Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[classycarra]

What's the problem with people being made to pay their fair share of tax?

If you belong to a society then you should contribute to it.

Did you not read his post? Literally nothing he's said suggests there is a problem with people being made to pay their fair share of tax, or that people shouldn't contribute to society

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

Now taxing people more who have a greater wage is not the Labour Way?

I'm genuinely done with this thread, you are all fucking mental. Those who earn more should pay more.

Trickle-down economics is a sham. It doesn't work.

[killer-heels]

Taxing people who earn more than 80k is fine. Its how they link that to spending which needs to be clear in the electorate's head.

[Red-Soldier]

Now taxing people more who have a greater wage is not the Labour Way?

I'm genuinely done with this thread, you are all fucking mental. Those who earn more should pay more.

Trickle-down economics is a sham. It doesn't work.

I agree with this.

[Red-Soldier]

Taxing people who earn more than 80k is fine. Its how they link that to spending which needs to be clear in the electorate's head.

This.

[Alan_X]

Now taxing people more who have a greater wage is not the Labour Way?

I'm genuinely done with this thread, you are all fucking mental. Those who earn more should pay more.

Trickle-down economics is a sham. It doesn't work.

Why has he chosen 80k? If the country is in the dire state that Corbyn and McDonnell claim why are people on 60k or 50k not paying more? Why not staggered increases across the board with 1% added to the basic rate of tax, 2% to the higher rate and 3% to the top rate.

It would have a far greater tax yield and is based on good socialist principles - the more you earn, the more you contribute.

The answer is it's fuck all to do with redistribution of wealth, it's to do with class politics and political expediency.

This lot are meant to be left-wing but they're letting people on £65,000 keep their holidays, iPhones, cafe lattes, big screen TVs and subscriptions to Sky TV while people elsewhere rely on food banks.

80k is an arbitrary definition of 'rich' based on what they think they can get away with.

[Red Beret]

Simple question directed to you TravisBickle. All your anti-Corbyn shit set to one side for the moment.

What is the primary requirement for the immediate? To see 5 more years of this the most murderous Tory government of my 71 years lifetime or is it to end them June 8th? Answer that truthfully.

I'm not your ENEMY  FFS - THEY are!! So if you can't see that stopping them first and foremost is our primary objective, you can fuck right off with your sardonic bollux narrative!!

This is the point though mate.  There are plenty of people on here who will choke back their dislike of Corbyn and vote Labour - these aren't the people Corbyn needs to be working on though!  It's all those thousands of people who can flip between voting Labour and voting Tory that Corbyn has to try and convince - and he's utterly failed on that.

Personally I will never understand how a person can vote Labour in one election and then Tory in another.  It makes absolutely no sense to me, except in some self serving manner as which party they think they can get the most out of.  That's a voter without principals imo, but they're the voters Labour needs to form a government. 

In regards to those Labour supporters who cannot bring themselves to support Corbyn - maybe it's because they have their own principles, values and a set of beliefs that they feel the current party don't match or aspire to?  People are quick enough to laud Corbyn's principles but equally quick to criticise those who refuse to compromise their own by offering unquestioning loyalty to Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn is NOT the Labour party, and the party was never meant to be a cult of personality.  You can either have Corbyn as leader or a Labour government.  You can't have both.  You wont get both.  If you want to fix anything we have to get Labour into government first.

[zero zero]

80k is an arbitrary definition of 'rich' based on what they think they can get away with.

Not so arbitrary.

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962.  MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/

I'm not your ENEMY  FFS - THEY are!! So if you can't see that stopping them first and foremost is our primary objective, you can fuck right off with your sardonic bollux narrative!!

Stop telling us to Fuck off then.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Why has he chosen 80k? If the country is in the dire state that Corbyn and McDonnell claim why are people on 60k or 50k not paying more? Why not staggered increases across the board with 1% added to the basic rate of tax, 2% to the higher rate and 3% to the top rate.

It would have a far greater tax yield and is based on good socialist principles - the more you earn, the more you contribute.

