Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Jules Galen]

Tax the rich is about as cogent a policy as 'build a wall'.

That's funny, since it is the rich that are responsible for those poor people coming over the boarder. If ya' build a wall, the only people that are going to profit are the rich contractors and their buddies - and people will still be crossing the border. These people are cheap labor with no rights who undercut the salaries of native Americans - just the human fodder that rich people like - and the kind of fodder that the rich will defend getting into the country at any cost.

Anyways...that's America. And the UK isn't any different. You people in the UK are all owned by the Rich City People...you are just free-range serfs. You ain't nothing special....and it's about time you realized it. Even a country like Ireland which was ground to dust by the UK 150 years ago in a great famine has grown to free itself from the UK and become wealthier per capita than the UK could even dream.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

 

[jimbob]

Obviously YouTube wasn't around when Corbyn was supporting the IRA

It was, when he described Hezbollah as his friends.

 

[ceptimus]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-cor...ing-inquiry-into-labour-anti-semitism-1568876

 

[Craig B]

Tax the rich is about as cogent a policy as 'build a wall'.



For Military Industrial Complex read tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs when Corbyn cuts defence spending. Oh and how are those companies going to pay taxes since they are either out of business or out of the country? As for the bosses, they'll shrug and find somewhere willing to do business, probably a place with far fewer rules on the treatment of employees and who they can sell their weapons too.

Nope I hate him because we went through the same thing with Michael Foot(though Corbyn lacks Foot's intellect) in the 80s, and look what a great outcome that produced.

So we're to have no taxation of the rich, production of armaments instead of useful consumer goods, no employment rights or environmental protection, and weapons sales to any despot with the money to buy them. And you "hate" Corbyn and Foot. Let me ask, are you in favour of Brexit too?

 

[GlennB]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jeremy-cor...ing-inquiry-into-labour-anti-semitism-1568876

[qimg]http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/52148000/jpg/_52148494_004078953-1.jpg[/qimg]

Amen

 

[jimbob]

Shadow Defence Minister finds his speech has been changed without his agreement minutes before he is due to speak.

This is why MPs don't have confidence in Jeremy Corbyn; even if they agree a policy with him, Corbyn's inner circle will then change it without discussion.

Clive Lewis is a Corbyn loyalist and even he is being alienated.

Corbyn, McDonnel, and especially Milne are not able to lead their natural allies.

 

[Jules Galen]

So we're to have no taxation of the rich, production of armaments instead of useful consumer goods, no employment rights or environmental protection, and weapons sales to any despot with the money to buy them. And you "hate" Corbyn and Foot. Let me ask, are you in favour of Brexit too?

Sounds like the American Republican Party.

 

[Jules Galen]

In the United States, it's always the Hard-Core Conservatives that talk of "Building a Wall" - as if Conservatives have something against cheap Mexican Labor. Nope. they don't. The Conservatives are all for having craploads of illegal immigrants because this drives down wages for all the other Americans. And it's even better when the immigrants are illegal because they have no rights and can be cheated with impunity. And...when some of these illegal immigrants get thrown in prison, it's likely to be a Private Prison owned by....Conservatives of course.

And ya' know what UK people, I bet it's really no different over there. In every country, you got people that work an honest day and pay taxes (the Progressives, Labor, Liberals, etc...) and then ya' got the lying, cheating Conservatives (Torries, GOP, Republicans, etc..) that suck up to the rich.

Ostensibly, one party is for the rich and the other is for the poor. But in the US, the Democrats have become the other party of the rich. So, now the US has two Major Parties (and no other parties of any signifigance) and both these parties are controlled by the rich. We are utterly screwed.

How about it over there in the UK? Do the non-rich - the vast majority of people - have an honest political party to turn to? Or are they locked into a nightmare system like ours.

Thanks.

 

[Craig B]

Ostensibly, one party is for the rich and the other is for the poor. But in the US, the Democrats have become the other party of the rich. So, now the US has two Major Parties (and no other parties of any signifigance) and both these parties are controlled by the rich. We are utterly screwed.

That's what was happening in the UK when Blair was leader of the Labour Party.

The LP rank and file membership support for Corbyn is a reaction against that development, and the two sides are currently slugging it out. Who will win, it's impossible to know.

 

[p0lka]

this thread has turned into strawman, as political arguments do.

think about stuff please.

 

[Craig B]

this thread has turned into strawman, as political arguments do.

think about stuff please.

That's not very informative.

 

[The Don]

How about just taxing the rich? The rich benefit from everyone's education.

Several reasons.

Despite the rich being richer than ever, there simply aren't enough of them to generate sufficient tax income. This is why taxation tends to fall on the middle classes because there are far more of them. It's the same reason that even though executive pay grabs headlines (and in many cases IMO is far too high), chopping the chief executive's pay by 80% makes much less of a difference to the bottom line than restricting pay increases for the workforce as a whole by a fraction of a percent.

The rich are very, very good at avoiding paying tax. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to collect unpaid taxes or close tax loopholes but the truth is that even someone like myself who is comfortably off rather than rich and who is a business owner has far greater scope for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance than someone with fewer resources. Heck, I can afford to put money into tax-exempt savings vehicles whereas someone without any spare income cannot.

