Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

[wellquickwoody]

The real blame must be put at the feet of those who refuse to serve under a leader twice elected with a massive majority, head of the biggest political party in Europe, with an army of canvassers ready to go in the GE. Having said that, in that interview Abbott made Bellotti look plausible.

But a leader without a cat in hells chance of forming a government? You have MP's who want to make a difference, who want to reverse some of the Tory policies, who want to give more funds to the NHS, education and social care. Why should they support a leader elected by a far left membership whose ideals will never be supported by the wider population, and the leader himself is shown to be dogmatic, inflexible and so out of touch? Socialists can moan, criticise and slate the Tories until they are blue in the face, but until they can offer a viable alternative they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

The real blame must be put at the feet of those who refuse to serve under a leader twice elected with a massive majority, head of the biggest political party in Europe, with an army of canvassers ready to go in the GE. Having said that, in that interview Abbott made Bellotti look plausible.

So those who refuse to serve under him are what? Principled or traitors to his cause?

What does that make Corbyn, who voted 428 times against Labour whilst in power?

 

[attila]

Hundreds of thousands of people voted for him - many those who had dismissed politicians as 'all the same' and had no previous political allegiance. I know, I have toured the country doing support gigs for him and met them
The stereotypical 'Corbynista' as someone with years of membership of some far left sect behind him/her is a creation of the same media I have dealt with elsewhere - not least because half of Corbyn's supporters are under 30.
We didn't vote for a person, anyway. We voted for the ideas he represents - an end to neoliberalism, austerity and boring bland same old same old servility to the political classes and the media moguls. Of course they are outraged at our insolence. They believe they can dictate the kind of opposition we have in this country simply by vilification, selective reporting and downright hypocrisy (eg: when Miliband proposed a utility tax it was a 'weath grab', when May does she is 'standing up for ordinary people')
It's not a level playing field - 5 unelected Tory billionaire press owners, a cowed BBC and vast Tory wealth on one side, an army of canvassers and social media activists on the other - and we may well lose, but we are going to give it our best shot. I've said my bit on NSC for the moment now, got loads of other places to go, both online and in person....

 

[Triggaaar]

for a pendant you dont follow what you wrote yourself

you say we can create rules to prevent falsly inflating cost to hide profit. i say we do have those rules, the issue if that they move where those profits are recorded.

You misunderstand me. When I said "we can create rules that stop companies falsely inflating the costs to hide the profit" I mean that they falsely inflate the costs in our country to hide the profit made in our country, so it looks like the profit was made in another country, when it wasn't.

a company cant just say "items x cost 8 per unit" when they cost 5 per unit, they are audited and tax authorities know roughly what item x cost in the market.

Agreed.

what they do is sell it to a foreign subsidary or to another company altogether with some margin, shifting profits to a different country.
the difference with Starbucks is they engineered their product distribution and royalty fees to maximise this shift through to a deliberatly low tax country.

And we just say no. We know that the item should cost you 5 per unit, so for tax purposes, that's what we're going to allow you as an expense. We can make that possible under law if we want.

other companies do similar general practice as part of their general distribution model, so a rule to stamp out the excess of Starbuck would be applied to all who dont take those actions to avoid tax

The rule would be that companies can only count the standard market cost of an item as an expense, so that wouldn't affect the companies that aren't avoiding tax, as they'll already be using the correct cost.

(or maybe they do, just been doing it so long its not fashionable to mention them).

What? You can mention any companies you like.

 

[Triggaaar]

The funniest part is that without decent options in opposition, you'll end up with another Tory government cutting everything and giving your money to their big business mates.

Sadly true, so we need Corbyn out so we can have a proper opposition.

 

[mikeyjh]

Off the top of my head why I will never vote for Labour whilst Corbyn is in charge (and I've only ever voted labour previously, not that it matters where I live)

Having a policy to build Nuclear subs without nuclear missiles (2 of our mutual friends thought I was making this up when I told them. I had to google it to prove it)
Having Diane Abbott anywhere near a position of responsibility. She is incompetent and I thought that long before yesterday (and has nasty racist undertones as well as double standards) . The joke of the shadow cabinet in general.
Being paid to go on the Iranian TV channel (the propaganda one which wants to execute gays)
The inability to be pro or anti brexit.
Alienating the labour MP'S to the extent that he has about as many supporters from within as Derby County got points in 2008
The tacit support of the IRA (I think there was a radio interview doing the rounds a couple of years back where he refused to denounce the violence) as well as his known position in the 80's.

