If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
I genuinely cannot understand anyone who could vote Tory. Blows my mind.
See I'm the opposite, I can't see why anyone would vote labour. Like literally cannot get my head round why anyone would pick this current Labour Party to rule this country.
I'm struggling to vote for either of them.
I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things that Corbyn says, not so much with other things, but I probably have even less sympathy for most of the stuff coming out of the Tory cabinet at the moment, and frankly I think they deserve a kicking at the ballot box for playing opportunistic political games when they should be focused on securing the shiniest turd they can from the brexit fiasco. But the current Labour party can't even organize themselves, let alone a country.
I also do not feel a landslide for the Tories will be healthy for the country right now because in my opinion they are not seeking to represent a consensus of the population but have instead been pandering to the hardline brexiters which surely represent only a proportion of the small majority of people who voted for brexit and, Q.E.D., represent a minority of the popoulation overall.
So I'm left with a Lib Dem party, whose natural position probably aligns best with my own and who I have voted for in the past, but who are weak right now and going through their own rebuild, or a protest vote for an independent or the greens.
To be honest, my vote registers in a pretty safe Tory seat anyway so my vote is virtually pointless anyway.
As usual, the Simpsons summed it up pretty well years ago.
agree hugely with the two points I've made bold. This election is massively unnecessary. There are way more important things to focus on at the moment.
The only reason I'm not 100% voting Tory is because I think unopposed politics is an awful idea. I just can't find anyone else where I'd be comfortable with my vote going. Tim Farron and the Lib Dems are hugely anti Brexit, which puts me straight off, Paul Nuttal and Ukips main arguing points in their last party election broadcast was fucking pot holes in the countries most important stage in years and they spent 3 minutes lagging on about pot holes, they're clueless. Greens are an outright no. Might just give my vote to the Monster Raving Loony party and be done with it
I think 1p in the pound more if it goes to the NHS is a good idea.
Someone earning £15k a year would pay about £30 more per annum in tax, someone on £150k more like £1,500 etc. I think it's a good idea, especially if they can squeeze up the tax free allowance to negate some of the hit for the lowest paid tax payers.
Not quite - the 20% band only applies to earning from £11,500 to £45,000 - so someone earning more than £45,000 would pay an extra £335 in tax if the base rate increased to 21%. Top earners above £122,000 lose the personal allowance of £11,500 so would pay an extra £450 a year - as would someone earning £1 million!
So someone on £15k pays an extra £35 per year ( or 0.2% of their gross income). Someone on £1 million a year pays an extra £450 ( 0.045% of gross income). Hardly progressive! The top rate of 45% needs to kick in lower than £150k and maybe the 40% rate below £45k - the basic rate should not be touched as it has a greater impact on low earners.
One reason the Lib Dems have lost support might be because of people like my son, the first generation of the tripling of University fees leaving him with a debt of £46000 on graduating. This was brought in at a rather late stage for him to adjust his career plan in terms of education. The Liberals were played by the Tories in coalition, and the students were shafted.
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by Labour MPs David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
That was then. This is now. It competed against a fully functioning two party system where both Conservatives and Labour both went on to form governments with significant majorities.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
I think 1p in the pound more if it goes to the NHS is a good idea.
Someone earning £15k a year would pay about £30 more per annum in tax, someone on £150k more like £1,500 etc. I think it's a good idea, especially if they can squeeze up the tax free allowance to negate some of the hit for the lowest paid tax payers.
Not quite - the 20% band only applies to earning from £11,500 to £45,000 - so someone earning more than £45,000 would pay an extra £335 in tax if the base rate increased to 21%. Top earners above £122,000 lose the personal allowance of £11,500 so would pay an extra £450 a year - as would someone earning £1 million!
So someone on £15k pays an extra £35 per year ( or 0.2% of their gross income). Someone on £1 million a year pays an extra £450 ( 0.045% of gross income). Hardly progressive! The top rate of 45% needs to kick in lower than £150k and maybe the 40% rate below £45k - the basic rate should not be touched as it has a greater impact on low earners.
You are only applying it to the 20p band, lib gems said all bands.
So if I earn £150k, and don't therefore have a personal allowance aren't I paying 1p extra on every pound I earn? Therefore £1500? i.e. 21%, 41% and 46%, Someone on £1m would pay £10k more.
