The Labour Thread

[.V.]

Easy enough.

I stand corrected on the ESA point. Though I would like to say the Tories are mindful of cutting welfare too fast too quickly. A legacy of generous welfare spending by New Labour.
Although spending cuts through stealth is how the Tories will remedy that problem. But they still won't cut as much as they want to.

Generous how? Tax Credits were bought in to subsidise company's effectively; that's corporate welfare. They were also the party to bring in ESA and Local Housing Allowance, which restricts the maximum amount of Housing Benefit that can be paid.

They are generous when compared to the Conservatives, but that's not exactly hard. Look in to Universal Credit and you won't see a government mindful of cutting too much too quickly.

The only group of people the Tories have looked after are pensioners. That's it.

 

[blade1889]

So on a day when the Tories are doing anything they can to appear united, and take digs at Corbyn, Eagles has decided to officially announce her opposition to Corbyn. And show how divided they are and her challenge will probably fail if the members information is correct anyway so all she's actually doing is more harm to the party. Smart move.

Hope there will be a GE jut so the drama keeps on, and suspect there may well be as Mag will see a weak opposition and an easy way to get a mandate and not fall into the trap Brown fell into.

 

[smat]

https://twitter.com/conor_mcnally/status/752468677950337024/video/1

Start as you mean to go on!

 

[Gashead]

What a fucking mess this whole thing is

 

[Abertawe]

Now that's the kind of solid leadership we're crying out for.

 

[Kopper]

Generous how? Tax Credits were bought in to subsidise company's effectively; that's corporate welfare. They were also the party to bring in ESA and Local Housing Allowance, which restricts the maximum amount of Housing Benefit that can be paid.

They are generous when compared to the Conservatives, but that's not exactly hard. Look in to Universal Credit and you won't see a government mindful of cutting too much too quickly.

The only group of people the Tories have looked after are pensioners. That's it.

Even if it was corporate welfare it helped the people of this country all the same.

Housing benefits were ludicrously high under New Labour. We all remember the asylum seeker story with their 7 children who were given a 2m plus property in Kensington to live (£8000 a month) after complaining the 5 bed house they had in Kensal Rise wasn't suitable.

If you lived through the 80's you would know how bad things could get under the Tories. Pensioners use to freeze to death in their homes because they couldn't afford to heat them. The winter fuel payments under New Labour was set up to eradicate this. Care in the conmunity. Where you saw schizophrenic patients (who should be in psychiatric care), roaming the streets. Free to attack passers by, as their episodes dictated.
Patients waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors. Spending hours waiting for a doctor or nurse to see them. Of course some would die waiting.
Crime and social unrest were rife.

I don't see the equivalent today under a Tory government.
So I have to surmise they aren't as bad as they were.

 

[mnb089mnb]

We all remember the asylum seeker story with their 7 children who were given a 2m plus property in Kensington to live (£8000 a month) after complaining the 5 bed house they had in Kensal Rise wasn't suitable.

Former asylum seekers. So they were eligible for the same benefits as anyone who lives in the UK.

 

[smat]

Labour's shadow sec Jon Trickett:

“It now looks likely that we are about to have the coronation of a new Conservative Prime Minister."

“It is crucial, given the instability caused by the Brexit vote, that the country has a democratically elected Prime Minister. I am now putting the whole of the party on a General Election footing.

“It is time for the Labour Party to unite and ensure the millions of people in the country left behind by the Tories' failed economic policies, have the opportunity to elect a Labour government.”

Can you imagine a GE right now

 

[Gashead]

Eight perentage points behind despite all this nonsense, it's so frustrating. General election would be a risk for May but would probably end in an increased majority.

 

[blade1889]

So they're more happy to split the votes than have just one go forward in trying to remove Corbyn? https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...03/exclusive-owen-smith-run-labour-leadership

Poor tactics to oust someone you are supposedly so against

 

[.V.]

Even if it was corporate welfare it helped the people of this country all the same.

Housing benefits were ludicrously high under New Labour. We all remember the asylum seeker story with their 7 children who were given a 2m plus property in Kensington to live (£8000 a month) after complaining the 5 bed house they had in Kensal Rise wasn't suitable.

If you lived through the 80's you would know how bad things could get under the Tories. Pensioners use to freeze to death in their homes because they couldn't afford to heat them. The winter fuel payments under New Labour was set up to eradicate this. Care in the conmunity. Where you saw schizophrenic patients (who should be in psychiatric care), roaming the streets. Free to attack passers by, as their episodes dictated.
Patients waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors. Spending hours waiting for a doctor or nurse to see them. Of course some would die waiting.
Crime and social unrest were rife.

