[noemon]

Anyway the real message to take home is that Noeman should not have been in the Labour party in the first place, businessmen belong in the Tory party. That is the natural order of things.

If I were a corporate lizard master I might have joined the Tory party but since I am low-middle class I prefer a centre, centre-left party, for both tories and labour I belong to the kind of income bracket that is squeezed the most.

That is true for most countries not just the UK and it makes "economic" sense as well that the people who make between 30,000-100,000 per year also happen to be the largest tax-paying demographic and as such form the bulk of tax-payers, this group pays the most in taxes & social contributions as a percent of their income. And this applies to both individuals and businesses as businesses within this bracket are not eligible for small business relief and other exemptions that apply to small businesses nor can these businesses make use of other corporate windows & tricks that larger corporations have the benefit and money to abuse.

The Tories have no allegiance to this group of individuals or businesses, they squeeze them more than Labour did. Labour under Blair made some minor steps to support us people in the middle. And Labour today is still more keen to listen to us than the rest of the parties. Especially in Cambridge, Labour has made great efforts to support startups and small-middle companies and that has been rewarded with Cambridge city-council being run by Labour which from your point of view is an oxymoron since Cambridge is toff central. And despite that the Tories have not won a city-council election for decades it swings between lib-dem and labour instead.

[B0ycey]

Who marched 750,000 mostly working class men to their deaths just to enrich a few arms companies?

Fair point. However. What is your opinion on Stalin?

[Decky]

That is true for most countries not just the UK and it makes "economic" sense as well that the people who make between 30,000-100,000 per year also happen to be the largest demographic

It is mad what rich people tell themselves. The average yearly income in the UK is £26,500.

[noemon]

It is mad what rich people tell themselves. The average yearly income in the UK is £26,500.

This does not change the point I was trying to make. The average income is not the average of net-contributing tax-payers because people who make less than £11000 do not pay taxes and even up until 18,000 a year a person can receive benefits as much as one pays in tax, households who have a combined income of 20,000 can receive more in welfare than they pay in taxes. It is once a person surpasses the 20-22k a year that one starts making net contributions to the taxman, after 30k these contributions start becoming significant, it is this group that governments target when they try to raise money because it is evidently more effective when you put the numbers down. And it is about the same for companies, small businesses with revenues less than 83,000 are exempt from vat, companies with revenues up until 250,000 are eligible for vat relief through vat schemes, companies who have revenues between 250k-1million again form the bulk of businesses from where the taxman can raise the most amount of money. If one assumes an average 10% net profit, that is the same income bracket as the one previously mentioned the 25k-100k. For both individuals and companies that is the main group that the taxman can effectively target and the group that the Tories prefer to target, because if they target the lower-incomes their gains are less and the public outcry is greater, targeting the higher incomes is not within their mission statement and the argument is made that since they are a small demographic, gains will be small as well, so it makes sense from their point of view to target this demographic when they are trying to raise money. Labour is slightly more friendly towards the lower middle class.

To understand what I mean go to this site and input yearly income figures and then take a look at the net figures:

https://listentotaxman.com/

[Decky]

I don't really see the relevance of any of that. Rich people should join the Tories. That is nature. That is how it has been since long before either of us were born. You have created your own disappointment by acting in an unnatural way. If you joined the Tories there would be lots of possibilities to dodge tax Noeman. David Cameron's dad does not pay tax and Gideon Osborne's families wall paper company are also tax dodgers. Tax payments are not compulsory for members of the Tory party.

Fair point. However. What is your opinion on Stalin?

The gentle father of nations was the greatest hero the working class ever had, he saved the entire world from the Nazis and did it for a workers wage.

[noemon]

Rich people should join the Tories. That is nature.

I agree they should, but since I'm not rich, I don't see why I should join the Tories. Contrary to what you may think Decky, I am very much aware of my class status and I know that the only party that pretends to care about low-middle class people is Labour. Tory tax saving schemes only happen for people much richer than myself.

[B0ycey]

The gentle father of nations was the greatest hero the working class ever had, he saved the entire world from the Nazis and did it for a workers wage.

Just as I thought. A hypocrite. You think Stalin was for the working class do you? You conformed or you got shot. You worked for his society or you got shot. You worked even if there was no food or you got shot. If you fell ill due to over working you got shot. You think Stalin would have allowed unions? You think Stalin would allow strikes? You think Stalin was for 35 hour weeks or benefits for the low paid? Nah. Just like the rest of your comrades, you have fell for Stalin's propaganda. You only focus on the part of history that suits you.

[ingliz]

If Burnham takes over...

