If you accept that there is no moral reason why Richard Branson should employ 71,000 people worldwide, then perhaps you could accept that there is a practical reason why you should? Obviously it would be pretty easy to persuade Branson to sack most of his UK employees and move almost all facets of his business offshore, but why would this be a good thing? Same goes for other major UK employers. Lidl and Aldi, for example, are both substantially privately owned by foreign investors. Who would gain by closing them down or confiscating their business? I fail to see how the economic benefit would compensate for the loss of convenience for their customers or loss of jobs for their employees.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:40 pm£15M is a colossal sum of money, and I'd be interested in hearing the moral argument of why someone needs more than that. When you consider wealth measured in the hundreds of millions or more, then justifications wilt away. The more important argument though is that around power. I couldn't really care less that a few people live lives so extravagant they spend more in a week than what I could earn in a year, but the fact that level of wealth can buy influence with governments, sway elections, and misinform the public on a grand scale - then it's simply dangerous for everyone else.
Next labour leader?
Re: Next labour leader?
Re: Next labour leader?
I would definitely disagree there. If Virgin Atlantic, say, had not been allowed to function, then would the void have been filled by lots of little one-man-band airlines with a single plane each, or would a foreign company have filled the breach with foreign employees?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:51 pmBranson didn't grow his company in hermetically sealed isolation from the rest of the economy. So if Branson hadn't grown his company, and let it tick over keeping him under the wealth ceiling, then lots of other companies would be out there providing the services or products that Branson's company currently supplies. It's often said that small business is the real engine of the economy. And for business that wants to grow and take advantage of size - there's always the option to go public.
Re: Next labour leader?
Yes - as a primary reason. I'd rather live poor in a democracy, than be wealthy in a dictatorship (to give you an example - though democracies tend to have fairer economies). A secondary reason is that societies with higher levels of equality tend to be more stable. An economy runs more smoothly in a society in which you have very few poor, and a rich class who aren't miles ahead of everyone else in terms of wealth. Look at most revolutions in history - caused by gross inequality. Even where repression and absence of rights is seen as the prime motivating factor, that is usually in place in order to maintain inequality.
And of course there is the moral side to it. It's completely wrong to tolerate the existence of billionaires alongside foodbanks, people who can't afford to heat their homes and clothe their children, underfunded public services, and homelessness.
Re: Next labour leader?
There would still be room for other airlines in the market - owned by thousands of shareholders. If Virgin didn't exist, the people who fly on it wouldn't stop flying, and the people who work for it would be able to work for other companies filling the hole in the market.dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:59 pmI would definitely disagree there. If Virgin Atlantic, say, had not been allowed to function, then would the void have been filled by lots of little one-man-band airlines with a single plane each, or would a foreign company have filled the breach with foreign employees?
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
Okay.
Don’t necessarily disagree that extreme wealth, in the wrong hands, can lead to corruption. That said, not everyone with extreme wealth is corrupt. Branson might not‘ve lost his rail franchise if he were, for example. And I think you’re lucky to live in the UK where things like political donations are transparent/scrutinised, and there’s a free press desperate to dig up dirt on any politician that even looks at an oligarch.
Do disagree that a wealth cap is workable in a world economy, for many reasons, but I appreciate you’re not suggesting genuinely workable.
Back on the topic of the thread, I predict it will boil down to Keir Starmer & RLB, with RLB winning the members vote. Momentum/the Unions will see you it. After which I think you’ll see the moderates leave and form a break-away party/the Lib Dem’s.
Don’t necessarily disagree that extreme wealth, in the wrong hands, can lead to corruption. That said, not everyone with extreme wealth is corrupt. Branson might not‘ve lost his rail franchise if he were, for example. And I think you’re lucky to live in the UK where things like political donations are transparent/scrutinised, and there’s a free press desperate to dig up dirt on any politician that even looks at an oligarch.
Do disagree that a wealth cap is workable in a world economy, for many reasons, but I appreciate you’re not suggesting genuinely workable.
Back on the topic of the thread, I predict it will boil down to Keir Starmer & RLB, with RLB winning the members vote. Momentum/the Unions will see you it. After which I think you’ll see the moderates leave and form a break-away party/the Lib Dem’s.