Not sure I agree on the 45p band coming down, those over 122k already pay marginal tax of 60% from 100k to 122k. I'd say add another band (50p?) higher up at say 200k.
I think 1p in the pound more if it goes to the NHS is a good idea.
Someone earning £15k a year would pay about £30 more per annum in tax, someone on £150k more like £1,500 etc. I think it's a good idea, especially if they can squeeze up the tax free allowance to negate some of the hit for the lowest paid tax payers.
Not quite - the 20% band only applies to earning from £11,500 to £45,000 - so someone earning more than £45,000 would pay an extra £335 in tax if the base rate increased to 21%. Top earners above £122,000 lose the personal allowance of £11,500 so would pay an extra £450 a year - as would someone earning £1 million!
So someone on £15k pays an extra £35 per year ( or 0.2% of their gross income). Someone on £1 million a year pays an extra £450 ( 0.045% of gross income). Hardly progressive! The top rate of 45% needs to kick in lower than £150k and maybe the 40% rate below £45k - the basic rate should not be touched as it has a greater impact on low earners.
You are only applying it to the 20p band, lib gems said all bands.
So if I earn £150k, and don't therefore have a personal allowance aren't I paying 1p extra on every pound I earn? Therefore £1500? i.e. 21%, 41% and 46%, Someone on £1m would pay £10k more.
Not sure I agree on the 45p band coming down, those over 122k already pay marginal tax of 60% from 100k to 122k. I'd say add another band (50p?) higher up at say 200k.
Ah - apologies I thought it was only applying to the base rate.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a higher rate above 45% (although turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind) but the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
That was then. This is now. It competed against a fully functioning two party system where both Conservatives and Labour both went on to form governments with significant majorities.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
This 'new' Labour party would need a critical mass of MP's to join it or it would just wither on the vine. It would also need to set up local and national support networks, fund itself and agree on a compelling message that energises supporters and appeals to the wider electorate. One obvious strategic question would be how it addresses the clear traditional/metropolitan divide in the current party's support base because the status quo has clearly failed and any jump either way will lose the party half its voters. Finally can you see many potential candidates resigning their seats and standing for re-election if they defect? Legally they don't have to but they'd be ripped to shreds if they bottled it and it would make the new party seem weak and self interested right from the start. I'm genuinely interested to see how our political system realigns but I don't think the anti Corbyn rump splitting away is going to be as easy as some on here think.
I think 1p in the pound more if it goes to the NHS is a good idea.
Someone earning £15k a year would pay about £30 more per annum in tax, someone on £150k more like £1,500 etc. I think it's a good idea, especially if they can squeeze up the tax free allowance to negate some of the hit for the lowest paid tax payers.
Not quite - the 20% band only applies to earning from £11,500 to £45,000 - so someone earning more than £45,000 would pay an extra £335 in tax if the base rate increased to 21%. Top earners above £122,000 lose the personal allowance of £11,500 so would pay an extra £450 a year - as would someone earning £1 million!
So someone on £15k pays an extra £35 per year ( or 0.2% of their gross income). Someone on £1 million a year pays an extra £450 ( 0.045% of gross income). Hardly progressive! The top rate of 45% needs to kick in lower than £150k and maybe the 40% rate below £45k - the basic rate should not be touched as it has a greater impact on low earners.
You are only applying it to the 20p band, lib gems said all bands.
So if I earn £150k, and don't therefore have a personal allowance aren't I paying 1p extra on every pound I earn? Therefore £1500? i.e. 21%, 41% and 46%, Someone on £1m would pay £10k more.
Not sure I agree on the 45p band coming down, those over 122k already pay marginal tax of 60% from 100k to 122k. I'd say add another band (50p?) higher up at say 200k.
Ah - apologies I thought it was only applying to the base rate.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a higher rate above 45% (although turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind) but the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
No worries, i'd agree entirely if it only applied to the 20% band (i'd probably argue DON'T apply it to the 20p band or increase the tax free allowance accordingly).
I think a 50p band at a level could work.