I don't see the equivalent today under a Tory government.
So I have to surmise they aren't as bad as they were.

Agreed. If it's corporate welfare does that make it better though?

Care to back that up with stats? With the increase number of private tenants, I'm betting that HB has increased by more in the last 6 years. I don't think he was given that house because he didn't like the area, that's not how social housing works.

You're 3 years older than me, so yes, I did. Winter Fuel Payments are excellent in theory just don't agree with people, like my Nan, who had more than enough, should get them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Times were shitty for the poorest and most vulnerable under Thatcher, don't think I'll ever disagree with you on that. Labour spent more money on welfare, through Tax Credits, and an increased state pension, but that's about it. You won't hear me moaning about their investment in health or education either.

Really? https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/most-d...have-borne-brunt-local-government-budget-cuts

Also worth looking at what the Local Government Association, which is Conservative run, have said about cuts to local authorities. https://www.theguardian.com/society...vernment-association-cannot-cope-further-cuts

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

A question for the more knowledgeable folk

As far as I am aware, if a party split were to occur, then I am sure the following factors need to be taken into account:

- Ownership of Labour assets. This includes all offices, funds, the name etc. Many MPs believe that the PLP have the rights to them, but I am under the impression that the name and assets belong to the Party membership, and the NEC of that party, along with the party chairman would have the overall control over this. So following a Corbyn re-election by the membership, the rebels have no rights to use the party name, assets or funds.
- In the event of a pro-Corbyn vote, any MPs that split can not just take the party name. They would have to all stand down as MPs, form a new party (or join another party) and re-stand in a by-election against a new labour candidate chosen by the members and other political party candidates in order to get re-elected.
- The Party can not just split into two, and the New Labour Era members remain MPs. I am 99.9% sure it is not that simple.
- A new party would need a membership base, an elected NEC, funding etc to get off the ground. They won't have much time to do all this.

However, is there a loophole somewhere, where a split of membership and assets can happen, and all MPs retain their seats?

 

[SUTSS]

Why would they need to stand down as MPs?

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Why would they need to stand down as MPs?

Normally when an MP leave a political party to move to another political party, the party losing that MP has a right to field a new candidate in that constituency. The reason for that is that MP no longer stands for the party that the constituents voted for. Else in theory, you could have a Labour MP switch to the Tories in a Labour Safe seat a year after a General Election.

So if SDP 2.0 was formed, is it right that the electorate just accept that the party has split and their MP now represent SDP, even if they rather have their constituency to remain represented by a Labour MP?

 

[SUTSS]

Normally when an MP leave a political party to move to another political party, the party losing that MP has a right to field a new candidate in that constituency. The reason for that is that MP no longer stands for the party that the constituents voted for. Else in theory, you could have a Labour MP switch to the Tories in a Labour Safe seat a year after a General Election.

So if SDP 2.0 was formed, is it right that the electorate just accept that the party has split and their MP now represent SDP, even if they rather have their constituency to remain represented by a Labour MP?

The party losing that MP has no such right. You vote for a representative and they are free to change party. It would be entirely up to them whether to trigger a by-election.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

The party losing that MP has no such right. You vote for a representative and they are free to change party. It would be entirely up to them whether to trigger a by-election.

I believe this is what happened with the previous Labour split?

On a side note, lols at the comments of the latest post:

https://www.facebook.com/angela4labour/

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

OK, thanks for the answers as I was unsure.

So we could have SDP 2.0 become the 2nd largest party, and Labour relegated to 4th

EDIT: http://www.w4mp.org/why-no-by-election-when-an-mp-defects-from-party/

That makes decent reading. However I can imagine a GE vote taking place after a split. If it can gain 2/3rds in favour is another matter

 

[Aber gas]

The party losing that MP has no such right. You vote for a representative and they are free to change party. It would be entirely up to them whether to trigger a by-election.

You're correct but their position does become largely untenable especially as a lot of these " rebels" have been parachuted into safe Labour seats. It would be political and professional suicide for most of them but fair play if they are indeed principled enough to do it.

 

[SUTSS]

You're correct but their position does become largely untenable especially as a lot of these " rebels" have been parachuted into safe Labour seats. It would be political and professional suicide for most of them but fair play if they are indeed principled enough to do it.

Well yeah but that's a different argument. They're free to stay.

I don't know if it would be. It would depend on the marketing of the new party. I think a new centre left party could do very well in London and the South Labour/Tory marginals especially.