-
- Posts: 4948
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2307 times
- Has Liked: 1033 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Next labour leader?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, have you ?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:51 pmBranson didn't grow his company in hermetically sealed isolation from the rest of the economy. So if Branson hadn't grown his company, and let it tick over keeping him under the wealth ceiling, then lots of other companies would be out there providing the services or products that Branson's company currently supplies. It's often said that small business is the real engine of the economy. And for business that wants to grow and take advantage of size - there's always the option to go public.
A wealth ceiling of £15m, for a private owner of a very successful Airline or Internet provider? If the Airline goes public, Beardy Branson gives away all his wealth over and above £15m to his employees ? Your ideas would kill at source any new entrants to any markets or any competition to the current market leaders, who would fund new entrants and new technologies ?
Would you ban Foreign Companies and owners who are wealthy from operating in Britain ? Are we back to 4 TV channels ? No Easyjet, Ryanair, etc just the State operated Airlines charging fortunes to travel abroad ?
Re: Next labour leader?
I think the problem is that while you personally would vote for everyone to be poor, the rest of the poor would not agree with you. Poor people, by and large, vote to be rich. If you want a society where everyone is poor and it is illegal to become rich, you need to discard democracy.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:03 pmYes - as a primary reason. I'd rather live poor in a democracy, than be wealthy in a dictatorship (to give you an example - though democracies tend to have fairer economies). A secondary reason is that societies with higher levels of equality tend to be more stable. An economy runs more smoothly in a society in which you have very few poor, and a rich class who aren't miles ahead of everyone else in terms of wealth. Look at most revolutions in history - caused by gross inequality. Even where repression and absence of rights is seen as the prime motivating factor, that is usually in place in order to maintain inequality.
And of course there is the moral side to it. It's completely wrong to tolerate the existence of billionaires alongside foodbanks, people who can't afford to heat their homes and clothe their children, underfunded public services, and homelessness.
Let's go back to your hero, Attlee. When he was Prime Minister - and this is not just as a result of the war, because many of the conditions applied pre-war as well - children had, as a rule, three sets of clothes. Sunday best, school, and play clothes if they were lucky. Why were little lads seen on SDaturday wearing school blazers? Because it was all they had. Very few people could afford to heat their homes - they could heat their front rooms, and the kitchen stove and boiler would heat the kitchen, but there would be no heat in the bedrooms. Schools had 50 in a class with no teaching assistants. Those may have been halcyon days, and you may be right that it would be better to go back to those days when everyone was poor instead of just a few, but will you get people who do have food, clothes, and heat - which means virtually everyone - to vote to go back to then?
You need to delve deeper into the reasons for revolution. It's not inequality, it's poverty, that is the bigger driver. The middle classes tend to lead the revolution, but they only get the support if there is poverty. And I know you look around now and see empty buses where the trams used to be fuil, and children writing on ipads because they have no paper just as they used to write on slates because they had no paper, and see poverty everywhere. But it isn't true. Most of us are rich, as you yourself are; and we don't want to be poor.
Re: Next labour leader?
If you cap wealth at fifteen or twenty million, then is that "getting rid of the rich"? - most people (everyone!) would love to be so "poor" as that. Explain to me as well, how that would make "everyone poor".dsr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:24 pmI think the problem is that while you personally would vote for everyone to be poor, the rest of the poor would not agree with you. Poor people, by and large, vote to be rich. If you want a society where everyone is poor and it is illegal to become rich, you need to discard democracy.
Let's go back to your hero, Attlee. When he was Prime Minister - and this is not just as a result of the war, because many of the conditions applied pre-war as well - children had, as a rule, three sets of clothes. Sunday best, school, and play clothes if they were lucky. Why were little lads seen on SDaturday wearing school blazers? Because it was all they had. Very few people could afford to heat their homes - they could heat their front rooms, and the kitchen stove and boiler would heat the kitchen, but there would be no heat in the bedrooms. Schools had 50 in a class with no teaching assistants. Those may have been halcyon days, and you may be right that it would be better to go back to those days when everyone was poor instead of just a few, but will you get people who do have food, clothes, and heat - which means virtually everyone - to vote to go back to then?
You need to delve deeper into the reasons for revolution. It's not inequality, it's poverty, that is the bigger driver. The middle classes tend to lead the revolution, but they only get the support if there is poverty. And I know you look around now and see empty buses where the trams used to be fuil, and children writing on ipads because they have no paper just as they used to write on slates because they had no paper, and see poverty everywhere. But it isn't true. Most of us are rich, as you yourself are; and we don't want to be poor.
