/ If Corby resigned before the election...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MG - on 05 May 2017
.. might that change how you vote?

It might, for me. Currently I have a close race between Lab and Con, neither parties I could countenance voting for currently, so I will vote LibDem (who I actually want to win but who won't). However, with a decent lab leadership I could vote tactically for Lab.
22
ripper - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

So - if I've got this right - basically what you mean is at heart you're a Lib Dem, and if Labour had a leader who was more like a Lib Dem you might vote for them to keep the Tories out - but as things stand you're perfectly happy to vote in a way that helps the Tories win?
1
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to ripper:

> So - if I've got this right - basically what you mean is at heart you're a Lib Dem, and if Labour had a leader who was more like a Lib Dem you might vote for them to keep the Tories out - but as things stand you're perfectly happy to vote in a way that helps the Tories win?

Roughly. I can't see much difference in terms of the catastrophe that will result from either a Tory or Labour government currently, so I am not willing to hold my nose to support either.
13
Big Ger - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Not really. Labour has no chance in my constituency, (St Ives.)

I cannot vote for the conservative as he supports hunting, (I have had correspondence with him on this, the man could waffle for England.) The LiB Dems are pro-EU. The Greens are loopy. UKIP are dead in the water.

I suppose, rather than not vote, I'd give Mebyon Kernow my vote.
10
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Living in a city and watching more and more homeless piling up on our streets even over just the last two or three years, I can't countenance not voting for the biggest opposition party. I like my local Labour candidate, so I consider I'm voting for them, not Corbyn.
5
latisha - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Seems that conservative will really win in the election according to the latest result.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/local-elections-results-latest-news-live-updates-2017-...
3
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Yes, the local vs national thing is tricky. Our current (tory) MP is quite good as a local MP but his views and his party's views on immigration and Brexit are a direct threat to me, so he's lost my vote.
Post edited at 09:36
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

I've never felt so underrepresented and I've heard this again and again from people of all different political strokes.

When are the grown-ups coming back?
3
Lord_ash2000 - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

You should vote for the party you want to win. Of course the Lib's won't this time but the votes they get in any one constituty should be an accurate reflection of the level of support they have in any one area.

I know there is always the talk of 'my vote doesn't count' but it does, even if you vote for a minor party, it shows a growing support in am area over time. Big majority's don't fall in one go, it can take several cycles of gains before a once minor party starts being a real contender. And when a party sees rising support in am area then that area starts to be more of focus for them to campaign etc.

There is often the talk of alternative votes and PR but I firmly believe even in a first past the post system you should always vote for the party / candidate you most support.
SAF - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

I'm intending on voting for Corbyn's Labour having never voted Labour before. If Corbyn is ousted and Blair's old cronies get back power I will definitely not be voting Labour, as most of my adult life has been tainted by Blair's/ Blair's Labours illegal wars.
7
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I understand the principle but it's not that simple in reality. Sometimes voting tactically makes sense.
1
Stig - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> .. might that change how you vote?

No. And I would suggest your priorities are wrong here. Labour have no chance of forming a government and Corbyn has no chance of becoming PM. So I would vote tactically wherever possible to deny the Tories 1 extra seat from their majority.

The real trade off here of course is whether you believe a strong (and stable!) May government being able to negotiate a better Brexit deal (i.e. a compromise rather than cliff edge exit) in the interest of the country, which will come at the price of being a government that will also drive through a hugely regressive social settlement at home: 2 tier health system; increased inequality; abandonment of parts of northern England, etc...

1
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Stig:
That's one view. My take is that Corbyn is so useless he won't provide any effective opposition as long as he is leader (he hasn't so far with a government that has the slenderest of majorities), so it is important to get rid of him, by reducing his vote, and get a hopefully better opposition leader in place.
Post edited at 09:56
9
Thrudge on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

If Corby resigned before the election the whole organisation could go under, and then we wouldn't have any more trouser presses.
1
Big Ger - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Thrudge:

You crease me up!
1
Trangia on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

It would certainly give me food for thought, but it would depend on who replaced him, and how the Party intended to restructure itself.

Given the history of infighting getting any clear indication of how this would evolve would be as clear as mud, so the answer is probably no, he's left resignation far too late.



1
summo on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

He won't resign, he might not even go next month without another party vote.
Big Ger - on 05 May 2017
In reply to summo:

Even if he went tomorrow, there's no way such a divided party could put up a cohesive and credible front by the June election.

Better to let him lose hard, and let him take the blame, then have a parliamentary session to reform.
3
Deadeye - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

If everyone that wants LibDem to win, but doesn't vote for them because they don't believe they can, voted how they believed...
Trangia on 05 May 2017
In reply to Deadeye:

I think there is a big difference between the Liberal Party people would like to have and the Liberal Party we actually have.
1
ianstevens - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Deadeye:

The the lib dems would still do terribly.
1
Big Ger - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> I think we can’t just put a spin on this - the fact of the matter is that Jeremy’s leadership does come up on the doorstep on a very regular basis.
Stephen Kinnock
4
The New NickB - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Even if he went tomorrow, there's no way such a divided party could put up a cohesive and credible front by the June election.Better to let him lose hard, and let him take the blame, then have a parliamentary session to reform.

That is OK if you are comfortable with an acceleration of the regressive and decisive policies that a much strengthened May government is certain to bring. Personally, I am not. Corbyn will not be leader of the Labour Party in July.
5
Stig - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Oh yes, he has already proven that he is incapable of providing leadership and opposition (the two requirements of his job) - but by no means clear he will go even if the result is disastrous. But losing marginal seats primarily harms the Labour movement and good moderate MPs - and by extension their constituents and all of us. We still need a credible opposition even if we are going ahead with Brexit. But it's all pretty depressing either way.
3
Stig - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

What's your reading there? That Momentum is weakened? Surely it all depends on who is left standing after June 8 in the PLP and balance of power within the party? I don't think the bastard will go quietly.
3
Big Ger - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> That is OK if you are comfortable with an acceleration of the regressive and decisive policies that a much strengthened May government is certain to bring. Personally, I am not.

I'm not ok with it for a different reason. That's due to it resulting in a opposition free Parliament, one without the necessary checks and balances a good opposition provides.

> Corbyn will not be leader of the Labour Party in July.

Should we call you "Mystic Nick"?

;-)

2
summo on 05 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
Would agree. There would be a massive bun fight between the communists and those living in the real world. ;)

Ps. Not his choice, red Len decides anyway.
Post edited at 11:01
4
The New NickB - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Stig:

Perhaps I'm assuming too much rational thought amongst the PLP and membership, but surely he will have to go.
3
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:
> Perhaps I'm assuming too much rational thought amongst the PLP and membership, but surely he will have to go.

Judging by the dislikes on all comments hinting at any concerns towards Corbyn's leadership on this thread, I'd say you are.
5
MG - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

Hmm - two minutes. See what I mean?
2
winhill - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> That is OK if you are comfortable with an acceleration of the regressive and decisive policies that a much strengthened May government is certain to bring.

After the NI reversal it isn't clear she'll be decisive at all.
fred99 - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

I'm a born and bred working class Socialist.
However I can't stand what Corbyn and his acolytes have done to the Labour Party, and dread what they would do to this country.
I'm also very upset with the attitude of my local Labour Party, whose attitude seems to be that I must vote Labour or else I'm a traitor to the working class.
The fact that those running the local Labour party all seem to be middle-class know-it-alls who only want to tell me what is good for me, and refuse to listen to what I want to say underlines the gap between the Labour party and the voters.
(And when I say myself, I do not mean just myself, but many others I have spoken to as well).
To add to this, these same people insist on railing against grammar and private schools whilst going to them themselves and sending their children there as well, going on about the NHS but using private medical care for their own, and failing to grasp the fact that not everyone spends their entire life in some sort of political war and that occasionally other points of view can be valid.

I will only countenance voting Labour again when he is gone, and has taken his fellow middle-class dictators with him.
8
The New NickB - on 05 May 2017
In reply to winhill:

Typo, that should read devisive.
winhill - on 05 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> Typo, that should read devisive.

Or divisive?
The New NickB - on 05 May 2017
In reply to winhill:

> Or divisive?

That as well.
Mike Highbury - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:
> .. might that change how you vote?

Nope. I live in his constituency and he will still get my vote. This isn't about JC or not JC, it's about Lab and the Tories and folk would do well to remember this.

1
krikoman - on 05 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I will only countenance voting Labour again when he is gone, and has taken his fellow middle-class dictators with him.

Meanwhile the NHS can fall into the sea, and our national debt will keep gettting bigger and bigger.

Look at what the Tories have done!! That should be enough evidence for you.

The turmoil in the Labour party wasn't a one sided affair remember, there were people against JC from day one. The media haven't given him a chance, indeed he was supposed to last more than a few months.

If you want a leader with some integrity and tenacity, you need look no further.

If you remember rightly, Mz May wasn't going to call an election and yet her we are.

If you want liars and cheats, then you deserve what you vote for. The trouble is we don't.

