TOPIC: The death of the Labour party.

However much I detest the Labour party I DO believe in democracy and a multi-party political system, (unlike the left I would imagine). What is going on within their party is shambolic at best. As a Tory voting union member I used my Labour party leadership vote (shanful or what, are they fecking clueless?) to vote for Mr Corbyn, therefore ensuring we had a responsible government for at least a generation. However, I take no pleasure in seeing the official opposition falling apart in humiliating fashion.
If you thought Michael Foot was a clown then Jeremy Corbyn is without doubt the newly crowned king of fools. The only way forward for this sad shadow of a party is to split and leave the lunatic left to their own devices let the moderates form a new, moderate but most importantly, electable party. I take little pleasure in seeing my party have a free run for the for the next few elections. Democracy needs opposites but not lunatics.

Any chance you can buy the club?

The only people who would logically vote Tory are the top 1% richest people in the country. Anybody else, is just a turkey voting for christmas.

If you take little pleasure from it why are you bothering to tell the rest of us at this particular moment in time?

cufcmike wrote:
And that chaps is why we no longer have a Labour government. Lunatics every one of them.

Imagine being a northerner and voting for those Tory toffs. Embarrassing.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Death of the Labour Party?

At the last by-election, the Labour share of the vote went up....what happened to the Tory share?

OldCarliol wrote:
You not even going to try and come up with a counter argument? Or do have you finally realised that a party that makes savage cuts to frontline public services, while making tax cuts for millionaires, while saying "we're all in this together." Doesn't actually give a sh1t about working people? Carlisle is a relatively low income area. Baffles me that its a tory seat.

They said in 2010 that by the end of parliament in 2015 they'd have wiped the defecit clear. The defecit is still there, and in the past five years, they have borrowed more money than every Labour government in history combined.

I voted Labour all my life probably cos my parants did, Last election I voted for Nigels Party why because I want Britain to take control of its Borders and be British. Right Michael Foot was a clown closely followed by The welsh windbag Kinnock but for me Corbyn is the court jester, And with him at the helm Labour will be banished to the wilderness for a very long time sadly. Now Im off before the brickbats and insults start flying....lol.

Sorry old folks. You really have no idea. I'm 63 and grew up in London and Corbyn definitely represents me and I fully understand what he says. He also appeals to a lot of young people who are sick of the lying, cheating politics of the last 30 years. I don't think he will be Prime Minister but I think he will gain substantial new support for Labour. For a union member to vote for him as a means of undermining Labour to favour the Tories is as underhand as only a Tory can get. I recently travelled in Western Europe and saw the modern World. We are living in the 50's here just like the old folks want.

Immigration isn't the problem here. I have worked with plenty of immigrants, all of which pay a lot more into the system than they take out. Contrary to what the Daily Mail tell you. Plus they work a lot harder than my English colleagues. My partner is a nurse, and has always said that if all the immigrants got sent home tomorrow, the NHS would just collapse. But the EU is a two way street. I may decide in a couple of years I want to piss off and work in Germany or France, and I would be able to, without the hassle of red tape and visas that I had to endure before going to work in the USA.

cufcmike wrote:
The only savage cuts I've noticed to frontline services are that councils take even longer to do anything and blame the cuts. This tax cuts for millionaires business is baloney. Osborne has been much tougher on tax avoidance than any previous chancellor In my working lifetime. For example those people who thought they were saving tax by investing in film financing schemes have been well and truly rodgered with some going to jail. Even legit tax advantages are being removed e.g. mortgage interest relief for borrow-to-let, the 10% furnished letting deduction, changes in the dividend tax credit combined with relentless pursuing of those who have offshore accounts means the wealthy are going to pay more tax as well as having to pay it quicker. That said the UK remains an ok place for rich people as taxes are generally fair not confiscatory.

cufcmike wrote:

You're baffled as to why it's a tory seat? Really? It was a labour seat but, at the last two elections less people voted for labour than other parties. please note that I've not said they all voted tory instead of Labour but the fact is people chose not to vote for labour, ask yourself why that is? are they thick or did they make a concious decision that another party suited their views better than Labour?

Death of the Labour party? Hmmm , maybe maybe not. I think it was fairly obvious that if Corbyn won the leadership battle, the party would be thrown into turmoil as his views are much more left wing than the remnants of New Labour. He's probably one of the more "honest" MP's out there(please bear in mind I hate/mis trust the lot of 'em as a rule, as an example, they've all got their snouts in the trough and there were more" good" Labour mp's went to jail than toff tories.). The opening poster is correct that the country needs an opposition party but sadly in our system, whichever party is in the opposition seat, there is rarely enough cross party agreement to get anything sensible and practical done. It always seems that the opposition party will always disagree with what the govt proposes just for disagreeing's sake. When they are in agreement, it always comes with a snidey stab in the back somewhere. Because they never agree and as control changes at elections, each lot implement their ideas and waste money doing so hand over fist with the chop and change. I would love to see socialsim work in this country, I really would, but the brand of socialism we have and the expectation society has is making many things simply unaffordable. New labour promised no return to boom and bust yet used the country's credit card to fund public service spending, you would expect services to improve, did they? really? You must also see that the public sector, as vital as it is, in general is only a consumer of govt/tax funding, it doesn't generate anything in return. Governments are never elected because they propose to raise taxes, but it's tax that pays for good public services. Successive governments have taken more people out of tax at the bottom which is no bad thing but there are many of us in the "middle" who are also benfitting from this never mind the top. You can tax business more but not small business's, you'll kill too many off. The big ones who flout the system by trading here but paying tax elsewhere should be clamped down on. Tell them to pay what's due or FOOK off, would starbucks shut all their shops? Amazon pack up and go? don't think they would! You do have to be careful though as these people are big employers.