Think of it this way: instead of making Branson richer, we make several thousand shareholders richer. Deliver the same service, and spread the wealth around.
If you want your argument to work, then you have to explain how a billionaire works as hard as a thousand millonaires.
Re: Next labour leader?
One question: Would you be happy or sad to be faced with such a conundrum?Clarets4me wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:56 pmYou have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, have you ?
A wealth ceiling of £15m, for a private owner of a very successful Airline or Internet provider? If the Airline goes public, Beardy Branson gives away all his wealth over and above £15m to his employees ? Your ideas would kill at source any new entrants to any markets or any competition to the current market leaders, who would fund new entrants and new technologies ?
Would you ban Foreign Companies and owners who are wealthy from operating in Britain ? Are we back to 4 TV channels ? No Easyjet, Ryanair, etc just the State operated Airlines charging fortunes to travel abroad ?
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
They don’t. But neither do millionaires work harder than anyone earning £8ph.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:11 amIf you cap wealth at fifteen or twenty million, then is that "getting rid of the rich"? - most people (everyone!) would love to be so "poor" as that. Explain to me as well, how that would make "everyone poor".
Think of it this way: instead of making Branson richer, we make several thousand shareholders richer. Deliver the same service, and spread the wealth around.
If you want your argument to work, then you have to explain how a billionaire works as hard as a thousand millonaires.
I’m getting drawn in to a pointless argument here again, because it’s never going to happen but the issue with capping wealth (particularly at the levels being discussed here), is it would lead to MASSIVE currency inflation, which would in turn destroy the economy and then we’d all be poor. Maybe then you’d be happy, given you’d rather be poorer and live in a democracy (which you do by the way, and it’s just massively rejected some of these socialist ideologies at the ballot box).
As for the poverty point, as mentioned by other posters, I think we have extremely low levels of poverty in this country. Particularly in comparison to years gone by, suggesting that it might be a good idea not to go back to them.
There was a good question in one of the election debates. I can’t remember it exactly but words to the effect of: across history, has capitalism or socialism done more to help people in poverty? Corbyn’s answer was shockingly bad - skirted right around it - but Johnson didn’t do much better either. I’d have liked them to debate that properly and the answer would have been capitalism, which judging by the look on Corbyn’s face when asked the question, suggested he knew.
-
- Posts: 2103
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:12 am
- Been Liked: 500 times
- Has Liked: 509 times
Re: Next labour leader?
Just following the Labour leadership race, and yes, I think I'd rather Starmer win it than RLB. As I suspected, deep down RLB doesn't represent socialists at all. Better to let the Labour liberals have a shot at the next election, and for the socialists to gracefully stand to one side (for now), than have RLB 'represent' them badly.
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
Why do you think she doesn’t represent socialists? Just curious. Don’t know much about her other than she’s Corbyn’s/McDonnell’s/Momentum’s choice.If it be your will wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:16 pmJust following the Labour leadership race, and yes, I think I'd rather Starmer win it than RLB. As I suspected, deep down RLB doesn't represent socialists at all. Better to let the Labour liberals have a shot at the next election, and for the socialists to gracefully stand to one side (for now), than have RLB 'represent' them badly.
Which is all I need to know to put me off
Re: Next labour leader?
Maybe we live in different countries, because I don't see most of our press as free. As for Capitalism or Socialism doing more to help people in poverty - look at the UK. We had huge amounts of poverty during our time of high Capitalism (1832-1910), and it was only when more Socialist ideas were introduced that poverty began to come down. To me that's as plain as day, but maybe you can see a different angle?NewClaret wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:38 amThey don’t. But neither do millionaires work harder than anyone earning £8ph.
I’m getting drawn in to a pointless argument here again, because it’s never going to happen but the issue with capping wealth (particularly at the levels being discussed here), is it would lead to MASSIVE currency inflation, which would in turn destroy the economy and then we’d all be poor. Maybe then you’d be happy, given you’d rather be poorer and live in a democracy (which you do by the way, and it’s just massively rejected some of these socialist ideologies at the ballot box).
As for the poverty point, as mentioned by other posters, I think we have extremely low levels of poverty in this country. Particularly in comparison to years gone by, suggesting that it might be a good idea not to go back to them.
