Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Anubis]

Oh, look, I just criticised Corbyn.

 

I suppose I'll have to put a brick through my window or send myself a death-threat on Twitter. That's the kind of thing we cult-followers do.

Personally I like to sacrifice kittens.

[dennis tooth]

Disappointed in Corbyn, too, if that's the official party line. I'll not listen to any claims about tactics - abstain here, so we can tackle it later on, or whatever - because Corbyn got a lot of credit last year for being the only one of the four leadership candidates to vote against some Tory cuntishness, when the party line was to abstain.

I would be too if it's anything he can do much about. Whips should be banned.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I would be too if it's anything he can do much about. Whips should be banned.

Are you mad?

 

How else do you expect me to pass the time on weekends when there's no footie?

 

[sir roger]

Genuine question, does the Lords work the same as the Commons for party discipline or do they have their own whipping arrangements ?

 

I note that the Lords lot weren't named in the vote of no-confidence as only MP's & MEP's were mentioned.

[sir roger]

I find this extremely disappointing:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-peer-shami-chakrabarti-dubbed-9009201

 

 

I find it extremely disappointing that Shakrabarti has been singled out in a pathetic manner by Lib Dems for ( along with the rest of the Labour peers ) realising that the Lib Dem amendment was, to quote Lib-Dem Lord Alex Carlisle ' A fudge & misleading ... one of the worst proposals on National Security I have ever seen' , leading to Lib Dems squabbling amongst themselves in the House of Lords and Farron's home affairs spokesman having to pull the amendment in farcical circumstances.

 

Patronising shower of cunts.

[Jairzinho]

Protests at US embassy as valid as at Russia's, says Corbyn spokesman

 

Labour leader’s official points to lack of outrage in west over ‘large casualties caused by US-led bombing’

 

Labour believes protesters concerned about atrocities in the Syrian civil war have just as much reason to demonstrate outside the US embassy as the Russian one, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman has said.

 

Foreign secretary Boris Johnson has called on the Stop the War coalition to stage protests outside the Russian embassy in response to the bombing of Aleppo, to increase pressure on Moscow to negotiate a ceasefire.

 

Corbyn’s spokesman, speaking to journalists after prime minister’s questions, agreed with the need for a negotiated settlement. He added: “People are at complete liberty to protest outside not only the Russian embassy, but all the other intervening, participating powers, and there are a number of them.”

 

He said Corbyn condemned the Russian bombing “as he has condemned the intervention by all outside forces in the Syrian civil war”, adding: “The focus on Russian atrocities in Syria sometimes diverts attention from other atrocities that are taking place.

 

“Independent assessments are that there have been very large-scale civilian casualties as a result of the US-led coalition bombing. There are several cases of large numbers of deaths in single attacks, and there hasn’t been as much focus on those casualties.”

 

Stop the War said protesting outside the Russian embassy over actions in Syria would only increase the “hysteria and jingoism” being stirred up against Russia by politicians and the media.

 

Chris Nineham, vice-chair of the campaign group, said the government was fuelling anti-Russian sentiment in an attempt to justify an escalation of British military intervention.

 

His comments followed those of Johnson, who in an emergency Commons debate on Tuesday called for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy in London and asked why leftwing protest groups seemed to lack outrage over Russian conduct in Syria.

 

In his frontbench debut, Johnson appeared to reject calls for a no-fly zone over areas of Syria, but called directly on Stop the War to stage protests over the continued attacks by Russian warplanes on Aleppo. But Nineham said they would not do that because the organisation’s focus “is on what our government is doing”.

 

“There’s a very good reason for this, because we can make a difference to what Britain does, we can make a difference to what our allies do to a certain extent and we have done,” Nineham told the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

 

“But if we have a protest outside the Russian embassy it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference as to what [Vladimir] Putin does because we are in Britain and were are in the west. And, not only that, a protest outside the Russian embassy would actually contribute to increasing the hysteria and the jingoism that is being whipped up at the moment against Russia.”

 

He added: “What we are saying is there is a hysteria which is being organised by politicians and the media against Russia to see Russia as the only problem in Syria.”

 

Nineham said Johnson’s calls for demonstrations were “characteristically trivialising”. Johnson, however, insisted he was not leading an anti-Russia campaign and said Putin was in danger of turning his country into a “pariah nation” with his continued support for the regime of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

 

“It is the UK week after week that is taking the lead, together with our allies in America and in France, all the like-minded nations, in highlighting what is happening in Syria to a world where, I’m afraid, the wells of outrage are growing exhausted,” he said.

 

“There is no commensurate horror, it seems to me, amongst some of those anti-war protest groups. I’d certainly like to see demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Where is the Stop the War coalition at the moment? Where are they?”

 

Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, told BBC Radio 4’s Today that Johnson should be wary of calling for demonstrations in London. He asked him to recall the storming and ransacking of the British embassy by protesters in Iran in 2011.