A bit of fuel for the fire there chaps, tin hat on!!

Its interesting that judging someone by their background is not acceptable in this country anymore, unless you're a 'posh toff'. In which case your fair game for generalised insults. I doubt calling all Labour members poor council estate scroats would be seen as OK - so why in reverse? Often by the people who claim to be the most 'inclusive'.

Also - Labour are nearly as full of privileged 'toffs' as the Conservatives. Even Corbyn is from a very privileged background. Throwing stones and glass houses and all that. I dont remember Labour being the great party of the workers when they were in power. What was Blairs quote about being 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich'? Forward comrades!

I think Corbyn, Farage and various other movements around Europe, whilst ideologically very different, are tapping into the same disenchantment with politics. People are waking up to corporate and financial control over the political system. In Europe the EU is basically run for and by these institutions. Very disappointed Corbyn has put his support behind staying in at the referendum as the EU is completely at odds with his brand of socialism.

The NHS immigrants thing - people always get the wrong end of the stick and come out with 'the NHS would collapse without immigrants'. and yet ive not seen anyone suggest that they should be packed off back home or not allowed to come. Its a complete red herring. Immigrants within the NHS are exactly the type of immigrants we need. Skilled workers filling gaps in our workforce. Now long term we need to address why we dont have enough doctors, nurses or whatever ourselves. We have a big enough population to provide adequate numbers of skilled professionals. But there will always be gaps and there is clearly going to be gaps for a long time. In that instance then getting nurses from the Philippines or doctors from India is the way forward and nobody is saying otherwise. Most of these workers will of had to apply for a visa when they came here. That would continue if we were not in the EU. The issue is with the large amount of EU immigrant workers who are doing jobs that are not heavily in demand. All ive seen is the suggestion that we treat all immigrants the same and remove the preferential treatment of EU workers. Why should a doctor from India have to apply for a visa when a labrorer from the EU can just come here no problem? That doesn't make sense to me.

Blues86, some good points and interesting points. A question I would raise is, with the amount of we contribute to the EU on a daily basis, and firmly believing much is wasted in beauracratic redtape and nonsense, how would our health service be improved if it received that money instead?it's millions a day we tip in is it not? Sure we get some back but we're net contributors and since the enlargement of the EU there are now even more countries who are net recipients.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Its a valid point. The reason why, would probably be because Labour were only offering Tory lite policies. They weren't a credible opposition. I voted Lib Dem in 2010 (which turned out to be terrible) and Green in 2015 because Labour were not offering any kind of alternative. Now they are. More people have joined the Labour Party since Corbyn got elected as leader, than are in the entire Tory party. I am proud to be one of them.

cufcmike wrote:
You say more have joined the Labour party since Corbyn's appointment? Is that correct? I've no reason to doubt you btw, just interested if that is correct bearing in mind the influx of new members prior to the leadership contest.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Before the leadership contest, people were registering as "registered supporters" which isn't quite the same as membership, and cost £3. I did this too. But yeah, membership has soared since he was elected. The majority of party members support Corbyn, seems the only ones against him are the MPs, who seem to have forgotten they are supposed to represent the members (and indeed their constituents)

I think you make a good point about it being Corbyn v some MP's within his own party, I think this is the point Oldcarliol is getting at. Whilst there are internal divisions they may be unelectable?

OldCarliol wrote:
You know what? I'd absolutely love it if Corbyn managed to win the election. Not that I believe he'd actually do good for the country, but just so I could listen to the twinning from the likes of OldCarliol and the Tory activists who actually voted him in to the position.

Blues86 wrote: I mentioned this a couple of weeks back. It was in the Tories manifesto that they'd block visas for anyone who wasn't in a position to earn £32k within 5 years.
My wife's hospital applied for a bunch of visas, got them. Couple of months delay before they went to India and hired the nurses for the visas. Came home, realised the visas had expired, applied for new ones but they were turned down. Only difference was the Tories had won the election in the meantime.

