An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

Filo25

Moby wrote: »

Went to the local Labour Party meeting on Thursday to choose the candidate that the meeting will support. Very different atmosphere to the usual meeting. There were loads of new members, many of them only too happy to tell us how things needed to change etc. Of course Corbyn won the vote and the new members took great pleasure in cheering in my face because they knew I supported Smith. The hate in their eyes and triumphalism was something I'd not actually seen from Tory opponents. The Chair of the Party welcomed them all and said its great to see all our new members and how excited they are and we look forward to seeing exactly the same numbers trudging the streets of the constituency door knocking during the next Election campaign! I think his irony was lost on them. Comrades who dared to speak against Corbyn were shouted down and called red tories/ Blairites. When it was pointed out to them that we'll have an MP having to go into an election canvassing for a leader she has no faith in, they said we'll deselect her! Remember this is a hard fought Labour/Tory marginal with a 1K majority. Most of these new members didn't even know that!

Let's be honest the Corbyn wing of the party has always been far more interested in fighting the centre and right of the party than in order to gain control than it has in actually trying to form a credible opposition or perish the thought actually becoming electable enough to govern themselves.

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The problem many Tory voters have is that they don't understand the scale to which they are being duped.

lets keep it objective not emotional, ons figures put average full time male wage at over £37k pa with women not far behind. So people are doing ok

50% of the UK's private wealth is owned by 10% of people

Probably a made up statistic but even if it were true this wealth is concentrated in the hands of individuals but benefits households. eg I know a man who is a millionaire but his 3 kids and wife are not if you count that as 1 man holding all the wealth while 4 are suffering then yes things sound bad but the reality is that that is a family of 5 who are all millionaires even if on paper 4 are poor 1 is rich

Over 30% of all rural land in the UK is still owned by 0.6% of people who are all hereditary aristocrats.

most people could not care less. if you want land there is plenty for sale at around the £10k an acre mark. The average full time male wage can thus nearly buy 4 acres with his gross income per year

The U.K. is now measured as being one of the most unequal and socially immobile countries in the entire world.

The half of the full time men earning £37k a year and the women not far off dont care. Its not a crusade of 99% poor 1% rich. Its more than 50% doing well and closer to 10% doing crap and most that 10% is self induced (eg alcoholism, drugs, family breakdowns)

The Right is failing almost everyone who works for a living rather than receiving a hand out and a leg up from their rich parents.

the number and scope of people receiving handouts from their parents is increasing each and every year. what you imagine to be a few hundred people is probably about half of all households

The biggest failure of Milliband's campaign was his inability to reach people like the Question Time nail bar woman. Low income working class people who work in the low wage economy and rely on state top up benefits. People that the Tories repeatedly and conspicuously treat with complete and utter contempt. And who were blatantly lied to.

that nail bar woman was a fool and very likely a liar too. I saw a video interview of her with some BBC crew complaining that she had to sometimes avoid eating (all 100kg of her) so she had enough to feed her kids and make ends meet. All saying this with a straight face as two large dogs in the background were eating their supper. Needless to say the BBC interviewer did not ask how she could afford two large dogs and feed them if she is unable to feed herself not how can can be so obese if she is indeed going to bed hungry

milliband failed as the country is nowhere near as poor or hard up as you think/would-like it to be. I dont see how this changes with korbin

The second biggest failure was to reach the lower and middle earners. (£37k gross is not a lot of money these days), and convince them that the Tories somehow see them as anything other than a bunch of compliant serfs who will literally work themselves to death in the desperate pursuit of maintaining some ersatz middle class label.

if its a household with two working full time adults its closer to £37k + £35k (and remember these are the people right in the middle, each 1% you go up the figures increase. That is to say if half of all full time men are on £37k then 49% are on more, 48% are on more yet, etc).

More importantly these are the folk that the left need to convince that taxing them is better for themselves. That increasing their property taxes is good for them. That increasing Vat or council tax is good for them. That increasing corp tax is good for their pensions and savings. Needless to say, when they think it through, they think no thanks

By and large the Tories achieved all this using propaganda.

No. The tories, and tony Blair achieved success by simply understanding that half the male full time working population earns £37k a year or more and women not far behind and that they strive to try and earn even more. So to tell them that you are going to tax high earners (40% tax kicks in at £43k just a bit above the £37k male wages) is asking them to vote for higher taxes on themselves and they say no thank you

This is why the Corbynite movement is abandoning the MSM to reach people through social media and direct action.

And it's working too.

So what is the plan?
Who is going to vote for korbin that did not vote for milliband?
Is the plan that the non voters will turn up for him?
That might work or it might not.

More importantly as westernpromise points out, its no good getting 1 million more people to turn up in inner London to increase the labour majority in those seast those additional votes count for nothing. you need to get people out in the tory seats and have them overturn tory majorities and if tory seats are on average richer with higher assets and incomes its not as difficult as I tried to describe its even harder

So what is the plan?
Who is going to vote for korbin in the marginal tory victory seats who did not vote for milliband?

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No one owns anything. Ownership is a human construct that exists only in your head.

Ownership is negotiated by the consent of the majority of people who do not own what you own allowing you to continue keeping it.

History teaches us that there comes a point where inequality becomes so unbalanced that it enters taking the pi$$ territory.

