Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Strontium]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yes. Those are, indeed, two facts. And yes, indeed, there are more. And yes, indeed, you do put more weight on some things than others. So much so, in fact, you entirely ignore lots of them and only put forward the one or two facts that allow you to draw your desired conclusion. 

 

I deliberately ignore zero facts. If you think there any pertinent facts about the coalition which I have neglected to consider, please alert me to them so I can include them in future calculations. Probably in one of the coalition threads though, because this is the Corbyn one.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Plus, Lord Rennard and the cover up. And this. 

 

https://order-order.com/2017/11/06/libdem-hq-accused-of-hushing-up-rape/

 

It runs through the party. How anybody can stick by such a seedy party is beyond me... 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It's never ending! 

 

https://order-order.com/2017/10/12/vince-welcomes-libdems-harvey-weinstein-back-into-fold/

[aRdja]

35 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

I think he's talking about Jeremy Corbyn

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713005/I-told-Corbyn-bad-things-happened-2-months-child-sex-scandal-exposed.html

Fucking hell, that looks really bad for Margaret Hodge... How on earth does she still get so much airtime on the BBC after that?

[RedKnight]

Quite like James O'Brien even if I don't agree with him on everything. He was very good over the Hillsborough inquests and he'll always have respect for that.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

 

I deliberately ignore zero facts.

Yeah. Looks like we have a good old fashioned disagreement, once again.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

41 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Deficit reduction means that you end up paying much less to service a debt in the future. So obviously, its benefits will be felt most keenly in the longer term, which is one of the reasons why so many politicians view it as a nettle they do not wish to grasp.

Surely deficit reduction means a slow-down in the rate of accumulation of debt? The UK still ran a big debt (largely as a result of the refusal of the Government your party enabled to collect taxes from those who could best afford them). Those massive - and growing - debts still need to be serviced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

 

Wasn't the UK credit rating downgraded, as a result of the poor growth that inevitably follows a programme of cuts?  Doesn't that make borrowing more expensive?

[Numero Veinticinco]

It’s okay. It’ll be done with in one government. Like, two governments ago. 

[SasaS]

6 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Surely deficit reduction means a slow-down in the rate of accumulation of debt? The UK still ran a big debt (largely as a result of the refusal of the Government your party enabled to collect taxes from those who could best afford them). Those massive - and growing - debts still need to be serviced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

 

Wasn't the UK credit rating downgraded, as a result of the poor growth that inevitably follows a programme of cuts?  Doesn't that make borrowing more expensive?

 

Credit rating agencies mainly look at your ability to service current level of debt, if you are running a bigger deficit, this in a debt financed economy (government must borrow to cover the deficit, instead of just printing more money) means you will have to take on more debt. Growth rates in developed European countries are seldom enough to make up for increasing debt (because there is not  much space for a bigger growth anymore), therefore cutting your deficit and keeping your debt in check is considered a good thing.  

 

Scandinavian countries which are often considered a model of public spending  for other countries often manage to do it by running zero deficit or a surplus.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

I think he's talking about Jeremy Corbyn

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713005/I-told-Corbyn-bad-things-happened-2-months-child-sex-scandal-exposed.html

Strange article, that.  The first half suggests that there are serious questions to be answered.  In fairness, it does quote a Labour spokesman answering them.  (Personally, I don't think it's a completely satisfactory answer.)

 

Last night a Labour spokesman said: ‘The claim that Jeremy Corbyn failed to speak out about child sexual abuse is false.

‘In October 1992 he publicly demanded a full investigation into abuse of children in care in Islington. He is on the record describing the allegations as “extremely serious” and demanding they be ‘“properly investigated.” ’

A source insisted that Mr Corbyn had raised allegations with Islington Council’s director of social services at the time, and believes he raised Dr Davies’s issues with Baroness Bottomley.

 

Then the bottom half of the article is just wildly flinging shit around like an angry chimp.  It takes attention away from the serious issues raised in the top half, which is unfortunate.

 

Corbyn is in a no-win position, from a media point of view, because it looks like the correct thing to do would be to support the survivors' campaign for truth and justice - but if that were to include investigating any council cover-up, you just know the media would portray it as a vindictive, anti-Semitic attack on Margaret Hodge.

 

http://camdennewjournal.com/article/survivors-say-qcs-report-into-islington-child-abuse-is-massive-step-back

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skend04]

What's going on? I thought Labour's fence sitting was going to be a huge vote winner? Perhaps someone needs to go back to the drawing board and have a look at that particular strategy.

 

Also, someone please tell Barry Gardiner to shut the fuck up. Labour bailing out the Tories is a shit fucking look. Dickhead.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, skend04 said:

What's going on? I thought Labour's fence sitting was going to be a huge vote winner? Perhaps someone needs to go back to the drawing board and have a look at that particular strategy.

 

Also, someone please tell Barry Gardiner to shut the fuck up. Labour bailing out the Tories is a shit fucking look. Dickhead.

Labour are not "bailing out" the Tories.  Obviously.

 

Nor are they going to tell one half of the electorate to fuck off, in order to chase the votes of the other half - that's what the Lib Dems did at the last General Election and it convinced nobody.

[aRdja]

10 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

Credit rating agencies mainly look at your ability to service current level of debt, if you are running a bigger deficit, this in a debt financed economy (government must borrow to cover the deficit, instead of just printing more money) means you will have to take on more debt. Growth rates in developed European countries are seldom enough to make up for increasing debt (because there is not  much space for a bigger growth anymore), therefore cutting your deficit and keeping your debt in check is considered a good thing.  

 

Scandinavian countries which are often considered a model of public spending  for other countries often manage to do it by running zero deficit or a surplus.  