There was a good question in one of the election debates. I can’t remember it exactly but words to the effect of: across history, has capitalism or socialism done more to help people in poverty? Corbyn’s answer was shockingly bad - skirted right around it - but Johnson didn’t do much better either. I’d have liked them to debate that properly and the answer would have been capitalism, which judging by the look on Corbyn’s face when asked the question, suggested he knew.
Re: Next labour leader?
Do you actually believe that there was no reduction in poverty between 1832 and 1910? You've never heard of the Factory Acts? the Abolition of Slavery Act? the repeal of the Corn Laws? the Public Health acts? the Food and Drugs Acts, the Mines Regulation and Inspection Acts, the Sanitary Act, the second Reform Act, the Ballot Act, the Employers and Workmen Act, the Factory and workshops Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the Married Women's Property Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:32 pmMaybe we live in different countries, because I don't see most of our press as free. As for Capitalism or Socialism doing more to help people in poverty - look at the UK. We had huge amounts of poverty during our time of high Capitalism (1832-1910), and it was only when more Socialist ideas were introduced that poverty began to come down. To me that's as plain as day, but maybe you can see a different angle?
At the start of that period, children were working full time at 5. By the end, it was 13. At the start of that period, a full time working week was 6 days of 14 hours. By the end, it was 5 days of 10 hours and a half-day of 6 hours. At the start of the period, the workers had two days' holiday per year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day. At the end, it was 12 days including Wakes Week. (It became 15 days in 1915.)
You don't see any of that as an improvement?
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
That’s exactly what I was going to say.dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that there was no reduction in poverty between 1832 and 1910? You've never heard of the Factory Acts? the Abolition of Slavery Act? the repeal of the Corn Laws? the Public Health acts? the Food and Drugs Acts, the Mines Regulation and Inspection Acts, the Sanitary Act, the second Reform Act, the Ballot Act, the Employers and Workmen Act, the Factory and workshops Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the Married Women's Property Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act?
At the start of that period, children were working full time at 5. By the end, it was 13. At the start of that period, a full time working week was 6 days of 14 hours. By the end, it was 5 days of 10 hours and a half-day of 6 hours. At the start of the period, the workers had two days' holiday per year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day. At the end, it was 12 days including Wakes Week. (It became 15 days in 1915.)
You don't see any of that as an improvement?
This user liked this post: dsr
-
- Posts: 8069
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3060 times
- Has Liked: 5023 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Next labour leader?
Our press is free, it doesn't mean that it doesn't show political bias. An unfree press is one controlled by governments, and considering the **** our press throw at all politicians it certainly isnt controlled.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:32 pmMaybe we live in different countries, because I don't see most of our press as free. As for Capitalism or Socialism doing more to help people in poverty - look at the UK. We had huge amounts of poverty during our time of high Capitalism (1832-1910), and it was only when more Socialist ideas were introduced that poverty began to come down. To me that's as plain as day, but maybe you can see a different angle?
As for the rest of your rubbish, this is 2020. We have machines that fly through the air. Boxes that you can hold in your hand, and speak to someone on the otherside of the world. You're living in the past Andrew, still fighting the good fight, not realising the fight was over 40 years ago. You're like one of those Japanese soldiers lost in the jungle still fighting WWII.
Times have changed so much. There is always a case for helping those less fortunate, but the world you describe just doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't require communism, or your brand of socialism to repair the ills of the world, just a more compassionate government.
Re: Next labour leader?
I didn’t say that poverty decreased during that period, but that there was a lot of it. Note as well that most of the improvements you describe (apart from the Corn Laws) were fought tooth and nail by the business owners, some of whom said that workers rights and holidays would bring ruin upon their enterprises (much like they do today at the idea of extending workers rights).dsr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:40 pmDo you actually believe that there was no reduction in poverty between 1832 and 1910? You've never heard of the Factory Acts? the Abolition of Slavery Act? the repeal of the Corn Laws? the Public Health acts? the Food and Drugs Acts, the Mines Regulation and Inspection Acts, the Sanitary Act, the second Reform Act, the Ballot Act, the Employers and Workmen Act, the Factory and workshops Act, the Employers' Liability Act, the Married Women's Property Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act?