Then things get moved around, and the 'owners' have only themselves to blame.

the trouble with that comrade, is that the world is now far more open and accepting so the 'owners' will migrate to other places and take their wealth with them

see rich Russians as an example of how they try to mitigate the risks of domestic non owners distributing their wealth

setmefree2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Just because you have been purportedly pro-Corbyn does not mean you receive shrift now you have revealed yourself as an Anti-Corbynite Fifth Columnist.

A new kind of politics is coming. A kinder kind of politics. It's time to get on board and share in the vision.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ruggedtoast you have been in the LP 5 minutes and were previously in the LIbDems and yet you like to preach to people who have been in the LP for decades - do you have no shame?

setmefree2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Of course you can. Because you're a confirmed Tory voter who can't even begin to understand why socialist politics exists.

OMG ruggedtoast you've been voting LibDem all your life - I doubt you've even voted Labour - you should really listen to yourself.....

[Deleted User]

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No one owns anything. Ownership is a human construct that exists only in your head.

Ownership is negotiated by the consent of the majority of people who do not own what you own allowing you to continue keeping it.

History teaches us that there comes a point where inequality becomes so unbalanced that it enters taking the pi$$ territory.

Then things get moved around, and the 'owners' have only themselves to blame.

Let me stop you there. No really, just stop now before you embarrass yourself further!

:rotfl: There we are, back to the 'all property is theft' type guff, so beloved at the first year social sciences table in the student union. What's next? 'Eat the rich?'

No, tell you what ......... keep going, this is really good :T .

WR

seven-day-weekend

[QUOTE=cells;71150262


the number and scope of people receiving handouts from their parents is increasing each and every year. what you imagine to be a few hundred people is probably about half of all households


QUOTE]

I have said before and will say again, that ALL the first-time buyers I personally know (including our son) who have bought a property in the last 5-7 years, have had financial help from family and/or inheritance. (Age varying from early 20s to late 30s). I'm sure these people are not unusual, as you say, there are many, it's not just the favoured few.

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

They would not last 10 minutes if they formed an independent party because they would be doing so in instances where the local constituency party has or will deselect them. Basically, any Labour MP who decides to become an independent or to form a new party of others like himself will be someone with no local established organization. This means that their career as an MP is likely to end next election. The odd one is likely to be able to hang on but most won't, and in many cases will achieve no more than to split the vote and let a Tory through the middle.

You forget that these constituency parties are already threatening to deselect sitting MPs. Many with small majorities expect to lose at the next election. They still do not have to resign.

You forget that an MP who fights the next election as an independent and gets only a few votes gains tens of thousands of pounds in allowances and three months pay and extra pension. Someone who resigns gets relatively little.

In short they have nothing to lose by forming their own local party and will they care that they are replaced by a Tory or a LibDem? As to a career, they will walk into jobs so why will they care?

Labour 's vote share could fall to 22% or so without their seat tally going much below 150-odd. We've seen in Scotland though that the locals eventually work out that Labour 's done nothing for them in 70-odd years and they choose something else, but that something else had itself been around for 70 years - it hasn't flowered overnight.

Not if the Lib Dems stage a revival and get 30%.

Labour will lose a lot of seats fighting sitting MPs. Both will lose.

I can see the left dissolving into a People's Front of Judaea shambles for the next 20 years.

So can I. So can lots of centre left voters. Unfortunately Corbyn is in denial as are his supporters.

BobQ

westernpromise wrote: »

.

If 117 to 170 Labour MPs did indeed secede, meaning Corbyn no longer led the largest bloc, then Bercow would have to decide whether this bloc amounted to a legitimate Opposition. On the one hand they are now a bigger bloc than rump Labour. So they have the numbers; their leader, however elected, would thus control the second-largest bloc. But on the other hand, none was elected as the People's Front of Judaea; they were actually elected as the Judaean People's Front. What their constituencies actually returned was a JPF MP and they are de facto no longer JPF MPs. They might argue that they are the "real" JPF, and that it is Corbyn who is the splitter. But as they have expressly quit the party to found a new one, and don't claim to be the actual official JPF, it's clear they're not. And what would happen if some later took back the whip?

This would, I suggest, be enough to cast serious doubt on whether they are properly established and could legitimately be considered the official Opposition, entitled to Short Money, etc. To do so could be seen as endorsing infiltration. You could have 120 people suddenly declare, the day after being elected Labour MPs, that they are actually the Campaign for a Free Galilee, and then demand recognition at Westminster on the basis of having 120 MPs, even though no vote was cast for them. Tricky one for Bercow...

Not really. We elect MPs not Parties. If we had 120 MPs who resigned the whip and were independents Bercow would have no problem. If they form a Parliamentary Party and elect a leader they become an Opposition Party. The largest Opposition Party Leader is by convention the Leader of the Opposition. To decide otherwise would set a precedent that contradicts years of history.

fatbeetle

Just my two pennorth, I'm a working class, council house raised, ex-Labour voter originally from a steel town in South Wales, (Llanelli.) I lost faith with the Labour party when it became the party of the minority (save the gay, disabled, single-parent, Somali refugee, sod the white working man, ) and gave up on it's working class roots. Corbyn seems to want to drag the UK back to the days of the winter of discontent, and we all know how well that worked for us.