As an aside my vote will be worthless, a strong Tory constituents, whose local hospital is being closed, and yet there's still praise for the local Tory MP because she's opposed to the closure.

IT'S HER PARTY THAT'S CLOSING THE HOSPITAL!!!

Local people don't seem to be able to make the link.

10
skog on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Luckily I have a couple of alternatives, but in your situation I'd feel the same - red disaster or blue-and-purple disaster, I couldn't vote for either.

If I lived in England, I think I could only vote Lib Dem, or just possibly, with the right candidate, Green. Sometimes you just have to accept that you're going to lose on the matters you care most about, and just stand up for them anyway.

However, as Trangia says further down the thread
> I think there is a big difference between the Liberal Party people would like to have and the Liberal Party we actually have.

- but they're still probably the best of a bad lot.
2
skog on 05 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Even if he went tomorrow, there's no way such a divided party could put up a cohesive and credible front by the June election.

> Better to let him lose hard, and let him take the blame, then have a parliamentary session to reform.

I hate it when I find myself in full agreement with you! ;-)
kevin stephens - on 05 May 2017
In reply to SAF:

> I'm intending on voting for Corbyn's Labour having never voted Labour before. If Corbyn is ousted and Blair's old cronies get back power I will definitely not be voting Labour, as most of my adult life has been tainted by Blair's/ Blair's Labours illegal wars.

Are you saying than any Labour MP who does not support Corbyn is a Blairite?

This is one of the biggest of the many fallacies promoted by Momentum

2
fred99 - on 05 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Meanwhile the NHS can fall into the sea, and our national debt will keep gettting bigger and bigger.

And where do you think Corbyn is going to get the money for what he's promising ?

The turmoil in the Labour party wasn't a one sided affair remember, there were people against JC from day one. The media haven't given him a chance.

So everyone's against him and he's the only person that's right.

If you want a leader with some integrity and tenacity, you need look no further.

Yes, someone who went to a private school himself, and then when his (then) wife chose a private school for his offspring caved in and agreed with her.
Someone who told his wife he was working on Labour party business at the offices when he was really bonking Dianne Abbott (who also sent her offspring to private school !).

If you remember rightly, Mz May wasn't going to call an election and yet her we are.

As Corbyn (and Sturgeon) have been doing their level best to undermine her in public with regard to their demands on the Brexit negotiations then I don't believe she really had a lot of choice.

If you want liars and cheats, then you deserve what you vote for.

I don't want liars or cheats, that's why I'm not voting Labour.

IT'S HER PARTY THAT'S CLOSING THE HOSPITAL!!!Local people don't seem to be able to make the link.

If you don't have the staff, you can't run a hospital.
By the way, how come the rest of the local people disagree with you in the same way that I do ?

I put it to you that you are a middle-class know-it-all who likes to tell everyone else how to live their life, whilst doing the opposite yourself.
11
elsewhere on 05 May 2017
In reply to Stig:
I read that Corbyn supporters are in the safer seats so the PLP is likely to be smaller and with a greater proportion of Corbynistas.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> And where do you think Corbyn is going to get the money for what he's promising ?

I thought you were a lifelong socialist? Use your imagination.

> So everyone's against him and he's the only person that's right.

The large part of the media are demonstrably misrepresenting him. He does himself no favours, but it is possible for the media to be biased *and* him not be very good.

> Yes, someone who went to a private school himself, and then when his (then) wife chose a private school for his offspring caved in and agreed with her.

Point of order: Corbyn went to a free grammar school, not a private school. This obviously shouldn't matter, because he would have been f*cking ELEVEN when he started. I also believe that him and his wife split up in no small part at his objection to his kids being schooled privately.

> Someone who told his wife he was working on Labour party business at the offices when he was really bonking Dianne Abbott (who also sent her offspring to private school !).

That's affairs for you.

> As Corbyn (and Sturgeon) have been doing their level best to undermine her in public with regard to their demands on the Brexit negotiations then I don't believe she really had a lot of choice.

She's been doing a pretty amazing job of undermining the entire country with her threats and conspiracy talk. F*ck the outcome of Brexit, at least she'll win a majority, eh? Are you sure you're a socialist?

> Local people don't seem to be able to make the link.

Because that's the yardstick by which we measure if something is true?

> By the way, how come the rest of the local people disagree with you in the same way that I do?

What do you mean "the rest"? It just needs to be more people willing to vote Tory than another party. Maybe some of those don't care because they go private. Maybe healthcare's down their list of priorities.

> I put it to you that you are a middle-class know-it-all who likes to tell everyone else how to live their life, whilst doing the opposite yourself.

Are you absolutely, absolutely sure you're a socialist?

2
Dell on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Where does the narrative come from that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow useless?

How can this be demonstrated?

He seems to have been backing the right horses thus far in his career, why won't the people back him?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/16/jeremy-corbyn-leadership-david-cameron-libya-l...
1
MonkeyPuzzle - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

There are many examples. Here's one:

The Red Cross have publicly declared the NHS a "humanitarian crisis" and over the weekend the pressure is mounting and mounting on the government. Monday morning Corbyn is on Andrew Marr and decides, rather than to push the advantage, to freestyle an unworkable idea for a salary cap, which hasn't been run past anyone in Labour's policy team and thereby take the focus away from what should be the story of the day: the Tory mismanagement of the NHS. It was a gaping net so wide it was more difficult to miss and yet he put it into row Z.

I'm not even going to start on his appointments...
1
fred99 - on 05 May 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

When he was a backbencher, Corbyn had a record of regularly refusing to toe the party line in voting - that of course is supposed to show, according to the Corbynistas, that he is "his own man".
Once he became leader, anyone who didn't toe the party line is now referred to as disloyal, or "playing into the hands of the tories".

His bullyboys then went on to threaten anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party that if they didn't back Corbyn unreservedly they'd be deselected.

Talk about two-faced.
He's more like Stalin or Kim Jung whatever it is in North Korea than a leader of a democratic party in Britain.
3
summo on 05 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Where does the narrative come from that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow useless? How can this be demonstrated?

I quite liked his journey on the over crowded train, where he had no choice but to sit on the floor.

1
summo on 05 May 2017
In reply to MG:

As an aside I think Andy Burnham should have held out and aimed to take over from Corbyn next month. Not convinced on these mayoral posts, but he does seem one of better Labour MPs by a country mile.
1
Lord_ash2000 - on 05 May 2017
In reply to summo:

I was thinking the exact same thing after news came in of his win in Manchester.

I guess we'll just have to see who emerges from the ashes of Labour after the election and see if over the next 5 years they can mold them into an electable leader. The whole Brexit thing is going to be a big challenge for any government so in 5 years they might, just might have a shout if they find the right person.
1
summo on 05 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Yes. He might just be stepping out the way for a term of parliament and appear again when the dust has settled, ready to rebuild Labour from 2022 onwards. Playing the long game.
Post edited at 18:21
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tony Jones - on 05 May 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I've never felt so underrepresented and I've heard this again and again from people of all different political strokes.When are the grown-ups coming back?

I'd be interested in knowing the reasons for disliking this statement?

We are living in strange (and dangerous) days. The world needs grown-ups more now than ever before.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 05 May 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

I can't remember such a grim political scene. I can only hope that Nick Clegg will stub his fag out, face down his critics, big up his achievements and resume control of the LibDems - the opposition of the future.
3
Morty - on 05 May 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I can't remember such a grim political scene. I can only hope that Nick Clegg will stub his fag out, face down his critics, big up his achievements and resume control of the LibDems - the opposition of the future.

Ridiculous. This isn't going to happen as his critics are 100% correct. A lying, spineless bastard.

But, yer, you carry on hoping...


3
Big Ger - on 06 May 2017
In reply to skog:

> I hate it when I find myself in full agreement with you! ;-)

Kissy?
Big Ger - on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> He seems to have been backing the right horses thus far in his career, why won't the people back him?

The IRA? Hamas and Hezbollah? Dianne Abbot? Militant tendency ? Privatisation?

3
skog on 06 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

xx
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> The IRA? Hamas and Hezbollah? Dianne Abbot? Militant tendency ? Privatisation?

Come on, tabloid bollocks aside...

https://www.thepileus.com/uk/corbyn-terrorist-sympathiser-no-grow-up/
2
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> I quite liked his journey on the over crowded train, where he had no choice but to sit on the floor.

He was making the point that the trains are f*cked. Which is true.
2
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

He has strongly held beliefs which he has consistently stuck to, this is not a weakness in a leader.
The PLP needed their arses kicking, they were being deliberately obstinate, disloyal and bad mouthing him at every opportunity, whilst forgetting the fact that Labour party members had giving him a larger backing than any Labour leader in history.

It's not as if Tories don't tow the line when they are expected to back their leader.
(But then Tories are vote whores and have no convictions)
Dave Garnett - on 06 May 2017
In reply to Morty:

> Ridiculous. This isn't going to happen as his critics are 100% correct. A lying, spineless bastard.But, yer, you carry on hoping...

I was cross about tuition fees too, and using up their one wish on the flawed and obviously doomed proportional representation referendum was a disaster.

