Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

If there's one thing Labour does really well, it's rigging elections. Whether it's by trade union block votes, postal voting fraud, gerrymandering the boundaries or whatever, the loonies will not miss a trick.

As ever an unbiased unpartisan analysis from you!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/77319/electoral-commission-withdraws-high-court

You also forget to mention the loons in the tories currently holding Mayhem hostage. Why do you think her speech tomorrow will be so hard Brexit?.......it's because she has to appease the loons in her own party! If Brexit doesn't go well; if people see their standard of living decrease....she will pay and Labour as the second Party will benefit. Your analysis will mean nothing then because 'normal politics' has gone!
Labour is in a mess but a new leader and 'hanging in there' can change things more than you seem to acknowledge.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/hard-brexit-means-retiring-later-britons-warned

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

As ever an unbiased unpartisan analysis from you!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/77319/electoral-commission-withdraws-high-court

You also forget to mention the loons in the tories currently holding Mayhem hostage. Why do you think her speech tomorrow will be so hard Brexit?.......it's because she has to appease the loons in her own party! If Brexit doesn't go well; if people see their standard of living decrease....she will pay and Labour as the second Party will benefit. Your analysis will mean nothing then because 'normal politics' has gone!
Labour is in a mess but a new leader and 'hanging in there' can change things more than you seem to acknowledge.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/hard-brexit-means-retiring-later-britons-warned

Dream on!!

setmefree2

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

The type of people they think are future non-loony leaders have to hang onto their seats first. Big, big ask, as Tristram Hunt has just shown. Even if the seat is safe from the Tories the sitting MP may not be safe from his own local party.

A Labour Party reduced to 150 MPs will contain lots of nutters - the first challenge will be finding 23 "normal" MPs to nominate one "normal" candidate. The second challenge will be for him (it will have to be a him - this is Labour) winning an election from an electorate of people like Rugged Toast to whom anyone right of Trotsky is a fascist.

Tbh the current crop of Labour MPs are very low grade. I suspect there is something wrong with Labour's selection process. Some of the MPs in Corbyn's cabinet can barely construct a sentence - let alone an argument. I'm baffled by the lack of quality on the Labour benches.

westernpromise

setmefree2 wrote: »

Tbh the current crop of Labour MPs are very low grade. I suspect there is something wrong with Labour's selection process. Some of the MPs in Corbyn's cabinet can barely construct a sentence - let alone an argument. I'm baffled by the lack of quality on the Labour benches.

Tokenism has a lot to do with it, I suspect. Some proportion of Labour's female and minority MPs are MPs solely because of that, to fill the quota. If you advantage candidates based on sexist and racist criteria then you're going to get a lot of deadbeat MPs. In Labour's view women are second-rate losers who need the deck stacked to get ahead because they're far too stupid and mediocre to get ahead on merit. As a result, stupid and mediocre is what you get. Look at Mary Creagh.

Labour hasn't had a female leader because of this. They've given quota seats to women who are completely ordinary or in Diane Abbott's case actually poisonous.

cogito

westernpromise wrote: »

It's not so much to do with where they're targeting. It's more that in seats that have been leftist for ever, it follows that there are more lefties. Hence, trivially, there are also more hard lefties who see a chance to infiltrate the seat and win it for Marxism. It follows that safer seats are more susceptible to being subverted by Momentum, and thus that even if this does happen, Labour will keep the seat anyway, with a loony MP.

In moderately strong seats, this chance must be lower. There may not be enough loonies to take over the seat if there are not that many lefties to begin with. But whether there are or not, Labour then meets the problem that the sitting MP, whether moderate or loony, has to face a centrist electorate with Labour's loony message. There is a very good chance that the Tories will take swathes of these seats as the Conservative vote hardens while the left vote splits between Labour and LibDem.

Labour must take seats directly from the Tories to win a GE. Taking them off the SNP or the LibDems is no use. These seats are already opposition seats and to take them leaves them in the opposition tally, just with a different rosette. This means that in the 50th to 60th most marginal Tory seats - places like Northampton South, Hendon, and Worcester - Labour has to turn 2015's typical Con 50% / Lab 31% result into Con 40% / Lab 41%. So 10% have to swing from voting centre-right Conservative in 2015 to barking-mad tax-and-squander neutralist unlimited-immigration IRA-and-Hamas-hugging Labour in 2020, using arguments furnished by Corbyn, who hates them.

This can only end one way. Labour shills don't want to hear it, but that's how it is. The boundary corrections will end 20 years of Labour gerrymandering and cost them 20 seats, so on 2015's performance they'll be on 212. But 2015 was with Miliband's comparatively impressive poll of 31%. Knock that back to say 26% and they'll be down to 190 or so core seats, many of which as I reason above will have a loony MP. So for the post-GE leadership contest (assuming Corbyn steps down - he may not), there will be no problem for the loonies to get together the 25 to 30 MPs required to nominate a loony candidate. Probably the sensibles will be able to get a candidate on the ballot too, but those candidates will then face the same party electorate that elected Jezza. The sensible candidate will then be humiliatingly crushed, like Jones, Burnham, Cooper, and that other one (* edit: Kendal) all were.