At the start of that period, children were working full time at 5. By the end, it was 13. At the start of that period, a full time working week was 6 days of 14 hours. By the end, it was 5 days of 10 hours and a half-day of 6 hours. At the start of the period, the workers had two days' holiday per year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day. At the end, it was 12 days including Wakes Week. (It became 15 days in 1915.)
You don't see any of that as an improvement?
Workers fought hard to gain these small improvements, and more than a few died. It’s shameful for you to call them the fruits of capitalism, when they were anything but.
Re: Next labour leader?
If a newspaper is controlled by its owners, and reflects the views and opinions, and prejudices of the owners, and contributes to these even in reporting news, and denigrates those the owner believes will reduce his wealth, and ignores news that doesn’t accord with the owner’s aims and beliefs - how is that newspaper more free than one under the control of a government?Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:04 amOur press is free, it doesn't mean that it doesn't show political bias. An unfree press is one controlled by governments, and considering the **** our press throw at all politicians it certainly isnt controlled.
As for the rest of your rubbish, this is 2020. We have machines that fly through the air. Boxes that you can hold in your hand, and speak to someone on the otherside of the world. You're living in the past Andrew, still fighting the good fight, not realising the fight was over 40 years ago. You're like one of those Japanese soldiers lost in the jungle still fighting WWII.
Times have changed so much. There is always a case for helping those less fortunate, but the world you describe just doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't require communism, or your brand of socialism to repair the ills of the world, just a more compassionate government.
As for the rest of your post, well, you believe our press is free, so it’s unsurprising to find you parroting an editorial line or two from one or more of them, and your answer - which clever people around the world will blush for the shame of not having thought of it themselves - is “we just need a more compassionate government”
The actual question asked was “which of capitalism or socialism has done most to alleviate poverty?” Not that plus “and we can’t include facts from before smart phones were invented”
Re: Next labour leader?
What's the alternative?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:47 pmIf a newspaper is controlled by its owners, and reflects the views and opinions, and prejudices of the owners, and contributes to these even in reporting news, and denigrates those the owner believes will reduce his wealth, and ignores news that doesn’t accord with the owner’s aims and beliefs - how is that newspaper more free than one under the control of a government?
I think what you are saying is that if it is possible to produce a newspaper that is in accordance with their own viewpoint and putting across their own point of view, then the press isn't free.
Except clearly that would be a crashingly stupid thing to say, so I presume that isn't what you meant. What did you mean?
Re: Next labour leader?
What is the point of quoting me without reading a single word that I wrote? Even worse, making stuff up? Can you point me to the words "fruits of capitalism"? Can you point me to anywhere where I identified what caused these reductions in poverty?
I will try and make this very, very simple.
You said "We had huge amounts of poverty during our time of high Capitalism (1832-1910), and it was only when more Socialist ideas were introduced that poverty began to come down."
I said that poverty was coming down during that period 1832-1910. I did not mention capitalism. I did not mention fruit. All I did was dispute your assertion that poverty was not coming down during that period.
Re: Next labour leader?
What is the alternative? Okay, journalistic standards perhaps? Reporting news truthfully and without an editorial slant? Editorial freedom? Not having most of the press owned by billionaires? Limiting the extent to how much of the media a person can own (regulations were reduced to allow Murdoch to buy the Times)? A press regulator with power and teeth? Continuing with Leveson 2 to see the extent by which the country has been corrupted by the tabloid press? Just a few thoughts.dsr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:10 amWhat's the alternative?
I think what you are saying is that if it is possible to produce a newspaper that is in accordance with their own viewpoint and putting across their own point of view, then the press isn't free.
Except clearly that would be a crashingly stupid thing to say, so I presume that isn't what you meant. What did you mean?
The press is there to inform. When the largest chunk of it fails to do this, and in fact uninforms, then it has lost its way and needs reforming. The press plays too important a role to be left as the propaganda sheets of extremely rich men.
Re: Next labour leader?
The rate at which poverty came down increased significantly with the birth of the welfare state and the NHS, and with hugely increased taxation on the rich, and with a big increase in working rights - all of which followed the Second World War. To put it in simple terms for you.dsr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:20 amWhat is the point of quoting me without reading a single word that I wrote? Even worse, making stuff up? Can you point me to the words "fruits of capitalism"? Can you point me to anywhere where I identified what caused these reductions in poverty?
I will try and make this very, very simple.