Our system of tax and benefits is so over complicated it's bordering ridiculous anyway, the amount of people needed to run it is 100'000's if not 1m plus. There's a far simpler way;
The Government pay every adult a basic amount to live on. Stop all benefits such as unemployment, tax credits, housing benefit etc etc. You'd save a fortune in administration of all of these. Also have one tax on income (in bands if necessary) and scrap NI for employee's.
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
It entirely depends on how your income is derived. Those rich as you say (over £120k) have very little scope for dodging tax if they are employed and pay PAYE. It's the unearned income brigade that can manage their tax affairs creatively!
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
I was thinking about replying to bob and rob lee's posts on income tax, but I don't really understand well enough to contribute.
I agree with you re: this 45k figure and being considered rich. For example what if you're the sole earner feeding a family with 2 kids. That 45k will soon be eaten up and I doubt you've got very much disposable income.
As Rob Lee points out, because the whole thing is so complex, my simple head would say that if you've got people in the 120k bracket and above, then you would structure it so they pay more. However, I know it doesn't quite work like that in practice and there are numerous issues around how much people pay and you always get the argument 'why should I pay more for other people to benefit etc', which is understandable.
I guess if I were a higher earner in the well off and rich category I might have a better understanding of the issues of fairness around what they pay. I guess it also depends on how altruistic we all are when it comes to this and how much we feel we would be comfortable contributing.
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
It entirely depends on how your income is derived. Those rich as you say (over £120k) have very little scope for dodging tax if they are employed and pay PAYE. It's the unearned income brigade that can manage their tax affairs creatively!
If you're in a position where you are earning over 100k a year there are a range of practices open to you to minimise your liability. People in such a position are generally at liberty to negotiate how they are paid by their employer even if they are PAYE.
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
Can - maybe - but it is still true that the top 1% of earners currently contribute 25% of all income tax receipts. Which indicates that many of them don't.
It' amazes me that people are considered rich if they earn over 45k, not poor but certainly not rich, it's only just over the level where you stop receiving benefits.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
It entirely depends on how your income is derived. Those rich as you say (over £120k) have very little scope for dodging tax if they are employed and pay PAYE. It's the unearned income brigade that can manage their tax affairs creatively!
If you're in a position where you are earning over 100k a year there are a range of practices open to you to minimise your liability. People in such a position are generally at liberty to negotiate how they are paid by their employer even if they are PAYE.
Oh really - do enlighten me. Could save me a fortune!
Every penny I earn is taxed as it is meant to be - every penny.
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
That was then. This is now. It competed against a fully functioning two party system where both Conservatives and Labour both went on to form governments with significant majorities.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
This 'new' Labour party would need a critical mass of MP's to join it or it would just wither on the vine. It would also need to set up local and national support networks, fund itself and agree on a compelling message that energises supporters and appeals to the wider electorate. One obvious strategic question would be how it addresses the clear traditional/metropolitan divide in the current party's support base because the status quo has clearly failed and any jump either way will lose the party half its voters. Finally can you see many potential candidates resigning their seats and standing for re-election if they defect? Legally they don't have to but they'd be ripped to shreds if they bottled it and it would make the new party seem weak and self interested right from the start. I'm genuinely interested to see how our political system realigns but I don't think the anti Corbyn rump splitting away is going to be as easy as some on here think.
Not sure I suggested it would be easy. I think it will be difficult and certainly not done overnight. To even begin to be successful it will need big names and big financial support. Once you have those on board then the media gets interested and the wagon starts to roll. It wasn't too long ago that Murdoch was telling people to vote labour. All things are possible if you get the message right. Just ask Nigel Farage.
We are already starting to see some credible names saying that something needs to be done. Like him or loath him Blair could easily be the catalyst if not leader.
I think David Milliband could be persuaded if the conditions and set up were right.
To think nothing is going to happen is just too depressing and in my view unlikely.
When has anyone had to "justify" where their vote is going? I remember when it was considered rude to ask soneobe who they voted for, much like how much money they earned
This has really pissed me off. I'm a lifelong labour voter and until recently a member. Regional chair of a Trade Union and worked for the NHS until I retired late last year. I think my "socialist" credentials are pretty solid.