Perhaps, but why bother?

Flip-flopping Andy Burnham is a Blairite, an unprincipled red Tory, blue Labour tosser; ‘the ultimate conveyor-belt career’ politician.

After graduating from Cambridge, 'he glided into a job working as a researcher to Tessa Jowell and then a post as special adviser to culture secretary Chris Smith. By 31, he had a safe seat in parliament: home secretary David Blunkett’s PPS aged 33, in the Cabinet by 37'.

When the Labour orthodoxy was Blairite, so was Burnham.

As a junior member of Tony Blair’s government, he appeared to be an avid reformer, with little sympathy for union objections to the growth of private provision in the NHS.

When it wasn't, he tacked to the left.

As health secretary in the dying months of Gordon Brown’s government — with defeat looking inevitable, and an eye on wooing the powerful Unison union in a future leadership contest — he began to soften his rhetoric on public service reform.

When Milliband went tits up in 2015, after five years of striking left-wing poses, he tacked to the right.

praising business and wealth-creation and hinting at support for Tory welfare cuts

When Corbyn looked like winning, he moved to the centre.

presenting himself as a ‘unity’ candidate: he’s tapped the support of Blair loyalist Charlie Falconer, recruited centrist MPs like Rachel Reeves, Michael Dugher and Dan Jarvis, and won the backing of the hard-left MP Ian Lavery.

If he had won the leadership...

Hard Brexit:

Given his form, Burnham would be chasing the UKIP vote, out Torying the Tories, embracing a Trumpish populism, and pushing to turn the UK into a 'Singapore of the North'.



* All quotes Robert Philpot writing in the Spectator

[The Clockwork Rat]

I'm increasingly under the impression that Corbyn is just massively Old Labour and hasn't budged since his 20s. It sounds a bit naive to admit that, but when he was running over all the other leadership candidates with the support of relatively young voters he seemed fairly modern by association.

Whether it was his team or the PLP that forced him to tame his anti-EU sentiment over the past year, he wasn't able to lead the pro-Brexit conversation as he probably would have liked. However, even after the referendum he sounded completely muddled.

Whilst I never signed up to Labour so I could vote for Corbyn, I did feel like he was getting raked over the coals by the media and being woefully misrepresented. Now however, I'm inclined to believe that he and his team did simply have a massive communication issue.

Sod it. Parliamentary politics were never going to change anything.

[B0ycey]

Perhaps, but why bother?

and

When Corbyn looked like winning, he moved to the centre.

Sold. Enough said. Viva La Burnham. He was always a Centrist beforehand however he wanted Corbyn in his team. He knew the importance of uniting the party to defeat the Tories.

If he had won the leadership...

Hard Brexit:

Wrong. He is pro EU. Corbyn is anti EU (but states otherwise). Hence the three line whip. I reckon Burnham would have rebelled in the commons if he was leader. He made a speech in the commons stating he wanted the UK to remain in the single market. The fact May wants to make her own trade deals means Burnham would have rebelled I'm sure.

[ingliz]

Wrong. He is pro EU

If he is pro EU, why did Andy Burnham (Labour - Leigh) vote for the unamended Article 50 Brexit bill? 114 MPs (47 Labour) did not.

[noemon]

* All quotes Robert Philpot writing in the Spectator

That says all that needs to be said. The fact is Burnham appeals to the British public and the British public itself is particular, it is no coincidence that Blair won 3 consecutive elections and 2 of them with landslide record-setting victories. This is something that cannot be discounted or overlooked by someone who wants to win an election. The bulk of the British public is collectively more to the right than say the French demographic or the Greek demographic.

Whether it was his team or the PLP that forced him to tame his anti-EU sentiment over the past year, he wasn't able to lead the pro-Brexit conversation as he probably would have liked. However, even after the referendum he sounded completely muddled.

Yeah, exactly right. Their entire strategy is muddled, him and his team are trying to appeal to the pro-Brexiteers and the pro-Remainers at the same time, they have now shifted towards the pro-Brexit camp which is already dominated by the Tories and UKIP preventing Labour from making any gains within the camp and at the same time losing the support of the pro-Remainers. His whole message "we are not a party of the 48% or the 52% but of the 100%" is a recipe for failure. The referendum gave Labour a chance to champion the remain argument and consolidate and rally all the pro-EU progressive forces, I was convinced that the opposition party would not make the mistake to pass this chance especially since the pro-remain Tories abandoned the fight and gave Labour the room to consolidate that demographic. I may be biased wanting a mainstream party to rally the pro-EU argument but from a purely real-politik point of view it is extremely stupid for a 48% not being represented at all and having 3 parties fighting over the 52% instead. Tactically it makes very little sense.