However, now I've calmed down I think this was an article of faith for the party rather than being Clegg's fault personally, and they were always going to be blamed for all the bad news in the Coalition while Cameron took the credit for anything that worked.

The fact is that Farron , while not the disaster for his party that Corbyn clearly is, has neither the popular appeal nor the heavyweight political experience of Clegg (much more experience than Corbyn and equivalent to May). Given the massive vacuum of talent and experience at the moment, I think he could really make a difference.
1
Big Ger - on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Come on, tabloid bollocks aside...

> It can be disclosed that for seven years running, while the IRA “armed struggle” was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA “prisoners of war” and the active “soldiers of the IRA.” The official programme for the 1988 event, held one week after the IRA murdered three British servicemen in the Netherlands, states that “force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a free and united Socialist Ireland.” Mr Corbyn used the event to attack the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the precursor of the peace process.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDo...
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:
> Where does the narrative come from that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow useless? How can this be demonstrated?

Every time the Tories want to do something he tells his MPs to vote with them. That is pretty useless behaviour for the opposition. An effective opposition would be joining forces with the SNP and Lib Dems in a pro-Europe alliance making her sweat every vote with a 16 MP majority and 20 something MPs under investigation by the electoral commision.

When Theresa May asked to call an election on a timescale that suited her he should have said no but you can have one in six months when the state of the Brexit negotiations is clearer so people have more information. Make her have her election when things are at the low point for the Tories.
Post edited at 01:49
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

But look at the result of this intervention, no more IRA, no more British armoured cars patrolling the streets, no more Irish bombs on British mainland.

You may not agree with his methods, but you can't deny he got results.

And that quote about the British only take notice of Ireland when they are bombed into it, is factually correct.
They bombed us to the negotiating table, because that's the only option we left them.
10
Big Ger - on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

The intervention was done by the Tories and Thatcher.

Corbyn just supported the bombers.
3
summo on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:
> He was making the point that the trains are f*cked. Which is true.

Would agree that some are sub standard. But he didn't make the point. He blatantly lied to the public.(the same Corbyn who talks about honesty....)
Post edited at 05:55
3
LakesWinter on 06 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Vote tactically for labour, anything to reduce the Tory majority. 1) it will make for a less hard brexit and 2) it will keep Theresa on her toes and maybe make her govern more in the interests of the whole country.
2
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> The intervention was done by the Tories and Thatcher.Corbyn just supported the bombers.

I seem to remember the good Friday agreement being signed under a Labour government. It was one of Tony Blairs (rare) positive achievements.
Corbyn put the ground work in, got his hands dirty and gained trust.

That's how you negotiate. (Theresa May, take note)


Thatcher just kept sending our boys out there to get spat, shot at and blown up.
Post edited at 11:07
2
Dell on 06 May 2017
summo on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

Mo mowlam deserves the credit for NI, even major. Blair just jumped in for the photo shoot, then released all the terrorists, but isn't so quick to defend any servicemen being chased now.
Dell on 06 May 2017
In reply to summo:

Agreed, she did sterling work.
Blair letting the terrorists free was very uncomfortable, but it was a necessary step to get things done, the alternative would've meant no deal. 20 years later it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
summo on 06 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> 20 years later it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

Really? Tell that to the families of innocent people killed.
1
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

But how many more would've continued to die had a deal not taken place?

You can't just keep letting the bodies pile up because you can't bear to concede a point, that is not how problems like this are solved.
3
Big Ger - on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> I seem to remember the good Friday agreement being signed under a Labour government.

Signed, but the negotiations were started in 1994 under Major

> It was one of Tony Blairs (rare) positive achievements.

Blair took the credit for it, yes. But there agaimn, he would wouldn'the?

> Corbyn put the ground work in, got his hands dirty and gained trust.

LOL!!! "“Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists. “ He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”



> That's how you negotiate.

Celebrating teh bombing of innocent civilians in London and Brighton and Birmingham? Sure...
3
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> Every time the Tories want to do something he tells his MPs to vote with them. That is pretty useless behaviour for the opposition.

Every time?
Is it not possible that political parties can have overlapping views on certain policies? Just blindly opposing everything the Tories come out with would just look petty and childish.

But of course you are wrong, Labour have opposed many Tory policies, much of which has been subsequently postponed or scrapped altogether.

>An effective opposition would be joining forces with the SNP and Lib Dems in a pro-Europe

>When Theresa May asked to call an election on a timescale that suited her he should have said no...

Both of your suggestions would've led to accusations of weakness.
Teaming up with other parties right at the start of an election campaign would suggest that he has no confidence in himself. Ed Miliband got blasted because he didn't firmly reject the idea of a coalition with the SNP.

As for refusing to allow her to call an election, to do so would make it appear as though he was running scared from being put to the test, bringing further accusations of weakness and undermining his position.
He doesn't get to choose when an election is called, there's no way that Theresa May would've called 'an election in 6 months' on Corbyn's say so.

The arguments you've put against him are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' in their nature and don't prove weakness at all.
If anything you've revealed his political nous and highlighted the uncomfortable truth that Theresa May is holding all the cards.
Corbyn's used to getting into fights, this is his third one in as many years.
Post edited at 00:51
4
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

So you think that Ireland should be ruled over by the English, and that the Irish should just accept it and not do anything about it or make a fuss?

You are also equating the word 'fighting' with 'violence'.

Corbyn has never 'celebrated the death' of anyone at all, and to suggest so makes you sound a bit desperate in your criticism

Oh, apart from that time he was caught 'dancing a jig' on Rememberance Sunday. I bet you fell for that one too.
4
Big Ger - on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:
> So you think that Ireland should be ruled over by the English, and that the Irish should just accept it and not do anything about it or make a fuss?

Bombing London pubs is your answer to the Irish problem then (I can be banal too.) Grow up.


> You are also equating the word 'fighting' with 'violence'.

That's desperate of you. Corbyn was seen to attended events to commemorate dead IRA members for seven years running between 1986 and 1992,

> Corbyn has never 'celebrated the death' of anyone at all, and to suggest so makes you sound a bit desperate in your criticism.

Corbyn has always refused to specifically condemn the IRA atrocities....


> Oh, apart from that time he was caught 'dancing a jig' on Rememberance Sunday. I bet you fell for that one too.

Please don't put words in my moth, it achieves nothing.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-n...
Post edited at 02:01
3
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> But how many more would've continued to die had a deal not taken place? You can't just keep letting the bodies pile up because you can't bear to concede a point, that is not how problems like this are solved.

But what about Isis, you can't just buckle to any group because they are prepared to murder innocent people, what kind of message would that send out.

The ira had a cake and eat it deal. The problems still exist and future troubles haven't been prevented, religion is also too entwined.
1
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> So you think that Ireland should be ruled over by the English, and that the Irish should just accept ...

I think you need to separate republic of ni and Ireland first. At what point in history do we set the borders?

Should England really be French, Danish, Italian.. .. if all of Ireland was United, then logically England should be like the 12th or 13th century, French, so we would all be speaking French. Or writing French and Latin.

1
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

Isis is a different problem that requires a different solution. One that doesn't involve flooding the region with weapons or indiscriminate bombing.
3
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

That's ridiculous, you are comparing the events of a century to those of a millennium.

I tell you the best way to resolve this: You send your hardest mates round to my house to tell me that I'm wrong, and I'll send my mates round to set fire to your bins.
1
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Isis is a different problem that requires a different solution. One that doesn't involve flooding the region with weapons or indiscriminate bombing.

Ok. What is the threshold of innocent deaths, or is catholic led terrorism more palatable to you?
2
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> That's ridiculous, you are comparing the events of a century to those of a millennium. I tell you the best way to resolve this:

I would read your history a little more before commenting. If you think NI is only based on historical events in the previous 117 years then you've done reading to do.
1
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> Ok. What is the threshold of innocent deaths, or is catholic led terrorism more palatable to you?

Do you think I am a terrorist sympathiser?
1
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

People who have a grievance tend to do so because of things that have happened in their lifetime, and that's what must be addressed.
I don't hate the Danish because a viking once burnt down my great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather's straw hut.

(Pedants: No counting the greats please!)

1
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Do you think I am a terrorist sympathiser?

No, but you appear more accepting of some terrorism the others. To me ira, pira, animal liberation, Hezbollah, is. Etc.. same bag. If you commit acts which harm innocent people then you face the full consequences of the law, without pardon and the idea of bombing your way to the negotiating table etc.. is utterly wrong and simply encourages the next group.
1
Dell on 07 May 2017
Big Ger and Summo, given your distaste for Jeremy Corbyn, can it be assumed that you would prefer to see Theresa May running the country?
Rob Parsons on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I was cross about tuition fees too, and using up their one wish on the flawed and obviously doomed proportional representation referendum was a disaster.
> ...
> However, now I've calmed down I think this was an article of faith for the party rather than being Clegg's fault personally ...

You were 'cross' about tuition fees?