I'm struggling to vote labour this time around because I think the leader and his front bench are damned well incompetent and I really would worry if any of them were anywhere near leading the country. I don't agree with Corbyn's stance on an independent nuclear deterrent or his pathetic wishy washy attitude to Brexit which to me should be the rallying point for any sensible politician to make a stand against the lunacy of Article 50.
I resent the assertion that not voting labour makes me a Tory. It doesn't and never will.
The horrific thought of a massive conservative majority is what will probably steer my vote not the lecturing by some arrogant tosser on social media.
Well said SHG, its where I am, how can we trust Corbyn, when he has demonstrated that by appointing/supporting Abbot as his Shadow Home Secretary, how floored his judgment is.
To be fair to Corbyn he didn't have much choice. Most of the PLP flat out refused to serve in his shadow cabinet so he could only pick from the dregs that were left.
When has anyone had to "justify" where their vote is going? I remember when it was considered rude to ask soneobe who they voted for, much like how much money they earned
This has really pissed me off. I'm a lifelong labour voter and until recently a member. Regional chair of a Trade Union and worked for the NHS until I retired late last year. I think my "socialist" credentials are pretty solid.
I'm struggling to vote labour this time around because I think the leader and his front bench are damned well incompetent and I really would worry if any of them were anywhere near leading the country. I don't agree with Corbyn's stance on an independent nuclear deterrent or his pathetic wishy washy attitude to Brexit which to me should be the rallying point for any sensible politician to make a stand against the lunacy of Article 50.
I resent the assertion that not voting labour makes me a Tory. It doesn't and never will.
The horrific thought of a massive conservative majority is what will probably steer my vote not the lecturing by some arrogant tosser on social media.
I take it you meant Fiiish's post has pissed you off Shootie?
At present I'm finding it hard to disagree with anything he posts.
What was it that pissed you off from the bit you quoted me as saying then mate?
Everything in that Tweet basically. Not sure how much more insulting it could be for the millions of traditional labour voters who feel disenfranchised by the hijacking of their party.
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
That was then. This is now. It competed against a fully functioning two party system where both Conservatives and Labour both went on to form governments with significant majorities.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
This 'new' Labour party would need a critical mass of MP's to join it or it would just wither on the vine. It would also need to set up local and national support networks, fund itself and agree on a compelling message that energises supporters and appeals to the wider electorate. One obvious strategic question would be how it addresses the clear traditional/metropolitan divide in the current party's support base because the status quo has clearly failed and any jump either way will lose the party half its voters. Finally can you see many potential candidates resigning their seats and standing for re-election if they defect? Legally they don't have to but they'd be ripped to shreds if they bottled it and it would make the new party seem weak and self interested right from the start. I'm genuinely interested to see how our political system realigns but I don't think the anti Corbyn rump splitting away is going to be as easy as some on here think.
Not sure I suggested it would be easy. I think it will be difficult and certainly not done overnight. To even begin to be successful it will need big names and big financial support. Once you have those on board then the media gets interested and the wagon starts to roll. It wasn't too long ago that Murdoch was telling people to vote labour. All things are possible if you get the message right. Just ask Nigel Farage.
We are already starting to see some credible names saying that something needs to be done. Like him or loath him Blair could easily be the catalyst if not leader.
I think David Milliband could be persuaded if the conditions and set up were right.
To think nothing is going to happen is just too depressing and in my view unlikely.
The man likely to be elected President of France tomorrow set up his centrist party 12 months ago. It can be done.
Iraq aside (and I accept it's a big aside) Blair was a fine Prime Minister in my view - but his brand is pretty toxic now. David Milliband on the other hand is a very good option.
Everything in that Tweet basically. Not sure how much more insulting it could be for the millions of traditional labour voters who feel disenfranchised by the hijacking of their party.
It wasnt me who shared the Tweet though mate, it was Fiiish. I was slagging it off as much as you
The huge problem for any new party would be infrastructure. The Labour party, and also the Trade Unions have extensive networks and access to resources. A new party starting from scratch would struggle to match that. One explanation for the collapse of UKIP was a lack of grass roots organisation, they got their big bang, but can't sustain the mundane long haul stuff.
Everything in that Tweet basically. Not sure how much more insulting it could be for the millions of traditional labour voters who feel disenfranchised by the hijacking of their party.