The answer is it's fuck all to do with redistribution of wealth, it's to do with class politics and political expediency.

This lot are meant to be left-wing but they're letting people on £65,000 keep their holidays, iPhones, cafe lattes, big screen TVs and subscriptions to Sky TV while people elsewhere rely on food banks.

80k is an arbitrary definition of 'rich' based on what they think they can get away with.

I thought it was all about making themselves electable? If they go for £65,000 for instance that's a whole load of people that may let that affect their vote.

Sounds like they can't win. I personally think a lot more people should be paying more tax to address the National Debt and to address the deficits and problems in our society.

When all is said and done, the money involved isn't that much of a hardship for high-earners. I'd also agree wholeheartedly that the link between taxes and what the country as a whole get for those taxes (Including those paying for it). There are a lot of people and companies dodging and evading tax. Why are they? How much is too much?

[filopastry]

I'll be interested to see if Labour do anything with regards to wealth taxation, certainly in London that is a much bigger form of inequality than income inequality is, I know relatively young people who are now earning close to the £80k threshold but can't afford to buy a decent sized flat anywhere in London that you would be vaguely comfortable living in.

On the other hand where I live now there are pensioners who probably have relatively low incomes but own houses easily worth £500k which they bought for £6k back at the start of the 70's, oddly enough the kind of moves Labour are proposing currently would actually benefit the second group at the expense of the first.

Not sure if true but I was reading recently that since the start of the Global Financial Crisis, income inequality has actually decreased somewhat, wealth inequality on the other hand has increased.

[TepidT2O]

I thought it was all about making themselves electable? If they go for £65,000 for instance that's a whole load of people that may let that affect their vote.

Sounds like they can't win. I personally think a lot more people should be paying more tax to address the National Debt and to address the deficits and problems in our society.

When all is said and done, the money involved isn't that much of a hardship for high-earners. I'd also agree wholeheartedly that the link between taxes and what the country as a whole get for those taxes (Including those paying for it). There are a lot of people and companies dodging and evading tax. Why are they? How much is too much?

I agree on the level of taxation... you're damned what ever you pick as a politician...

But the tax dodging and evasion... of course, but realistically it never works....  you aren't going to get a huge bonus from it unless you work as part of an international community effort..
We couldn't even manage that when we were part of the EU (with Ireland becoming a little tax exile for British based companies for instance) so I reckon it's only worth it for the principle rather than never expecting any massive monetary gains..

Anyway, the tories are introducing loads of tax rises and they are effecting everyone but the top 1%... it's just that they cover it up..  indirect taxation on everything..  you take the responsible action of getting insured and they tax it...

[redmark]

What is the primary requirement for the immediate? To see 5 more years of this the most murderous Tory government of my 71 years lifetime or is it to end them June 8th? Answer that truthfully.

I'm not your ENEMY  FFS - THEY are!! So if you can't see that stopping them first and foremost is our primary objective, you can fuck right off with your sardonic bollux narrative!!

Which is exactly why those you're now accusing warned against the election of Corbyn two years ago. You and others on this form argued and voted for ideological purity over sensible electoral credibility. There are plenty of quotes to be had from 'your side' of this particular debate, claiming that there's little or no difference between a Tory government and a centrist Labour government. (The most disappointing aspect, surely, must be that we've had the disadvantages we all warned about, but not even seen much socialist policy).

Well, here we are. The radical socialist firebrand with his army of energetic young social media-savvy 'new electorate' is our leader. The MSM may be hostile, but apparently is irrelevant in the modern world. We await the millions of 'forgotten voters'. Now don't have the nerve to suggest the entirely expected and warned crushing defeats are our fault.

And to reiterate: I'm still voting Labour. I'm still delivering Labour leaflets. I may even do a bit of canvassing, though I hate it. But if Corbyn or one of his dimwitted clique wins the subsequent leadership election, then I will be gone - not because I disagree massively on ideology, but because life's too short to waste on pounding away at a losing argument (and regarding actual elections as a concern for the 'Westminster elite') - and the quicker those on the left who understand the importance of actually being fucking elected move on to a party that gets that, the better.