 

He said: “I don’t think that would happen in Moscow, but you have to be careful about the consequences of what you call for.”

 

Johnson has angered Russia by claiming that its forces may have been guilty of war crimes when air strikes hit a UN aid convoy near Aleppo last month, bringing to an end a fragile ceasefire brokered by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. These accusations, the Russian defence ministry said on Wednesday, amounted to “Russophobic hysteria”.

The press secretary at the Russian embassy added: “The jihadists keep terrorising the civilians and fighting, rejecting ceasefire and humanitarian aid deliveries.

 

“Britain’s logic implies putting an end to fighting terrorists and their allies. Our logic is different. Fight on to destroy the jihadists, sparing the civilians.”

 

During the Commons debate, Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary, went further than Johnson by calling for a no-fly zone to protect the citizens of eastern Aleppo from a bombardment he compared to the Nazi attack on Guernica during the Spanish civil war.

 

At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, the prime minister Theresa Mayraised doubts over the safety and enforcement of a potential no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians from Russian or Syrian airstrikes.

 

She told the Commons: “The scenes we see of the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians are absolutely appalling. We want to see an end to that, but there are many questions about a no-fly zone that need to be looked at: Who is it there to protect? Would it lead to [President Bashar al-]Assad bombing people in the expectation that they would then move to that zone? Who would enforce that safe area?”

[AngryOfTuebrook]

A new poll by YouGov for the Media Reform Coalition shows that respondents, by a large margin, prefer Labour's approach to taxation, public spending and privatisation. It also shows that respondents say they think the Tories have the preferable economic policies. The MRC attribute this "worrying disconnect" to the proven bias of the media.

[Jairzinho]

Who could have possibly predicted that?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

It's an interesting poll. It chimes with previous research that, when questioned purely about policies, the Green party get a lot of support.

 

However, I'm more inclined to think it simply shows an unwillingness by the average voted to investigate official policies, and as such the questions on party support flummoxes them. Look at the "Don't know" percentage for those questions, they're the only categories where every single one is the highest percentage. Now, you could attribute this to media bias, or failing to report Labour policy, but then you'd have to accept that the media have given Tory policy adequate coverage, which would surely mean people would be aware of their position on the questions previously asked. Nobody, when viewing mainstream news, could be under any illusion as to where the Tories stand on privatisation.

 

It seems to me that a large majority are just ignorant of who stands for what. Ask them about an issue, and they'll give an answer. Ask who they trust on a matter, and more often than not they'll just vote for the incumbent or opt for "Don't know". It's people's fall back option.

[Neil G]

A new poll by YouGov for the Media Reform Coalition shows that respondents, by a large margin, prefer Labour's approach to taxation, public spending and privatisation. It also shows that respondents say they think the Tories have the preferable economic policies. The MRC attribute this "worrying disconnect" to the proven bias of the media.

Got a link? Can't find it on either organisation's website.

[Jairzinho]

I think certain cliches/slogans/bullshit are just ingrained in their head. When they don't know the answer to something they fall back on "maxed out the credit card" "Commie Corbyn wants Hamas to run the Post Office" type shite.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Got a link? Can't find it on either organisation's website.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-media-policies-labour_uk_57fe651be4b0010a7f3da76b

[Strontium]

I think what people do is more important than what they say. And they've consistently rejected tax and spend policies at the ballot box for many years.

[Neil G]

It's an interesting poll. It chimes with previous research that, when questioned purely about policies, the Green party get a lot of support.

 

However, I'm more inclined to think it simply shows an unwillingness by the average voted to investigate official policies, and as such the questions on party support flummoxes them. Look at the "Don't know" percentage for those questions, they're the only categories where every single one is the highest percentage. Now, you could attribute this to media bias, or failing to report Labour policy, but then you'd have to accept that the media have given Tory policy adequate coverage, which would surely mean people would be aware of their position on the questions previously asked. Nobody, when viewing mainstream news, could be under any illusion as to where the Tories stand on privatisation.

 

It seems to me that a large majority are just ignorant of who stands for what. Ask them about an issue, and they'll give an answer. Ask who they trust on a matter, and more often than not they'll just vote for the incumbent or opt for "Don't know". It's people's fall back option.

I think it's also down to people massively overestimating the amount of money the government spends on things they don't approve of, which is consistently shown by surveys. There seems to be a big section of the electorate who believe that if we just stop paying money to benefit scroungers, scrap foreign aid, cut government bureaucracy and waste and end our contributions to the EU (possibly coming soon), we'd be able to spend tons more on schools and hospitals and eliminate the deficit at the same time without having to raise taxes for working and middle class people. Again, down to the media.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I think it's also down to people massively overestimating the amount of money the government spends on things they don't approve of, which is consistently shown by surveys. There seems to be a big section of the electorate who believe that if we just stop paying money to benefit scroungers, scrap foreign aid, cut government bureaucracy and waste and end our contributions to the EU (possibly coming soon), we'd be able to spend tons more on schools and hospitals and eliminate the deficit at the same time without having to raise taxes for working and middle class people. Again, down to the media.