In order to vote for a party, basic competence should be a given - Labour don't demonstrate that at the minute. The fact he managed to botch a stunt on a not overcrowded train beggers belief. He only needed to go on a Southern service any day of the week of the week to prove his point. It's amateur hour, student politics and it gives the Tories a free hand. That's the real shame. The decimation at the polls during this election will effectively mean that we've got 10 more years of a Tory government.

Ta - At least you're able to articulate it why do so many find it so difficult? It's totally understandable that some of these things are unpalatable for some people, I just don't accept the blanket media coverage of his as an individual - That's because he is a socialist, not because he has skeletons in his closet.

I voted for Corbyn so, as you would expect, I don't see some of those as negatives. His stance (or lack of) on brexit was understandable (as in he is not pro Europe but leads a party that is) but frustrating. His retention of support for Abbott is a sign of his stubborness and refusal to play to the gallery, I get it but perhaps he could be more flexible.

I had a conversation with another mutual friend at the weekend, he is also broadly supportive of Corbyn but sits on the other side of the pragmatism fence from me. He accepts that the media has done for Corbyn and that for that reason he is unelectable. I'm an idealist though so can't accept that.

What you have done is made it easier for those on the right to construct their bias that it isn't a media whitewash, they don't even have to go on Wikipedia now

 

[wellquickwoody]

Hundreds of thousands of people voted for him - many those who had dismissed politicians as 'all the same' and had no previous political allegiance. I know, I have toured the country doing support gigs for him and met them

All are already members of the Labour Party, most joined recently encouraged by the rise of the far left.

The stereotypical 'Corbynista' as someone with years of membership of some far left sect behind him/her is a creation of the same media I have dealt with elsewhere - not least because half of Corbyn's supporters are under 30.

And the other half are over 30 possibly with history of supporting Militant in the past. Mark Sandell anyone?

We didn't vote for a person, anyway. We voted for the ideas he represents - an end to neoliberalism, austerity and boring bland same old same old servility to the political classes and the media moguls. Of course they are outraged at our insolence. They believe they can dictate the kind of opposition we have in this country simply by vilification, selective reporting and downright hypocrisy (eg: when Miliband proposed a utility tax it was a 'weath grab', when May does she is 'standing up for ordinary people')

Do not most of the neoliberals sit on the left of the political spectrum anyway, hardly nasty Tory types?

It's not a level playing field - 5 unelected Tory billionaire press owners, a cowed BBC and vast Tory wealth on one side, an army of canvassers and social media activists on the other - and we may well lose, but we are going to give it our best shot. I've said my bit on NSC for the moment now, got loads of other places to go, both online and in person....

Why is it not a fair playing field? Because the majority of the electorate do not align themselves with Momentum? The printed press are waning in influence every day, what is the percentage drop in newspaper sales in the last 10 years but still the left continue to lose ground? The printed media still need to sell copies, they will print whatever they thing their readership wants to hear, not actually try to dictate to them. The cowed BBC? Most would claim that Auntie is biased one way or the other, perhaps we should agree to call her neutral.

I am sure you and many others will be out there pushing for what you believe in, but when the dust is settled, please try to look at why the Tories have won with an even bigger majority. Because that will not be good for the country if that continues ad infinitum.

 

[Triggaaar]

I understand your sentiment - but another 5 years of Tory spite seems hard to palate.

It's clear that what just about all of us want are better options on June 8th, but we don't have them, it is what it is. We're going to get another 5 years of Tory whether we like it or not. They will be dealing with Brexit. So do we give them our vote this time and let them get on with it, or give Corbyn our vote and increase the chance of him being the opposition for those 5 years (or something else entirely)?

 

[mikeyjh]

Posted this before as I am somewhat confused as to why he is considered a man of principle.

Is he the principled man who voted to come out of the common market, opposed the EC/EU project for decades then asked Labour voters to vote Remain?

