The sad thing is I don't think Corbyn will stand down in the event of an increased Tory majority. I mean, it's been obvious for a while that he was never going to beat the Tories anyway so why would he stand down even after the fact?
If centrist Labour MPs do not vacate the party en masse following the slaughter then what would they do? The membership clearly wants Cornyn or another unelectable leftist so under the current rules there is no way anyone else could get elected?
The sad thing is I don't think Corbyn will stand down in the event of an increased Tory majority. I mean, it's been obvious for a while that he was never going to beat the Tories anyway so why would he stand down even after the fact?
If centrist Labour MPs do not vacate the party en masse following the slaughter then what would they do? The membership clearly wants Cornyn or another unelectable leftist so under the current rules there is no way anyone else could get elected?
Totally agree. The Labour Party is now purely an exercise in ideology. Under current party rules that won't change.
The sad thing is I don't think Corbyn will stand down in the event of an increased Tory majority. I mean, it's been obvious for a while that he was never going to beat the Tories anyway so why would he stand down even after the fact?
If centrist Labour MPs do not vacate the party en masse following the slaughter then what would they do? The membership clearly wants Cornyn or another unelectable leftist so under the current rules there is no way anyone else could get elected?
Totally agree. The Labour Party is now purely an exercise in ideology. Under current party rules that won't change.
And from what I read they are placing Corbyn supporters in winnable seats that have been vacated by the previous incumbent. They are looking to increase his powerbase.
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Can't support his stance on Trident even if he looked like Rachel Riley.
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.
As others have pointed out France is almost certainly about to elect a man who had never held an elected office and had no party a year ago. Comparing launching a party now with the early 80's, etc is pointless imo.
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Can't support his stance on Trident even if he looked like Rachel Riley.
Aren't the Labour Party committed to retaining Trident?
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Can't support his stance on Trident even if he looked like Rachel Riley.
Aren't the Labour Party committed to retaining Trident?
Corbyn's not so eventually the Labour Party won't be either.
I am a conservative at heart but I do think it's crazy we cannot have a legitimate centre party. Surely it can be that difficult to have financially and sociably centered policies, but also strong on crime and NHs.
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Tories dont have an ideology. Or at least a core founding ideology. It's the reason they've existed for centuries and been able to adapt.
Exercise in ideology? What about the Tories, are they not an exercise in ideology?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Or possibly not. If the less than fragrant Theresa May was suddenly transformed into having the looks of Rachel Riley and the gravitas of Michelle Obama.
I think you need to get back to Planet Reality. Whenever anybody from Joe Public does a talking heads on TV, the overriding message is that they just don't trust him or believe he is competent. His record in parliament and how he has treated some of his own PLP, suggests they are right to be cautious. No one ever says I don't like his straggly beard, his twill jacket, the pens in the top pocket of his shirt or what he looks like in shorts with long socks. Although that could just be our innate politeness I suppose.
Corbyn was getting a kicking days after he stood for election. Is there anyone here who doesn't read the Sun Express Mail and the balanced publication, Murdoch's Times?
I'm struggling to work out why more people aren't seeing the logic of Liberal voting.
Well, the Liberal Party (which exists, well sort of) has been entirely marginalised. It lost all three of its council seats and gained none, anywhere.
But assuming you are referring to the LibDems, there may have been a reason demonstrated on BBC Breakfast this morning.
Someone called Norman Lamb was on saying it was party policy to increase income tax by 1p in the £ across all the tax bands. He then, condescendingly in my view, said it was no more than a couple of cups of coffee a day, (presumably he meant at Starbucks, not from your kitchen). He added, how could anyone complain about that? Well let's put it another way. At the lowest tax band, it's equivalent to increasing tax bills by 5%. And would therefore have a very significant impact upon the take home pay of the less well off. Voters will not be entirely attracted to this concept. The assumption is that the Tories are making inroads in Scotland because of their support for the Union. I'm not so sure, I wonder whether some people are nervous about what the SNP will be doing with the Scottish tax rates and are voting the way their wallet tells them.
Edited to add: this is why Gordon Brown was and the current lot are so fond of so-called stealth taxes. The recent increases in VED being the latest example. It will raise Treasury income significantly but hardly anyone cares. Surely it's appropriate that anyone who buys a new car deserves to pay more tax? Isn't it?