[SP]

Now taxing people more who have a greater wage is not the Labour Way?

I'm genuinely done with this thread, you are all fucking mental. Those who earn more should pay more.

Trickle-down economics is a sham. It doesn't work.

The spending plans that Labour have cannot be achieved by solely taxing the rich. The revenue realised by taxing the rich will always be less than expectations, as they are a group that are most able to rearrange their financial affairs to avoid the increased burden. The more the tax rises, the more incentive there is to avoid it.

The demographic numbers mean that the bulk of the taxation burden falls on far more average earners, simply because there are so many of them. Ruling out tax increases on the source of the bulk of the revenue curtails the party's ability to implement anything. They could have tried to sell a vision properly funded services for all. Their tax pledges appear to rule that out, so it leaves the string impression that this is class war rather than careful guardianship of the economy. It comes across as mean, and unrealistic.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Why has he chosen 80k? If the country is in the dire state that Corbyn and McDonnell claim why are people on 60k or 50k not paying more? Why not staggered increases across the board with 1% added to the basic rate of tax, 2% to the higher rate and 3% to the top rate.

It would have a far greater tax yield and is based on good socialist principles - the more you earn, the more you contribute.

The answer is it's fuck all to do with redistribution of wealth, it's to do with class politics and political expediency.

This lot are meant to be left-wing but they're letting people on £65,000 keep their holidays, iPhones, cafe lattes, big screen TVs and subscriptions to Sky TV while people elsewhere rely on food banks.

80k is an arbitrary definition of 'rich' based on what they think they can get away with.

plus it's about £10k more than what MPs earn.

As I've mentioned before £80k is a figure that many can actually aim for, and it doesn't mean you are rich by any means (a mate of mine is on £90k a year who lives in Warrington but has a kid with very bad disabilities and spends at least £30k on his treatments, and he is the only one working in a family of 4 so taxing him more would massively affect a guy who despite earning loads can't really be classed as 'rich'). And of course people who live in London on that much aren't rich, would have been much smarter going after the top 1% and various wealth taxes (like the mansion tax based on the top couple of % in the region), increase dividend taxes/stock market transactions tax (even something like 10p per trade would bring in a fair amount with little effect on the markets) which would be far better than McDonnell's stick in the sand approach.

If they wanted to be really smart they could look into taxing people based on where they live (as in to tax the richest in their area so somebody on £100k in Wigan pays more than someone on £100k in London), but McDonnell has made comments in the past on massive taxes (70% or so from memory) for the top couple of % and Corbyn has effectively proposed a 100% tax on earnings over £250k, so fuck knows what ridiculous policies they'd put in place that effectively pushes the top earners out of the country and kills a lot of business/entrepreneurship (I mean who would start a tech company where you could make millions if not billions when you couldn't make all that much and if you wanted to sell it to a giant you have to run it by your staff first as they may want to make a token attempt to buy it)

[Trev20]

Thought McDonnell actually gave a coherent interview on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

plus it's about £10k more than what MPs earn.

As I've mentioned before £80k is a figure that many can actually aim for, and it doesn't mean you are rich by any means (a mate of mine is on £90k a year who lives in Warrington but has a kid with very bad disabilities and spends at least £30k on his treatments, and he is the only one working in a family of 4 so taxing him more would massively affect a guy who despite earning loads can't really be classed as 'rich'). And of course people who live in London on that much aren't rich, would have been much smarter going after the top 1% and various wealth taxes (like the mansion tax based on the top couple of % in the region), increase dividend taxes/stock market transactions tax (even something like 10p per trade would bring in a fair amount with little effect on the markets) which would be far better than McDonnell's stick in the sand approach.

