[News] MPs defecting to The Independent Group in parliament

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You've talked some bollocks in this thread, but I've got to call this one out, because it's pretty easy to do so.
Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt. It was always an ambition, and it still

[tweet]1082922720923398145[/tweet]

Bah humbug. If you are correct then labour are mugs for allowing this to become perceived as their policy.

Anyway, 'ambition' is such a weasel word. Nobody reads manifestos apart from politics students. The public expect clear statements. Labour carelessly allowed their 'ambition' to become perceived as a promise, or 'policy' as it is sometimes known. Thatcher privatised everything and this was not in her manifesto. But . . . people knew (nudge nudge). Corbyn is either naive or a confabulator to allow his intentions to become known and then misrepresented (if this is what has happened).

Aside from anything, not discussing openly one's plans, but referring people to a policy document, not answering questions directly, and generally coming across as a hopeless old pillock, may be contributing to the unwillingness of many of us who may have been repeat labour voters to engage with this particular leadership group.

BUT I can reassure you that it has always been, and always will be my ambition to vote labour.

 

[LVGull]

Let me stop you there.

1. Nobody can ever prove why a party loses a general election. Proof requires that the experiment be rerun, and it never can be (with all independent sources of variability the same).

2. OK so we can all guess why a party loses an election. You have given your guess (the nefarious libdems and the foolhardy jocks). That's an interesting idea.

3. OK, here is an alternative take on why Corbyn lost and why I think he will lose again (and again). There are several issues (note I am not going to bother listing all the crap about the IRA etc cited by 'used to vote labour when they backed the white man' or 'never voted labour and never will' merchants - they are irrelevant - it is only the vote of those willing to listen and change that counts in a swing).

(i) Corbyn's policy is to renationalise all the industries sold off under Thatcher. Perhaps (I am being ironic here...) people don't fancy going back to the days when it took months to get a phoneline connected, where the only place to buy a gas cooker was the 'gas showroom', and where we were grossly overcharged for shitty services in a world where only one complany had a monopoly of supply in each sector. And the policy has not been costed: 'the enormous tax revenue' from soaking the rich and Industry convinces nobody.

(ii) Corbyn is a tacit Brexit supporter. Or, let's be precise, he is not a remain champion. In this regard, he is like Theresa May (the elected prime minister). However it is not a neutral issue between the rivals here. He wants a Brexit that does not fit the needs of those who want to pull up the immigration drawbridge, and he wants to do the generally impossible - completely renegociate the deal. Those positions don't please leavers or remainers. But worse... there is basically no logic, reason or clarity in his position, and he is at odds with his own MPs over what to do. Why should a remainer vote for that? Or a leaver? I think May has ploughed a particular furrow she chose to inherit. She thinks her hands are tied. Corbyn has no reason to tie himself to the absurd Brexit referendum or its result. Yet he does. He consequently appears foolish, weak, and without credibility. Putting him in charge of Brexit appears to many to be the political equivalent of putting Roy Keane in charge of the Albion (minus the onscenity - nobody ever said Corbyn is a pottymouth).

(ii) Corbyn has made his dotty former mistress a leading cabinet member. I don't really need to expand on that.

(iii) Corbyn has presided over a purge of his party. Allowing the delection of one sitting MP for being insufficiently momentumy, let alone several and goodness knows how many councillors, is stupid. Those of us old enough to recall 'no compromise with the electorate' are cringing. The wider electorate no more want that - MPs they voted for being replaced after an election by some momentumy carpetbagger - than they want a return of the Black and White Minstrel Show.

(iv) Politics is about a lot of things. The rate limiting step at the national level is the ability to win a general election. Without a win then you remain in opposition (or... the garden shed, as we with a nice house might say). Labour should be 20% or more ahead in the polls. It isn't and, under Corbyn, it never will be. Even the fat fraud Boris would beat Corbyn in a general election. I know it, you must know it. What we want to happen, hope will happen, and think will happen are one and the same only if we are content to embrace delusion.