And here lies one if the problems - the electorate. People say they expect openness from their politicians, and they want public spending to increase, but when a politician is honest and says, well if you want those things you will have to help pay for them, the electorate goes running to whoever is promising them the lowest tax rate even though history tells us that ultimately brings increased pressure on public services. Every election it seems people keep falling for the idea that you can get something for nothing.
Your point above also entirely ignores that thanks to the Lib Dems, during the coalition government, the minimum income tax allowance was raised to 10,000. It was the Tories who raised VAT, a universal tax, and reduced the top rate of income tax helping to take tax burden away from the richest and moving it to the poorest, not to mention their pathetic attempts to deal with corporate tax avoiders, although they are far from the first government guilty of this.
As someone who instinctively mistrusts the tribal Left/right approach to politics I can't help thinking that it would be the best outcome for GB plc if Labour got the biggest walloping in electoral history. This is not because I am likely to vote Tory. But the country is clearly sick of the line from Corbyn, the shadow Chancellor and their crew that they will win the election if they ratchet their policies ever more leftwards. It won't work. We went through all that in the Foot era and it wasn't until Blair came along and moved Labour away from the margins and Into the centre ground that people in the centre like me and millions of others began to think of voting for them. Labour needs to learn that lesson again. The ultra left may not like it but it's hardly rocket science.
Corbyn was getting a kicking days after he stood for election. Is there anyone here who doesn't read the Sun Express Mail and the balanced publication, Murdoch's Times?
I'm struggling to work out why more people aren't seeing the logic of Liberal voting.
Well, the Liberal Party (which exists, well sort of) has been entirely marginalised. It lost all three of its council seats and gained none, anywhere.
But assuming you are referring to the LibDems, there may have been a reason demonstrated on BBC Breakfast this morning.
Someone called Norman Lamb was on saying it was party policy to increase income tax by 1p in the £ across all the tax bands. He then, condescendingly in my view, said it was no more than a couple of cups of coffee a day, (presumably he meant at Starbucks, not from your kitchen). He added, how could anyone complain about that? Well let's put it another way. At the lowest tax band, it's equivalent to increasing tax bills by 5%. And would therefore have a very significant impact upon the take home pay of the less well off. Voters will not be entirely attracted to this concept. The assumption is that the Tories are making inroads in Scotland because of their support for the Union. I'm not so sure, I wonder whether some people are nervous about what the SNP will be doing with the Scottish tax rates and are voting the way their wallet tells them.
Edited to add: this is why Gordon Brown was and the current lot are so fond of so-called stealth taxes. The recent increases in VED being the latest example. It will raise Treasury income significantly but hardly anyone cares. Surely it's appropriate that anyone who buys a new car deserves to pay more tax? Isn't it?
....... and reduced the top rate of income tax helping to take tax burden away from the richest and moving it to the poorest..........
This quote always comes out and really twists things.
Labour came to government in 1997, when did they increase the higher 40% rate? They increased it to 50% on the 6th April 2010, 30 days before they lost power to the conservatives. So in 13 years of government for 30 days they taxed 'the rich' at a greater rate than 40%. I think it was the following tax year (2011) that the conservatives removed the personal allowance for those earning over 120k collecting another £4000 of tax from 100k - 120k becomes payable. Not quite the 'tax breaks for the rich' we always hear about.
If memory serves me right it was 2012 when the band reduced from 50p to 45p, so was in force for around 2 years. Unless there was an equivalent increase at the lower end I don't see either how it moved the tax burden to the poorest. I think in the conservatives first couple of years my taxation went up by about £5k per annum.
edit, it was also the conservatives who stopped child allowance for those earning over 60k in 2013 - again those scoundrels giving tax breaks to the rich
Corbyn was getting a kicking days after he stood for election. Is there anyone here who doesn't read the Sun Express Mail and the balanced publication, Murdoch's Times?
I'm struggling to work out why more people aren't seeing the logic of Liberal voting.
Well, the Liberal Party (which exists, well sort of) has been entirely marginalised. It lost all three of its council seats and gained none, anywhere.
But assuming you are referring to the LibDems, there may have been a reason demonstrated on BBC Breakfast this morning.
