Do I?He wants the public to decide. You want to know his personal opinion I.e. how he would vote. That’s the only co text in which a binary remain or leave would make sense.
I couldn't agree any more.The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.
There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.
I'd say the arguments I put were the definition of centrist, but it depends on your perspective I guess.
Pointing out, and applauding, that the minimum wage is relatively high and has been increased above the rate of inflation several times in recent years is not right wing. Pointing out, and applauding, the fact that the starting rate of tax is higher than other major economies is not right wing. Saying that the very top earners should pay a bit more is not right wing. Stating that some industries are better in private hands is not an extremist position and is shared by many on the centre-left. Defending the existence of private schools is not an extreme view When Diane Abbott sent her kids to private schools, she was accused of hypocrisy, but not of being 'right wing'. I think people should have the choice, but equally, I think investment in education should be a major priority. So yes, my views, if I were to expand on all of them in detail and bore the socks off you, are pretty centrist, certainly when viewed in an historical context but perhaps they will not qualify me for a membership card for Momentum right now.
This, partly, is the reason why many are turning away from the left. You see it so often now; decent, charitable, generous people (often with left leanings) being labelled a fascist because they express a view out of sync with the doctrines laid down by the woke left twitter mobs.
It's the generalised schizzle that pushes in that direction though. I could come on with a general 'nationalisation is good' and you'd throw your hands up, call me a fantasist lefty, and then I'd have to explain how I thought it was pretty centrist to have utilities in public ownership, allow the profits from said utilities to be fed back into the state investment, rather than profits leave the country in the form of dividends to (in some cases) foreign state-owned utilities.
Now moving on from to that, I'd consider the removal of tuition fees pretty centrist. It's making a progressive tax system more up front if you tax the higher earners a little more, rather than claim back a loan. After all, the idea of investing in education is that it pays off further down the line, and if it pays off for the indivdual, it's also giving the country a competitive advantage as a result, the better trained its population are. It's only since the 1990s that paying for education has come to be seen as acceptable - before they even offered grants to the poorer sections, so they were able to have an equal opportunity for study. It may be a paper debt, but it's still a debt, and that's offputting to a fair few people to see £50k of debt before income, and before a guarantee of a return. Raise the taxes in a progressive manner (it doesn't even have to be much) and it does the same thing. That's also a completely different issue to the desire of various govenments (both Conservative and Labour) to push for increased higher education participation, not from a sense of improving learning, but by stopping them featuring on an unemployment index! In addition to the removal of tuition fees, a rounded policy would encourage meaningful apprenticeships in meaningful trades, and stop a qualification snobbery when it comes to recruitment, and emphasise capability can be demonstrated in other ways.
What we don't do is invest in society. It's not fantasy economics to do so and yes, it is regressing to a former age, but the likes of Lloyd George (who, let's not forget, ended up leading a Tory government, effectively) and Attlee had exactly the right idea in increasing the level of state involvement as an investment, an investment that would bear fruit down the line. Nobody, nobody is advocating a 90% rate for top earners (and if they did, it probably wouldn't affect any of us whenever it kicked in!) There is much we have done which shifts the burden onto people who can afford it least, increases in VAT coupled with decreases in income tax, so an attempt to re-address that and revert to a position that, ironically, was 'fairer' for much of Thatcher's time in power is not unreasonable.
None of us are alone, and an attempt to address society is refreshing, as whether we like it or not society improving helps us all a lot more, in the long run, than a possible individual improvement, at the expense of somebody else.
You supplied a link to the manifesto? where?
#2756
The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.
There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.
And reliant on the EU being willing to renegotiate leaving again.Actually here it is tell me where in the Brexit section there’s a campaign to remain commitment
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
So many people trying to make a reasoned case for a Labour vote on here, it's very surprising and somewhat out of step with the national mood as I see it, which I suspect will deliver nothing short of a thumping Tory victory.
Whatever misgivings people may have about another five years of Conservative rule, you look across at the Labour benches and you see a shadow cabinet entirely ill-equipped for government, more than any other in modern history.
Their manifesto is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is based on undeliverable promises, fantasy economics and is, quite frankly, deceitful. The Tories will sell the NHS to Donald Trump! Oh fuck off. No they won't. How does that even work? It is playground politics pandering to the fears of the dim-witted. Can anyone recall an election where the Labour hasn't led with base NHS scare stories?