Clegg personally - and very publicly - signed a pledge that he would vote against any rise in tuition fees. He then went on in office to break that very public promise. Irrespective of the issue, that level of betrayal is about as gross as it gets; he really should have resigned in order to lance the boil, but he instead he just said 'sorry.' Why should anybody ever now believe a word he says?
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> . I don't hate the Danish because a viking once burnt down my great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather's straw hut.(Pedants: No counting the greats please!)

It's more likely those viking civilised and developed farming etc.. of our ancestors than simply plundering them.
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:

The morality of terrorists and their methods is neither here nor there.
Not agreeing with it does not make it go away. Understanding why it's happening and dealing with it is how you make it go away.
Irish terrorism has gone away, do you see?

British troops didn't face the full consequences of the law for the various atrocities committed in Ireland. Would you support that brand of terrorism?

(If anyone feels an instant need to defend the British armed forces by clicking on dislike, please research some of the British atrocities in the Irish Republic)
6
Dell on 07 May 2017
In reply to summo:
> It's more likely those viking civilised and developed farming etc.. of our ancestors than simply plundering them.

Equally, I am not grateful.
Post edited at 10:54
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Every time? Is it not possible that political parties can have overlapping views on certain policies? Just blindly opposing everything the Tories come out with would just look petty and childish.But of course you are wrong, Labour have opposed many Tory policies, much of which has been subsequently postponed or scrapped altogether.

I can't think of anything they've been forced not to do apart from removing the fox hunting ban.


>An effective opposition would be joining forces with the SNP and Lib Dems in a pro-Europe

No brainer, Brexit is a pretty much 50:50 issue the opposition needs to represent the half of the country that don't like it.

> Both of your suggestions would've led to accusations of weakness. Teaming up with other parties right at the start of an election campaign would suggest that he has no confidence in himself.

He should have been co-ordinating with other opposition parties after the last election so the Tories had to sweat with a majority of only 16 which they would quite likely have lost entirely due to election fraud prosecutions.

> Ed Miliband got blasted because he didn't firmly reject the idea of a coalition with the SNP.

Times change, Labour is dead in Scotland, they either play ball with the SNP or they will never be a threat to the Tories in Westminster.

> As for refusing to allow her to call an election, to do so would make it appear as though he was running scared from being put to the test, bringing further accusations of weakness and undermining his position. He doesn't get to choose when an election is called, there's no way that Theresa May would've called 'an election in 6 months' on Corbyn's say so.

The fixed term parliament act and the numbers in parliament says she couldn't have an election without Labour backing it. Corbyn could have given her the choice of an election in 6 months or waiting the full five years. It was his call. Doesn't matter whether it looks weak now, what matters is how you look at the time of the next election.

> The arguments you've put against him are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' in their nature and don't prove weakness at all. If anything you've revealed his political nous and highlighted the uncomfortable truth that Theresa May is holding all the cards.

She wasn't holding all the cards. She had a narrow majority, a bunch of MPs under criminal investigation, insufficient votes to hold a snap election and a strong likelihood that things were going to get gradually worse as the Brexit clock ticks down.



Rob Parsons on 07 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> She wasn't holding all the cards. She had a narrow majority, a bunch of MPs under criminal investigation, insufficient votes to hold a snap election ...

Irrespective of the opposition, the Tories could have arranged an election simply by repealing the fixed term bill. It all just shows what a waste of time and effort that bill was in the first place: all just symbolism.
summo on 07 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> . Irish terrorism has gone away, do you see?

There might not be bombings in UK mainland, but it certainly isn't all peace and love there. There have been plenty of incidents since 98/99.

> British troops didn't face the full consequences of the law for the various atrocities committed in Ireland.

True. They were sent there on the orders of others and no doubt a few may have disobeyed orders. The terrorists Blair released were convicted killers who now walk the streets. I consider the hounding of former servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s about events carried out 40 years ago to be utterly wrong.
1
Dave Garnett - on 07 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> You were 'cross' about tuition fees?Clegg personally - and very publicly - signed a pledge that he would vote against any rise in tuition fees. He then went on in office to break that very public promise.

He had to hold his nose and make a lot of compromises as a member of a coalition. This one pretty much destroyed his party and he should have handled it differently but I don't think he had much room for manoeuvre.

However, I still think he might be someone who could revive grown- up, centrist, overtly pro-EU party that could at least provide a credible opposition. Nearly 50% of the population don't want Brexit and maybe 40% can bring themselves to vote Conservative. Surely the right Lib Dem leadership could work with that?
IPPurewater on 07 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> If you want liars and cheats, then you deserve what you vote for.

> I don't want liars or cheats, that's why I'm not voting Labour.

I take it you will be abstaining then !
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Irrespective of the opposition, the Tories could have arranged an election simply by repealing the fixed term bill. It all just shows what a waste of time and effort that bill was in the first place: all just symbolism.

I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure but surely it would take a good few months to get legislation to repeal the fixed term bill drafted, all the way through the parliamentary process and into law. So it isn't a path to a snap election - she'd still be having an election 6 months to a year from now, maybe she'd have had a few MPs convicted for election fraud and the consequences of Brexit would be a lot more apparent.

I agree with the general point that parliament writing laws to limit the powers of parliament is generally fairly pointless.
Big Ger - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Big Ger and Summo, given your distaste for Jeremy Corbyn, can it be assumed that you would prefer to see Theresa May running the country?

When you assume, what do you do?
Big Ger - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> To me ira, pira, animal liberation, Hezbollah, is. Etc.. same bag.

Same with Jezza Corbyn, he supports Hezbollah too

> Jeremy Corbyn referred to the Islamist terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends.“It will be my pleasure and my honor to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking,” Corbyn said in a 2009 speech.
1
Big Ger - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:
> There might not be bombings in UK mainland, but it certainly isn't all peace and love there. There have been plenty of incidents since 98/99.

2000, 1 June: Real IRA suspected of planting a high-explosive device attached to a girder under the south side of Hammersmith Bridge which detonated at 4.30am
2000, 20 September: Real IRA fired an RPG-22 at the MI6 HQ in London.
2001, 4 March: Real IRA detonated a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.
2001, 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA.
2001, 6 May: Real IRA detonated a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.
2001, 3 August: Real IRA bomb explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people.
2001, 4 November: Real IRA car bomb in Birmingham.
20 June 2011: Jim Wilson and other Unionist leaders claimed the Provisional IRA was responsible for shooting two loyalist rioters in the legs during a Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) led attack on the nationalist Short Strand area of Belfast.
9 February 2010: A representative of the IRA using the pseudonym "P. O'Neill" issued a statement confirming that Belfast man Joe Lynskey was "executed" by the organisation in 1972. The statement said that the man had been an IRA member and was "court-martialled for breaches of IRA standing orders" and "was subsequently executed and buried in an unmarked grave."
March 2010: Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MLA for Newry & Armagh, Dominic Bradley, claimed the IRA were responsible for a recent punishment shooting in the town of Meigh and an armed robbery in Armagh during which shots were fired.
August 2010: The 32 County Sovereignty Movement, the Republican Network for Unity and the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG), claimed that the IRA were responsible for a shooting incident in Gobnascale, Londonderry.
20 June 2011: Jim Wilson and other Unionist leaders claimed the Provisional IRA was responsible for shooting two loyalist rioters in the legs during a Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) led attack on the nationalist Short Strand area of Belfast. Alex Maskey denied the IRA was responsible for the shootings.
2 July 2011: An alleged member of the Provisional IRA was arrested for questioning over the stabbing of a man suspected of being linked to dissident republicans in the Markets area of Belfast.
16 August 2012: Three men and two women were charged with Provisional IRA membership in Belfast.
201314 February 2013: Former IRA Volunteer Seán Kelly was arrested over the punishment shooting of an 18-year-old man in Belfast.
26 August 2013: It was alleged that the PIRA were responsible for planting two mortars along the border in South Armagh.
12 August 2015: Police believe members of the PIRA were involved in the fatal shooting of former IRA volunteer Kevin McGuigan in East Belfast.
Post edited at 00:10
FactorXXX - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Irrespective of the opposition, the Tories could have arranged an election simply by repealing the fixed term bill. It all just shows what a waste of time and effort that bill was in the first place: all just symbolism.

One of the ideas of the Fixed Term Bill was to ensure that a sitting Government couldn't take advantage of a 'Good News' event to bolster their chances of getting back into office.
It came with certain conditions that would enable a sitting Government to essentially apply for a early election and that is what has happened i.e. Parliament as a whole has to agree to it and not just the Government as previously.
The reasons given by May for this election has been voted on and Parliament has agreed to it. If it was felt that the election was called on purely opportunistic reasons, then it would probably have been voted as a No.
It's funny that people were saying that May wasn't a PM that they voted for, but are now complaining about a General Election to potentially vote her back in...
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jon Stewart - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> You should vote for the party you want to win. There is often the talk of alternative votes and PR but I firmly believe even in a first past the post system you should always vote for the party / candidate you most support.

