Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

I see Clare Short is a massive anti-Semite, too.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/anti-semitism-accusations-are-misplaced/

 

Anti-Semitism accusations are misplaced

A letter in the Financial Times

From Rt Hon Clare Short, London, UK, 25 July 2019

 

I was very surprised by your unbalanced editorial (“Anti-Semitism in Labour disfigures British politics’’, July 23 – see below) on anti-Semitism in the Labour party. The root of this problem is the growing awareness of the injustice and suffering inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians. In the face of this, and given Jeremy Corbyn’s history on the question, supporters of Israel have worked to extend the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel. For example, the accusation of anti-Semitism is regularly thrown at people who support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions and argue that Israel should be held to the requirements of international law.

 

I think it is possible that some who feel strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians may make anti-Semitic remarks and should be held to account, but the research evidence is clear that anti-Semitism in the UK is rare and prejudice against Muslims is extensive, and both attitudes are concentrated on the right. What I have read of the reasons for suspension and expulsion from Labour in some of the notorious cases do not amount to anti-Semitism.

 

There is no doubt that Labour has handled the question in a muddled and hopeless manner. But no one, including the FT and those in the Labour party who hurl these accusations around, should allow the definition to be extended in this way. It is a false accusation when it extends to criticism of Israel. Its effect is to frighten people and prevent discussion of Israel’s cruelty to the Palestinians and grave breaches of international law and the geopolitical consequences of the west’s lack of commitment to international law on this question.

 

Rt Hon Clare Short
London, SW4, UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Such as?

 

Name two or three off that list that you consider egregiously "hard left".

 

The three that involve nationalising stuff for starters.

 

I dread to think how much that would cost.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

The three that involve nationalising stuff for starters.

 

I dread to think how much that would cost.

The Price Cap has done for quite a few jobs already, although lots of my mates have been made redundant on the back of it. Privatisation will do many more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think theres some good stuff in that wish list, but does seem quite expensive. To nationalise Steel, water, energy, Probabtion, Royal Mail, Rail and the National Grid whilst promising all sorts of investment banks and schemes is a bit hard left I reckon.

 

My concerns are increasing inheritance tax (not that i would benefit from it), votes for 16 year olds, ban on new grammar schools and increasing capital gains tax. Mo mention of overhauling council tax or mansion/garden tax or Northern Ireland. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow , a pro-Corbyn piece in the Guarniad.

 

I’ve always hated “Irish jokes”. Having an Irish mother, I’ve always been aware how they were used to denigrate Irish people and undermine the cause of Irish nationalism. There’s one joke, though, I’ve always enjoyed. It’s the one where the guy asks the Irishman for directions, to which he replies: “Well, if I were you I wouldn’t be starting from here.” It’s stuck with me because it offers a real life lesson that I find myself regularly referring to.

 

Back in the 1980s and 90s, it’s a lesson I should have heeded, as I argued and canvassed for a socialist Labour government when, in hindsight, it was clear that British voters had been wowed by Margaret Thatcher’s strong leadership and populist policies. For my arguments to get through, I shouldn’t have been starting from there. People such as Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell recognised this and modified Labour’s message to resonate with these same voters to spectacular effect.

 

Yet, seeing Campbell announce this week that he’s given up on the Labour party, mainly because under Jeremy Corbyn it won’t go all-out remain, I couldn’t help wondering if he shouldn’t also take heed of that Irish lesson. Because if you want Labour to be a pure remain party – against the wishes of so many of its marginalised, traditional voters, particularly those working-class people in the north – then don’t do it after a referendum in which those same voters had the once-in-a-lifetime chance to actually make their vote count. Don’t choose this moment to tell millions of long-standing party supporters that you’re ignoring their deeply held views.

 

I, like Campbell, am a remainer. I also still want to reverse Brexit. But you can’t stick two fingers up to a huge chunk of your voter base and not expect a negative reaction. It’s why he spent so many years triangulating in the 1990s, trying to work out a middle way. How ironic that Campbell now condems Corbyn for doing exactly the same.

 

Corbyn is facing far more flak for this today than New Labour did 20 years ago, and that’s because many on the right of the party don’t actually want to see him win power. (If you want proof, look at Stephen Kinnock’s stony-faced reaction, captured by a BBC documentary camera, as the news broke that Theresa May had lost her majority in the 2017 election.) Many of those in and around politics still yearn for the Blair-Brown era when they were close to power. They’re not worried about the damage Labour would suffer by going “full remain”: an election defeat would merely hasten the day when the hated Corbyn steps down.

 

Others say that now Boris Johnson has energised the hard right and united his cabinet over no deal, Corbyn must do the same – but for remain. This is nonsense. Johnson has already seen the damage caused by his rash decision-making. He’s boxed himself in by refusing to talk to European leaders until they ditch the backstop; he’s been slapped down by Nicola Sturgeon and learned that his stance is boosting the cause of Scottish independence; he’s faced angry Welsh farmers whose livelihood is threatened by no-deal tariffs; and he’s gone to Northern Ireland, where he’s been told that the peace process is at risk. And in Brecon and Radnorshire he’s tasted defeat after just a week in office, losing an 8,000 majority. Far from rallying supporters, his Brexit stance has just piled up his problems. He can’t even rely on the party’s hardcore Brexiteers to support any deal he might achieve with Europe.

 

One thing I do appreciate about Johnson, though, is his optimism. I’m an optimist too. In fact, the more I see of him, the more optimistic I get.

An early election – before we’ve left the EU – looks ever more likely. And it will be a choice between Johnson’s no-deal Brexit, and Labour, which has pledged to keep remain on the table but while still showing a sensitivity to leave voters. The precise stance depends on the election’s timing (as it must), but it’s clear that Labour is against no deal, and open to the possibility of negotiating a Labour Brexit, while promising a referendum on any deal that is struck. I’m no fan of a Labour Brexit, but, like I say, I wouldn’t be starting from here, and like it or not a majority of people voted for us to leave the EU.

 

That policy didn’t work in this year’s European elections, when it paid to have a clear message on leave or remain. Labour finished third, behind the Brexit party and the Liberal Democrats, a result that freaked out many Corbyn supporters. But these elections are notorious for being a repository for protest votes. The election was a proxy referendum, people voted along Brexit lines. There was no nuance. The policies that have made Corbyn so popular were not on the ballot: anti-austerity, support for public services, renationalisation, and fairer taxes for the richest. In a general election, the voters would face a simple choice: back Boris Johnson and the no-deal extremists, or back Labour and the chance to remain.

 

Of course, if it’s all so rosy, people will ask why the party isn’t way ahead in the polls, especially against this divided and useless government. But now, with the nation in crisis, it’s not that easy to forge ahead. It could just as easily be said: if remain is so great, why isn’t the demand for a People’s Vote way ahead in the polls, especially set against such divisive and useless Brexit negotiations for the past three years?

 

And I’d also say: cast your mind back just two years to a divided opposition party 20 points behind in the polls, which under Corbyn all but made up the gap in a few short weeks of general election campaigning. The situation may not be exactly the same today (let’s face it, Johnson will be a far better campaigner than May, though, like her when she called the election, he’s had the almost undivided loyalty of the national press so far). But he is untested in a battle for mainstream voters.

 

The last time the Tories won an election – the only time they’ve won in the past 27 years – they had a great soundbite that struck home in the last few days of the 2015 campaign: Labour, in alliance with the Scottish National party, would “bankrupt Britain and break up Britain”. Today, who would break up Britain? Johnson and his insistence on a hard Brexit that risks Scottish independence and Irish reunification. Who will bankrupt Britain? Again, Johnson and his no-deal tactics, which the Bank of England has warned would lead to an “instantaneous shock” to the economy.

An election victory is no easy feat, it never is, but to those who genuinely want a Labour victory, do not lose hope. In 2014, at the previous European elections, the Conservatives came in third place. Within a year, they were voted into government with a majority.

 

Maybe here’s not such a bad place to start from.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boss said:

A vote for 16 year olds is the dumbest thing ever. As if the country doesn't have enough uninformed people voting as it is. 

Parties will always be partial to policies that are perceived to work in their favour electorally , which is why the Tories are looking to benefit by changing constituency boundaries and introducing checks on identification at polling centres.

 

Anyway, the shit I have heard spouted by people far older than 16 in the last few years suggest that the youngsters might actually have more sense.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boss said:

So lets just take Royal Mail in isolation. Royal Mail has assets worth 8.9 billion, with revenues of 5.6 billion per year. How much would that cost like? Corbyn's living in a fantasy world.

70ish domestic energy companies, many more I&C some foreign owned, lots of pension institutions owning shares.  It’d be a nightmare and very very expensive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about that list is how its going to be paid for? I see some tax rises mentioned that are perfectly fine but i'm pretty sure they are not enough to pay for it all, therefore I guess they will have to print or borrow to plug the gap. Does that not mean higher inflation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

The three that involve nationalising stuff for starters.

 

I dread to think how much that would cost.

Aah, the old "privatisation saves money" fallacy!

 

Essential public services  (such as health, education, utilities and public transport) can be provided much more efficiently if you stop any excess income leeching out (in the form of share dividends, etc.) and if you end the wasteful charade of "market competition". It's an approach to governance that has proven hugely successful, time and again, in liberal democracies around the world. You'd be hard-pressed to portray it as some kind of worrying statist overreach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just regulate more and punish malpractice more harshly so even shareholders and board members also feel it. Be great if regulation  wasn't needed but people are scum and greed consumes them. You could even cut the red tape for those companies that earn it through maintaining high standards and services ethically. How the fuck you'd do that I don't know but there's got to be better solutions than renationalising. Look to better service providers rather than what's the cheapest and ban any service provider from donating to political causes or party's. Weird how many get contracts after doing so. 

 

Definitely stop the monopolies, the giant umbrella corporations with tonnes of little companies underneath all setting standard prices by pretending they're competing against each other. You see it with banks and insurance companies.  

 

Everything is corrupt not like one big conspiracy but small favours on a huge scale leading to one giant mess. Over centuries years old some of our practices are. The chalkboard need wiping, laws, rules, taxes need decluttering and new standards set. 

 

Fucking hell seems like a lot of work. You ever seen the bill burr bit about Steve jobs where he just goes to his engineers and says "I want an entire music library on this thing, get to it!" And the engineers are like WTF!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Boss said:

A vote for 16 year olds is the dumbest thing ever. As if the country doesn't have enough uninformed people voting as it is. 

A lot of sixteen year olds I seen out and about appear to be far more intelligent than a lot of those voters who get trotted out for Brexit sound bites on the BBC.

 

They also seem more engaged and open to looking after the vulnerable and making sure everyone is treated equally. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, A Red said:

I think theres some good stuff in that wish list, but does seem quite expensive. To nationalise Steel, water, energy, Probabtion, Royal Mail, Rail and the National Grid whilst promising all sorts of investment banks and schemes is a bit hard left I reckon.

 

My concerns are increasing inheritance tax (not that i would benefit from it), votes for 16 year olds, ban on new grammar schools and increasing capital gains tax. Mo mention of overhauling council tax or mansion/garden tax or Northern Ireland. 

Only the richest 7% of the population have estates that would be subject to inheritance tax.  It is a tax that hurts nobody (because, e.g. if you are living in your parents' house at the time that you inherit it, it would be exempt) and it is a tax on unearned income. The amounts involved can be significant: the amount of Inheritance Tax that the Duke of Westminster dodged would have been enough to pay for all the unemployment benefit in the UK for over a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...