| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Labour Leadership Contest; merged thread | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:02 PM (2,218 Views) | |
| Tytoalba | May 15 2015, 01:02 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid, Who is left to lead them? The BBC has been attacking UKIP and Farrage for days, but at least they have a leader. Labour are in a state of uncertainty, and we do need a good opposition in the HOC, |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 09:31 AM Post #761 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
New Labour working within the reality of what appears to be a healthy economy but does so for the "benefit of the many" carries with it the basic differences between Labour and the Tories. As far as I'm aware, even Clem Attlee didn't change the fundamental capitalist economy of the country. So IMO, Labour have always worked with capitalism for the benefit of the many. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Aug 18 2015, 09:58 AM Post #762 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Terrible times Affa ,people starving , bodies lying in the streets, others unable to run their cars, pay their mortgages, or go on holiday and six months waiting time to see a Doctor. and another 4 1/2 years of this government to run. Doesn't apply to you though or the others with the sane attitude on this board does it? If you believe what you post you will believe anything. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Aug 18 2015, 10:11 AM Post #763 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The bottom line is that most people are satisfied with the service they receive from the NHS today. What went before is irrelevant, and we need to move on to the present. Governing a country is an evolutionary process Do cheer up and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 18 2015, 10:19 AM Post #764 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK but a big issue of PFI was that successive governments used it to distort the public accounts by moving liabilities off the current account into later years |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Aug 18 2015, 10:49 AM Post #765 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would not for one minute disagree with your comment's about the Tories starving education,health & a host of other area's of necessary funds in a country recognised for the way that it treats the 'unfortunate'. What must also be understood is both how the economy unwinds- recovers over the economic cycles & how government's deal with public spending during those cyclical periods. I know that Labour spend the money BEFORE collecting it, the Tories collect it before spending it,although it's the methodology of collection & spending that's important. Under CAMERON, he has used the cuts in welfare, to fund projects to get people into work,thus using their own 'benefit' money for the purpose & not out of general taxation. It has a double purpose though,one is to cut welfare cost, the other to reduce the welfare state in it's scope of operations. Under Labour,it always starts with good intentions, but ends up as a basket case. I look at the system this way, there are TWO 'states', there's the 'welfare state' & there's the 'wealthfare state'. Under the former, the Tories are introducing a 'cap' on the total amount of 'welfare' under a single benefit,called 'Universal Credit',pegged at £23K,but expected to reduce to £20K per household. Now, for 'fairness','consistency', the Tories should extend that principle to the 'wealthfare state' side,by cutting out ALL tax breaks,additional pension reliefs,savings reliefs etc, so that people earning above £23K get absolutely no tax free allowances on any income & that ALL income is taxed at source. In return,when,both the deficit - national debt is paid off, income tax should be abolished with V.A.T being the sole tax,HMRC would be solely responsible for enforcement of that tax with absolute power to enforce & prosecute those practicing avoidance with unlimited fines\ imprisonment on first offence. V.A.T is known to have substantial loopholes,as well as many ways of avoidance,these are not insoluble problems,infact,it should be far easier resource wise, to close the gaps. V.A.T would be a fairer method of collecting taxes,because it is 'green', it is 'fairer',because those who spend more, pay more taxes, to the benefit of all,even the hoarder of money,eventually has to pay their share. In my opinion, no government has created a 'fair' taxation or 'benefit' system,the Tories are thinking of 'merging' National Insurance with income tax, that is completely WRONG, it's purpose in doing so, is to disconnect government decisions on welfare spending, from the 'entitlement' to it, by those who pay that 'insurance'. Once that is accomplished, the Tories(and Labour)will 'adjust' Universal Credit, state pensions,health access etc to their hearts content,until it the welfare state has withered & died. That is,IMHO their aim,they will allow,like Labour unfettered immigration, until the resources of the welfare state are under such a burden that it is no longer sustainable ,it's the same approach as the 'Blue Badge' scheme that the Tories used to curtail, flood the system to overload,with