 

[smat]

So they're more happy to split the votes than have just one go forward in trying to remove Corbyn? https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...03/exclusive-owen-smith-run-labour-leadership

Poor tactics to oust someone you are supposedly so against

Say what you want about the Tories (and I know you personally would say "they're brilliant, watch them fuck the poor") but they have absolutely fired through their leadership election. They know how to do power. Labour are a shambolic mess. Not even the plotters know what they're doing.

 

[blade1889]

Say what you want about the Tories (and I know you personally would say "they're brilliant, watch them fuck the poor") but they have absolutely fired through their leadership election. They know how to do power. Labour are a shambolic mess. Not even the plotters know what they're doing.

If you want to find a quote of me saying that then please do because that's absolutely not something I'd say thank you very much.

 

[smat]

If you want to find a quote of me saying that then please do because that's absolutely not something I'd say thank you very much.

Just kidding around with you, pal.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Say what you want about the Tories (and I know you personally would say "they're brilliant, watch them fuck the poor") but they have absolutely fired through their leadership election. They know how to do power. Labour are a shambolic mess. Not even the plotters know what they're doing.

Tories would have got shot of Corbyn by now. Labour are crap at coups. They're an unelectable mess. The UK's future is Tory.

 

[mnb089mnb]

they're brilliant, watch them fuck the poor

smh

 

[blade1889]

Just kidding around with you, pal.

Good to know...and I agree with the other things you said. It's quite amazing, they can't even give the impression of running their own party correctly, let alone give any confidence they can run the country.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Kinda sad that some liberal former Corbyn supporters are now parroting the "There Is No Alternative" mantra. The alternative, pie in the sky as it might be, is restoring a fully free, national health service, nationalised public transport (possible once we leave the EU thank god), reversing the millennial problem of wages lower than their parents' and diminishing savings, high tech work, high skilled work, providing shelter to people, breaking up of media monopolies, floating modern debates such as "people's quantitative easing" (lo, today presented by Tresemmé as one of her honeymoon policies when she enters No. 10, putting her to the left of most of the PLP in some respects), and universal basic income. Centrist, popular policies plenty of which would've been on the Tories' books in previous generations. In fact, Kaufman, who referred to the Foot manifesto at the time as "the longest suicide note in history", has stood still throughout this neoliberal tide and now finds himself on board with the current leadership. What this leadership doesn't stand for, as the "far left" trope may suggest, include a 100% tax on any penny of your income exceeding £30k, or your onesies being hand-tailored by state workers for two weeks' worth of your wage, or your spouse being forcefully enslaved by a refugee who insists on the pronouns "xe/xer/xerself". Whatever crap people will make up next (as appetising as I may find it personally).

Labour's gone right down in the polls since the post-referendum weekend. All that's happened in that time is that the PLP's kicked off massively, following ten straight months of undermining, rebelling, leaking information, lying, and sexting children, having planned their move the entire time. I fully believe that Corbyn has been very statesmanlike in that time, acquiescing a leadership race, and declaring to the public that he isn't under the sort of pressure that one would be who is struggling for food, shelter, work or general well-being.

Think of any aspect of the recent shitshow elsewhere, Farage quitting at his peak, Gove/Johnson falling out, Leadsom's condescension, Angela Eagle's Partridge-esque "ascent", Benn being fired before pulling the trigger, Reckless posting a sunglasses emoji after his leader stepped down, or, how abouts it: the PLP literally attempting to break Jeremy Corbyn as a man as a way for him to step down, and imagine if CorbDonnell did it instead.

This Labour shadow cabinet (warts and all) are the best we've got. A Justin Trudeau-type character who boogies at Pride by day and sells arms at night is what we seem to want, and an unelected Theresa May is what we deserve.

 

[Kopper]

Former asylum seekers. So they were eligible for the same benefits as anyone who lives in the UK.

True, but it's the generous sums afforded to the former asylum seekers, under New Labour, that's the point in question.

 

[.V.]

True, but it's the generous sums afforded to the former asylum seekers, under New Labour, that's the point in question.

Assuming they would be treated as having indefinite leave to remain they would be entitled to the same as a British national. No more, no less. That's no less true under this government.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

>universal basic income
>basic centrist policy

 

[Aber gas]

>universal basic income
>basic centrist policy

I don't see why that's amusing. The universal basic income experiment in Finland has been implemented by the centre right ruling party. Economists from various points of the political spectrum such as Milton Friedman, Freidrich Hayek and Tony Atkinson have supported its introduction albeit in varying forms. It's certainly not a extreme policy.