(v) Don't misunderstand. I am enjoying none of this. And Milliband was certainly not 'the future' in my book. Going back to the Social Democrats of the 80s, that was mostly another narcissist (Dr David Owen) getting too big for his pompous boots. The split wasn't a national movement (except for the Liberals, who correctly spotted an opportunity - something to nurture and later to eat). A mate of mine's dad was deputy ambassador somewhere in Europe when Owen was Foreign minister under Labour, He told me Owen was a total joke - disorganized, badly informed and arrogant (and my mate's dad was a lifelong old labour man). It was Tony Blair who sorted out the 'loony left' after some excellent work from Kinnock. The old labour equivalents of Corbyn just sat on the back benches, not compromising with the electorate (or the labour party) when the social democrats formed. The total and utter frauds. Corbyn was one of them. He will do the same again (this time from the front bench). My point here is simply to emphasize that any rebellion in labour now would be a far cry from the gang of four. Last time the party infrastructure was set up so someone (it was Blaire) could get in and change things. That is no longer possible (thanks to Milliband et al) and Corbyn is safe forever. So a split is the only solution. Painful though it may be.

(vi). Back to your post, I wonder how you find it so easy to be so optimistic. You seemed to have lost all interest in party politics when I spoke to you way back when. If it is just a personal thing, sure why not? But you have suggested or implied that all the momentum (sic) is now with Corbyn's Labour, and I don't understand where you get this from.....Hearing a load of your fans going 'yeah!' when you mock May and praise Corbyn at one of your gigs is not the best way to feel the pulse of the nation I suspect. Labour will win a few more showcase seats (like Canterbury - as an ex University of Kent student you must have smiled when you saw that), but they will not win a general election under Corbyn. This is despite the obvious disdain middle of the road types like me have for childish right wing abuse and lies from prancing ninnies and other 'tory till I die' twats who villify Corbyn. He is not a baby-eating Dalek. But...he is.. not very good..

I know you have campaigned for the good throughout your life. I have seen you live several times. I have numerous of your CDs. I bought your autobiography when it came out, and smiled as I read it. However, your analysis is wrong. Labour lost the last election because it had insufficiently convincing policies and leaders. Nothing has changed. I want a decent left of centre party to vote for. Right now labour isn't it. Worse, the cock up engineered by foolish labour MPs has made it impossible to dislodge Corbyn because the party membership (which, though massive in relative terms, is tiny in real terms - less than 1/50th of the electorate) completely holds sway in the college. Thanks to Milliband, and other wet liberals, wanting to patronize the left.....

All very sad. I'm pleased you are jubilant about the future under Corbyn, and I dislike pouring cold water on the embers of socialist hope, but....<sigh>

All the best from windy Faversham. Or is that just me?

**** me you have to much time on your hands. What did you do before retirement?

 

[seagulls4ever]

Bah humbug. If you are correct then labour are mugs for allowing this to become perceived as their policy.

Anyway, 'ambition' is such a weasel word. Nobody reads manifestos apart from politics students. The public expect clear statements. Labour carelessly allowed their 'ambition' to become perceived as a promise, or 'policy' as it is sometimes known. Thatcher privatised everything and this was not in her manifesto. But people knew nudge nudge). Corbyn is either naive or a confabulator to allow his intentions to become known and then misrepresented (if this is what has happened).

Aside from anything, not discussing openly one's plans, but referring people to a policy document, not answering questions directly, and generally coming across as a hopeless old pillock, may be contributing to the unwillingness of many of us who may have been repeat labour voters to engage with this particular leadership group.

BUT I can reassure you that it has always been, and always will be my ambition to vote labour.

I agree Labour and Corbyn in particular should display more clarity. I'm often frustrated that he does not, as it's quite often in his interests to do so. Rather than affirmatively correcting people, he tends to get annoyed that they do not understand what he's saying, expecting everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of many areas of policy or politics in general. As you say, the public expect clear statements. I think perhaps he thinks he's been clear, when he hasn't. He doesn't know how to or doesn't want to play the political game, much to his detriment.

On this occasion, though, it should have been pretty clear what the policy was. It was campaigned on throughout the election campaign. History's being rewritten to a certain extent of how it played out during the GE. The interview took place on 1st June, just one week before the GE. Throughout the campaign, it was clearly explained what the policy was. No need for manifesto reading. I think in this instance, the policy was deliberately misrepresented by the media so as to attack Corbyn's 'fairy tail policies' (the Corbyn smear campaign went into overdrive one week prior to the GE). Then after the GE, all of the talk was about how Corbyn had reneged on his promise. Corbyn and Labour were not good at counteracting this.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

**** me you have to much time on your hands. What did you do before retirement?

*cough* I haven't retired *cough*.