If they wanted to be really smart they could look into taxing people based on where they live (as in to tax the richest in their area so somebody on £100k in Wigan pays more than someone on £100k in London), but McDonnell has made comments in the past on massive taxes (70% or so from memory) for the top couple of % and Corbyn has effectively proposed a 100% tax on earnings over £250k, so fuck knows what ridiculous policies they'd put in place that effectively pushes the top earners out of the country and kills a lot of business/entrepreneurship (I mean who would start a tech company where you could make millions if not billions when you couldn't make all that much and if you wanted to sell it to a giant you have to run it by your staff first as they may want to make a token attempt to buy it)

You seem to be saying that you think people are getting taxed 100% over a certain figure. Not the case.

[SP]

You seem to be saying that you think people are getting taxed 100% over a certain figure. Not the case.

Corbyn did propose a salary cap. It got dropped, but it was proposed.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Corbyn did propose a salary cap. It got dropped, but it was proposed.

Proposing things is fine. Realising that they are realistic or a good idea and pulling them shows that someone can consider something and then admit they were wrong.

How many policies have Tories put forward that are nasty, stupid or laughable and forced it through whatever (Most of them get stopped by the Lords or other MPs or whatever, but still plenty of examples of horrible ideas implemented anyway because they won't admit they were wrong)

[Lush is the best medicine...]

You seem to be saying that you think people are getting taxed 100% over a certain figure. Not the case.

no I said Corbyn did. I said some of his policies are stupid.

Proposing things is fine. Realising that they are realistic or a good idea and pulling them shows that someone can consider something and then admit they were wrong.

How many policies have Tories put forward that are nasty, stupid or laughable and forced it through whatever (Most of them get stopped by the Lords or other MPs or whatever, but still plenty of examples of horrible ideas implemented anyway because they won't admit they were wrong)

the slight difference is that labour are trying to win power (or on paper at least) and are massively unpopular, so when the leader comes out with his idiotic policies inspired from the readers letters page in the morning star as opposed to common sense saying that idea would be ridiculous to even be spoken at a cabinet meeting it's going to come back to hurt you, just like ed apologising for labour wrecking the economy and the current lot bashing the last labour government that did far more good than any of them ever could.

[Skeeve]

so to be anti Corbyn is to be anti Labour?  You're old enough to know better.

I'll say it again: Labour wont lose this election because a bunch of Labour supporters have a bad case of sour grapes over Saint Jeremy.  They'll lose it because Saint Jeremy isn't competent at his job and has utterly failed to energise the wider voting public beyond his fanbase.  Blaming the voters for being too stupid and mean to see how wonderful he is is clutching at straws.

There are plenty of people on here who can't stand Corbyn but will be voting Labour.

This is how I feel about the situation, I do not think he is anywhere near good enough a leader at a time when it has been vital for us to have a strong opposition, but would still be voting Labour except that I am in a constituency (Southport) where a Libdem is the best chance of keeping a tory out of that seat.

[SP]

The tax policy announcements are more of a teaser trailer than a policy. The restrictions on tax rises are significant, but there is way too much wait for the manifesto to actually judge the policy. Nugee just claimed it was rigorously costed, but then said Peston would have to ask McDonnell or wait for the manifesto to find out how much tax will be raised. Felt wrong.

They are placing a huge expectation on the manifesto launch. It has to be right, with fully costed policies after they have pledged that they will be. I fear that there is a monster screw up on the cards. The manifesto is being furiously written like an overdue homework essay. If they make mistakes, they will overshadow whatever benefit they are anticipated from the manifesto launch. Surely this prelaunch stage should be selling an overall vision, rather than a miscellany of odd policy details.

[TepidT2O]

The problem I have, is that it seems like this number of £80k was made up yesterday rather than being part of some well thought out strategy...

[Jonny-B]

I do actually find it weird the way both parties are putting forward stuff because they know they either will or won't win.

No promises from the Tories about the triple lock and tax because they will be in power for the next 5 years when the budget will be squeezed by more than ever before so they will have to make up for the shortfall. (Although most of the reasons behind it are their own fault)

Where as we have Labour promising no tax rises (aside from the small number above 80k) and keeping hold of the triple lock (which really does need to go it's madness) because they know full well they're not winning the election but are trying to show they have a fiscally prudent side (which is all the rage) to save as many seats as possible. Maybe i'm giving McDonnell too much credit there though.