It wasnt me who shared the Tweet though mate, it was Fiiish. I was slagging it off as much as you
Yeah I know. It wasn't anything you had written that pissed me off. Not this time anyway ;0)
If the PLP had any balls they would have resigned on mass and set up their own Labour Party but they didn't.
They got what they deserved and will now reap the wind for their lack of conviction.
Although I'm now fully in favour of a new centre left party emerging out of ashes of the now moribund Labour Party I think it would have been far too soon for that to have already happened.
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
It has. It was called the SDP formed in 1981 by David Owen, Shirley Williams and a few hangers on. It failed to attract support, merged with Liberal Party to form Lib Dems and has the mantra "vote for us and we'll be anything you want us to be".
That was then. This is now. It competed against a fully functioning two party system where both Conservatives and Labour both went on to form governments with significant majorities.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
This 'new' Labour party would need a critical mass of MP's to join it or it would just wither on the vine. It would also need to set up local and national support networks, fund itself and agree on a compelling message that energises supporters and appeals to the wider electorate. One obvious strategic question would be how it addresses the clear traditional/metropolitan divide in the current party's support base because the status quo has clearly failed and any jump either way will lose the party half its voters. Finally can you see many potential candidates resigning their seats and standing for re-election if they defect? Legally they don't have to but they'd be ripped to shreds if they bottled it and it would make the new party seem weak and self interested right from the start. I'm genuinely interested to see how our political system realigns but I don't think the anti Corbyn rump splitting away is going to be as easy as some on here think.
Not sure I suggested it would be easy. I think it will be difficult and certainly not done overnight. To even begin to be successful it will need big names and big financial support. Once you have those on board then the media gets interested and the wagon starts to roll. It wasn't too long ago that Murdoch was telling people to vote labour. All things are possible if you get the message right. Just ask Nigel Farage.
We are already starting to see some credible names saying that something needs to be done. Like him or loath him Blair could easily be the catalyst if not leader.
I think David Milliband could be persuaded if the conditions and set up were right.
To think nothing is going to happen is just too depressing and in my view unlikely.
The man likely to be elected President of France tomorrow set up his centrist party 12 months ago. It can be done.
Iraq aside (and I accept it's a big aside) Blair was a fine Prime Minister in my view - but his brand is pretty toxic now. David Milliband on the other hand is a very good option.
Whilst I would love a new centre left party to emerge like En Marche! or Podemos but the one big difficulty which I believe is almost insurmountable is our voting system. With First Past the Post it is very hard for a new party to establish itself.
Look at UKIP, The Greens and the SDP for recent examples. The SDP maintained it for longer as they ripped a chunk out of the Labour party and helped keep the Tories in power as part of the process.
The Blair era which to many was "Tory lite" still had enormous electoral appeal. There is room for a party to take the centre vacated by the current big two.
What we have coming under the next Tory administration will be unpalatable to many. At present there is no credible alternative.
At some point May and whoever replaces her will become just like most governments in power too long become fat, sleazy and unpopular.
Put a party with the right message and leadership in front of the voters and change can happen. That's unlikely under the present and future labour leadership.
People like Blair and David Milliband, Clegg and a lot of money know this and I believe there are already behind the scenes manoeuvring to bring a new party about. The next election will be the defining moment when only fear of a massive Tory majority will hold the labour vote.
Blair's Labour won elections by spending huge amounts of credit boom fuelled finance sector tax receipts and then borrowing on top for good measure. I don't see that being an option in more constrained times? What does this new centrist party offer if it can't hose money on public services and the welfare state?
Comments
The constitution of the existing Labour Party will ensure the continued election of far left leaders. Corbyn I believe will remain post election debacle but even if he's ousted it will be to be replaced by Trot McDonnell or someone equally unelectable in the eyes of the nation. Labour is now fully and solely about ideology and nothing else. It is finished.
Huge leap for the Parliamentary Labour Party to just form a new party as you suggest. It will I believe happen but it will take leadership currently not there and the return of the likes of David Milliband and Tony Blair bringing with them the funds and support of centre left big business and individual donations. It's going to take time and a lot of effort and spin.
Totally unrealistic to think that anything could have or should have already happened.