You said "We had huge amounts of poverty during our time of high Capitalism (1832-1910), and it was only when more Socialist ideas were introduced that poverty began to come down."
I said that poverty was coming down during that period 1832-1910. I did not mention capitalism. I did not mention fruit. All I did was dispute your assertion that poverty was not coming down during that period.
Re: Next labour leader?
So when you said that poverty only came down after 1910, you meant that it was coming down before 1910 but came down faster after that? That would be a sensible argument. I think perhaps the problem befroe was that you put it in too simple terms - you simplified it so much that it didn't mean what you wanted it to mean.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:31 amThe rate at which poverty came down increased significantly with the birth of the welfare state and the NHS, and with hugely increased taxation on the rich, and with a big increase in working rights - all of which followed the Second World War. To put it in simple terms for you.
Re: Next labour leader?
All of your suggestions involve some form of government control. Freedom of the press is not met by increasing government control - quite the reverse.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:26 amWhat is the alternative? Okay, journalistic standards perhaps? Reporting news truthfully and without an editorial slant? Editorial freedom? Not having most of the press owned by billionaires? Limiting the extent to how much of the media a person can own (regulations were reduced to allow Murdoch to buy the Times)? A press regulator with power and teeth? Continuing with Leveson 2 to see the extent by which the country has been corrupted by the tabloid press? Just a few thoughts.
The press is there to inform. When the largest chunk of it fails to do this, and in fact uninforms, then it has lost its way and needs reforming. The press plays too important a role to be left as the propaganda sheets of extremely rich men.
None of those arguments are about press freedom. What you are objecting to is that you believe the press is free to print rubbish and is taking advantage of that freedom to print too much rubbish; you want to curb that freedom so they print less rubbish. Go ahead, make your case - but don't pretend it's about increasing press freedom. It's the reverse.
Re: Next labour leader?
I see that Momentum are backing Rebecca Long-Bailey. Done in a bit of a a half-assed way though as it appears that she was the only candidate offered for them to support rather than presenting a range of candidates.
According to the most recent poll she is the current favourite.
According to the most recent poll she is the current favourite.
-
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: Next labour leader?
You just couldn't make this up. The dream ticket of Rebecca Long Bailey and Angela Rayner. A fat chance they'd ever have of being elected. You'd think, no, this could never happen. But I bet it does.
-
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
- Been Liked: 998 times
- Has Liked: 2044 times
- Location: North Hampshire
Re: Next labour leader?
Looking at current SkyBet odds for next Labour leader:
Keir Starmer is favourite still @ 4/7; then R L-B @ 2/1, Nandy @7/1; Phillips 40/1 (Lady Nugee 100/1).
Rayner is favourite to be deputy @ 1/6 - way ahead of the field.
Momentum only has 40,000 members I understand- less than 10% of Labour party membership so their recommendation isnt decisive per se.
Keir Starmer is favourite still @ 4/7; then R L-B @ 2/1, Nandy @7/1; Phillips 40/1 (Lady Nugee 100/1).
Rayner is favourite to be deputy @ 1/6 - way ahead of the field.
Momentum only has 40,000 members I understand- less than 10% of Labour party membership so their recommendation isnt decisive per se.
Re: Next labour leader?
Some more YouGov polling backing up the early snap polls taken on why traditionally Labour voters switched to Con.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1218122628499759105
Brexit first, Corbyn second, policies and other considerations a distant third and so on. I suspect Labour were doomed either way on Brexit and for every seat hypothetically retained through backing leave with no referendum, would have lost remain seats down south. Shame, but not too surprising, that Lisa Nandy isn't doing so well at the moment, she'd have been my pick. As big a mistake of a candidate RLB is, she doesn't seem quite as tainted on the Brexit issue as Starmer. Starmer is a better choice than RLB for a lot of reasons but his proximity to the referendum policy (which I wanted, by the way) will still make it difficult to recapture pi$$ed off brexiteers.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1218122628499759105
Brexit first, Corbyn second, policies and other considerations a distant third and so on. I suspect Labour were doomed either way on Brexit and for every seat hypothetically retained through backing leave with no referendum, would have lost remain seats down south. Shame, but not too surprising, that Lisa Nandy isn't doing so well at the moment, she'd have been my pick. As big a mistake of a candidate RLB is, she doesn't seem quite as tainted on the Brexit issue as Starmer. Starmer is a better choice than RLB for a lot of reasons but his proximity to the referendum policy (which I wanted, by the way) will still make it difficult to recapture pi$$ed off brexiteers.
