/undecided when they need to support the liberal pseudo-left while in every other instance they vilify them (sometimes they have a good reason to but still).

Anyway, the fact that Corbyn has a problem with the general public exists because, like I said, the neoliberal dipshits that control the party constantly question and sabotage him as proven by this pathetic coup. And they will continue to do so because they're corrupt to the core and bought.

Corbyn has a problem with the public for a number of reasons; partly yes it's because he is not being given a voice in public discourse, but it's also because his leadership team is very bad (and inexperienced) at actually doing that. Partly, it's also because for various reasons the public in the UK doesn't want left-wing policies.

 

[Hazzuh]

It's funny how many posters in this forum suddenly care about the opinion of rightwingers and independents/undecided when they need to support the liberal pseudo-left while in every other instance they vilify them (sometimes they have a good reason to but still).

Anyway, the fact that Corbyn has a problem with the general public exists because, like I said, the neoliberal dipshits that control the party constantly question and sabotage him as proven by this pathetic coup. And they will continue to do so because they're corrupt to the core and bought.

What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that Corbyn is a bad leader?