Someone called Norman Lamb was on saying it was party policy to increase income tax by 1p in the £ across all the tax bands. He then, condescendingly in my view, said it was no more than a couple of cups of coffee a day, (presumably he meant at Starbucks, not from your kitchen). He added, how could anyone complain about that? Well let's put it another way. At the lowest tax band, it's equivalent to increasing tax bills by 5%. And would therefore have a very significant impact upon the take home pay of the less well off. Voters will not be entirely attracted to this concept. The assumption is that the Tories are making inroads in Scotland because of their support for the Union. I'm not so sure, I wonder whether some people are nervous about what the SNP will be doing with the Scottish tax rates and are voting the way their wallet tells them.
Edited to add: this is why Gordon Brown was and the current lot are so fond of so-called stealth taxes. The recent increases in VED being the latest example. It will raise Treasury income significantly but hardly anyone cares. Surely it's appropriate that anyone who buys a new car deserves to pay more tax? Isn't it?
And here lies one if the problems - the electorate. People say they expect openness from their politicians, and they want public spending to increase, but when a politician is honest and says, well if you want those things you will have to help pay for them, the electorate goes running to whoever is promising them the lowest tax rate even though history tells us that ultimately brings increased pressure on public services. Every election it seems people keep falling for the idea that you can get something for nothing.
Your point above also entirely ignores that thanks to the Lib Dems, during the coalition government, the minimum income tax allowance was raised to 10,000. It was the Tories who raised VAT, a universal tax, and reduced the top rate of income tax helping to take tax burden away from the richest and moving it to the poorest, not to mention their pathetic attempts to deal with corporate tax avoiders, although they are far from the first government guilty of this.
My recollection is that you are right about the LibDems being the drivers for the higher personal allowance. But the Tories must have liked the idea otherwise why is it now £11,500? You are, too, right about VAT and that it's a regressive tax. Other regressive taxes that hit the less well off hardest are the duties on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. So, is it right that successive governments of all hues have continued to raise these duty rates on a seemingly continual basis? Corporation tax is a whole different ball game and a very complex topic. Not least because of the global element. Take the US - it has (but what has Trump in mind?) a very high corporation tax rate at the federal, state* and sometimes even local level. It also taxes foreign corporations on their earnings in the US as if they were a US corporation. It also imposes a 30% withholding tax on these entities. A tax that can only be reduced if there is a double taxation treaty with the home country. Trying to structure a tax regime in the UK that is likely to be deemed "fair" for businesses that operate on a global scale is therefore very difficult. Too much tax and you take away any point in a company doing business in the UK. Or investing any money in R&D to generate future profits which would end up disproportionally taxed. Don't forget that firms also pay employers' national insurance contributions and business rates. They also need to attract investors by achieving either growth or income distribution or a mixture of the two. (Yes, I know companies benefit from taxation by things like the provision of infrastructure to get their workers into work, etc etc.) Now, I'm not suggesting that it is right that companies should put in place convoluted and artificial arrangements to avoid their tax liabilities. On the one hand it is very easy to tax entities that have no representation or vote but on the other you don't want to crush them into oblivion either as all our jobs and pensions rely upon them. I don't really believe there should be tax without representation. On that basis perhaps corporations ought to be allocated a block vote based upon their tax payments which they can use in the constituency where their HQ is based?
* This leads to weird situations whereby New Hampshire, for example, (State motto: Live free Or Die) doesn't have a State sales tax or income tax and imposes no corporation tax. Although it does have a State monoply on wholesale and retail alcohol sales and runs liqour stores many of which are handily placed near the borders with other States!
I do find it amazing that the Tories have a run away lead in the opinion polls and seem to be increasing their share of the vote across the board, yet some very valid points are being made as to their failings - yet none of it seems to have the desired effect in changing the views of the 'silent majority' - with the exception of @Fiiish
I do find it amazing that the Tories have a run away lead in the opinion polls and seem to be increasing their share of the vote across the board, yet some very valid points are being made as to their failings - yet none of it seems to have the desired effect in changing the views of the 'silent majority' - with the exception of @Fiiish
Validity is not important any more. Other things seem to drive votes, not detail, but repeated slogans, and what people look like, and the way messages are selected and put across. The Tory party, and indeed the Labour party too probably don't need to worry much about the detail of their policies when people don't seem to be guided by them any more.