Their whole economic policy is illiterate. The nationalisation of industries that have no business being in the hands of the state, coupled with tax hikes that will result in revenues worked out of the back of a fag packet and which simply don't stand up to scrutiny.
The great deceit, at the very heart of the Labour message, is that we live in a society that is fundamentally unfair and that we have a tax system that is regressive, or at least is regressive in a comparative sense. This is patently untrue. We have one of the highest starting rate of tax thresholds in the developed world. By comparison (to choose just one example of many), somebody in the Netherlands earning 15,000 euros will pay 36% tax. Somebody earning up to 68,000 euros will pay 38% tax. Imagine the Tories proposing such a flat system. Lily Allen would convulse. Our minimum wage is amongst the highest in the the EU, we have a system of tax credits (which the Tories have maintained) which redistributes wealth in a progressive way not replicated in many countries.
Is it perfect? No, but let's dispense with this nonsense idea that the current government is ideologically predisposed to punish low earners and reward high earners. I believe the very wealthy could contribute more, but even then the top 1% still contribute more than a third of tax revenues. A lot of it is driven by ideology. When Boris, quite sensibly, announced that the earnings threshold for the top rate of tax be shifted up a bit (which it should, because the threshold was set many years ago, and many people have moved into this bracket in the intervening years), it was denounced as a tax cut for the rich, and was lapped up by the lemmings. It was nothing of the sort. The very wealthy would see hardly any difference, but those earning 50-70K would see a real difference, a bracket that includes teachers, senior nurses, tube drivers, and many hard working people in the South-East where the cost of living is insane.
We see it time and time again. Private schools - at least they have ditched the insane idea of scrapping them, but now plan to tax them, to 'generate revenues'. No it won't, it'll force many back into state schools, taking up places and resources they were already paying for but not using. Who benefits?
Scrap tuition fees? Why? Whether you borrow £100,000 or £500,000 for your studies, the amount you pay back is exactly the same for the vast majority (unless you go on to earn enormous amounts, in which case you can afford it anyway). Who benefits?
Corporation tax? Don't get me started on that. Removing loopholes and working with other countries to ensure multi-nationals pay their fair share, fine, but you only need to look at Ireland to see how low rates of corporation tax can work and can generate wealth for a nation. Do people not think that the record levels of overseas investment in the UK and our relatively low rates of business taxes are somehow linked? Again, economic illiteracy from Labour. A senior Labour MP recently sent out a tweet regarding Amazon in which she clearly had no idea of the difference between turnover and profit. Some want these people to run the country.
You can make a good case against the Tories in many areas. I am not particularly partisan. My politics are very centrist and moderate, but this Labour Party would be a disaster. They are a rabble. Corbyn himself, once dismissed as a crazy, albeit a principled one, is now exposed and a crazy with no principles whatsoever. Corbyn, a multi-millionaire with a net worth greater than Boris Johnson, who not once has contacted HMRC to request that he voluntarily pay more tax, something which he can do at any time he chooses. Just saying. Cue abuse.
He didn't actually say that. he said an independence referendum was not a priority, it definitely wouldn't happen for the first couple of years... and he added at least to that. There's no commitment at all to a referendum.Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission
Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission
So breaking away from some unions are okay while others aren’t?Corbyn confirms he will allow the break up of the union and let Sturgeon have her way in 2 years - incredible admission
Why are you both pretending that I have said it is about how Corbyn votes when I have made the truth clear several times?
Do I?
I have constantly said I would like to know which side of Brexit he would campaign for. Or would he still try and stay neutral?
You know this. I have said it enough. And I know you can read and comprehend what you have read. You choose to try and make out I have said something totally different. Nothing unusual though.
What a load of crap. Just admit you was wrong for once.You've accused me of choosing to make out I have said something completely different to what I have before. You accused me of calling you a leaver when I did no such thing and when I explained your misunderstanding you then said I didn't mean that at all. I literally explained it to you and you said I didn't understand my own words! You've also accused me of wanting to end private education when I'd said no such thing. So it hardly a one way thing in making out someone has said something thy haven't.
But can you explain to me why you find it so important what Corbyn plans to do rather than the party, given that it's the party you vote for? This isn't a Presidential election.
If Corbyn had said 'I'm remain' but the Labour position was 'leave', would you vote for Labour? If not then your entire desire to know what his personal campaigning stance is is pointless.