Re: Next labour leader?
An interesting graphic on who supports which leader and what level of compromise:
Re: Next labour leader?
I'd actually forgotten that this was still going on!!
-
- Posts: 17773
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4044 times
- Has Liked: 1846 times
Re: Next labour leader?
Jess Phillips has dropped out.
-
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 690 times
- Has Liked: 172 times
Re: Next labour leader?
Andrew JB will find a Tory conspiracy behind her dropping out !
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Next labour leader?
Nandy's had a good day,she's gained the backing of the GMB,and she could well gain a lot of Jess Phillips supporters.
I can't see Thornberry making the final ballot,so it looks like Nandy,RLB,and Starmer.
I can't see Thornberry making the final ballot,so it looks like Nandy,RLB,and Starmer.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Next labour leader?
If this You Gov poll is representative of the wider Labour membership then RBL will walk the final ballot,clearly Labour have no interest in governing anytime soon.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jeremy-corbyn ... 7367.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jeremy-corbyn ... 7367.html
-
- Posts: 3891
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 826 times
- Has Liked: 1307 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Next labour leader?
Well looks like dogma is winning our over ever winning an election. Labour look to be drinking in the last salon. Burgon as deputy leader.
BBC News - Labour leadership: Unite endorses Rebecca Long-Bailey
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51235025
BBC News - Labour leadership: Unite endorses Rebecca Long-Bailey
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51235025
Last edited by summitclaret on Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: Next labour leader?
As soon as McCluskey disappears from meddling in British politics, the better for all concerned. Not just endorsing that soppy little woman from Salford, but to actually endorse Burgon for deputy beggars belief.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret
Re: Next labour leader?
Momentum should stop infesting the labour party and show their true Socialist Worker Party colours then labour can become again a centrist party a broad church where everyone can feel at home.
I fear with the favoured candidates getting the leadership and deputy leadership labour will all but vanish. The Lib Dems will then have a golden opportunity to get their act together and become more maybe more right wingish and become the main opposition and ultimately forming a government.
I fear with the favoured candidates getting the leadership and deputy leadership labour will all but vanish. The Lib Dems will then have a golden opportunity to get their act together and become more maybe more right wingish and become the main opposition and ultimately forming a government.
Re: Next labour leader?
Richard Burgon can tell the exact Greggs in which a sausage roll was made just by looking at a black and white photo of it.
Re: Next labour leader?
Oh woe is us.
Re: Next labour leader?
"...a broad church where everyone can feel at home." - except for people who care enough about progressive politics that they've actually come together as a group to push for positive change? This is the Momentum "about" page - something I doubt you've ever looked at judging by your opinion. https://peoplesmomentum.com/about/bfcjg wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:14 pmMomentum should stop infesting the labour party and show their true Socialist Worker Party colours then labour can become again a centrist party a broad church where everyone can feel at home.
I fear with the favoured candidates getting the leadership and deputy leadership labour will all but vanish. The Lib Dems will then have a golden opportunity to get their act together and become more maybe more right wingish and become the main opposition and ultimately forming a government.
There is nothing on that page that is in any way "extreme". I can only conclude that your opinion is derived from newspapers owned by rich people.
-
- Posts: 3479
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: Next labour leader?
I thought perhaps that you’d flown south for the winter.
Re: Next labour leader?
The purpose of politics is to gain power and make change.
One party makes change for the few, which leads to crumbs for the grateful many.
Another party adopts philosophy.
Yet another chooses to represent the many, not the all but fails to really represent the practical thoughts of the majority.
Pure Socialism is not yet for the UK.
Never being in power, owing to pure thought, is to fail the people who need more than crumbs.
One party makes change for the few, which leads to crumbs for the grateful many.
Another party adopts philosophy.
Yet another chooses to represent the many, not the all but fails to really represent the practical thoughts of the majority.
Pure Socialism is not yet for the UK.
Never being in power, owing to pure thought, is to fail the people who need more than crumbs.
-
- Posts: 9247
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4069 times
- Has Liked: 6535 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Next labour leader?
Disagree with Andrew, and you are reading the wrong newspaper.... even if you don’t read a newspaper.