You cheeky ****

I am between dinner and relaxation....the nipper is going through her bedtime rigmarole overseen by Mrs T. What better time to engage with a bit of the old 'talking bollocks on NSC'?

Anyway I think and type quite quickly. You can call it a gift.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree Labour and Corbyn in particular should display more clarity. I'm often frustrated that he does not, as it's quite often in his interests to do so. Rather than affirmatively correcting people, he tends to get annoyed that they do not understand what he's saying, expecting everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of many areas of policy or politics in general. As you say, the public expect clear statements. I think perhaps he thinks he's been clear, when he hasn't. He doesn't know how to or doesn't want to play the political game, much to his detriment.

On this occasion, though, it should have been pretty clear what the policy was. It was campaigned on throughout the election campaign. History's being rewritten to a certain extent of how it played out during the GE. The interview took place on 1st June, just one week before the GE. Throughout the campaign, it was clearly explained what the policy was. No need for manifesto reading. I think in this instance, the policy was deliberately misrepresented by the media so as to attack Corbyn's 'fairy tail policies' (the Corbyn smear campaign went into overdrive one week prior to the GE).

Fair enough. And yes, it should.....I do try to keep up. But even I thought he'd promised a load of free stuff of that sort. I guess that's what happens when the brand gets toxic and you don't employ anyone as good as Malcolm Tucker to keep everyone on message. Some of these politicians (for example Corbyn, Davies, Cameron, Johnson, Farridge, Abbott and Costello) have crossed the rubicon as far as I am concerned, and if it were reported in the media tomorrow that one of them hadn't been spotted in the back of a taxi masturbating over a picture of Grace Jones, I'd not believe it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Not sure whats going on this thread, but best I mention Diane Abbott, like literally Diane Abbott the black Labour woman, before someone else does.



I'm outraged. It's a disgrace. .

 

[drew]

OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. I disagree with everything that you say - people who vote Tory still want good public services but are not so hung up about “it must be in the public sector/no private companies involved”. I want good services at the best price (value for money). Just throwing money at public services is not value for money but is such an easy wish for left-wing voters.

Spend more, spend more, spend more. Left wingers would rather spend £20k on an op done in the NHS compared to spending £15k on the same op in a private hospital - purely out of principle.

Have you got links to those figures?

In 2013, private hip replacements ranged between £7,610 and £14,980. In 2015, the cost of an NHS hip replacement was £9,654.

Love the idea that Tory voters still want good public services but the problem is they don't want to pay. You talk about throwing public money at things well let's use Southern Fail as an example. Private sector failing miserably. You'll no doubt moan about the old BR but they're only problem was the Unions. Otherwise there wasn't much wrong with the service. Of course had governments invested in the infrastructure then it would have been better but they didn't do that until after privatisation. They've got it easy, they don't buy the rolling stock, they don't maintain the track etc etc.

 

[LVGull]

*cough* I haven't retired *cough*.

You cheeky ****

I am between dinner and relaxation....the nipper is going through her bedtime rigmarole overseen by Mrs T. What better time to engage with a bit of the old 'talking bollocks on NSC'?

Anyway I think and type quite quickly. You can call it a gift.

I thought you said you retired a while ago. Sorry &#55357;&#56848;

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Labour got 40% of the vote at the last General Election, one of the highest in our history. We'd have won if Scottish Labour hadn't been so useless (advocating people vote Tory against the SNP for instance)
We have the biggest membership of any party in Europe. If there is a new style SDP that will split the vote and keep the Tories in for ever in the first past the post system, which is what some of you want, isn't it? Just be honest and stop trying to be all 'moderate' and 'reasonable'
It's ludicrous to say we have 'stolen' the party - the centrists borrowed it, we've got it back!
I do find the right wing bias on NSC amusing given that we have wiped the floor with the Tories in all the local seats and even my local East Worthing and Shoreham is now a marginal. I guess it's that old chestnut, 'age'. Never understood people becoming less radical as they get older, surely we should respond to what we see around us, and what I see is division, poverty, homelessness, complacency on one hand, misery on the other........

Funny, l've always felt NSC has a rather noisy left wing bias. It's sneery stuff like your post that continues to make Labour so unappealing to so many.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I thought you said you retired a while ago. Sorry ��

Not me, mate. I don't exactly put in the same sort of shift I did 30 years ago, mind. To be fair.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not sure whats going on this thread, but best I mention Diane Abbott, like literally Diane Abbott the black Labour woman, before someone else does.