Or the principled man who on one hand says antisemitism is awful and completely unacceptable while on the other sharing platforms with and calling friends people who want Israel wiped of the map and think it's OK to kill Jewish civilians?

Perhaps he is the principled man who some claim was a champion of peace in Northern Ireland while in practice was only chummy with one type of terrorist and actually voted against the Anglo Irish agreement because it made a united Ireland less likely.

The principled man who says he is shocked and appalled by far left intimidation of his Labour political opponents and says everything must be done to prevent this .. but when it comes to actually doing something like allowing a secret ballot in the NEC, ignores the tearful pleading of fearful NEC members who have already been subject to threats, insisting those that vote against his view are clearly identifiable.

Could it be his principles on demanding party loyalty, standing behind and supporting the elected Labour Leader and his agenda .. the same man who voted (hundreds of times) against numerous previous elected Labour Leaders and their policies.

Principles that mean he can reconscile his unilateralist beliefs while leading a party committed to retaining a nuclear deterrent.

He is clearly one of the' If I believe something long enough and hard enough everyone will see the light too' .. delusional dreamers. Should have stuck to speaking at Stop The War/CND/Free Palestine gigs instead of embarking on the destruction of the Labour party as a credible opposition/government in waiting

What a load of genuine tripe! Have a read through again, think about what principles mean and how you would define one breaking them. I don't have the time. One thing for sure though, if you think there is any senior politician out there right now more principled than Corbyn, you're deluded. It's precisely what opens him up for criticism but you cannot cope with a positive about him can you, too comprehend he may have a positive attribute is too sophisticated for your binary position.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Ta - At least you're able to articulate it why do so many find it so difficult? It's totally understandable that some of these things are unpalatable for some people, I just don't accept the blanket media coverage of his as an individual - That's because he is a socialist, not because he has skeletons in his closet.

I voted for Corbyn so, as you would expect, I don't see some of those as negatives. His stance (or lack of) on brexit was understandable (as in he is not pro Europe but leads a party that is) but frustrating. His retention of support for Abbott is a sign of his stubborness and refusal to play to the gallery, I get it but perhaps he could be more flexible.

I had a conversation with another mutual friend at the weekend, he is also broadly supportive of Corbyn but sits on the other side of the pragmatism fence from me. He accepts that the media has done for Corbyn and that for that reason he is unelectable. I'm an idealist though so can't accept that.

What you have done is made it easier for those on the right to construct their bias that it isn't a media whitewash, they don't even have to go on Wikipedia now

How does Corbyn sit on policy as far as Landlords / Buy-to-let property etc?

 

[Triggaaar]

That to one side, what is that makes Corbyn non viable? Outside of the shameful media representation of Corbyn as a loon an 'unelectable', what is that people have figured out for themselves?

When he said he wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, yet his party was in favour of Trident, I worked out for myself (impressive stuff huh) that he could not be our leader. If you're not going to use them, then let's not pay for them as a deterrent. To pay for the deterrent and immediately make then not a deterrent is too stupid for words.

 

[Hastings gull]

Hundreds of thousands of people voted for him - many those who had dismissed politicians as 'all the same' and had no previous political allegiance. I know, I have toured the country doing support gigs for him and met them
The stereotypical 'Corbynista' as someone with years of membership of some far left sect behind him/her is a creation of the same media I have dealt with elsewhere - not least because half of Corbyn's supporters are under 30.
We didn't vote for a person, anyway. We voted for the ideas he represents - an end to neoliberalism, austerity and boring bland same old same old servility to the political classes and the media moguls. Of course they are outraged at our insolence. They believe they can dictate the kind of opposition we have in this country simply by vilification, selective reporting and downright hypocrisy (eg: when Miliband proposed a utility tax it was a 'weath grab', when May does she is 'standing up for ordinary people')
It's not a level playing field - 5 unelected Tory billionaire press owners, a cowed BBC and vast Tory wealth on one side, an army of canvassers and social media activists on the other - and we may well lose, but we are going to give it our best shot. I've said my bit on NSC for the moment now, got loads of other places to go, both online and in person....

Of course, off you go, you are such a busy person clearly in demand, and don't you spend any more time with us plebs. And to your assertion that the hundreds of thousands had no political allegiance -that is total nonsense. They may not have voted for any of the established political parties, but they sure as hell had very clear views of a far left nature. The arrival of Corbyn gave them their chance to play on the relative apathy of others and take over the Labour Party.