Nick Clegg learned to his chagrin that if you promise things in your manifesto and then end up in power you are screwed. Same goes for the current chancellor.

Which is why i think the Labour manifesto will be full of promises (that they won't have to keep) and the Tory one will be extremely vague as it will give us them a blank canvas (to likely fuck us over)

[Cliff Bastin]

McDonnell has just said on BBC he isn't a Marxist but on this video he says he is. Lying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCcFjRhiaw

[redmark]

The problem I have, is that it seems like this number of £80k was made up yesterday rather than being part of some well thought out strategy...

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the figure (particularly if it's deliberately picked out the 5%), or saying that people over a certain income are going to pay more tax.

My problem is that it's backwards. What is the money for? What is a Labour government going to do which is transformative and will make a difference to people's lives? And that has to be more than 'anti-' policies. If Labour presents a narrative of coherent policies with a real, clear transformative objective, people might vote to pay for it. They won't vote to pay to 'stop cuts' - to maintain the status quo - to services which are not really delivering as they should/could. This just comes back to the lack of really radical ideas. The left has waited a generation to lead the party, and the policies amount to little more than slogans on a demo (except on unions/workplaces, where the unions have put in a bit more effort over the years; which is probably a negative, as those policies will be vote losers).

[Lush is the best medicine...]

McDonnell has just said on BBC he isn't a Marxist but on this video he says he is. Lying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCcFjRhiaw

it took him 12 years, overpromotion to shadow chancellor and someone digging up his past words to apologise for saying the IRAs bombs and bullets got the British government to the negotiating table and that the IRA leaders should be honoured, so I'd say he's not just lied today but has basically written a Tory campaign ad.

[Trev20]

The problem I have, is that it seems like this number of £80k was made up yesterday rather than being part of some well thought out strategy...

All will become clear on Tuesday 16 May 

[Cliff Bastin]

it took him 12 years, overpromotion to shadow chancellor and someone digging up his past words to apologise for saying the IRAs bombs and bullets got the British government to the negotiating table and that the IRA leaders should be honoured, so I'd say he's not just lied today but has basically written a Tory campaign ad.

If he was OK but at least admit it. Why lie about it. He clearly says on video he is.

[Alan_X]

Not so arbitrary.

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962.  MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

I was being generous and not mentioning that. Also if you go down to £55k you're getting into train driver and other high end union pay territory.

I don't earn 80k but I'm a relatively high earner. I'd happily pay an extra 1-2% income tax to pay for the NHS. It's gesture politics. If you believe in fairness it works across the board.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

If he was OK but at least admit it. Why lie about it. He clearly says on video he is.

seen the clip and he doesn't really confirm or deny, just blabbers on about 'equality and fairness' (his 'strong and stable')

[Alan_X]

The problem I have, is that it seems like this number of £80k was made up yesterday rather than being part of some well thought out strategy...

Remember the 'relaunch' when the figure for being 'rich' was 150k?

[alonsoisared]

Thing is in all of your own words this is all about Corbyn being unelectable amongst a british public that by and large isnt at all engaged and relies on headline figures. As a headline "corbyn set to increase taxes of top 5% to benefit the rest" its not really as terrible as youre making out is it. If we had increases lower down too then youd only have headlines about him increasing taxes to hard working people. And no doubt he would be accused in this thread of acting idealogically rather than in the reality of the situation and fucking off the electorate.

Someone i know liked a post on facebook earlier from a page that i now cant for the life of me remember, it wasnt britain first but it was a similar one. It was urging people to vote conservative to choose a hard brexit over single market access and a soft exit via corbyn. This election hinges on brexit and the fact that the UK is by and large a conservative country that is mainly ignorant to politics and maintains a jingoistic and borderline racist tone. I can hold my hands up and say that Corbyn hasnt been what a lot of us hoped he would be, but by christ for all our futures its surely better to rally around him and his party now rather than pick apart every single thing he says, often in a contradictory way to how other comments hes made have been picked apart? I dont know what alternate reality i stepped into this morning when i read the biggest tory shout to higher taxes for the richest is anti-aspiration. While I whole heartedly respect a couple of the posters on here who are against corbyn for reasons i can understand and accept, there are a few that just seem frankly like theyve lost the fucking plot.