They were able to maintain public spending due to the high level of tax income. You can’t have low tax, budget surplus as well as a good healthy provision of public services (yes, like the NHS) and welfare system. In terms of sovereign debt, it’s not as simple as debt = bad. If the interest rate is at a historical low for example, you’d want the state to ‘take advantage’ by investing in infrastructure then, no? When the US paid off the national debt in its entirety in the 19th century, it was quickly followed by a recession. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Labour are not "bailing out" the Tories.  Obviously.

 

Nor are they going to tell one half of the electorate to fuck off, in order to chase the votes of the other half - that's what the Lib Dems did at the last General Election and it convinced nobody.

To be fair, AoT, Labour don't represent the interests of the entire electorate. Labour are, admittedly, in a tough spot on this one. They also represent the only viable chance at avoiding this mess, and even if they have a secret desire to stay then coming out to PMQs wearing gold and blue rimmed spectacles is likely to achieve the opposite result. That said, they are there to represent the interests of their members. Not Leavers in Labour areas, not the general electorate, but their members. I think it's fair to say they're trying to do all and it might well end up that 1) they make none of them happy 2) the country get fucked in the ass as a result. 

 

Labour have been fucking shit on this. Shit on the referendum, shit on the general election, shit in opposition. The obvious fact that the Tories have out-shitted them massively shouldn't disguise that, in my opinion.

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, viRdjil said:

They were able to maintain public spending due to the high level of tax income. You can’t have low tax, budget surplus as well as a good healthy provision of public services (yes, like the NHS) and welfare system. In terms of sovereign debt, it’s not as simple as debt = bad. If the interest rate is at a historical low for example, you’d want the state to ‘take advantage’ by investing in infrastructure then, no? When the US paid off the national debt in its entirety in the 19th century, it was quickly followed by a recession. 

I agree there is no point in chasing zero debt, you need to have a sustainable level of debt, if you don't, you will not be able to benefit from cheap borrowing because the price of borrowing varies. So, debt which is not sustainable = bad.  

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It's difficult to interpret last night's results when turnout was ridiculously low in a lot of areas. You'd imagine that there won't be such apathy come a general election.

[Mudface]

John Curtice said this earlier-

Quote

 

The Liberal Democrats used to be the traditional party of protest. And then they went into coalition with the Conservatives and they rather lost that mantle.

It looks as though they are beginning to recover that mantle, particularly in areas where until recently they had quite a lot of strength.

But when you actually look, is there any evidence that the Liberal Democrats are doing better in remain areas than in leave areas? The truth is that the evidence seems to be lacking.

So it seems easier to interpret this as evidence of Liberal Democrats recovering from the coalition, being the party of protest, and that’s the basis of their success, rather than necessarily a rush of enthusiasm for the idea of a second EU referendum.

 

So, I'm not sure it's unequivocally good news for the Lib Dems, as you'd expect the Brexit party and the CUKs to hoover up a lot of protest votes when they get to stand in an election.

 

Obviously really poor for Labour though- they've carried on their Brexit fudge for far too long and need to be a lot clearer now otherwise they'll continue to shed support from both sides.

 

Reassuring to see Brandon Lewis's take that the Tories just need to ram Brexit through and it'll all be fine. Because there are no other problems of course...

[Sugar Ape]

Thread:

 

 

[aRdja]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

I agree there is no point in chasing zero debt, you need to have a sustainable level of debt, if you don't, you will not be able to benefit from cheap borrowing because the price of borrowing varies. So, debt which is not sustainable = bad.  

A good rule of thumb, is if you want to reduce tax AND maintain/reduce your deficit, then you would have to implement austerity measures, and of course that’s what the coalition did, at the great expense of the poor and the disabled (UN special rapporteur’s words not mine). It’s not really something to be proud of IMO.

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

A good rule of thumb, is if you want to reduce tax AND maintain/reduce your deficit, then you would have to implement austerity measures, and of course that’s what the coalition did, at the great expense of the poor and the disabled (UN special rapporteur’s words not mine). It’s not really something to be proud of IMO.

Stront’s is. Fact. 

[SasaS]

14 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

A good rule of thumb, is if you want to reduce tax AND maintain/reduce your deficit, then you would have to implement austerity measures, and of course that’s what the coalition did, at the great expense of the poor and the disabled (UN special rapporteur’s words not mine). It’s not really something to be proud of IMO.

Yes, well, you don't have to do it. You can be fiscally responsible and not make it worse for the vulnerable categories, or if you want to help or keep helping vulnerable population, you don't have to run up a huge debt and operate with a big deficit.

 

[aRdja]

14 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Yes, well, you don't have to do it. You can be fiscally responsible and not make it worse for the vulnerable categories, or if you want to help or keep helping vulnerable population, you don't have to run up a huge debt and operate with a big deficit.

 

I agree they didn’t have to do it, they could’ve increased tax income instead for example. It was a political choice.

[Strontium]

57 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

A good rule of thumb, is if you want to reduce tax AND maintain/reduce your deficit, then you would have to implement austerity measures, and of course that’s what the coalition did, at the great expense of the poor and the disabled (UN special rapporteur’s words not mine). It’s not really something to be proud of IMO.

 

The tax burden did increase under the coalition. Tax is currently at its highest level since the mid-1980s.

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

The tax burden did increase under the coalition. Tax is currently at its highest level since the mid-1980s.

Took your words (reducing tax bills) at face-value, apologies 

[Jose Jones]

9 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

The tax burden did increase under the coalition. Tax is currently at its highest level since the mid-1980s.

Is that as a proportion of GDP or total revenue?