 

[mikeyjh]

How does Corbyn sit on policy as far as Landlords / Buy-to-let property etc?

I don't know but I suspect that those in that category would not be favourably impacted by a Corbyn government.

 

[kjgood]

I have had the pleasure of meeting this lady twice during the course of my employment. I hope I never meet her again, I advise in being carefull what you wish for.

terrible goonery from Abbott....she really must be an idiot...i would love to meet her.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I wonder if NSC gives prizes for simplistic bias -this would surely win.

Kerching...!!!

I love your critiques of my "simplistic" and "biased" posts in which you never, ever, provide any sort of reasoned argument to contradict my assertions.

Are you really saying that Theresa May impresses you when parroting prepared soundbites...?

 

[Hastings gull]

Kerching...!!!

I love your critiques of my "simplistic" and "biased" posts in which you never, ever, provide any sort of reasoned argument to contradict my assertions.
Are you really saying that Theresa May impresses you when parroting prepared soundbites...?

I think you will find, if you can be bothered, when you tried to defend Labour politician's use of grammar schools for themselves, but not others, that a reasoned argument is precisely what you got from me - you might also like to recall that YOU brought the topic up, I then responded and you wrote "oh no, not this again!!" And then you say I lack reasoned argument!

For the record, you don't get to be PM or indeed the leader of the Opposition without having something about you. To simplistically conclude that one is so far better at speaking and is so much more principled than another is nonsense - they are both capable people. All politicians use sound bites -that does not mean that this is all they are capable of, as you must surely know. And before you write that Corbyn is so much more principled, just remember his train journey . .

 

[Hastings gull]

I have had the pleasure of meeting this lady twice during the course of my employment. I hope I never meet her again, I advise in being carefull what you wish for.

Whom are you referring to? May or Abbott? To be honest, your post leaves so much out, that it is really of little use.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Here lies the problem with some elements of society.

If you have anyone who works for you then you have benefited from the school system, health system etc that has provided you with workers.

If you transport any goods then you benefit from the infrastructure of the country.

You say you have kids - if born in a hospital then that is not cheap etc etc

No one can get rich all on their own through hard work (unless you dig a hole in your garden and find gold) - you need a society to benefit from.

I am not a lefty, I just understand that it takes all sorts to keep the economy going - teachers earn little, nurses, council staff on the roads, bin men etc etc. Some people like teachers are unable to afford their own homes because of property investors pushing up prices. Should they work harder?

Your argument is so simplistic it is painful.

Fair point, of course you need society to make you wealthy, or some would all them customers. If there wasn't a society then there would be no wealth, so I except that was a poorly choose sentence.

But the point still remains, why should any part of people's wealth be given to society when they die?

People who earn enough to become wealthy, already have paid large amount of tax, so will have contributed to society, so why should they have more tax deducted from them because they die.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I think you will find, if you can be bothered, when you tried to defend Labour politician's use of grammar schools for themselves, but not others, that a reasoned argument is precisely what you got from me - you might also like to recall that YOU brought the topic up, I then responded and you wrote "oh no, not this again!!" And then you say I lack reasoned argument!

For the record, you don't get to be PM or indeed the leader of the Opposition without having something about you. To simplistically conclude that one is so far better at speaking and is so much more principled than another is nonsense - they are both capable people. All politicians use sound bites -that does not mean that this is all they are capable of, as you must surely know. And before you write that Corbyn is so much more principled, just remember his train journey . .

Better effort, but still D- ...

Your reasoned argument about grammar schools was really just factless rhetoric. All of the evidence explaining that money spent on grammar schools (and free schools and probably any other latest Tory educational vanity project...) does less for social mobility than money invested in the mainstream comprehensive system was conveniently ignored.

And, now, I have to take your word for it that Theresa May has "something about her" simply on the basis of her position in the Tory party. When I made a similar remark about Diane Abbott I was joking...

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Whom are you referring to? May or Abbott? To be honest, your post leaves so much out, that it is really of little use.

If you try to be clever then at least get it right...

"Whom are you referring to?"... shocking

FWIW, his post references Abbott.