[TepidT2O]

Remember the 'relaunch' when the figure for being 'rich' was 150k?

I hadn't realised the pay cap idea had gone..

It's just a mishmash of off the cuff ideas..

Why don't we have a proper socialist policy? A £5bn windfall tax on the super rich for instance.

Windfall taxes eh, wouldn't find any of them red Tories proposing them....

[redmark]

Thing is in all of your own words this is all about Corbyn being unelectable amongst a british public that by and large isnt at all engaged and relies on headline figures. As a headline "corbyn set to increase taxes of top 5% to benefit the rest" its not really as terrible as youre making out is it. If we had increases lower down too then youd only have headlines about him increasing taxes to hard working people. And no doubt he would be accused in this thread of acting idealogically rather than in the reality of the situation and fucking off the electorate.

Someone i know liked a post on facebook earlier from a page that i now cant for the life of me remember, it wasnt britain first but it was a similar one. It was urging people to vote conservative to choose a hard brexit over single market access and a soft exit via corbyn. This election hinges on brexit and the fact that the UK is by and large a conservative country that is mainly ignorant to politics and maintains a jingoistic and borderline racist tone. I can hold my hands up and say that Corbyn hasnt been what a lot of us hoped he would be, but by christ for all our futures its surely better to rally around him and his party now rather than pick apart every single thing he says, often in a contradictory way to how other comments hes made have been picked apart? I dont know what alternate reality i stepped into this morning when i read the biggest tory shout to higher taxes for the richest is anti-aspiration. While I whole heartedly respect a couple of the posters on here who are against corbyn for reasons i can understand and accept, there are a few that just seem frankly like theyve lost the fucking plot.

If I get into a conversation with a Tory, it will be a different conversation. I'll argue that increased taxes (wherever the threshold is set) to save the NHS are justified. In this politically-slanted forum, we can argue about the minutae of left wing strategy.

[JohnnoWhite]

Not so arbitrary.

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2016 is £74,962.  MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
Stop telling us to Fuck off then.

I'll keep telling those whose only narrative is what a twat JC is; he's ruined the Party; he's guilty of leftish cronyism; couldn't run a piss-up in you know where; and an absolute plethora of so many other negatives they are too many to recount here to fuck off. The reason why I do? Rome is burning and the Vandals are marching on proudly waving Union Jacks as they do so of course. Yet those who say they absolutely are enemies of these fucking Vandal-Tories (you know them, they're the ones who aided and abetted by MSM and the shady faces who fund them are grinding us into the ground) can only seem to muster your concentrated fire on the only hope of a political movement which can stop them.

To all of you who are disenchanted with JC - and you individually and collectively know well who you are - if you are seriously opposed and sincerely want the Vandal-Tories gone and you all clearly KNOW what's at stake for all of the nation if they are given another 5 years to finish their demolition of our welfare state - I say this.

Set aside your scorn and unite to ensure that your scorn is poured out on the real enemy. Remember the old saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If you won't do that to rid this nation of this despicable scourge then you are no enemy of the Vandal-Tories and are well-deserving of being told to fuck off.

[Gerry Attrick]

You are well aware that it's possible to be pissed off with Corbyn and dislike the Tories, right? They're not mutually exclusive.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

This is the point though mate.  There are plenty of people on here who will choke back their dislike of Corbyn and vote Labour - these aren't the people Corbyn needs to be working on though!  It's all those thousands of people who can flip between voting Labour and voting Tory that Corbyn has to try and convince - and he's utterly failed on that.

This. I've been down on Corbyn (after initially being intrigued and hopeful at his first election to the leadership) since he refused to step down after the no confidence vote - but I'm still a Labour voter, like I have been my whole life. I will put my tick in their box any time its put in front of me.