public disquite about 'abuse', then use that as propaganda to destroy or reduce entitlement. I do not think it necessary to expand on the Tory attitudes\policies towards the second type,that is the people within the 'wealthfare' category,it's generally understood that they favour this latter group by turning a 'blind eye' to their tax evasion, the contributions they pay to the Tory party & the reciprocal tax breaks that they receive by way of return from Tory Chancellors. Edited by Nonsense, Aug 18 2015, 02:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Aug 18 2015, 10:57 AM Post #766 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Guernsey food festival looks nice...and very expensive! |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Aug 18 2015, 12:14 PM Post #767 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I doubt it takes much talent to run a bank into colossal debt while the CEO has it made for life plus a Knighthood or Lordship. Talent indeed. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Aug 18 2015, 01:44 PM Post #768 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your cup is always half empty isn't it. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 02:08 PM Post #769 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If New Labour is dead, then Labour is dead. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Aug 18 2015, 02:10 PM Post #770 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As well as being IRA friendly.. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Aug 18 2015, 02:16 PM Post #771 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well they can always go back to wearing flat caps and shoving ferrets down their trousers.. https://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=black+pudding+bertha |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 02:16 PM Post #772 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you think the socialist Morning Star is any less politically biased than the Tory press ? |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 02:17 PM Post #773 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 02:26 PM Post #774 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't blame you for wanting to ignore the awfulness of the NHS mess left by the Tories after 18 years of their administration. By all means sweep the dirt under the carpet if it makes you feel a little better, it won't change the reality.
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 02:56 PM Post #775 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect. Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt. It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare. A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment. Deficit to GDP inherited from the Tories in 1997 was 43%, (and that was despite the financial starving of the NHS and schools). Deficit to GDP in 2006 was 36%. The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown. A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today. Attlee left an expanding, export led economy and full employment in 1951. The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time. Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover. The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974. Tory propaganda works hard to deceive people on these issues. Back later. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 03:17 PM Post #776 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have seen, some years back, two different claims on PFIs on/off balance sheet. One claimed 60% the other claimed 33% was on balance sheet. I view PFIs a bit like I do a mortgage, in that it is spread over thirty years with 'inflation' reducing the cost over time. Not sure if that is a justifiable view. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 18 2015, 03:49 PM Post #777 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's certainly a way of looking at it. But the problem is if you keep buying public projects with mortgages then you build up an increasing liability. An easy well informed read on PPI is the official brief http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06007/SN06007.pdf That reveals a liability 2015 on of over £230B which is a staggering number. However much of that is running costs so the actual liability moved off books is well under £100B But here's a key flaw in PFI. By transferring the cash investment to the private sector they inevitably have to borrow the money and pass the costs on. Now why would the private sector be able to borrow cheaper than governments? Answer: they wouldn't so PPI has guaranteed fat profits for the money lenders at taxpayer expense. Dumb |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Aug 18 2015, 05:03 PM Post #778 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No more or less than John Major, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton or Ian Paisley. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 18 2015, 05:42 PM Post #779 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you sure ? |
![]() |
|