The only reason I'm not 100% voting Tory is because I think unopposed politics is an awful idea. I just can't find anyone else where I'd be comfortable with my vote going. Tim Farron and the Lib Dems are hugely anti Brexit, which puts me straight off, Paul Nuttal and Ukips main arguing points in their last party election broadcast was fucking pot holes in the countries most important stage in years and they spent 3 minutes lagging on about pot holes, they're clueless. Greens are an outright no. Might just give my vote to the Monster Raving Loony party and be done with it
So someone on £15k pays an extra £35 per year ( or 0.2% of their gross income). Someone on £1 million a year pays an extra £450 ( 0.045% of gross income). Hardly progressive! The top rate of 45% needs to kick in lower than £150k and maybe the 40% rate below £45k - the basic rate should not be touched as it has a greater impact on low earners.
This was brought in at a rather late stage for him to adjust his career plan in terms of education.
The Liberals were played by the Tories in coalition, and the students were shafted.
We now have a situation where one half of the two party system. The red half have stopped functioning and provide no opposition.
I believe the electorate see the dangers of a one party state and also recognise that The Labour Party are now never going to be able to offer a genuine alternative. It's constitution for electing a leader have seen to that.
A new centre left party is the only thing that can happen if we don't want to see the nightmare of a single party state.
The current alternatives are Labour, The Lib Dems and Greens !!!!!!! Really ?
So if I earn £150k, and don't therefore have a personal allowance aren't I paying 1p extra on every pound I earn? Therefore £1500? i.e. 21%, 41% and 46%, Someone on £1m would pay £10k more.
Not sure I agree on the 45p band coming down, those over 122k already pay marginal tax of 60% from 100k to 122k. I'd say add another band (50p?) higher up at say 200k.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a higher rate above 45% (although turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind) but the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
I think a 50p band at a level could work.
Our system of tax and benefits is so over complicated it's bordering ridiculous anyway, the amount of people needed to run it is 100'000's if not 1m plus. There's a far simpler way;
The Government pay every adult a basic amount to live on. Stop all benefits such as unemployment, tax credits, housing benefit etc etc. You'd save a fortune in administration of all of these. Also have one tax on income (in bands if necessary) and scrap NI for employee's.
Then there's well off, maybe over about 70-80k
Then there's Rich over 120k.
Yet taxation wise we hammer the middle as being rich. Wrong in my view, while the actual rich can dodge tax and pay a far smaller proportion of their income.
I agree with you re: this 45k figure and being considered rich. For example what if you're the sole earner feeding a family with 2 kids. That 45k will soon be eaten up and I doubt you've got very much disposable income.
As Rob Lee points out, because the whole thing is so complex, my simple head would say that if you've got people in the 120k bracket and above, then you would structure it so they pay more. However, I know it doesn't quite work like that in practice and there are numerous issues around how much people pay and you always get the argument 'why should I pay more for other people to benefit etc', which is understandable.
I guess if I were a higher earner in the well off and rich category I might have a better understanding of the issues of fairness around what they pay. I guess it also depends on how altruistic we all are when it comes to this and how much we feel we would be comfortable contributing.
Every penny I earn is taxed as it is meant to be - every penny.
We are already starting to see some credible names saying that something needs to be done. Like him or loath him Blair could easily be the catalyst if not leader.
I think David Milliband could be persuaded if the conditions and set up were right.
To think nothing is going to happen is just too depressing and in my view unlikely.
Iraq aside (and I accept it's a big aside) Blair was a fine Prime Minister in my view - but his brand is pretty toxic now. David Milliband on the other hand is a very good option.
Look at UKIP, The Greens and the SDP for recent examples. The SDP maintained it for longer as they ripped a chunk out of the Labour party and helped keep the Tories in power as part of the process.
What we have coming under the next Tory administration will be unpalatable to many. At present there is no credible alternative.
At some point May and whoever replaces her will become just like most governments in power too long become fat, sleazy and unpopular.
Put a party with the right message and leadership in front of the voters and change can happen. That's unlikely under the present and future labour leadership.
People like Blair and David Milliband, Clegg and a lot of money know this and I believe there are already behind the scenes manoeuvring to bring a new party about. The next election will be the defining moment when only fear of a massive Tory majority will hold the labour vote.
Who's with me?