Wouldn't that be barking mad though, if your vote contributes to the outcome you want least? If you don't vote with tactical considerations, then you're voting on the principles of PR when the rules are FPTP. Playing by different rules to the game you are playing is not likely to result in victory.
krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> When he was a backbencher, Corbyn had a record of regularly refusing to toe the party line in voting - that of course is supposed to show, according to the Corbynistas, that he is "his own man".Once he became leader, anyone who didn't toe the party line is now referred to as disloyal, or "playing into the hands of the tories".His bullyboys then went on to threaten anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party that if they didn't back Corbyn unreservedly they'd be deselected.Talk about two-faced.He's more like Stalin or Kim Jung whatever it is in North Korea than a leader of a democratic party in Britain.

Do you work for the Daily Mail?

As for "If you don't have the staff....." Why do you think they don't have the staff?

It's because the Tories have made the staff, so demoralised they are leaving in droves, not only in the NHS either, but teaching, the police service and numerous other key services.

Like MonkeyPuzzle said , are you sure you're a Socialist, or just a troll?


1
krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Bombing London pubs is your answer to the Irish problem then (I can be banal too.) Grow up.That's desperate of you. Corbyn was seen to attended events to commemorate dead IRA members for seven years running between 1986 and 1992, Corbyn has always refused to specifically condemn the IRA atrocities....Please don't put words in my moth, it achieves nothing.http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-n...

This is a straw man article. It starts with an outlandish suggestion from some bloke on twitter which everyone knows to be false and then you dismantle it and pretend you’ve dismantled a much more complex and nuanced story.
MG - on 08 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

However fairly or otherwise you might think Corbyn has been treated, do you not think now is the time to give up on him? He doesn't have the support of the country and won't get it. If you actually want the Labour party to have an effect, he has to go, even if you think he is a brilliant leader with perfect policies.
3
Rob Parsons on 08 May 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure but surely it would take a good few months to get legislation to repeal the fixed term bill drafted, all the way through the parliamentary process and into law.

The whole thing could be guillotined in days, if that's what the ruling party (provided they have a majority) wanted.

Rob Parsons on 08 May 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> ... The reasons given by May for this election has been voted on and Parliament has agreed to it. If it was felt that the election was called on purely opportunistic reasons, then it would probably have been voted as a No.

As have been pointed out: no opposition party will vote against the opportunity of an election on principle - it gives them a possible chance to form a government.

In addition, one of the provisions of the bill is that an early election can also be called if a motion of no confidence succeeds. So a cynical governing party can simply call such a motion against itself - and therefore cause an election to be held at any time it chooses.

Irrespective of any aspirations for this bill, it appears to be a complete waste of time.
Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> When you assume, what do you do?

When you answer a question with a question, you avoid the original question.

Which just serves to reinforce my assumption.
Lord_ash2000 - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Wouldn't that be barking mad though, if your vote contributes to the outcome you want least?

It doesn't though, you're not voting for the party you want to keep out, you are offering your support to the party you want in.

In the case where, for example you support Labour but live in a Tory / Lib-dem contested seat where Labor doesn't have a chance locally but might be in with a shout nationally then I can see your logic in voting Lib-dem in the hope of denying the Tory's another seat and increasing the chance of Labour majority.

But I do think it somewhat subverts the system. In that seat, if the Lib-dems end up winning because of tactical votes from the minority Labour supporters in the area then that new Lib-dem MP has got his seat in parliament due to false backing, the support the vote tally says he has does not reflect the number of people who actually support him or his policies or believe in his abilities as an MP. Equally, the Tory candidate has been denied his seat in parliament and ability to represent his constituents despite holding the support of more of them than any other candidate really had.

I think a member of parliament should gain his seat because more of the people in his local area want him there than they want anyone else. Not because fewer people didn't want him there than anyone else.
Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> However fairly or otherwise you might think Corbyn has been treated, do you not think now is the time to give up on him? He doesn't have the support of the country and won't get it. If you actually want the Labour party to have an effect, he has to go, even if you think he is a brilliant leader with perfect policies.


No, because if he goes, his supporters go with him. Leaving the party no better off. There is no one suitable to replace him.
MG - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> I I think a member of parliament should gain his seat because more of the people in his local area want him there than they want anyone else. Not because fewer people didn't want him there than anyone else.

But often that can't happen with a FPTP system. We either change that, which would results in more coalitions (= compromises after the vote decided by politicians/parties), or don't and have tactical voting (= compromises before the vote by the electorate).

MG - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> No, because if he goes, his supporters go with him. Leaving the party no better off. There is no one suitable to replace him.

Rather a lot of assumptions there. There are certainly potential leaders who are more appealing to the electorate than him. Also while a few supporters might disappear, there are vastly more voters who might be attracted to the party with a different leader in the current circumstances (me, for example).
1
Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> No, but you appear more accepting of some terrorism the others. To me ira, pira, animal liberation, Hezbollah, is. Etc.. same bag.

They are nothing like the 'same bag'

They all have different motivations, goals and aspirations. There are many types of terrorism, and recognising this fact is not equal to supporting them.

Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to MG:

Who would you see in charge of Labour? And why?
Lord_ash2000 - on 08 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> I I think a member of parliament should gain his seat because more of the people in his local area want him there than they want anyone else.
------------------------------------
> But often that can't happen with a FPTP system.

Well surly it does, there are 3 or 4 candidates, the one with the most votes wins. If its split 40%, 30%, 20%, 10% then the one with 40% of the votes has more people wanting him to be the MP than any of the other candidates in that area and so should (and will) gain his seat. It doesn't matter if the other 60% of voters didn't want him, as I said it isn't a contest to be the least disliked, it is a contest to be the most liked by the most people and in this case the guy with 40% support out does anyone else in this regard.

Yes it would be nice to have a majority of the votes winning with 51% but in a world with multiple parties that is very unlikely to happen anywhere for anyone.


summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> They are nothing like the 'same bag'They all have different motivations, goals and aspirations. There are many types of terrorism, and recognising this fact is not equal to supporting them.

So killing innocents can be acceptable ? Depending on your goals?
3
MG - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

OK - I thought you meant over 50%.
lummox - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

Ever heard of a place called Israel ?
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to lummox:

> Ever heard of a place called Israel ?

And?

I didn't say one side was more worthy than the other, only that the killing of innocent people is unacceptable, no matter whose side you are on. You can't really have good terrorism?
MG - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

Any of a number would be better - Starmer, Burnham, Benn. I'm not a great fan of any but they would put up a vaguely coherent opposition and not alienate the centre ground, which is what Labour needs to win anything.
1
lummox - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

and..the state of Israel was created through terrorism. Millions of Israelis and their supporters probably think of the terrorism carried out out in the 1940s as " good terrorism."
1
Jim C - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Stephen Kinnock

That's rich coming from him, who's own father was a liability to labour.
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to lummox:

> and..the state of Israel was created through terrorism. Millions of Israelis and their supporters probably think of the terrorism carried out out in the 1940s as " good terrorism."

I would agree the redrawing of borders in the 1940s wasn't right. But that doesn't excuse people blowing up buses or stabbing innocent people 70 years later? Or do you think it's acceptable?
Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> So killing innocents can be acceptable ? Depending on your goals?

I won't mention Israel (too late!)

But the idea of 'bombing until you get a result' is something that western governments have been doing for years.

Which is just as good a reason not to vote Conservative. It sickens me that last year we sent £100million in aid to the Yemen, whilst simultaneously being all matey and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, the very people that are bombing them.

A vote for the Tories is supporting this sort of behaviour, and don't pretend it f*cking isn't.
1
krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> However fairly or otherwise you might think Corbyn has been treated, do you not think now is the time to give up on him? He doesn't have the support of the country and won't get it. If you actually want the Labour party to have an effect, he has to go, even if you think he is a brilliant leader with perfect policies.

Far from it, I think he deserves our support even more.

I realise what you are saying and I agree there are better orators and media managers than him, but I don't see anyone else with his message, to me the policies overrule the charisma. There's no one else I've been a supporter of, like I have Jeremy, maybe it's supporting the underdog, or supporting the bullied (which I feel the media and some of Labour have done since day one), but I do know he's far from weak, a weak man would have crumbled months ago.

I don't believe he's in the pocket of any one, and I don't believe he's doing it for himself or his MPs. I feel he genuinely cares about people and I think he's a proper socialist in the true meaning of the word.

I think Andy Burnham is a bit weak and wants to please everyone, and I'm not sure how principled he is.

We're currently being governed by the media and a bunch liars.

Like I've said before, my vote will make no difference the Tories have held my constituency since time began, which is also part of the problem.

Dis enfranchised people, who think (know really) they don't count.
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

I'll end it now. You seem to have changed subjects completely rather than admit you, like Corbyn, are content that some terrorist organisations killing innocent people is acceptable if you agree with their cause. I don't think it is ever acceptable. Corbyn doesn't just agree with their end goals, he has publically supported, endorsed etc.. several different terrorist groups in the past. Borderline treason in respect to the ira. I think old Liz is pretty tolerant, not so long ago Corbyn would have been sent to the tower!!!
4
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> .I don't believe he's in the pocket of any one,

Unions?


2
krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> I would agree the redrawing of borders in the 1940s wasn't right. But that doesn't excuse people blowing up buses or stabbing innocent people 70 years later? Or do you think it's acceptable?