There comes a point in time where costs of attempting to collect tax exceed the money that's going to be brought in. According to Private Eye (but contrary to HMRC) we may have already reached this point.

Also, it doesn't appear that Corbyn thinks too much of the military-Industrial Complex, either. Good! About time these cretins got a financial haircut..

Cretins ?

You personally may think that spending around 2% of GNP on our armed services is far too much but many in the UK think it's far too low. OTOH the things you're most motivated about may be a low priority for others - that's how democracy works.

People hate Crobyn because he dares make the world better for the majority - and not just a few priviliged rich people.

People hate Corbyn (or IMO more accurately deride Crobyn) because he is entirely ineffective at making the world better for the majority. His tactics are forty years out of date and his lack of charisma means that he is unable to inspire and motivate MPs in his own party much less a majority of the UK population. Sure he has a hardcore of supporters but then again so does Middlesbrough FC.

If he was a dynamic and charismatic leader proposing new and innovative ways to address the chronic lack of economic and social mobility in the UK, the increasing levels of income and wealth inequality and the range of societal challenges of the 21st century then he'd be doing far better.

Instead we have someone who never really left the sixth-form common room fighting the battles of the 1970s with the tools and techniques of the 1970s. He's as outdated as an ash-framed Morgan motor car and has the same niche appeal.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There comes a point in time where costs of attempting to collect tax exceed the money that's going to be brought in. According to Private Eye (but contrary to HMRC) we may have already reached this point.

Do you have a cite for this as I'd be genuinely interested to read what they say (I do get it, but I don't always have time to read it). Everything I have read recently has suggested the opposite, that cuts in manpower and budget at the Inland Revenue lead to greater falls in revenue than the savings made.

 

[The Don]

Do you have a cite for this as I'd be genuinely interested to read what they say (I do get it, but I don't always have time to read it). Everything I have read recently has suggested the opposite, that cuts in manpower and budget at the Inland Revenue lead to greater falls in revenue than the savings made.

Sorry, no. It's my reading on my seat of ease so I destroy it once read - probably a few months ago.

 

[Tolls]

Ah, only the best bog paper in The Don Household, I see!

 

[Jules Galen]

Several reasons.

Despite the rich being richer than ever, there simply aren't enough of them to generate sufficient tax income. This is why taxation tends to fall on the middle classes because there are far more of them. It's the same reason that even though executive pay grabs headlines (and in many cases IMO is far too high), chopping the chief executive's pay by 80% makes much less of a difference to the bottom line than restricting pay increases for the workforce as a whole by a fraction of a percent.

The rich are very, very good at avoiding paying tax. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to collect unpaid taxes or close tax loopholes but the truth is that even someone like myself who is comfortably off rather than rich and who is a business owner has far greater scope for (perfectly legal) tax avoidance than someone with fewer resources. Heck, I can afford to put money into tax-exempt savings vehicles whereas someone without any spare income cannot.

There comes a point in time where costs of attempting to collect tax exceed the money that's going to be brought in. According to Private Eye (but contrary to HMRC) we may have already reached this point.



Cretins ?

You personally may think that spending around 2% of GNP on our armed services is far too much but many in the UK think it's far too low. OTOH the things you're most motivated about may be a low priority for others - that's how democracy works.



People hate Corbyn (or IMO more accurately deride Crobyn) because he is entirely ineffective at making the world better for the majority. His tactics are forty years out of date and his lack of charisma means that he is unable to inspire and motivate MPs in his own party much less a majority of the UK population. Sure he has a hardcore of supporters but then again so does Middlesbrough FC. If he was a dynamic and charismatic leader proposing new and innovative ways to address the chronic lack of economic and social mobility in the UK, the increasing levels of income and wealth inequality and the range of societal challenges of the 21st century then he'd be doing far better.
Instead we have someone who never really left the sixth-form common room fighting the battles of the 1970s with the tools and techniques of the 1970s. He's as outdated as an ash-framed Morgan motor car and has the same niche appeal.

But...Corbyn keeps winning. As they would say on Wall Street, "Don't argue with the tape".

 

[Tolls]

But...Corbyn keeps winning. As they would say on Wall Street, "Don't argue with the tape".

Corbyn won with those who joined the Labour Party post Ed.
He lost with those who had been in the Labour Party for years.

He is also polling badly and has been pretty much since he got the job.

Yes, he can get the support of people who joined the Labour Party to vote for him. Where is the surprise in that?

 

[jimbob]

But...Corbyn keeps winning. As they would say on Wall Street, "Don't argue with the tape".

No,he keeps winning in a small demographic whilst alienating far more of the wider electorate and the people who have to work with him.

His policy ideas could be wonderful (most are not) but he's incompetent and will not be able to implement any.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

People will probably be debating the electability of Corbyn even if Labour wins.

 

[jimbob]

People will probably be debating the electability of Corbyn even if Labour wins.

No, they'll be wondering how the CAA would deal with the upsurge in pigstrikes. He has already had an electoral test - the council elections, and unlike most oppositions lost seats. These are usually flattering to the opposition parties, and the Lib Dems were less of a threat than usual, so Labour should have done well if Corbyn really was popular outside the new intake of Labour members.