| Nonsense | Aug 18 2015, 05:59 PM Post #780 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Your points are based on Tory propaganda, and are incorrect". From 'your' pov they may be, but, NOT from mine. "Welfare is cut in order to help reduce the rise in the national debt". INCORRECT- 'Welfare' cuts are to cut the DEFICIT. "It is also a part of Tory DNA to cut welfare". TRUE. "A big increase in part time work and Zero Hour Contracts has been used to cut unemployment". That is secondary to the primary purpose of 'hiring-firing' at the cheapest possible cost to the employer. "The "basket case" left by NL in 2010 was caused by the international financial meltdown". You are swallowing your own propaganda,deficits are down to individual countries, not some globalised phenomena that you are describing,which are economic 'knock-on' effects effecting already unbalanced budgets. The 'NET' Debt-GDP % in 1997 was 40.5(ONS),reaching the lowest ratio in 2001@30.3%,rising inexorably(how disengenuous of you to quote 2006-when the following years to 2010 happened) 2007-44%, 2008-145% of GDP, 2009-148.2% & 2010(general election year) 142.6% GDP. There is nothing like FACTS to debunk the myths. "A problem that half the world is having trouble dealing with even today". As mentioned above, individual countries managing\mismanaging their own budgets, NOT to be excused by events elsewhere that affect each country differently. As has been mentioned, New Labour failed to bank the money in the good years,look no further. "The Tories, after 13 years of administration left the second largest trading deficit ever recorded up to that time". I will not excuse the outcome of the Tory years,save to say that their legacy had been years of inflationary turmoil, the 'Labour' government begging the IMF for a bailout,leading the Tories to get ideologically infatuated with 'Monetarism' , a consequence of 'Labour's' disastrous handling of the economy ,of which James Callaghan introduced stringent cuts,including to the NHS. "Despite Wilson offering grants to industry to invest in plant and machinery the economy failed to recover". In spite of Macmillan's "never had it so good" dictum,which applied,as usual, to the 'haves',the ensuing building boom,although needed,was not the economic prescription that the country needed,consequently,by the time Wilson won in 1964,years of moribund economic activity had taken it's toll,which is why Wilson gave his,"White heat of technology" speech & Tony BENN's embracing Concorde, a name signifying co-operation (concordat)with France on building it. WILSON was, like CORBYN's challenge today, a "breath of fresh air" for the time. "The world recession of the early 1970s, exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973 meant that Labour inherited a poised chalice in 1974. Even so, the economy was in a better condition in 1979 than in 1974". Really, as I remember, rubbish piling high in all our streets & roads. The unions were running the country, NOT the government & if things were so bright why do you think the people threw Labour out of office for the period 1979-1997? See you later. Edited by Nonsense, Aug 18 2015, 09:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| gee4444 | Aug 18 2015, 06:07 PM Post #781 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nice post Albe. You summarized the situation very well. I would prefer the option of a Socialist party in a GE. If they are not elected then so be it. Better to remain true to your principles than change to grab power. Andy Burnham is making me laugh louder each day. Now he'd accept Corbyn as a shadow minister if he wins! Is there nothing he won't do to become leader! |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 18 2015, 06:23 PM Post #782 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tony Blair initiated behind the scenes good friday talks. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 18 2015, 06:34 PM Post #783 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry Ctoo, but to me, inclusiveness means listening to popular opinion, leading Politicians of all hues appear to be as deaf as a post. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 18 2015, 06:37 PM Post #784 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was his job Corbyn cosying up to terrorists was to affect being alternative for self image and generally create trouble |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Aug 18 2015, 06:45 PM Post #785 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In a decade or so the Nation will own £bns of PFI structures, assets paid for by you and me with our taxes. I wonder how long these assets will remain in public ownership ..... or sold off under privatisation at a fraction of their worth? My bet is that plans are already laid for the future asset stripping we have come to expect from economically incompetent government. |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Aug 18 2015, 07:03 PM Post #786 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Either that or he's smarter than you give him credit for. He opposed apartheid long before the UK establishment. He was talking to the IRA long before the UK establishment. Maybe he's just smarter than the UK establishment. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 18 2015, 07:28 PM Post #787 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, the hospital PFI contract at the hospital (psychiatric) where I work is under PFI control for 30 years and that ends in 2033, after that the site is handed over to the NHS, lock, stock and barrel and the public sector is then responsible for it's maintenance, catering and cleaning, the hospital cost £43 million to build and earns the PFI £2million per annum thereby giving the PFI an overall profit of £17 million over the course of 30 years. What state the superstructure of the site will be in by then is anybody's guess as it was "thrown up" in record time and has already been altered many times from it's original design. The PFI' guarantee of plant and equipment for the buildings was for 12 years, that ends on 1st March next year, after that then the PFI's SPV (special purpose vehicle) which is part owned by the NHS, is liable for any repairs and replacement and they will not want their profit to be eaten into, they may even sell on the remaining years of the contract. Edited by Rich, Aug 18 2015, 07:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Aug 18 2015, 07:41 PM Post #788 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Jeremy Corbyn is the curator of the future. His rivals are chasing an impossible dream http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream Probably the best article on Corbyn I have read yet. The Blairites say that Labour can't win from the left, that it has to emulate its opponents and occupy the centre ground to appeal to their voters, but why would these voters vote for a Labour Party half-hearted in its commitment to their ideology when they can vote for the party that is fully committed to them, i.e. the Conservatives? The Blairites say that going back to an ideology which the voters rejected 30 years ago won't win Labour the next election, but Thatcher went back to an ideology the voters had rejected in the early 1900s and won three elections, so why can't Corbyn? Edited by Cymru, Aug 18 2015, 07:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 18 2015, 08:24 PM Post #789 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well I have posted ( other peoples) observations that the ordinary citizens of the UK ( and other countries) have real grievances regarding stagnating wages, exporting industry, lack of work security and housing shortages ( amongst others) and one would expect them to look to labour( and thus more left wing orientated) organisations for the answers ie trade unions/Labour party. They did, and very successfully , did this in the past. However in the past few years it was the far right wing UKIP that seemed to attract so many of them. UKIP was and is a party of fear and loathing. Our problems the fault of other people and what we need to do is disengage with them. Farage peddled this crap in the disguise of an avuncular man of the people , yet when one scratched the surface of UKIP politics, it reeks of racism and Xenophobia and wants to lead us into a far right neo liberal future. Now there is a collectivist politician who proposes...not despising( then privatising) public services but embracing them. He proposes a fairer society,not one resigned to a neo liberal fate. No wonder Tory lite hates him. Tory proper hates him too but they know that Corbyn will not be an immediate threat to them...but in the mid to long term.... |
|
|
| Steve K | Aug 18 2015, 08:28 PM Post #790 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Corbyn was in short trousers when the establishment threw SA out of the Commonwealth? Please get your dates right |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 18 2015, 10:06 PM Post #791 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is a fact, she speaks her mind and folks know where they stand with her.......much like Mr Corbyn really. I think she is a nice lady, a good politician and I like the "lilt" in her accent. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 18 2015, 10:09 PM Post #792 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Regardless of your very obvious fact, independence was demanded and given......the rest is history, the UK cannot be blamed for the state and situation of previous commonwealth nations/countries that wished to govern themselves. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Aug 19 2015, 07:09 AM Post #793 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It looks like the Jewish Chronicle does not speak for all Jews as it claims. Dozens of prominent British Jews sent an open letter to the self-appointed organ of Jewry condemning it for its smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. “Your assertion that your attack on Jeremy Corbyn is supported by ‘the vast majority of British Jews’ is without foundation,” said the letter. Morning Star They go on to claim correctly, "You speak only for Jews who support Israel, right or wrong." HA HA We all know that type and well done to those progressive Jewish voices who have washed their hands of the attempted character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn by British Zionists. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 19 2015, 07:23 AM Post #794 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think UKIP could, in the right circumstances, inflict the same sort of troubles for the Conservative party that the Scots have inflicted on Labour. Roll on the destruction of the Conservative party.