But we (the British) and the Isreali's started this! and no it's not acceptable.

We condemned them, the Israelis, as terrorists the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine were terrorists.

What would you call the Igrun? Menachem Begin was one of their senior commanders, yet he got the Noble peace prize!! But what peace did he achieve? People don't forget the killings, and if you think the recent Palestinian attacks come out of nothing but the desire to terrorise then you're very much mistaken.

There has been little desire for peace from Israel, otherwise they'd be doing more to achieve this goal.
krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> Unions?

No I don't, there is obviously a tie, but I don't think he's beholding to them.

The trade unions and the Labour party have a lot in common idealistically, so there's obvious going to be support in bother directions, I think most people would accept this.

There's a massive difference with what goes on in the Tory party though, where privatisation and reducing taxes only seems to make the top tier any better off.
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

If the biggest 4 or 5 unions withdraw their financial support tomorrow. Could the Labour party pay their staff? I'd say they are much more than ideologically tied.
1
Dell on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> killing innocent people is acceptable.... I don't think it is ever acceptable.

Sounds like you have more in common with Corbyn than you realise.


Paraphrase trumps a straw man every time.

krikoman - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:
> If the biggest 4 or 5 unions withdraw their financial support tomorrow. Could the Labour party pay their staff? I'd say they are much more than ideologically tied.

But it although the Unions do support the Labour party the members a can always opt of the political levy, so the union members see a link, not just the unions.
Being ideologically tied doesn't precluded other ties either does it.

You might say anyone donating to charity, is MORE than ideologically tied to the charity, does that make it a bad thing?


He says it a little better than I do, (he's not my favourite either, but it's all very true) https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1215590158563875/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
Post edited at 12:48
MonkeyPuzzle - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> If the biggest 4 or 5 unions withdraw their financial support tomorrow. Could the Labour party pay their staff? I'd say they are much more than ideologically tied.

I'm not sure where the controversy of union affiliation lies. Every worker should have the opportunity of joining a union at which point they become representative, as opposed to Lord Ashcroft trying to buy a seat in the cabinet, unelected, and then trying to destroy the Prime Minister because he wasn't successful in buying that seat. I'd rather a party be beholden to 7 million union members rather than a handful of ridiculously wealthy individuals.
1
fred99 - on 08 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> If the biggest 4 or 5 unions withdraw their financial support tomorrow. Could the Labour party pay their staff? I'd say they are much more than ideologically tied.

Just look at the pay rate for Train Drivers and compare it with the figure at which labour say the increases in tax will apply from. Train Drivers are just below it.
And look at the pay scales for Lecturers, Teaching Heads of Department and so on for the same comparison.
It seems to work out for a number of their noisiest backers that they'll be unaffected - just !
2
winhill - on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Corbyn put the ground work in, got his hands dirty and gained trust.

Corbyn was just a useful idiot, his interest in the IRA was just a perversion not a negotiation, try reading A Secret History of the IRA, the brutality is unreal, McGuinness and Adams two of the worst offenders, they held no respect for people without influence like Corbyn.

The British couldn't end the violence, only the Catholics could do that.

The contribution of people like Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Prize 1976) and John Hume, (Nobel Peace Prize 1998) who demonstrated the lack of support among ordinary Catholics for a pointless armed struggle was critical in stopping the violence. Major, Mowlam etc influenced them a tiny amount in comparison.
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

A union should be in impartial, non political, unbiased representative of workers. Not bank rolling a major political party with a very strong slant in any particular direction.
2
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

But when a political party needs the union money to survive, it buys influence. It isn't merely a generous donation.
3
summo on 08 May 2017
In reply to Dell:

> Sounds like you have more in common with Corbyn than you.....

Well, I make a cracking rhubarb and ginger jam. But if I was leader of the opposition I'd probably let that slide and focus on the day job a little more.

3
krikoman - on 09 May 2017
In reply to fred99:
> Just look at the pay rate for Train Drivers and compare it with the figure at which labour say the increases in tax will apply from.


Where's your evidence for this? Train driver pay rates £40K - £60K, which is quite some distance from £80K. Head teacher £39K - £65K

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/train-driver-salary-SRCH_KO0,12.htm

Is this just another of your "I hate Corbyn because........." rants, because you starting to make yourself look a bit daft.

To cap that off, are you seriously suggesting that the majority of Labours "noisiest" backers earn just (and when I say JUST I mean £3k-£5k) under £80K?

If you think £40K-£20K is "just" anything, it might explain your brand of socialism.
Post edited at 08:58
2
krikoman - on 09 May 2017
In reply to winhill:

> Corbyn was just a useful idiot, his interest in the IRA was just a perversion not a negotiation, try reading A Secret History of the IRA, the brutality is unreal, McGuinness and Adams two of the worst offenders, they held no respect for people without influence like Corbyn.

The point is that someone has to be talking, I'm not defending the IRA or suggesting that JC was the saviour of Ireland. But we have this image of people being strong and standing up to the bullies, to defeat them. Mairead and Hume, did great work, obviously, but they could only light the spark of public opinion.

It's not true, diplomacy is usually the answer, if you don't talk to your enemy, however strange that may seem then the conflict will never be resolved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08crx11

Is a great program, with some surprising insights.

fred99 - on 09 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I'm fed up with Corbyn and his minority of "pinot-noir" socialists always having a go at those above a certain income i.e. a bit more than themselves.

Why shouldn't those on twice to three times the national average income be taxed a bit more as well ? - surely they're well enough off to help their fellow man (and woman) out.

The amount of whining that comes from people on 30k+ a year complaining that they're barely able to survive is ridiculous.
Anyone on the national average is doing very well indeed, and that's the position that should be the starting point for increasing taxes, not 3 times it.

Maybe some people should try living on something between the minimum wage and the national average, like the overwhelming majority of the workforce, then they'd realise just how well off they really are.
2
Steve nevers on 09 May 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Thought you lived in Oz?
Dervish on 09 May 2017
In reply to Steve nevers:

> Thought you lived in Oz?

Yes. I think he may be the wizard.
winhill - on 09 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I'm fed up with Corbyn and his minority of "pinot-noir" socialists

Prosecco is made from the Glera grape, an ancient Slovene variety, pinot noir can only be a minor ingredient.

FactorXXX - on 09 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

The point is that someone has to be talking, I'm not defending the IRA or suggesting that JC was the saviour of Ireland.

That rather depends if you think Corbyn was genuinely talking to the IRA about peace, or, that he was cosying up to them because he was an IRA sympathiser and he thought it made him 'look cool' to be seen as an anti-establishment figure in the House of Commons.
krikoman - on 09 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I'm fed up with Corbyn and his minority of "pinot-noir" socialists always having a go at those above a certain income i.e. a bit more than themselves.


Again your maths could do with a bit of a brush up.
80K is quite a lot, NOT a bit more than 30K.

I'd be quite happy for us all to pay more, but I'd also like big companies to payy their share too, not have sweetheart deals with HMRC.

>Why shouldn't those on twice to three times the national average income be taxed a bit more as well ?

How many times do you think 3 X 30K(the natioanl average, give or take) is?

- surely they're well enough off to help their fellow man (and woman) out.The amount of whining that comes from people on 30k+ a year complaining that they're barely able to survive is ridiculous.

How easy do you think it is to survive on 30K, how much mortgage do you pay Fred?

>Maybe some people should try living on something between the minimum wage and the national average, like the overwhelming majority of the workforce, then they'd realise just how well off they really are.

So that's why your voting Conservative, because Labour aren't taxing the poor enough, sounds like your broadly socialist values are right on there. I couldn't think of a better reason myself.

You reasoning is about on par with your maths.

krikoman - on 09 May 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The point is that someone has to be talking, I'm not defending the IRA or suggesting that JC was the saviour of Ireland.That rather depends if you think Corbyn was genuinely talking to the IRA about peace, or, that he was cosying up to them because he was an IRA sympathiser and he thought it made him 'look cool' to be seen as an anti-establishment figure in the House of Commons.

If you can convince me that the reason JC supported the IRA was to "look cool" you may have a point. I don't think he's interested in looking cool to be honest, but I'll admit I don't really know.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 09 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I used to think anyone who earned three or four times what I did were absolutely loaded. Funnily enough, back then I was in the pub most nights and had great holidays. Then I started earning more and more and I felt poorer and poorer as life got more and more expensive. How does that happen?
tony on 09 May 2017
In reply to fred99:
> I'm fed up with Corbyn and his minority of "pinot-noir" socialists always having a go at those above a certain income i.e. a bit more than themselves.
> Why shouldn't those on twice to three times the national average income be taxed a bit more as well ? - surely they're well enough off to help their fellow man (and woman) out.

The national average income in 2015 was £27,600. Three times that is £82,800, which isn't far off the £80k being suggested by Labour. So, you're in agreement with the Labour proposal?
Post edited at 16:03
krikoman - on 09 May 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Then I started earning more and more and I felt poorer and poorer as life got more and more expensive. How does that happen?