Comments
If centrist Labour MPs do not vacate the party en masse following the slaughter then what would they do? The membership clearly wants Cornyn or another unelectable leftist so under the current rules there is no way anyone else could get elected?
Anyone else?
If Corbyn had the looks of David Beckham and the gravitas of Obama then he could propose every single policy he is already proposing and SHG would be on board. Fact.
Can't support his stance on Trident even if he looked like Rachel Riley.
His complete hypocrisy as a member of parliament and subsequent leader.
Unswerving support of Trade Union leadership. Regardless of the rights or wrongs.
I'll be your Peter Mandelson
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/long-labour-insist-tory-voters-evil-guarantee-party-will-lose/
I think you need to get back to Planet Reality. Whenever anybody from Joe Public does a talking heads on TV, the overriding message is that they just don't trust him or believe he is competent. His record in parliament and how he has treated some of his own PLP, suggests they are right to be cautious. No one ever says I don't like his straggly beard, his twill jacket, the pens in the top pocket of his shirt or what he looks like in shorts with long socks. Although that could just be our innate politeness I suppose.
Your point above also entirely ignores that thanks to the Lib Dems, during the coalition government, the minimum income tax allowance was raised to 10,000. It was the Tories who raised VAT, a universal tax, and reduced the top rate of income tax helping to take tax burden away from the richest and moving it to the poorest, not to mention their pathetic attempts to deal with corporate tax avoiders, although they are far from the first government guilty of this.
Labour came to government in 1997, when did they increase the higher 40% rate? They increased it to 50% on the 6th April 2010, 30 days before they lost power to the conservatives. So in 13 years of government for 30 days they taxed 'the rich' at a greater rate than 40%. I think it was the following tax year (2011) that the conservatives removed the personal allowance for those earning over 120k collecting another £4000 of tax from 100k - 120k becomes payable. Not quite the 'tax breaks for the rich' we always hear about.
If memory serves me right it was 2012 when the band reduced from 50p to 45p, so was in force for around 2 years. Unless there was an equivalent increase at the lower end I don't see either how it moved the tax burden to the poorest. I think in the conservatives first couple of years my taxation went up by about £5k per annum.
edit, it was also the conservatives who stopped child allowance for those earning over 60k in 2013 - again those scoundrels giving tax breaks to the rich
Corporation tax is a whole different ball game and a very complex topic. Not least because of the global element. Take the US - it has (but what has Trump in mind?) a very high corporation tax rate at the federal, state* and sometimes even local level. It also taxes foreign corporations on their earnings in the US as if they were a US corporation. It also imposes a 30% withholding tax on these entities. A tax that can only be reduced if there is a double taxation treaty with the home country. Trying to structure a tax regime in the UK that is likely to be deemed "fair" for businesses that operate on a global scale is therefore very difficult. Too much tax and you take away any point in a company doing business in the UK. Or investing any money in R&D to generate future profits which would end up disproportionally taxed. Don't forget that firms also pay employers' national insurance contributions and business rates. They also need to attract investors by achieving either growth or income distribution or a mixture of the two. (Yes, I know companies benefit from taxation by things like the provision of infrastructure to get their workers into work, etc etc.)
Now, I'm not suggesting that it is right that companies should put in place convoluted and artificial arrangements to avoid their tax liabilities. On the one hand it is very easy to tax entities that have no representation or vote but on the other you don't want to crush them into oblivion either as all our jobs and pensions rely upon them.
I don't really believe there should be tax without representation. On that basis perhaps corporations ought to be allocated a block vote based upon their tax payments which they can use in the constituency where their HQ is based?
* This leads to weird situations whereby New Hampshire, for example, (State motto: Live free Or Die) doesn't have a State sales tax or income tax and imposes no corporation tax. Although it does have a State monoply on wholesale and retail alcohol sales and runs liqour stores many of which are handily placed near the borders with other States!
I do find it amazing that the Tories have a run away lead in the opinion polls and seem to be increasing their share of the vote across the board, yet some very valid points are being made as to their failings - yet none of it seems to have the desired effect in changing the views of the 'silent majority' - with the exception of @Fiiish
The Tory party, and indeed the Labour party too probably don't need to worry much about the detail of their policies when people don't seem to be guided by them any more.