|
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Aug 19 2015, 08:14 AM Post #795 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I too think Albe has made an excellent post. As Albe, I feel we need old labour in order to offer a choice; a proper alternative. I don't mean one ruled by the unions, I mean one in control of vital commodities (rail and power were cited by Albe). I agree that they should be able to be run by the state as efficiently as the private sector, but without the need for excessive wages for upper management and no shareholders to please. Any profits to lead to lower prices or ploughed back into the economy for the good of all rather than the few. There are lots of things the private sector can do to earn a crust without taking these on as well. |
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 19 2015, 08:31 AM Post #796 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The increase in the deficit adds to the national debt. It's still a fact that part time work and ZHCs have been used to reduce unemployment. Look at all the graphs for the period from 1997 to 2010. They all show that debt and deficit took off in 2008. i.e. at the time the international financial meltdown occurred. (Do you understand what happened to cause the international financial meltdown and how it inevitably "hit the UK hardest" IMF ?) As far as I'm aware Deficit, not Debt, was 43% of GDP in 1997. Even if it was 40.5% that does not change the gist of my post. 2006 was the last year not to be affected by the meltdown, that's why I referred to 2006. The slide into the meltdown took place in 2007. 2008 was the beginning of a very expensive fight, despite a loss of income, to stop a recession turning into a depression. NL did not cause the international meltdown and the meltdown years do not represent NL's preferred policies. The UK economy was based upon a Deregulation/Financial Services/Free Market system as introduced in the 1980s. The UK was referred to as the "Bankers to the World" to suggest an international financial meltdown would not have a massive affect upon the UK economy is simply wrong. NL were fixing the roof while the sun shined, remember the mess of the NHS and school school buildings and equipment ? Remember how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer along with both the huge increase in the numbers falling into relative poverty and the huge increase in the numbers claiming Incapacity Benefit ? All inherited from the Tories in 1997. The 13 years of Tory administration 1951 to 1964 saw the Tory government go cap-in-hand to the IMF on three occasions, and as I posted earlier they handed the second largest trading deficit ever recorded at that time, to the incoming Labour government. The Tories, NOT Labour did big damage to the economy which dogged the economy right up to the world recession of the early 1970s. When Labour went to the IMF in 1976 they picked up on the plans already laid down by Heath's government. All this information has been backed up with the facts and the sources quite recently on this forum. The country was economically deep in the mire when Callaghan made his cuts, he had no option but to cut. It was North Sea Oil, of which Thatcher at one time was exporting 80% of production, (before she privatised our oil) that helped to rescue the UK economy. Referring to the condition of the streets is not addressing the improvement in the economy by 1979. Callaghan negotiated a 5% wage limit agreement with the TUC. It was discontented workers who indulged in unofficial and or wild cat strikes, not the unions. I didn't say things were that bright, but I do not have one single iota of doubt that the Tory propaganda machine threw Labour out and kept them out, just as in the 1951/1964 period. Edited by C-too, Aug 19 2015, 09:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| C-too | Aug 19 2015, 08:51 AM Post #797 |
|
Honourable Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't get far into the article before it became obvious that the author is seriously biased. There is little point in reading such a subjective article and no point in being influenced by it.
|
![]() |
|
| krugerman | Aug 19 2015, 11:34 AM Post #798 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The word on the ground is that Jeremy Corbyn will not be allowed to win I state this information as a Labour Party member, but the information has come from a Mr William James Kirkbride, who is a Labour councillor in Whitehaven and an official of the party. This is what William has written in a Labour Party forum : "EF, if he fails on the 50% its over, if he does then the PLP will remove him" " Its not a plot, its using the party rules" "Mark, JC will not be allowed to win" " The PLP require 20% to start a ballot of the PLP. That is 44 members, at this moment the papers would be signed by 87" "Mr Deville, after the removal of JC the party will conduct a purge in the same fashion that Lord Kinnock did" "Calling elected members of the Labour Party, secret Tories is bringing the party into disrepute. Those people will be removed" "These sites are being inspected as we type, all who have involved themselves in attacks on elected members of the house will see what happens when JC is gone" "I will not discuss the matter until Sept 15th. By then JC will already have broken the story" "JC already knows that the PLP will seek a fresh leadership election should he get more than the 50%" This is on one hand rather sad, but on the other hand it could be exciting times ahead, another realignment of the left and a purge of the old antique socialists holding Labour back, there might actually be another 1997 style landslide in 2020. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 19 2015, 12:02 PM Post #799 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well if they do stab a propective labour orientated leader in the back then the least the 'Labour' party should do is change its name. Liberal democrat is taken The attack against Corbyn is based on ' what might be' and the resignation of the old timers that the UKs race to the bottom is inevitable. There is a gutlessness within the so called labour party and the knicker wetters who pretend to support it( and its aims ie a political party oriented towards advancement of fairer society) that is quite sickening. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 19 2015, 12:06 PM Post #800 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yup. We might get another Tory government that calls itself Labour. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |



![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



8:30 AM Jul 11