You get a mortgage and kids, at least that's what I did. Luckily mortgage has gone,nearly, but I shudder when I think of the debt, my boys will be taking on if they even want to buy a house.
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

>How easy do you think it is to survive on 30K, ...?>

A hell of a lot easier than on half that.
Any idiot can spend everything they earn (and more), and then claim they're short of cash.
Just because someone overextends themselves getting into debt doesn't mean they're poorly off - it means they're financially inept.
I personally don't buy something I can't afford - I wait, save up, and finally get it when I can pay for it - I do not get it on the never-never and then complain that all my money is going on paying off my debts. If you've seen the state of my kitchen you'll understand, but one day I'll be able to afford to get it done.
Too many people have been suckered by the banks to borrow today and pay it off tomorrow - and end up paying interest for ages.

And finally, if you do get heavily into mortgage debt, eventually that mansion you bought becomes yours, and then you've got a pretty valuable asset to trade in or sell.
ads.ukclimbing.com
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to tony:

> The national average income in 2015 was £27,600. Three times that is £82,800, which isn't far off the £80k being suggested by Labour. So, you're in agreement with the Labour proposal?

I said TWICE to three times, so I'd want them to start increasing tax at 55k, or even much less - do I hear 30k ?
krikoman - on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> >.And finally, if you do get heavily into mortgage debt, eventually that mansion you bought becomes yours, and then you've got a pretty valuable asset to trade in or sell.

spoken like a true blooded blue.

Houses shouldn't been seen a assets they should be homes surely.

As for the banks who's been supporting low interest rates, buy to let, all of this hasn't help people buy homes, it's help people use housing stock for investment. Pushing up the costs and making it harder to buy a house.


1
tony on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I said TWICE to three times, so I'd want them to start increasing tax at 55k, or even much less - do I hear 30k ?

Fine, so you're happy with Labour's proposal?
Rob Exile Ward on 10 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

They ARE assets, and it's right and proper that they are so; how could they be anything else? They are built on a finite resource, and their value can be enhanced by looking after them and maintaining them.

I understand that in parts of the south east it is hard to get on the housing ladder; I'm not convinced that elsewhere in the country people on relatively modest incomes couldn't buy their first house if they were prepared to compromise a bit on their 1st house; maybe needs some work on it, poor decoration, not the best part of town etc. I know that we were.
fred99 - on 10 May 2017
In reply to tony:

> Fine, so you're happy with Labour's proposal?

NO.
There should be a stepped increase in tax for all persons earning from (for example) the next 5k figure above the national average.
summo on 10 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> .Houses shouldn't been seen a assets they should be homes surely.

How can anything that requires many years to fund, plus time and money to maintain.. . If done well it will exist for hundreds of years.. be anything other than an asset.
summo on 10 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> NO.There should be a stepped increase in tax for all persons earning from (for example) the next 5k figure above the national average.

I would say the zero threshold needs to come down or the base rate creep back up to 25%. At the same time creep the higher rates up by 1 or 2% a year. The scale of funding required can't just come from the rich, everyone needs to progressively dig deeper.
krikoman - on 10 May 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> They ARE assets, and it's right and proper that they are so; how could they be anything else?

Asset, might have been the wrong word to use, investment would fit better with what I was trying to get across.

I'd be quite happy fo my house to be worth the £50K I paid for it 25 years ago. It doesn't make me any better of that it's worth nearly £300K now. The only people who benefit from that are the mortgage companies and estate agents. If I move all I'm doing is giving then a larger proportion of the costs.

We've somehow moved away from seeing houses as home and treat them as investments, something to make money on. It's an illusion to think I've made £250K on my house because it'll never benefit me, it just sounds like I'm rich.

krikoman - on 10 May 2017
In reply to summo:

> , everyone needs to progressively dig deeper.

Or the companies currently avoiding tax, cough up their fair share, and lets stop the government aiding this deception.

1
summo on 10 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I don't really see it as an or, I think the UK needs both.
summo on 10 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> . It's an illusion to think I've made £250K on my house because it'll never benefit me, it just sounds like I'm rich.

When you have to sell your home in old age to fund healthcare because no government has had the balls to put up tax and fund it properly, you might be grateful it's worth £300k and not £50.
fred99 - on 11 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> It's an illusion to think I've made £250K on my house because it'll never benefit me, it just sounds like I'm rich.

Compared to many you are rich.
Eventually you'll be able to downsize or move to a less expensive part of the country if you feel like it - then you'll be able to have a (smaller) home AND have a stack of cash.
A Longleat Boulderer - on 11 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> How easy do you think it is to survive on 30K, how much mortgage do you pay Fred?

To be fair. Paying bills and having a little cash left over while paying a reasonable mortgage on 30k is perfectly manageable.
Wainers44 - on 11 May 2017
In reply to MG:

> .. might that change how you vote? It might, for me. Currently I have a close race between Lab and Con, neither parties I could countenance voting for currently, so I will vote LibDem (who I actually want to win but who won't). However, with a decent lab leadership I could vote tactically for Lab.

To be fair he has done the next best thing to resign. He sat with a bottle of wine one evening and let all his great ideas just flood out. See the gems supposed to await us in the manifesto. Like resigning, just strung out for longer.

De-Privatisation, great idea. Ignore whether the current monopolies, sorry businesses, are any good, just leap to the Public sector for the answer. Last time it all ran so smoothly after all.

Another gem...the lack of proper regulation is the real reason for the lack of affordable rented accommodation. Really, on what planet? certainly not the one I'm on. Bad landlords out there sure, but increase the supply overall through applying rules...nope, bonkers.

Actually bored now. So many great ideas but just no money to pay for them. Better tell my recently post -grad kids (first in our family ever) not to waste time aspiring to anything as if they do eventually get anywhere, Labour will tax the backside off them anyway. Great that Corby only focuses on taxing earners now, ie working people, yet they only rants about "wealth" (lack of sharing it) much of which has been accumulated in the past!!

So we really are stuck with the bl**dy Tories aren't we.
1
krikoman - on 12 May 2017
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

> To be fair. Paying bills and having a little cash left over while paying a reasonable mortgage on 30k is perfectly manageable.

Of course it is, but how many kids are you factoring into that?

How much are you contributing to university fees?

How much travel costs are you factoring in?

How much to look after an ageing relative?

How much to pay towards an ex-partner to support the child you had with them?


I didn't say it was impossible or even not easy, but there are many people who have very different circumstances, so it's not easy for everyone earning £30K and sweeping statements are easy to make, but less easy to back up with facts.
1
krikoman - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

> To be fair he has done the next best thing to resign. He sat with a bottle of wine one evening and let all his great ideas just flood out. See the gems supposed to await us in the manifesto. Like resigning, just strung out for longer.De-Privatisation, great idea. Ignore whether the current monopolies, sorry businesses, are any good, just leap to the Public sector for the answer. Last time it all ran so smoothly after all.

It seemed to work for Southern rail for the Tories to quickly re-privatise it again, just in case we saw how well it was working.

Another gem...the lack of proper regulation is the real reason for the lack of affordable rented accommodation. Really, on what planet? certainly not the one I'm on. Bad landlords out there sure, but increase the supply overall through applying rules...nope, bonkers.

It's not about increasing supply, it's about caring for people living in squalor, why would you thing this shouldn't be fixed?

Actually bored now. So many great ideas but just no money to pay for them. Better tell my recently post -grad kids (first in our family ever) not to waste time aspiring to anything as if they do eventually get anywhere, Labour will tax the backside off them anyway.

Meanwhile the Tories have made then pay £21K and amass a large debt before even starting work?

Great that Corby only focuses on taxing earners now, ie working people, yet they only rants about "wealth" (lack of sharing it) much of which has been accumulated in the past!!So we really are stuck with the bl**dy Tories aren't we.

You seem to like the Tory policies.

1
Oceanrower - on 12 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Meanwhile the Tories have made then pay £21K and amass a large debt before even starting work?

I hate to break it to you, but tuition fees were introduced by a Labour government...
fred99 - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Oceanrower:

Now you mustn't disagree with poor krikoman (on his measly, pitiful, can't make ends meet, 30k a year).
Sooner or later he'll be proving that TM and the Tories were responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania, the demise of the dinosaurs, and everything else.
1
A Longleat Boulderer - on 12 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Of course it is, but how many kids are you factoring into that?How much are you contributing to university fees?How much travel costs are you factoring in?How much to look after an ageing relative?How much to pay towards an ex-partner to support the child you had with them?I didn't say it was impossible or even not easy, but there are many people who have very different circumstances, so it's not easy for everyone earning £30K and sweeping statements are easy to make, but less easy to back up with facts.

I mean, of course, if you have a mortgage, four kids, you're paying them through uni, you've got aged relatives who are in nursing homes and you have an ex partner who you support ... you're not going to survive on £30k. But then again with all those responsibilities you're not going to survive on £60k either, probably not even on £80k.

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.
jkarran - on 12 May 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

> Better tell my recently post -grad kids (first in our family ever) not to waste time aspiring to anything as if they do eventually get anywhere, Labour will tax the backside off them anyway.