View attachment 104347

I'm outraged. It's a disgrace. .

I think you'll find I mentioned her in the post immediately above.

 

[Weststander]

You've talked some bollocks in this thread, but I've got to call this one out, because it's pretty easy to do so.

What lie? That was never the policy. Either it's you who's lying, or you're misinformed. I assume you are talking about the false allegation that Labour backtracked on wiping student debt completely for all new, existing and past students. This is completely incorrect. Labour never had a policy to wipe pre-existing student debt. It was always an ambition, and it still is. The policy hasn't changed. Where was it fully admitted afterwards that all student loans could not have been be wiped off? This is one of those things where if a lie is repeated often enough, people assume it to be true.

Scraping pre-existing student debt was never a policy (hence why it never appeared in the manifesto). Labour (or Corbyn) NEVER promised to cancel existing student debt. The only thing in their manifesto was to scrap tuition fees. Labour's position was widely misrepresented across the media, particularly after the GE. There is a record of me on NSC saying before the election that there is no policy or commitment to scrap existing student debt:



Corbyn and John McDonnell did say they would find a way to deal with pre-existing student debt. One of the options being considered even now is wiping off pre-existing student debt, especially as new research after the GE suggested it wouldn't be as expensive as previously reported. This correlates with previous statements that writing off student debts is an ambition, not a promise. Until Labour state that wiping off pre-existing student debt is a policy, then it isn't one. Something else has happened even more recently, though - it's been ruled that student debt must be counted as part of the deficit, increasing the deficit by £12 billion (when the Tories tripled fees, it was also partly a ploy to make the deficit appear less than it was, as a greater value of student loans was taken out to compensate for reduced direct government funding, which are technically owed to the Student Loans Company, rather than the government - this is now changing).

The original source of this misinformation came from Corbyn's NME interview just before the GE, where his statements were misrepresented. Unfortunately, subsequent media outlets decided not to fact check their information by going direct to the original source, instead relying on incorrect reports that followed the misrepresentation.



http://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478

A Labour shadow minister did make a error by falsely claiming that JC said something which he didn't actually say. This was often picked up by the media, rather than quoting from the original source where JC never said what he was reported to have said.

Even Andrew Marr got this wrong, by claiming Labour announced a policy just before the GE to wipe pre-existing student debt in a post-election interview with McDonnell.

For a full explanation, see the C4 Fact Check: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/no-corbyn-did-not-pledge-to-abolish-student-debt

They even detail how the shadow minister was misrepresented:



[tweet]1082922720923398145[/tweet]

The poll questions represent policies attractive on paper, but completely uncosted for the UK. Mcdonnell and Corbyn always talk about the utopia of Scandinavian economies tax and spend, as the way for us. Yet, on the tax side of the equation, when electioneering, they only propose squeezing the super rich on taxation.

The key point not passed on in the propaganda, is that almost all Swedes (for example) pay a colossal proportion of their earnings in taxation, and they trust their governments to spend it wisely. It’s in their DNA.

To pay for the socialist society and welfare state sought by Corbyn, as well as buying up privatised industries, taxation would need to rise incredibly sharply for almost all workers. An example:

Salary of £30,000 - tax/ni paid £6,065
Equivalent salary of Swedish kr405,000 - tax paid in pounds £17,400.

In other words, taxing the super rich in the UK would not pay for the shopping list put forward by Corbyn/McDonnell.

How else could Labour give us a Scandinavian welfare state and economics?


The environment - Labour hold no moral superioity on policy. Read the Green Party’s policies, and check out Lucas’s view on Labour’s overall agenda. Only the Green’s have an agenda to truly reduce consumption.


Interesting how the poll was across Europe, when lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn has always wanted us out of the EU. Here’s his consistent anti EU record: https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/

 

[seagulls4ever]

The poll questions represent policies attractive on paper, but completely uncosted for the UK. Mcdonnell and Corbyn always talk about the utopia of Scandinavian economies tax and spend, as the way for us. Yet, on the tax side of the equation, when electioneering, they only propose squeezing the super rich on taxation.

The key point not passed on in the propaganda, is that almost all Swedes (for example) pay a colossal proportion of their earnings in taxation, and they trust their governments to spend it wisely. It’s in their DNA.

