The Labour Thread

[Aber gas]

If the MPs now are shameful doesn't it follow that mps involved in previous attempts to oust a leader, like Corbyn has been, are also shameful or is it fine when he does it?

My point was that it's shameful that the democratic process is being stifled because the PLP don't have confidence in its own argument. Your first post made it sound like Corbyn stood against Kinnock which is why I was confused.

 

[Abertawe]

 

[Aber gas]

If the MPs now are shameful doesn't it follow that mps involved in previous attempts to oust a leader, like Corbyn has been, are also shameful or is it fine when he does it?

If you are going to take that aggressive, condescending tone with me, at least read my posts. Either that or wind your neck in.

 

[SUTSS]

If you are going to take that aggressive, condescending tone with me, at least read my posts. Either that or wind your neck in.

Bizarre that you'd post that a couple of minutes after you missed my point. Don't think I was being particularly aggressive but take it however you want, it wasn't meant that way.

 

[Gashead]

I'm not so sure he would win as comfortably (if at all) in a leadership election, the data from YouGov stating that union members support is also dwindling is a bit of a blow.

The likes of Momentum are tiny pressure groups, and are very small in comparison to the membership or the Labour electorate. The idea that they speak for the former is rubbish really.

 

[Aber gas]

Bizarre that you'd post that a couple of minutes after you missed my point. Don't think I was being particularly aggressive but take it however you want, it wasn't meant that way.

You completely missed the point of my post and then started arguing against a position I hadn't even taken. You've clearly got a point you want to make. I'm just not sure why you are quoting me to make it.

 

[SUTSS]

I've got no intention of continuing this petty discussion.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm not so sure he would win as comfortably (if at all) in a leadership election, the data from YouGov stating that union members support is also dwindling is a bit of a blow.

The likes of Momentum are tiny pressure groups, and are very small in comparison to the membership or the Labour electorate. The idea that they speak for the former is rubbish really.

Let's have Corbyn on the ballot then. I'm not really sure why the PLP wouldn't want him on the ballot if they are that sure Corbyn would lose. Any leader elected without him being on the ballot is surely only going to deepen the divide between the PLP and the membership.

 

[Abertawe]

Corbyn is unelectable so they try and remove him from the ballot, hmmm, doesn't quite make sense.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Early reports murmuring he won't be on the ballot... That has to be a legal challenge surely?

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

If the NEC say no, then its a no. If there is no clause to state that if the current leader who has received a vote of no confidence and who refuses to stand down and be allowed to stand without the relevant backing from MPs/MEPs, then the written party rules still stand in a leadership challenge.

As he has been formally challenged after a vote of no confidence, then existing party rules apply where he would need backing from the required number of MPs/MEPs, the same as everyone else. If the NEC make a decision based on this, then I can't see how a Legal challenge would be successfull if there isn't such a clause

 

[SUTSS]

Looks like Corbyn will be on the ballot. 18-14 split in favour.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

Looks like Corbyn will be on the ballot. 18-14 split in favour.

Just heard this as well. If the NEC have voted on it, then that's that. Technically the NEC make the rules and are elected to do so by party members, so any Legal challenge I would imagine wouldn't be successful.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Looks like Corbyn will be on the ballot. 18-14 split in favour.

Split is an appropriate word... Oh boy.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

If he wins, the PLP rebels only choice will be to split from the Party, and I imagine the framework for this will be set up in the background as soon as is practicable (before the ballot takes place)

 

[Aber gas]

It's the only right and proper way to do things. Those standing against Corbyn now have the chance to secure a decent mandate from the party depending of course if they're arguments can convince enough members to vote for them.
After this election we can all get on and show a united front yeah... ?

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

It's the only right and proper way to do things. Those standing against Corbyn now have the chance to secure a decent mandate from the party depending of course if they're arguments can convince enough members to vote for them.
After this election we can all get on and show a united front yeah... ?

Thing is, I agree Corbyn has probably close to 0 chance of winning an election. But Angela Eagle... are you kidding me?

 

[Aber gas]

Thing is, I agree Corbyn has probably close to 0 chance of winning an election. But Angela Eagle... are you kidding me?

Think we might see someone a bit more credible pop up now. Eagle swooped in to clear the way for another imo

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Think we might see someone a bit more credible pop up now. Eagle swooped in to clear the way for another imo

If I see that Eagle swooped reference once more, I swear to fuck I'm gonner bottle someone.

 

[Aber gas]

If I see that Eagle swooped reference once more, I swear to fuck I'm gonner bottle someone.

That's the first time ( second ) time I've used it. ( on this forum)

 

[Abertawe]

Think we might see someone a bit more credible pop up now. Eagle swooped in to clear the way for another imo

You'd have to think so, the coup plotters surely won't gamble their political careers on a complete damp squib that is Angela Eagle, it would be sheer lunacy. The bookies have drifted her odds since the NEC vote and Owen Smith is now favorite fwtw. Owen Smith is meh as can be though, would be a waste of time. Their best bet is to build up propaganda machine behind Dan Jarvis, which I imagine is already in the workings.

 

[Aber gas]

You'd have to think so, the coup plotters surely won't gamble their political careers on a complete damp squib that is Angela Eagle, it would be sheer lunacy. The bookies have drifted her odds since the NEC vote and Owen Smith is now favorite fwtw. Owen Smith is meh as can be though, would be a waste of time. Their best bet is to build up propaganda machine behind Dan Jarvis, which I imagine is already in the workings.

You're right Owen smith is getting nowhere. Perhaps Burnham might be persuaded to stand. He hasn't come out of this looking terrible and is still relatively popular in the party. Once the reactionary nonsense has finished I'm sure the contest will become clearer.

 

[Kopper]

I'm sorry you don't think shitty was a strong enough phrase. I'm happy to agree with you on desperate.

Did you read the links I posted?

Homelessness has doubled since 2010.

http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homeless-def-numbers.html

Over one million three-day emergency food were supplies given to people in crisis in 2015/16.

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/

Not desperate, times for those people?

Incidentally, I don't think I've drawn any comparisons with the 80's and the last 6 years.



I think it's unconscionable to anyone.

I'm sure they did, and the reason it isn't means tested is because it would cost too much to administer. I'm certainly not saying that WFPs are a bad thing, just should go to the most vulnerable of people.

All in all your point seems to be that New Labour spent too much on welfare, but it was that spending on welfare which is decreasing the impact of austerity on the poorest. Have I got that right? It's just you seem to be singing the praises of WFPs and strongly criticising the policies of Thatcher, so I'm a bit confused is all.

If the plight of the elderly was a concern for all, why was New Labour the only ones hell bent on eradicating it?

You could easily set up exclusions to WFP acceptance. Value of property (land registry) equity in property (mortgage details from the bank would suffice), pension income (hmrc would have this information).
It needn't cost the government that much in administration. A little joined up thinking should do it.

As the discussion moves along, further points are raised. I started out by saying welfare spending under New Labour was too high. You (or someone else. I'm using my phone and can't navigate as easily as I'd like) said it wasn't. Though you conceded it would be generous compared to Tory levels.
My argument would be what else would we have to compare it to? The coalition government was formed in a global recession and wedded to austerity as a consequence. So it's not an ideal setting to judge welfare spending levels.
You then supported your argument with two links about the suffering of today's poor. I took offence to this, as today is nothing like years gone by. Which led me to bring up the 1980's.

With all the credit available to a person today, it's a wonder anyone could find themselves out on the street. Forbearance from the banks means those with mortgages would have to miss 2 years of payments before the bank starts repossession proceedings.
Contrast this with the 80's or even the 90's and there's no comparison.

I wonder what your definition of poor is? Access to food, water and shelter. With the opportunity to better your circumstances doesn't make you poor in my book.

 

[Max]

Corbyn is unelectable so they try and remove him from the ballot, hmmm, doesn't quite make sense.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK

There is a difference between being electable by the Labour Party members and by the general public.

You're right Owen smith is getting nowhere. Perhaps Burnham might be persuaded to stand. He hasn't come out of this looking terrible and is still relatively popular in the party. Once the reactionary nonsense has finished I'm sure the contest will become clearer.

I wouldn't rule anyone out, but I don't think Andy Burnham is particularly popular with his colleagues or members.

 

[Aber gas]

My argument would be what else would we have to compare it to? The coalition government was formed in a global recession and wedded to austerity as a consequence. So it's not an ideal setting to judge welfare spending levels.
You then supported your argument with two links about the suffering of today's poor. I took offence to this, as today is nothing like years gone by. Which led me to bring up the 1980's.

I believe the austerity policy is ideological and not designed to salvage the economy. There has been growth but it's relatively small and extremely lopsided in terms of who has felt the benefit. So it is fair to judge the coalitions spending on welfare. I'm not sure I'm following the reasoning behind your comparison on the how poor people suffer. It's not a competition, a significant number of people on this country live below the breadline absolutely mired in debt. This brings me to this....

With all the credit available to a person today, it's a wonder anyone could find themselves out on the street. Forbearance from the banks means those with mortgages would have to miss 2 years of payments before the bank starts repossession proceedings.
Contrast this with the 80's or even the 90's and there's no comparison.

Homelessness is a huge problem now as it was in the 1980's. Perhaps the definition has changed but the amount of people and especially children living in unsecure, temporary accommodation is becoming one of the largest social problems of the time. Access to credit is not a way for most people to get out of poverty or homelessness because usually the only credit available to people in these situations is at ridiculous interests rates offered by legalised loan sharks. It actually exacerbates the problem rather than offering a solution.

 

[Abertawe]

‏@LabourEoin 3h3 hours ago
Wow! Labour NEC just blocked 130,000 new Labour members from voting in the leadership elections.

@LabourEoin 2h2 hours ago
Labour in legal hot water. They've accepted £4.5 million in new member fees in last 2 wks on promise they could vote

 

[Abertawe]

There is a difference between being electable by the Labour Party members and by the general public.
I wouldn't rule anyone out, but I don't think Andy Burnham is particularly popular with his colleagues or members.

And again that comes down to theory. We haven't seen any evidence that proves Corbyn is unelectable. Please stop with your condescending self-pompous tones unless you're trotting out verifiable facts.

 

[SUTSS]

The voting eligibility rules are bizzare. Why bar a 6 month member but allow someone to pay £25 to be a 'supporter' and give them a vote?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Surely there is an element of fraud here...

 

[Kopper]

I believe the austerity policy is ideological and not designed to salvage the economy. There has been growth but it's relatively small and extremely lopsided in terms of who has felt the benefit. So it is fair to judge the coalitions spending on welfare. I'm not sure I'm following the reasoning behind your comparison on the how poor people suffer. It's not a competition, a significant number of people on this country live below the breadline absolutely mired in debt. This brings me to this....

Homelessness is a huge problem now as it was in the 1980's. Perhaps the definition has changed but the amount of people and especially children living in unsecure, temporary accommodation is becoming one of the largest social problems of the time. Access to credit is not a way for most people to get out of poverty or homelessness because usually the only credit available to people in these situations is at ridiculous interests rates offered by legalised loan sharks. It actually exacerbates the problem rather than offering a solution.

Austerity isn't an ideological problem. Commentators say it's ideological because they want the government to continue welfare spending at 2009 levels.

The global economy runs on oil and it's derivatives. The simple fact is the world is running out of easily extractable oil. It has been for decades. A global recession would need a common component among all trading nations, for it to effect all of them. Oil is that commodity.
Economic growth is a misnomer. You can create as much money as you like, but it won't produce the raw materials needed for the manufacturing of tradable goods.

All industrialised governments are trying to manage this decline in living standards and the inevitable back lash from the people.
Labour if they gain power will face the same problems as the Conservatives. And Labour has a poor record on managing declining expectation.
While the Conservatives are past masters at it.

No solution can give us the standard of living our parents enjoyed, without some technological break through in something like nuclear fusion.
But with what we have, we could build several hydroelectric dam.
The proposed strathdearn project in Scotland could store all of Europe's renewable energy.
Crowd funding (an excellent example of socialism working in capital markets) could be used to fund other initiatives.

This is why I say Jeremy Corbyn is the right man with the wrong message. Increased welfare spending is unsustainable and those on welfare will never be content, no matter what you give them.
If JC could talk about the real underlying issues (as discussed) and offer several solutions (see above) with the added benefit of shared ownership and the means of production back with the people.
He would galvanise the left and draw in a few from the right.

I believe the austerity policy is ideological and not designed to salvage the economy. There has been growth but it's relatively small and extremely lopsided in terms of who has felt the benefit. So it is fair to judge the coalitions spending on welfare. I'm not sure I'm following the reasoning behind your comparison on the how poor people suffer. It's not a competition, a significant number of people on this country live below the breadline absolutely mired in debt. This brings me to this....

Homelessness is a huge problem now as it was in the 1980's. Perhaps the definition has changed but the amount of people and especially children living in unsecure, temporary accommodation is becoming one of the largest social problems of the time. Access to credit is not a way for most people to get out of poverty or homelessness because usually the only credit available to people in these situations is at ridiculous interests rates offered by legalised loan sharks. It actually exacerbates the problem rather than offering a solution.