The thing is, this country needs a strong and able Labour Party, it just that in my view we don't have that right now. My rant above, and it was a bit of a rant, will inevitably lead some to conclude I am a blue flag waving activist, I'm really not, I was just trying to cut through some of the rhetoric from the left that suggests we're in the grip of some sort of right-wing psychosis, we're not. Dare I say it, the Tories look like the moderates right now (but I'm sure you'll disagree with that). I lean to the right on some issues, to the left on others, I think that applies to many in this country. I have a lot of respect for Labour politicians past and present. I could sit and listen to Alan Johnson all day. I'd be happy to be represented by Caroline Flint or Kate Hoey. I follow the likes of Paul Embery on twitter, and despite disagreeing with him on a lot, respect the way he argues his point and the way he respects the views of others and how he debates passionately and thoughtfully . Very much from the Tony Benn school. Where are the modern day Tony Benn's? The sort of Labour politician who would challenge your politics head on, fight for the working man, but then sit down for a pint after? Right now we have the likes of McDonnell talking about 'lynching the bastard' and wanting to go back in time to assassinate a former PM.
There is so much bile from the left (and yes some of it comes back the other way), but there is a genuine sense that if you aren't in that club, you are less of a person for it. It's not good, and the Labour movement has been hijacked by some pretty unpleasant people imo.
Put it this way; if private schools did not bestow an unfair advantage on those who attend them, parents would not be willing to pay for them. I suggest that you read David Kynaston and Francis Green's recent seminal book on the matter to educate yourself about it. For the record, they both attended independent schools.
You should vote Tory if you are rich, consider yourself to be well off, don't give a toss about people not doing very well in life, not bothered about the NHS or are a fookin lunatic.I've not seen one post yet telling me why I should even consider voting Conservative, not one report of anything in their manifesto apart from the pathetic and misleading "Get Brexit Done" soundbite.
Sky Blue Dreamer Jeremy Corbyn has just confirmed labour policy is NOT to back a remain strategy but Is neutral.
Thoughts?
What a load of crap. Just admit you was wrong for once.
I don't need educating on anything. The arguments for and against private schools are older than you or I and are well understood.
Of course they bestow an advantage on those who attend, who would argue that point? But, to abolish them would make no sense and would be motivated by ideology and nothing else.
There are way over 600,000 pupils in private schools. The average spend per pupil in the UK is around £5200. We're talking about £3.5 billion extra every year just to maintain the current spend per pupil. Why not just spend that on the state system as it is to close the per pupil spending gap?
The disadvantage won't go away, all that would happen is that the money saved by the wealthy parents would be used to pay for extra private tuition. It would be a senseless policy that benefits nobody and which thankfully has been ditched.
He said he personally would be neutral.
When the "renegotiated deal and 2nd ref' policy was revealed, it was stated that the Labour policy was to then back remain in the ref. I remember it well because political commentators and topical news shows such the News Quiz had a field day on how do you negotiate a deal and then campaign against it (although some people did also make wisecracks like "who do they think they are? Dominic Raab or David Davis?" That derision had seen them go quite on that issue, although it may well have been that data analysis of opinion stated it would be better to sit on the fence and appear non committal. During his debate with Johnson it appeared to me he was quietly saying the party policy would be back remain - maybe I mistook what he said.
Personally I believe he would give his party an open choice to campaign whichever way they wished but the party is still a predominantly remain party. If it wasn't they'd have just passed the brexit bill. They wouldn't have a 2nd ref with remain on the table as their Brexit policy. Their issue is having Labour heartlands that voted Leave and how to marry those things together in a GE.
That wasn't because Labour had come out as backing remain.I remember it well because political commentators and topical news shows such the News Quiz had a field day on how do you negotiate a deal and then campaign against it
It isn't crap - you argued both of those points I made.
I just want an answer to the question - why is what Corbyn personally thinks and would do so important rather than what the party would do? Would you still vote labour if Corbyn said he was for remain even if Labour wasn't?
That wasn't because Labour had come out as backing remain.
Nope, it was the possibility that they might.They were responding specifically to the point that Labour would negotiate a new deal and then campaign against that deal in favour of remain. That was their position when they announced the policy that they seem to have backtracked on.
Your analysis is all over the place
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?