The only way the sensible candidate could win is if more than one loony candidate stood, splitting the loony vote. But that's not likely. If there's one thing Labour does really well, it's rigging elections. Whether it's by trade union block votes, postal voting fraud, gerrymandering the boundaries or whatever, the loonies will not miss a trick.

I agree with this on the whole but the bit that seems to be missng is what deselected Labour MPs will do. I suspect that many will decide to stand as independents and some of them, Hilary Benn comes to mind, might well win or split tha Labour vote so badly that another party takes the seat. In that scenario, Labour could be left with around 100 MPs.

bobbymotors

Theresa May's speech tomorrow is indeed likely to be hard line.

But that doesn't mean the actual deal will be hard line in the end.

It is intended as a shot across the bows to the rest of the EU...it is posturing, nothing more than that at present.

There will be no meaningful tariffs on any of our exports to the EU.

The reason for this is that we import more from the EU than we export to it. So any tit for tat tariffs will be to our advantage, and the EU will not impose them if they have any sense...but then when did sense and the EU ever go in one sentence?

But...lets say you export electronic items to the EU...Germany and France in particular: they decide top impose a 10% import tax on these items.

We say, fine....we'll put a 10% import tax on Mercedes, BMW, VW? Audi, Renault, Peugeot and Citroen car parts that contain any electronic components (ie most) you want to send to the UK, in order to protect our own electronics industry.

If it all gets silly, the EU has more to lose than we do.

Hopefully someone there is good at maths.....

davomcdave

bobbymotors wrote: »

If it all gets silly, the EU has more to lose than we do.

Hopefully someone there is good at maths.....

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx

In November 2016 the value of exports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £29.3 billion, and imports (EU and Non-EU) increased to £42.5 billion, compared with last month. Consequently the UK is a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £13.2 billion.

A 10% levy on imports imposed by the EU and GB would lead to EU customers paying £2.93bn a month or an average of £43.15 per person.

GB customers on the other hand would pay £4.25bn a month or an average of £663 per person.

Remind me, who has the most to lose from tariffs being imposed?

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

As ever an unbiased unpartisan analysis from you!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/77319/electoral-commission-withdraws-high-court...

Everybody seems to have problems with their election expenses.:)

Labour has been fined £20,000 by the Electoral Commission, the largest imposed by the body in its history, for undeclared election spending during the 2015 campaign, including more than £7,000 on the so-called “Ed Stone”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone

Moby wrote: »

...You also forget to mention the loons in the tories currently holding Mayhem hostage. Why do you think her speech tomorrow will be so hard Brexit?.......it's because she has to appease the loons in her own party! If Brexit doesn't go well; if people see their standard of living decrease....she will pay and Labour as the second Party will benefit. Your analysis will mean nothing then because 'normal politics' has gone!...

If....

Besides, by the time we get to Brexit, Labour may well not be the 'second party'.

Moby wrote: »

....Labour is in a mess but a new leader and 'hanging in there' can change things more than you seem to acknowledge....

That's not really much of a plan.

Moby wrote: »

....https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/hard-brexit-means-retiring-later-britons-warned

Speculation piled upon speculation.

Enterprise_1701C

Moby wrote: »

As ever an unbiased unpartisan analysis from you!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/77319/electoral-commission-withdraws-high-court

You also forget to mention the loons in the tories currently holding Mayhem hostage. Why do you think her speech tomorrow will be so hard Brexit?.......it's because she has to appease the loons in her own party! If Brexit doesn't go well; if people see their standard of living decrease....she will pay and Labour as the second Party will benefit. Your analysis will mean nothing then because 'normal politics' has gone!
Labour is in a mess but a new leader and 'hanging in there' can change things more than you seem to acknowledge.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/15/hard-brexit-means-retiring-later-britons-warned

Her speech tomorrow will be so hard Brexit because that is how you negotiate. She is telling the EU that basically if we do not get what we want we will walk away. To them that will be terrifying because we will make a good job of it and will come out a stronger country. The EU is not the only people that trade, plenty of people want to do deals with us so it will not be the end of the world.

When I am in spain and I see something on a market I offer a tenth of the price and then if I do not get the offer I want I walk away, most of the time the trader comes running after me agreeing the price I want.

There is a very good chance the EU will come running after us begging us to trade with them, they cant afford the jobs that will disappear if we stop trading with them to such an extent. If not then stuff them, there are other people to buy things from.

seven-day-weekend

westernpromise wrote: »

Tokenism has a lot to do with it, I suspect. Some proportion of Labour's female and minority MPs are MPs solely because of that, to fill the quota. If you advantage candidates based on sexist and racist criteria then you're going to get a lot of deadbeat MPs. In Labour's view women are second-rate losers who need the deck stacked to get ahead because they're far too stupid and mediocre to get ahead on merit. As a result, stupid and mediocre is what you get. Look at Mary Creagh.

Labour hasn't had a female leader because of this. They've given quota seats to women who are completely ordinary or in Diane Abbott's case actually poisonous.

I read a novel by Ben Elton once, with this taken to the Nth degree, with people employed to do nothing but 'be' the ethnic minority/disabled/female/LBGT employee. No role for them other than that.

I thought it was fiction.