Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Shame really - had I realised that PLP labour stood for 'wealthy' people paying no tax and abolition of the mnimum wage then I might have voted for Ed Milliband

I must admit I hadn't realised that Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall were united in their desire to abolish the minimum wage. Does that make them even more right wing than that nice Mr Osborne, who appears to want to put it up, rather than abolish it?

Thrugelmir

Filo25 wrote: »

There have been no shortage of opportunities provided by the government to score some strong political points since the last election, instead Labour seem more interested in navel gazing and pontificating on issues that to be brutally honest most voters, outside of committed activists, don't care a great deal about.

Scoring points is easy. Grabs the media's attention for a few minutes. Doesn't make a party any more electable. That requires a coherent well thought out alternative strategy. Arguably Labour are currently in disarray. As whatever you think of GO's management of the economy and the decisions, made the deficit is reducing. Which has made their previous economic arguments totally void.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Noticed an ad in the back of Private Eye: "Think Corbyn is a Socialist? No, neither do we"- for the Socialist Party. You could get a free newspaper if anyone's interested.

ruggedtoast

antrobus wrote: »

I must admit I hadn't realised that Burnham, Cooper, and Kendall were united in their desire to abolish the minimum wage. Does that make them even more right wing than that nice Mr Osborne, who appears to want to put it up, rather than abolish it?

He's "putting it up" to still well below the level of a living wage, removing tax credits and working benefits from the poorest people in the country, and then handing over yet another giant dollop of taxpayer funded corporate welfare to employers to offset the cost.

No one on a low income is better off from this stingy fiscal sleight of hand, nor is the taxpayer, the only people it benefits are the rich. Again.

ruggedtoast

antrobus wrote: »

Cool. 245,520 members voted for the leader, 121,751 picked Corbyn, which is pretty obviously "Slightly less than half of the actual membership".

So I was right.

Next!

And is more than Tony Blair got. A man not often accused of not having a mandate.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And is more than Tony Blair got. A man not often accused of not having a mandate.

How many votes do you think Mr Blair got to be leader of Labour? (I'll give you a clue, it was more than double the votes Mr Corbyn got)

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

How many votes do you think Mr Blair got to be leader of Labour? (I'll give you a clue, it was more than double the votes Mr Corbyn got)

Yes well it would have been nice if post Blairism the Labour Party had had half a million members to vote last year.

Sadly they didn't, but since the inaugration of Jeremy numbers are up by record amounts. Meaning that if any of the Blairites did launch the coup they keep threatening but are too scared to actually try for, there would be more than twice as many of us to vote for Jeremy and he would just thrash them even more humiliatingly.

A fact which I am sure the cognition of will do nothing but fill you contemplative serenity.

:-D

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes well it would have been nice if post Blairism the Labour Party had had half a million members to vote last year.

Sadly they didn't, but since the inaugration of Jeremy numbers are up by record amounts. Meaning that if any of the Blairites did launch the coup they keep threatening but are too scared to actually try for, there would be more than twice as many of us to vote for Jeremy and he would just thrash them even more humiliatingly.

A fact which I am sure the cognition of will do nothing but fill you contemplative serenity.

:-D


http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf

fantastic news

gadgetmind

ruggedtoast wrote: »

if any of the Blairites did launch the coup

It would be far more likely that the moderates would instead form a new party and leave the PLP to fly off further to the extreme left.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes well it would have been nice if post Blairism the Labour Party had had half a million members to vote last year.

Sadly they didn't, but since the inaugration of Jeremy numbers are up by record amounts. Meaning that if any of the Blairites did launch the coup they keep threatening but are too scared to actually try for, there would be more than twice as many of us to vote for Jeremy and he would just thrash them even more humiliatingly.

A fact which I am sure the cognition of will do nothing but fill you contemplative serenity.

:-D

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05125.pdf

I was just wondering why you stated that Mr Corbyn got more votes than Mr Blair when it seems that you knew that wasn't the case. Why did you do that old boy?

The PLP seems not to represent the membership any more and I suspect that it'll be the PLP that will have to give way.

We'll see whether Labour becomes more or less popular under Corbynism but I can't imagine giving up the Falklands, giving up The Bomb and soaking the rich to shower benefits on the indolent are likely to gain popularity.

I'm happy that us Tories don't have to be concerned about any threat from Mr Corbyn. My bigger concern is the dearth of democracy resulting from a lack of opposition.