The man, when he was still claiming to be from Mars but before he was claiming to be Isish.
General / Off-Topic Labour leadership
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
The man, when he was still claiming to be from Mars but before he was claiming to be Isish.
Sure it is. Our media, controlled as it is by about 5 people (The 4th Viscount Rothmere, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond, whoever is in charge of the BBC and someone else) would have you believe this wasn't the case, but mention cutting pensions or slashing the NHS budget and there is an outcry.
Our NHS is the nations biggest and most beloved asset, and is one of the most successful socialist institutions in the entire world.
They're already making a mess of stuff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23447683
Of course hardly anyone is talking about these things, but they're happening, and eventually people are going to find out. Their latest brainwave is special cards for unemployed people and working age people on benefits, which they can only use on "wholesome" services the government approve of.
I can see a lot of local economies, smaller shops, small businesses, particularly in poorer areas, getting hit by this badly as a chunk of their consumers are forced to go to "participating stores" (which will no doubt be corporations donating to the Conservatives). Unemployment will rise even further, this will cause more chaos etc.
Milliband lost the election because he was feeble, inept, and didn't seem to have a message that was heard. They didn't lose to the Tories anything like as much as they lost to the SNP.
There is only one response to that:
Is this 'Labour' a new PowerPlay faction?
I think you're right on the button there.
Part of the problem with democracy is the electorate is not all equally interested. Those with limited interest have been treated as fair game for any sort of deception and dishonesty.
This is a disgraceful and arrogant attitude. The views of those who don't want to be activists or take an active interst should, never-the-less, be fully respected.
Are pensions and the NHS supported to the point where ordinary workers would agree to higher levels of redistributive taxation to pay for them? They might protest when these things are cut, but in the privacy of the ballot box will they vote to open their own pockets? Personally I think not.
Keeping services going by borrowing is (assuming honest debt service and eventual repayment) redistributive from the future to the present, not from the richer to the poorer. Future generations are to show solidarity with us, whether they like it or not
"Ordinary" workers benefit from redistributive taxation. Don't forget that taxes on (for example) major financial institutions such as banks or private equity firms wouldn't harm actual industry at all, as these sorts of corporations don't produce anything except more money. Once their overheads and costs of doing business are taken into consideration (read: wages for "ordinary" workers) the rest can (and should) be raided to pay for things.
Keeping services going by borrowing is (assuming honest debt service and eventual repayment) redistributive from the future to the present, not from the richer to the poorer. Future generations are to show solidarity with us, whether they like it or not
Yes indeed. The Tories (who have been at this more than Labour) have a lot to answer for.
They should be honest about their goals and intentions - slash and burn everything so that the rich and powerful can become even more rich and powerful, while the underclass expands and the rest are exploited. They shouldn't use borrowing to keep this rickety lie going until it's too late for people to see we're heading over a cliff.
Consider the tax system in Sweden (since it's been offered as a socialist example up-thread). From wikipedia: 25% VAT, £1400 tax free allowance, 31% starting band rising to 56% at £45k. That's what I mean by ordinary workers having to agree to higher levels of taxation. I don't believe that such levels would fly in the UK.
To my mind, ordinary workers are the only ones who can really bear the brunt of redistribution. Squeezing financial institutions would drive them away (no bad thing, you might argue ... and I'd agree! But it wouldn't deliver much revenue thereafter). Similarly with the "1%" that the left would love to target, they have other options if the UK becomes too punitive to them.
New Labour's economic policy was essentially to have a credit-fueled boom while pretending it was a miracle, so I'm not sure I'd agree they were any better.
They used to - when I left school to work, the basic rate was 33%, and the top rate was in the 90%+ range!
Worst I ever had was in Holland in the 1980s, I believe my marginal rate was 89%!
What really stuck in my craw was that I was taxed at that level because I was only 24 -- the tax system was designed on the assumption that mum and dad were still supporting me.
On the other hand I was 24 and earning enough to be in the 89% bracket ... looking back, no real grounds for complaint
edit: I do recall paying 30-odd percent in my first job in the UK, and that was while Thatcher was in power! (albeit it came down thereafter)
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which bit?
The possibility of people joining to express their opinion or the desire to "ensure anyone who does not 'share Labour's values' is weeded out" (whatever those "values are at this point in time)?
Having anti-Labour people joining solely to help Labour make a "bad electoral choice" is clearly not desirable.
As for the hard left joining up to try to take Labour back in that direction ... I'm not sure. I guess any club is entitled to try to prevent itself from being hijacked in that way (it's similar to carpet bagging a building society, where new members sign up for an account solely with a view of voting themselves a share of the demutualisation proceeds).
One solution would be to have a qualifying period before becoming eligible to vote, thus ensuring some level of commitment to the club before decision-making powers are granted.
They're only a "bad electoral choice" if you're so wealthy you need to hire helpers to carry your extra money around with you.
Corbyn isn't hard left, he's simply left. The leadership of the Labour party should, if one believes in democracy, go to him.
Harman, Johnson et all belong in the Conservative party. They, along with Blair, are the hijackers. They are right-wing, and took control of the Labour party during a time when it was vulnerable, but their values are not left-wing by any stretch of the imagination.
If left-wing politics was so self-evidently awful it wouldn't need to be suppressed in a democracy, and it wouldn't need the entire media machine of our modern era running a 24/7 smear campaign against it to prevent it from coming to power.
The question is, why has the assumption been made that these new joinees are necessarily treying to promote Corbyn?
They could equally be joining to support anyone.
It's also a little strange that, for a party that suppoedly took so much care to prevent working class people from controlling what was supposed to be a working class movement, they didn't think to rule that only those who are paid up member, when an election is called, may vote.
It's kinda obvious really.
Since it is apparently what others have done, I've decided to send a donation to the Labour Party and recieve a vot in the next leadership elections as a result.
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote
http://www.labour.org.uk/leadership
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/vote
http://www.labour.org.uk/leadership
All the tories will be signing up and voting for Corbyn too - guarantees them their next term.
All the tories will be signing up and voting for Corbyn too - guarantees them their next term.
That's occured to me as well.
But any way to skin a cat, as they say!
As things stand, there is only the Tory Party and the Red Torys. It's kinda silly and even outragious that even when opportunities come along to show some opposition, kning the vote will go they other way anyway, the Red Torys still side with the Torys.
Not only is this undemocratic, it's creepy.
It doesn't matter whether it's a good or a bad choice, but rather about the process by which the choice is made. If Tories are joining with the intention of wrecking the Labour party by saddling (as they see it, and whether they are right or not) it with an unelectable leader, then they can justifiably be excluded. The decision should be made by genuine Labour supporters..........
......... who have stood by a party over the long term and who thus (IMO) have the right to vote on its future.
- - - Updated - - -
Absolutely. The true issue is whether you allow any Johnny-come-lately with a few quid to have a voice in such a decision, or whether you keep it in the hands of proven, committed stakeholders. The same would apply to any organisation controlled by its members.