I find it a bit galling to be told I'm some kind of 'non-proper' Labour voter, which the likes of Trada insinuate, that people who aren't fully behind Corbyn aren't real Labour voters and should bugger off to the Tories. No, we're the people that have actually voted Labour all our lives, not fucking Green/Lib Dem/SWP dilettantes like half the Momentum lot are! I mean he's fucking never voted Labour in a GE before and is telling us actual Labour voters what we should think. Johno I can understand, and I agree that getting the Tories out should be the number one priority. But that's not Momentum's priority - their priority is to see Corbyn ensconced forever at the top of the party - regardless of whether he can ever muster a hope of getting the fucking Tories out. And that to me, is wrong.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'll keep telling those whose only narrative is what a twat JC is; he's ruined the Party; he's guilty of leftish cronyism; couldn't run a piss-up in you know where; and an absolute plethora of so many other negatives they are too many to recount here to fuck off. The reason why I do? Rome is burning and the Vandals are marching on proudly waving Union Jacks as they do so of course. Yet those who say they absolutely are enemies of these fucking Vandal-Tories (you know them, they're the ones who aided and abetted by MSM and the shady faces who fund them are grinding us into the ground) can only seem to muster your concentrated fire on the only hope of a political movement which can stop them.

To all of you who are disenchanted with JC - and you individually and collectively know well who you are - if you are seriously opposed and sincerely want the Vandal-Tories gone and you all clearly KNOW what's at stake for all of the nation if they are given another 5 years to finish their demolition of our welfare state - I say this.

Set aside your scorn and unite to ensure that your scorn is poured out on the real enemy. Remember the old saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If you won't do that to rid this nation of this despicable scourge then you are no enemy of the Vandal-Tories and are well-deserving of being told to fuck off.

You really do need to get over yourself.

I'm not disenchanted with Corbyn - I loathe the man. He never enchanted me in the first place. He's destroying the party I have worked for all my life and ensuring the Tories will enjoy untrammelled power for at least the next twenty years.

Nonetheless, I shall be voting for my local Labour MP. Because he's a decent man, and a fine constituency MP.

I have been out canvassing for him this last week or so and have had to suffer the endless repetition of long time Labour voters - people I have spoken to many elections prior - telling me how they cannot vote Labour this time, even though they like our MP. Because of Corbyn, Abbot and Costello.

As far as I can see from the doorstep, we are going to lose this seat to the Tories we took it from back in 1997.

So I can do without your fatuous preaching, thanks very much.

[oldfordie]

I'll keep telling those whose only narrative is what a twat JC is; he's ruined the Party; he's guilty of leftish cronyism; couldn't run a piss-up in you know where; and an absolute plethora of so many other negatives they are too many to recount here to fuck off. The reason why I do? Rome is burning and the Vandals are marching on proudly waving Union Jacks as they do so of course. Yet those who say they absolutely are enemies of these fucking Vandal-Tories (you know them, they're the ones who aided and abetted by MSM and the shady faces who fund them are grinding us into the ground) can only seem to muster your concentrated fire on the only hope of a political movement which can stop them.

To all of you who are disenchanted with JC - and you individually and collectively know well who you are - if you are seriously opposed and sincerely want the Vandal-Tories gone and you all clearly KNOW what's at stake for all of the nation if they are given another 5 years to finish their demolition of our welfare state - I say this.

Set aside your scorn and unite to ensure that your scorn is poured out on the real enemy. Remember the old saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If you won't do that to rid this nation of this despicable scourge then you are no enemy of the Vandal-Tories and are well-deserving of being told to fuck off.

I didn't realize this forum had so much influence over the rest of the country.
If people believe the situation is so desperate which it is then Corbyn should be stepping down immediately. even Tom Watson would reduce the damage.

[Alan_X]

seen the clip and he doesn't really confirm or deny, just blabbers on about 'equality and fairness' (his 'strong and stable')

'I'm a Marxist...'

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCcFjRhiaw