Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Section_31]

25 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

I think there is an excellent argument that nationalised services in a lot of sectors are better than privatised ones, and there are winnable arguments over most in that Labour doc, but they would be best served picking the obvious ones, and sorting one or two first. 

Otherwise they leave themselves open to the “how can we afford it?” “typical Labour throwing money away” talk.

Our government have a problem with things being state owned but not when it's other states.

 

Arriva is owned by the German government and one of the big energy firms, Eon I think, is majority owned by the French government.

 

Probation was recently brought back in house after a string of disasters.

 

Some things simply shouldn't be run with profit in mind. I put universities in that bracket too. Fucking timebomb that sector and socially and morally defunct.

[TheBitch]

2 hours ago, A Red said:

I dont grow veg!

This is your problem right here. 

[SasaS]

7 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Our government have a problem with things being state owned but not when it's other states.

 

Arriva is owned by the German government and one of the big energy firms, Eon I think, is majority owned by the French government.

 

Probation was recently brought back in house after a string of disasters.

 

Some things simply shouldn't be run with profit in mind. I put universities in that bracket too. Fucking timebomb that sector and socially and morally defunct.

Isn't E.ON also German?

By the way these companies, like RWE or E.ON are run for profit, despite the ownership, especially when they operate abroad.

[sir roger]

43 minutes ago, TK421 said:

On a piecemeal basis in order of priority.

Exactly , I don't suppose Labour are expecting to implement every one of the 100 policies in the first half hour of government. The Tories appear to have spent a year without implementing any policies.

[Section_31]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Isn't E.ON also German?

By the way these companies, like RWE or E.ON are run for profit, despite the ownership, especially when they operate abroad.

Just checked and it's EDF.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

 

Quantitative Easing is done to boost the economy and create economic growth. Those Labour nationalisation plans will cost hundreds of billions. The country does not have that kind of money to fritter away on superfluous things. The only way it could be done is by printing money, which will cause inflation, devaluing the currency and making poor people poorer. 

None of those sentences is true.

 

Quite an achievement. 

[Rico1304]

48 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Just checked and it's EDF.

And they are a fucking nightmare to deal with.  

[A Red]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Certainly no point to bother disagreeing with a cunt that cant spell basic words correctly

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

 

A little ahead of you there

[SasaS]

26 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

And they are a fucking nightmare to deal with.  

 

You accidentally piss them off, they go nuclear on your ass.

[Strontium]

3 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The best modern example of rail nationalisation in this country is the East Coast Mainline, where the private operator failed (twice!) leaving the DfT to step in and run it, resulting (both times) in better performance in terms of punctuality, reliability, customer satisfaction and cost efficiency.

 

Punctuality?

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16401851.call-for-probe-as-state-owned-scotland-to-london-train-line-punctuality-hits-eight-year-low/

 

And of course  it's more "cost efficient" for a rail operator when it doesn't have to pay an enormous franchise fee to the government. 

[Red Phoenix]

43 minutes ago, A Red said:

A little ahead of you there

 

Haha, thanks had missed that.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Punctuality?

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16401851.call-for-probe-as-state-owned-scotland-to-london-train-line-punctuality-hits-eight-year-low/

 

And of course  it's more "cost efficient" for a rail operator when it doesn't have to pay an enormous franchise fee to the government. 

The operators get much more support than they pay for "enormous" franchise fees - otherwise they wouldn't bother. It's tricky to compare like-for-like, but the most reliable estimates show that each passenger mile today costs taxpayers about three times as much, in real terms, as a passenger mile in the last comparably busy period under British Rail.

 

The mantra that nationalisation is more expensive than privatisation is just a myth born of dogma.

[sir roger]

6 hours 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.

Somebody should have told Vince Cable

[Red Phoenix]

Fuck the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

 

 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

9 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Fuck the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

 

 

The truth is antisemitic now. What a time to be alive! 

[Red Phoenix]

The controversial IHRA definition warns “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” constitutes antisemitism.

 

Israel's an apartheid state, that's a fact but is now supposed to be antisemitic. Perfect example of living in a post-truth reality. They'd rather create fake racism than deal with the actual racism that's gone on in Israel for decades. Orwellian fraud cunts. Two of the best things we could do for maybe the entire planet is massively reduce the influence of right wing Zionists and their lies + deal with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda supporting cunts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

[Red Phoenix]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

The truth is antisemitic now. What a time to be alive! 

 

Yep, it's fucking crazy.

[moof]

4 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

On the privatisation issue, I’m yet to be convinced that the cost would justify the benefits. It seems like upheaval that isn’t particularly necessary at a time like this. Ideally, in my opinion, I would like to see these industries owned by the people of the country and run in the public interest. We are quite far down the road from that and must be pragmatic. 

Nah, it’s the time for radical action, not pragmatism 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, moof said:

Nah, it’s the time for radical action, not pragmatism 

Radical action on the privatisation issue of utilities and transport? 

[TheHowieLama]

16 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Radical action on the privatisation issue of utilities and transport? 

Probably not the best place to start.

[Section_31]

56 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The controversial IHRA definition warns “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” constitutes antisemitism.