Are Labour REALLY going for Rebecca? That would seem a little “odd” after the way the party were rejected at the ballot box recently. (Didn’t read that in the paper, it really happened didn’t it?)
Are Labour REALLY going for Rebecca? That would seem a little “odd” after the way the party were rejected at the ballot box recently. (Didn’t read that in the paper, it really happened didn’t it?)
Re: Next labour leader?
It's purely a coincidence that after four years of relentless attacks in the newspapers, some voters cited the very same things as reasons they wouldn't vote for Labour. Those people live in bubbles with no exposure to rightwing media whatsoever, and arrived at their decisions completely independently - despite the fact the evidence was fabricated or exaggerated.bobinho wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:43 pmDisagree with Andrew, and you are reading the wrong newspaper.... even if you don’t read a newspaper.
Are Labour REALLY going for Rebecca? That would seem a little “odd” after the way the party were rejected at the ballot box recently. (Didn’t read that in the paper, it really happened didn’t it?)
And billionaires don't own large swathes of the media in order to sway public opinion toward parties who happen to look after rich people. This is why our newspapers are the most trusted in Europe.
This is how the Tories are rewarding their new northern seats: https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ing-review
Re: Next labour leader?
Starmer leading RLB 57-23 on CLP nominations so far.
A real shame, the gap should be far larger than that.
A real shame, the gap should be far larger than that.
Re: Next labour leader?
when is this all over? I have actually forgotten, the time taken to do this seems unbelievable long to me, this also will be a trigger point as to what the Labour Party actually want to stand for and the path they are taking in regards to change in many areas such that they can compete in the next election. While I see there is a difference between the candidates, have they actually produced anything in regard to what they intend to accomplish as the next opposition leader, is there anywhere to actual read where there has been an analysis in where they differ with some quick pro's & con's guide or maybe even a SWOT analysis in a single simple breakdown?
I don't mean the Guardian either.
I don't mean the Guardian either.
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Next labour leader?
I've found this set of profiles courtesy of the Beeb,whether it reveals much about their ideals and policies i'll leave for you to decide.KateR wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:29 pmwhen is this all over? I have actually forgotten, the time taken to do this seems unbelievable long to me, this also will be a trigger point as to what the Labour Party actually want to stand for and the path they are taking in regards to change in many areas such that they can compete in the next election. While I see there is a difference between the candidates, have they actually produced anything in regard to what they intend to accomplish as the next opposition leader, is there anywhere to actual read where there has been an analysis in where they differ with some quick pro's & con's guide or maybe even a SWOT analysis in a single simple breakdown?
I don't mean the Guardian either.
Keir Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51049756
Rebecca Long-Bailey
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51055661
Lisa Nandy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51052586
And though she's sytruggling to make the final ballot.
Emily Thornberry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51049065
Nandy or Starmer i might be persuaded to vote for at the next GE,dependent on how well the current bunch do or not.
Long-Bailey or Thornberry no chance,too close to Corbyn in the former's case,and too much baggage in the latter's.
This user liked this post: KateR
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
None of them has set out their agenda as far as I have heard. Most likely because there are so many fractions of the Labour Party that they don’t want to alienate anyone at this stage.KateR wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:29 pmwhen is this all over? I have actually forgotten, the time taken to do this seems unbelievable long to me, this also will be a trigger point as to what the Labour Party actually want to stand for and the path they are taking in regards to change in many areas such that they can compete in the next election. While I see there is a difference between the candidates, have they actually produced anything in regard to what they intend to accomplish as the next opposition leader, is there anywhere to actual read where there has been an analysis in where they differ with some quick pro's & con's guide or maybe even a SWOT analysis in a single simple breakdown?
I don't mean the Guardian either.
Suspect we’ll only get to know the candidate that ultimately gets elected, and even then, only after their selection.
This user liked this post: KateR
Re: Next labour leader?
Looks like RLB's recollection of a few things is being disputed. Labour love a bit of infighting
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 19a4aa861c
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 19a4aa861c
-
- Posts: 13222
- Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
- Been Liked: 3037 times
- Has Liked: 3759 times
Re: Next labour leader?
A bit? The whole party is at civil war.aggi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:22 pmLooks like RLB's recollection of a few things is being disputed. Labour love a bit of infighting
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... 19a4aa861c