@ingliz, Burnham voted for article 50 because otherwise he would cause a massive rift within Labour and the Corbynistas would start blaming the Labour heavy-weights for conspiring against Corbyn.

[B0ycey]

If he is pro EU, why did Andy Burnham (Labour - Leigh) vote for the unamended Article 50 Brexit bill? 114 MPs (47 Labour) did not.

Party whip. And because he is aiming to be Manchester Mayor. So it's not the time for him to be breaking ranks with his leader regardless who he is. Nonetheless I'm not saying he's perfect as he voted to respect the result of the referendum. However I can't really argue with that. It is democratic to do so after all. But he does want to remain in the single market (but he wants restrictions in place to curb migration levels so don't know how that is going to work) and is pro EU. He is also pro EU migrants and wants the UK to guarantee their right to remain in the UK after Brexit. He is a centrist and wants to unite both segments of the Labour party. So weighing everything up, he is Labours only hope. Corbyn equates to no hope.

[snapdragon]

It's a shame, because I like a lot of what he says.

Unfortunately, because of his desire to allow unlimited immigration, he has given Labour a zero chance of winning anything.

His views on the Eu are immaterial.

[B0ycey]

Unfortunately, because of his desire to allow unlimited immigration, he has given Labour a zero chance of winning anything.

Actually, he wants to address this issue. He knows it's a problem and wants restrictions. It is his only flaw that conflicts with EU ideology. But apart from that he is a Europhile. And has pretty much been consistent with his support for the EU throughout his political career.

[snapdragon]

Actually, he wants to address this issue. He knows it's a problem and wants restrictions. It is his only flaw that conflicts with EU ideology. But apart from that he is a Europhile. And has pretty much been consistent with his support for the EU throughout his political career.

I've honestly not seen it. His belief is that it's impossible to renationalise the railways etc, while being a member of the EU.

[B0ycey]

I've honestly not seen it. His belief is that it's impossible to renationalise the railways etc, while being a member of the EU.

This is news to me. Why would bring in the EU make it impossible to nationalise the railways? Have you got a link with him saying that?

[noemon]

This is news to me. Why would bring in the EU make it impossible to nationalise the railways? Have you got a link with him saying that?

Indeed, it's not true at all. At best EU courts can impose fines if a transaction is enforced & illegally coercive and the aggrieved party presses charges against the state but not if it is mutually agreed. The state is not anyhow prevented from buying or selling properties or whatever.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I may be biased wanting a mainstream party to rally the pro-EU argument but from a purely real-politik point of view it is extremely stupid for a 48% not being represented at all and having 3 parties fighting over the 52% instead. Tactically it makes very little sense.

Tactically it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, however Corbyn was elected party labour partly based on the fact that he was (and still is) a principled politician in an age of windsocks. What most of his supporters failed to realise was that one of those principles was against globalisation - including the EU project. For Corbyn to flip on this may have made sense to most MPs, but would have made no sense at all for him as a person. Being party leader is a little blip at the tail-end of his career, a career defined by consistency. You could see this when he was incredibly reluctant to say anything more than "umm... it's kinda okay sometimes, but we need to fiddle with it" when talking in the lead-up to the referendum.

However, now the discussion is on his turf and absolutely no-one is willing to engage with him on it. At this point he'd almost be as well to just use up whatever remaining political capital he has to force his agenda on Brexit negotiations at home and abroad, and to have the PLP back him up. He doesn't even seem to be able to get that through, so fuck knows what's going on.

It's pretty ironic that the Lib Dems and Tories are the only parties benefiting from the current situation since they're the ones who have been fucking the entire UK since 2010.

[noemon]

Tactically it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, however Corbyn was elected party labour partly based on the fact that he was (and still is) a principled politician in an age of windsocks. What most of his supporters failed to realise was that one of those principles was against globalisation - including the EU project.

If this were the case, he should have ascertained this position from the beginning, taken a pro-Brexit stance prior to the referendum and championed that stance throughout before and after. He took an explicit pro-EU stance instead and then started flipping and mudding things up which prevents him from capitalising from any side. Labour strategists surely are aware of this so not sure what is happening in there. The fact is that Labour is getting battered and something needs to be done about it because most of these votes lost go to the Tories and the other issue I mentioned earlier is that Theresa May dominates over him in parliament, he lacks the boldness and sassyness to face her. Those one-on-one's in parliament require wit, cheekiness and cunning, he is way too "kind" and naive to stand properly. This is something that justifies the PLP's discontent with him.