 

Israel's an apartheid state, that's a fact but is now supposed to be antisemitic. Perfect example of living in a post-truth reality. They'd rather create fake racism than deal with the actual racism that's gone on in Israel for decades. Orwellian fraud cunts. Two of the best things we could do for maybe the entire planet is massively reduce the influence of right wing Zionists and their lies + deal with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda supporting cunts in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Genuine question. But that stuff in the echo this week about the Liverpool Lord mayor posting something about monkeys and black people, why wasn't that Corbyn's fault but anything antisimetic is?

 

How come said mayor wasn't part of Corbyn's vile racist troll army?

[moof]

37 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Radical action on the privatisation issue of utilities and transport? 

Yes of course. If we want to change the way this country is structured we need to put an end to corporations and capitalists profiting off the basic needs of the civilians. That’s a priority. 

[The Guest]

6 hours ago, Boss said:

 

Quantitative Easing is done to boost the economy and create economic growth. Those Labour nationalisation plans will cost hundreds of billions. The country does not have that kind of money to fritter away on superfluous things. The only way it could be done is by printing money, which will cause inflation, devaluing the currency and making poor people poorer. 

I’ve never read such uninformed shite in my life.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Fuck the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

 

 

It's negged you. 

 

It turns out that Captain Freedom stops short of fighting for freedom of speech. In certain circumstances. 

[sir roger]

JVL & Human Rights lawyers attacking the Terms of Reference for the EHRC report which appears to be going beyond its legal remit.

 

The JVL submission notes that:

We draw the Commission’s attention to section 3(a) of Schedule 2 to the Equality Act 2006. This requires the Commission in preparing its Terms of Reference to specify not only the person or persons to be investigated but also the nature of the unlawful act (or acts), which the Commission suspects. We submit that the TOR of this investigation manifestly fail to do this and is, therefore, defective and in breach of the statutory requirements imposed on the Commission. In order to comply we submit that the Commission must without delay repair these defects and publish the nature of the unlawful act or acts which the Commission suspects. Without that information, all respondents are denied the ability to complete our representations.

In addition, the TOR reveals a number of limitations in the scope of the investigation to which we now draw attention…

The investigation is carried out under the authority of section 20 and Schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006. Section 20 empowers the Commission to investigate whether a person has committed an unlawful act (or acts) but only acts which are in contravention of the Equality Act (see s.34). The definition in paragraph 7v of the TOR acknowledges this and limits the subject matter to race or religious discrimination, i.e. on the ground of Jewish ethnicity or Judaism. (see paras.7p and q). The only such acts which could be relevant to this investigation are acts of discrimination on those grounds. Paragraph 1 of the TOR adds a further limitation: to acts in relation to Labour Party members and/or applicants for membership and /or associates.

There is a further crucial limitation on the Commission‘s investigatory powers and the scope of this investigation. It cannot be directed at antisemitism in general. This is highlighted by the fact that the TOR properly make no reference whatsoever to antisemitism (except in para 8 in references to the IHRA definition). The importance of this point is that the Commission must take care to limit its investigation to acts which are not only antisemitic but are acts in breach of the Equality Act. The Labour Party may choose to treat some conduct as antisemitic and in breach of party rules which the Equality Act does not prohibit. For example, many comments on social media may be abusive and insulting to Jews or some Jews but are not unlawful. Or they may raise issues about Zionism…

The Commission suspects that unlawful acts may have been committed but gives no indication whatsoever of what such acts may be. Pending further clarification, we can only surmise, on the basis of our experience and knowledge of such allegations as have been reported in the media and elsewhere, that they might, at worst, suggest that there have been inadequate, partial or inordinately delayed investigationsby the Labour Party, or its employees or agents, into complaints of antisemitism made to the Party against other members…The Commission must consider carefully whether, on this basis, the complaints of unlawful discrimination by the Party, against its members, fall within the scope of the Equality Act at all…

Without evidence of discrimination we are at a loss to see how any unlawful act by the party within the scope of the investigation could be established.

Paragraph 3 of the TOR lists four examples of issues which may be looked at. The first of these is whether unlawful acts have been committed. Again, we point out that the only unlawful acts that fall within the permitted scope of the investigation are the acts in breach of the Equality Act, mentioned earlier. We also repeat that these are the only matters which the Commission has power to investigate. There is no legal basis for extending the investigation into other areas, except to the extent that they provide evidence of unlawful acts. It is incumbent on the Commission at least to state, in the TOR, the nature of any unlawful acts which it suspects may arise from the matters described in these sub-paragraphs. It is in breach of section 3(a) of Schedule 2 of the Equality Act 2006 by failing to do so.

The submission also notes that neither the IHRA ‘working definition’, nor Labour’s Royall or Chakrabarti reports have legal force – and indeed that the working definition explicitly describes itself as not legally binding.

 

 

• Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC 
• Professor Tony Booth 
• Miriam David, Professor Emerita, Sociology of Education, UCL Institute of Education
• Alison Harris
• Adam Hurst
• Antony Lerman 
• Diana Neslen
• Dorothy Macedo 
• Stephen Marks 
• Jane Miller, Professor Emeritus (Education)UCL
• Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford
• Jamie Stern-Weiner, ( PhD candidate at the University of Oxford) 
• Ellie Palmer, Professor Emeritus, School of Law/Human Rights Centre, University of Essex 
• Naomi Wayne