To pay for the socialist society and welfare state sought by Corbyn, as well as buying up privatised industries, taxation would need to rise incredibly sharply for almost all workers. An example:

Salary of £30,000 - tax/ni paid £6,065
Equivalent salary of Swedish kr405,000 - tax paid in £17,400.

In other words, taxing the super rich in the UK would not pay for the shopping list put forward by Corbyn/McDonnell.

How else could Labour give us a Scandinavian welfare state and economics?


The environment - Labour hold no moral superioity on policy. Read the Green Party’s policies, and check out Lucas’s view on Labour’s overall agenda. Only the Green’s have an agenda to truly reduce consumption.


Interesting how the poll was across Europe, when lifelong Eurosceptic Corbyn has always wanted us out of the EU. Here’s his consistent anti EU record: https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/

WTF?

I added that poll at the end of my post for interest, just to demonstrate it's more about the man rather than the policies. His policies have been misrepresented has hard left, yet they are popular or common practice in many socially democratic (not socialist) countries, and others which are not.

But by post was not about that. I wasn't even debating that. 95% of my post was counteracting your claim that Corbyn lied about wiping student debt. You respond to the 5% unrelated to that, which was linked only in the sense that the common theme is misrepresentation. Then you make some other comments about things which I hadn't even mentioned. Diversion much?

Brilliant.

 

[The Spanish]

Can’t argue with that.

True and it made them electable in places like Sussex. Doubt even Brighton would have gone Labour without New Labour.

 

[The Spanish]

Really, I would suggest it is more due to selfish reasons, ie that as you grow older you tend to acquire property and therefore you want to protect that and your income. The obvious choice is not to vote for a party that, historically, errs towards higher taxation. The reality is that you vote for the party that reduces the influence of the state and, ergo, lowers taxation and then you have the pleasure of watching the disintegration of society! The property you were trying to protect is now vulnerable because of the lack of police to respond to burglaries etc. Still, you have more money in your pocket so all's well that ends well.

I thought that views on higher taxation become more positive in older age groups. It’s the youngsters who want to keep their money in their pockets for the latest pop hits and roller skates.

 

[Weststander]

True and it made them electable in places like Sussex. Doubt even Brighton would have gone Labour without New Labour.

Labour, even Corbyn’s Labour, will always have a good chance of returning MP’s in Brighton, Crawley and Hastings. But incredibly hard elsewhere in southern England, except for an attractive centrist package (such as Blair’s).

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

[YT]Kt9zGiQuLzc[/YT]

Can’t they just go back to being the Silly Party?

 

[Hampster Gull]

Not sure whats going on this thread, but best I mention Diane Abbott, like literally Diane Abbott the black Labour woman, before someone else does.

View attachment 104347

I'm outraged. It's a disgrace. .

Ok, you raised it, I’ve bitten. It’s not that she’s black or that she’s a woman. She is just a classic example of the hypocrisy of some of our political ‘elite’. She is also someone massively out of their depth, which is sad given her achievements in her youth. That’s all I’m going to say on her*.


*other examples exist from all parties

 

[clapham_gull]

As for a new party, it's gonna be incredibly difficult under our stupid system but I read some analysis that suggests that if it does happen, it will happen after Brexit,

This is why I laugh at the "Year Zero" belief of brexiteers. Public opinion ebbs and flows in this country, after we leave you are likely to have a pro-European reaction.

Hard brexiteers remind me of Man United Fans who thought they would be top of the pile forever.

The complacency will shift from the urban educated elite to the Little Englanders. Before they know it the government has done a trade deal with India that vastly increases immigration from that country.

They'll be begging to rejoin the EU.

 

[Weststander]

As for a new party, it's gonna be incredibly difficult under our stupid system but I read some analysis that suggests that if it does happen, it will happen after Brexit,

This is why I laugh at the "Year Zero" belief of brexiteers. Public opinion ebbs and flows in this country, after we leave you are likely to have a pro-European reaction.

Hard brexiteers remind me of Man United Fans who thought they would be top of the pile forever.

The complacency will shift from the urban educated elite to the Little Englanders. Before they know it the government has done a trade deal with India that vastly increases immigration from that country.

They'll be begging to rejoin the EU.

A good point about a sizeable swathe of Brexit voters, I would suggest more in the Midlands/North/Wales. They couldn’t stand the Poles and Romanians in their communities, so how will they feel about other immigrants coming in under a points system to do jobs where do we have a shortfall? Numbers are still needed as nurses, agricultural labourers, etc.