 

True, there's also a big disconnect between how people view spending and taxation though, which was one critique mentioned in the article. Ask people about whether they want more spending on services and infrastructure, and they'll say yes; ask them whether they agree with the party that might bring that - but also could potentially raise taxes - and more often than not they'll say no. One outweighs the other for the average voter. 

 

I still think the "Don't know" percentage tells us everything about that poll. Whilst it's being framed that the respondents have lined up with the Tories when pushed, in reality they've abstained due to ignorance.

[Hooch]

I think what people do is more important than what they say. And they've consistently rejected tax and spend policies at the ballot box for many years.

Yeah, but the discussion is trying to work out / explain why, stimulated by that Huff Post article.

[Hooch]

People don't got time to read up on policies. They really should but they won't.

[Jairzinho]

People don't got time to read up on policies. They really should but they won't.

 

They also should be able to trust the mainstream media to give them the truth about policies, but they can't obviously.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I think what people do is more important than what they say. And they've consistently rejected tax and spend policies at the ballot box for many years.

Yeah, all those many, many times they've been offered a real choice.

[Rushies tash]

I think what people do is more important than what they say. And they've consistently rejected tax and spend policies at the ballot box for many years.

And these same idiots who lap up the Tory tax promises are probably the same idiots who complain about NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools and never seeing any police 'on the beat' anymore. You get what you pay for - unless of course you don't want to pay but expect it anyway.

[Jairzinho]

But also Corbyn has no intention of making someone on 20k p/a suddenly pay three times as much in tax. He wants rich cunts to pay. 

 

The "tax and spend" thing is another media created piece of propaganda to give the impression that everyone will have to pay much more in tax. They wouldn't.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

But also Corbyn has no intention of making someone on 20k p/a suddenly pay three times as much in tax. He wants rich cunts to pay. 

 

The "tax and spend" thing is another media created piece of propaganda to give the impression that everyone will have to pay much more in tax. They wouldn't.

 

I guess the question then becomes, who do you regard as rich? Non doms aren't going to get hit, as they're the most mobile in terms of where they place their money and thus how much tax they're liable for. The top 5% of earners would be the obvious choice, but - correct me if I'm wrong - most economists reckon an extra few pennies on income tax for everyone would be far more lucrative to the coffers.

[Jairzinho]

I guess the question then becomes, who do you regard as rich? Non doms aren't going to get hit, as they're the most mobile in terms of where they place their money and thus how much tax they're liable for. The top 5% of earners would be the obvious choice, but - correct me if I'm wrong - most economists reckon an extra few pennies on income tax for everyone would be far more lucrative to the coffers.

 

I think there are many issues around tax, and many solutions. 

 

The first thing is to simply collect all the tax owed. Anyone that swerves paying what they owe is no longer allowed to do business in the country. If they want to leave, KTHXBAI. The country won't shut down, someone would take their place. 

 

I'd also like to see more income tax brackets. At the moment up to 11k is 0% - 11k to 43k is 20% - 43k to 150k is 40% - Over 150k is 45%. You could create another bracket and move the parameters around and it would create a fairer system, and one that would collect more money. Someone on 12k a year shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as someone on 40k. Likewise someone on 155k shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as someone on 3m.

 

Ending corporate capitalism would also help. We currently have a situation where people on 12k pa are subsidising rich landlords and major corporations. 

 

The system is set up precisely to benefit the very rich. There is no necessity to have it like it is, it's a political choice. We could have a financial transaction tax (I believe the EU is soon), different land taxes, makes changes to inheritance tax, etc. There isn't a shortage of ways that we could stimulate the economy and make society considerably fairer. Just a shortage of will.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

All fair points. I think we've much more chance of changing domestic issues like tax bands than collecting tax owed from the large corporations though. As I see it, the problem is less the inclination to collect the tax owed in terms of aiding the rich, than it is working out how much tax is due (unpicking laws in a global economy) and, ultimately, the potential ramifications for collecting it. I'll be very interested to see what happens with regards the European Commission's attempt to get Apple to pony up, given the US's stance on it.

 

I agree about the shortage of will, we're wedded to a system of trade deals and a don't rock the boat mentality. It's telling that so often opinion polls sway with the less a politician speaks than with publicised policies.

[Barrington Womble]

You will never solve tax avoidance because laws are too complex, so as a consequence good tax advice can help people navigate the system and these people pay for themselves with high earners. Gaps in tax law only get plugged with new legislation, which normally opens more holes as others close. The only thing that could change it slightly would be to ensure people giving tax advice being liable when they give bad advice, which might stop them looking at risky loopholes.