Perhaps you should ask your adult children which vision of the future they prefer, one with functional public services and a safety net or a dismal tory cleptocracy before telling them to fear paying what that actually cost.

> So we really are stuck with the bl**dy Tories aren't we.

With attitudes like yours seeming commonplace: yeah, we probably are.
jk
3
iusedtoclimb - on 12 May 2017
In reply to MG:

There is a lot of mentioned of the NHS and how the conservatives are killing it

The NHS is the most inefficient place I have ever been

The same test repeated three or four times in a single visit instead of only once

Seeing three of four different people until you get someone who can help - this could have been sorted out at triage by the nature of patient and the illness

The last thing the NHS needs is more money
2
krikoman - on 19 May 2017
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

> I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.

The point I'm trying to make is, everyone's circumstances are different, so saying there's no such thing as people struggling on £30K is bullshit.

Fred seems to think it's unfeasible that someone on £30K could be struggling, but there again Fred seems quite happy to leave out any facts from his arguments.

A Longleat Boulderer - on 19 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

From what I cold decipher it didn't seem that way. He was speaking generally. And in general I would be surprised if he is wrong. Most people I suspect could live comfortably on £30k. Of course there are always going to be exceptions... even at any salary.
krikoman - on 19 May 2017
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I hate to break it to you, but tuition fees were introduced by a Labour government...

Your right they did, but it's a Labour party that are proposing we do away with them, also what else in 19 years has gone up 900%, apart from housing possibly.

£1,000 in 1998, £9,000 in 2017. I'd say it's relativity easy to find and pay back £3k for 3 years of tuition, whereas £27K is somewhat different.
1
Offwidth - on 19 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

That increase is 800% but I guess Diane needs more cover from her fans.
Lusk - on 19 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

£9,250 for the next academic year at Liverpool University.
Guess who my daughter is going to be voting for?!
fred99 - on 19 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> The point I'm trying to make is, everyone's circumstances are different, so saying there's no such thing as people struggling on £30K is bullshit.Fred seems to think it's unfeasible that someone on £30K could be struggling, but there again Fred seems quite happy to leave out any facts from his arguments.

Fred99 can understand that even someone with a million a year coming in can struggle - if their outgoings are a million and 1 pounds a year.
What Fred99 cannot understand is why these people on 30-80k a year cannot be expected to live sensibly within their means and not simply increase their outgoings whilst moaning about how difficult it is to live on what is between 2 and 5 times the income of a shop assistant, farm labourer or factory worker.
Wainers44 - on 19 May 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Perhaps you should ask your adult children which vision of the future they prefer, one with functional public services and a safety net or a dismal tory cleptocracy before telling them to fear paying what that actually cost.With attitudes like yours seeming commonplace: yeah, we probably are.jk

"Attitudes like mine"? Really, you mean wanting my kids to pay what is fair and reasonable rather than what JC needs them to pay to support his odd idea of fairness.

No problem at all with paying for what things actually really do cost. No problem at all with paying towards a society that supports people when they need it. I must be unlucky though, as the two times I could have done with our society stepping in to help me I found I was well and truly on my own.

How does my "attitude" result in the Torries getting in, it certainly won't be through my vote as that is one soulless bunch who I would never support....ever?
krikoman - on 21 May 2017
In reply to fred99:
> Fred99 can understand that even someone with a million a year coming in can struggle - if their outgoings are a million and 1 pounds a year.What Fred99 cannot understand is why these people on 30-80k a year cannot be expected to live sensibly within their means and not simply increase their outgoings whilst moaning about how difficult it is to live on what is between 2 and 5 times the income of a shop assistant, farm labourer or factory worker.

But now you are changing what you said, you've suddenly included people earning up to £80K, you originally said people earning £30 shouldn't be struggling, and while I agree that people can piss away any amount of money through bad choices.

The point I was making is that it's quite easy, even being quite frugal, to be struggling while earning £30K, depending on you circumstances.

As for simple decreasing you outgoings, that might be very difficult to achieve if you have two children who would like to go to university. Tell me how you do that, worse still, what if you have three children who want to go?
Post edited at 00:02
thel33ter - on 21 May 2017
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Furthermore, to get together a 5-10% or even more (average is apparently 17%) deposit for a first time home buyer earing that 30K, assuming a graduate earns that consistently leaves them about 10 years till they've saved up enough for a mortgage on a 300k house, assuming they live reasonably comfortably. This is based on saving ~£250 a month every month from that salary, which is a lot of money when you're just starting out and needing to pay over the odds for car insurances etc.

Maybe once they have that mortgage, then your point becomes closer to being true.
C Witter on 21 May 2017
In reply to MG:
Labour's vote collapsed before Corbyn. Remember that they lost the last two elections and didn't do fantastically in the 2005 election.

It is often said that Corbyn doesn't even have control in his party, but he's won two leadership elections. He has made the Labour Party the biggest social democratic party in Europe (i.e. increased membership), has mobilised huge, passionate rallies across the country, is seen as the representative of the labour movement, and has narrowed the Tories lead from 20+ points to 9 in the polls, during the election campaign so far.

Labour under Corbyn have a fully costed manifesto that would tackle the major problems we're facing in meaningful ways: a stagnant economy, declining wages, inflation, NHS crisis, a housing crisis, increasing child poverty, etc. etc. Labour's manifesto would deliver substantial improvements to the vast majority of UK people's lives.

The Tories, by contrast, have an uncosted shambles of a manifesto that promises more austerity, more poverty, more reactionary bullshit, more privatisation; their divisive politics may well lead to the collapse of the NHS, no trade deal with the EU, Scottish separation and a flare up of antagonism in Ireland.

But, the media monopolies have fed all the idiots, up and down the land, the stupid, petty, proto-fascistic lie that what we need is a "strong leader" to rescue us, and that Theresa May is that. This is the Theresa May who has presided over fkup after fkup -- from racist vans, to failed migration targets, to abandoned promises to abolish our human rights, to the collapse of the pound, to this absurdity of the failing, flailing Brexit negotiations, to the strategic idiocy of calling an election and then running such a shambolic, arrogant, stage-managed campaign that they're now releasing tweets warning the public "if we lose 6 seats, we'll lose the election"....

Honestly, if May wins, I'm not sure how I'm going to avoid punching the first person I see in moleskin trousers driving a mock-4x4 around the town... I just can't bear the way people lap up all this bullshit.
Post edited at 18:25
fred99 - on 22 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I've said from minute 1 on this OP that I objected to Corbyn starting things at 80K.
I have always stated that anyone on the national average or greater should be included in his increased tax group.
I also claimed that the entire reason he starts increased tax at 80K is to ensure that his friends in the RMT and NUT are unaffected, even though they're doing very well thankyou compared to the average shop assistant etc..

Now how do you think the offspring of shop assistants etc. are supposed to be funded for university.
Or do you believe that university is only for "decent" people - such as the offspring of teachers, lecturers, union officials, train drivers, firemen, nurses and others in the national average to 80K band.
neilh - on 22 May 2017
In reply to C Witter:

It is intersting this stuff on the NHS etc. Neither party has 100% committed in their manifesto to the level of spending that the NHS wants as set out by NHS England.

Also for all this fuss on student loans, the Labour party has not committed to back tracking on the welfare cuts agreed by the Conservatives.

You could argue that the Labour Party is commiting to middle class voters on university education and ignoring the poorest in society.

All this as per Nick Clegg on Radio 4 this morning.
krikoman - on 22 May 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I've said from minute 1 on this OP that I objected to Corbyn starting things at 80K........Or do you believe that university is only for "decent" people - such as the offspring of teachers, lecturers, union officials, train drivers, firemen, nurses and others in the national average to 80K band.

Here's what you wrote "Just look at the pay rate for Train Drivers and compare it with the figure at which labour say the increases in tax will apply from. Train Drivers are just below it.
And look at the pay scales for Lecturers, Teaching Heads of Department and so on for the same comparison.
It seems to work out for a number of their noisiest backers that they'll be unaffected - just


But train drivers and don't earn £80K, head teacher considerable less, so you moved the goal posts. Which I pointed out 9thMay

Where's your evidence for this? Train driver pay rates £40K - £60K, which is quite some distance from £80K. Head teacher £39K - £65K

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salaries/train-driver-salary-SRCH_KO0,12.htm


Making stuff up to try and fit your "facts" doesn't make them true. So he's not cozying up to his buddies is he?
fred99 - on 23 May 2017
In reply to krikoman:

The fact that Corbyn doesn't want to touch people earning less than 80K tells me that he's cosying up to the middle classes - just what you'd expect from the Tories !

Those receiving between the national average and 80K (I say receiving because I don't believe anywhere near all of them actually earn or are worth that much) are very capable of shouldering a greater burden to look after their fellow man (and woman).
Indeed it's this group which are flouting their wealth in front of the have-nots and feeding social unrest rather than the very rich.
If Corbyn was a true Socialist then he would not be taking such pains to ensure that his own (middle) class were being insulated from paying a reasonable whack for the services that they enjoy a much greater percentage of compared to the lower or upper classes.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.