I'm sure that was exactly what was in Osborne's head during the Autumn Statment last month when he replaced the Nursing student grant with a loan

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Well the main problem with NHS funding is Gordon Browns disastrous policy of building as much national infrastructure as possible under PFI. Thats costing us big time now. But the EU money we currently spend on 'contributions' could be put into the NHS or any other public service. It would wipe away the need for many of the cuts. Its one of the reasons im baffled that Corbyn, who has been a life long eurosceptic (as most socialists are) has decided to back staying in. Tony Benn and Bob Crow are just two examples of left wingers who saw the EU for what it is - the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting disfranchised so we cant do anything about it. Corbyn has put his own survival ahead of what he believes in, in this instance, although he seems to be facing that problem quite a lot due to the fractured nature of the Labour party.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
A few hundred people aren't going to agree on everything together. Doesn't matter if they're in the same political party or whatnot, its just human nature. It was quite ballsy of Corbyn to allow party members a free vote on Syria, and not use the party whip like the Tories did. If the Tories allowed a free vote, and a few disagreed, I doubt the media would be making such a meal out of it.

Some of the more vocal anti Corbyn MPs, Liz Kendall, Simon Danscuk, Tristram Hunt, you have to question why on earth they're in the Labour Party at all. Their ideologies fit the Tory party a lot more.

Armo wrote:
Im not defending the Tories ability to train nurses or their handling of immigration, yet it seems to be better than Labours free for all. A large part of the problem the Conservatives now have is that after making grand statements about cutting immigration, they realise they are powerless to actually stop a lot of it. So because we cant stop EU immigrants, they are hitting non EU immigrants even harder in a desperate attempt to reduce some of the numbers and meet their targets. So its another case of giving preferential treatment to EU workers whilst making it incredibly difficult for everyone else. Should be exactly the same system for everyone, regardless of where you are coming from.

Blues86 wrote:
Your not describing an immigration problem, your describing a Tory leader too weak to keep his backbenchers in line problem.

Fair enough if that's all it is but when it has real consequences for real people then it's a different matter.

Oh and fail to see the Labour free-for-all? Allowing EU workers into the country? Not delaying them by two years? Hardly the end of the world.

Anyone who thinks this Govt are good for anyone but the rich is seriously deluded.

Armo wrote:
Immigration is not something im massively passionate about - but the misinformation about it is rife.

The problem is that the Tories should not have made claims about numbers when they know they would never be able to achieve those claims due to a lack of control. You dont like the Tories - I get that. But it doesnt matter who is PM or which party is in charge, they are not in a position to control who comes here from within the EU and this leads to non EU immigrants being discriminated against even more. Why is it fair to tell people from China, India, Singapore etc. to apply for a visa whilst favouring someone from Spain, Romania, Portugal and not requiring them to do anything other than get here? Is it because EU immigrants are usually white and Christian?

The Labour free for all which you have missed is the 175k-300k net immigration we have had every year since 1998. Before that it was around 50k. So thats 17 years where we are taking around 200k more that we use too. Or 3.4 million people on top of the 850,000 we would normally have welcomed in that period. 4.25 million people is a lot in that time. We are talking 14 cities the size of Newcastle. Have we built 14 cities the size of Newcastle in the past 17 years and all the infrastructure that comes with it? Is it a good idea for the job market or social cohesion in the long run? Is mass migration a policy that people want? Or should we just railroad these things through with no discussion?

Cameron has just cut the funding for opposition parties by 19%, not exactly a step forward for democracy

What? just now? the crafty get, didn't know he followed this board like eh!

cufcmike wrote:

Have you mentioned this to your "English colleagues"?

Thought not! Wait on, maybe they empty the skips quicker than you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Long may you overconfident tories continue to think the labour party is dead, Corbyn is taking the labour party in the direction it should never have left, a party that cares about the people of this country and not just the wealthy. It may take some time, but turn it he will

langwathbybridge wrote:
I'll not argue with you that he might turn it, but who will pay? where will the money come from? and ultimately and how will they fund it?

How's it going then?

Bruntonpasty wrote:
The tories continually lie about the state of the economy so they can pursue their attack on the working people of this country. Thatcher did it all through the 80s, wasting the revenue from north sea oil, paying unemployment benefit instead of investing in infrastructure putting people in well paid jobs who in turn pay taxes. Cameron and Osborn are following a similar pattern, making people work in low payed zero hour contracts therefore not paying tax. The austerity package is a disaster. Corbyn want's to change that, spend on capital projects, get people earning a decent wage, paying tax, that's the way forward for this country.

langwathbybridge wrote:
So just what the fook were Tony, gordon and Ed doing then? Edit to add, I know Ed was never in poweer but he was the remnant of New Labour and failed to provide enough at the last election to gain power.

The Tories favour infrastructure spending as well but they prefer to encourage the private sector to fund it. e.g HS2, Crossrail, Crossrail 2 (when it is politically acceptable to announce another goodie for London) Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station, The Thames Tideway Tunnel, another runway for some London airport eventually. Problem is most of the infrastructure spending is focussed on the South because that is where the population growth is and the increased demand. As a result it becomes self-feeding. More people migrate to the south because that is where the highest paid jobs are which encourages demand for new infrastructure spending, roads, schools etc which generates more investment and jobs.

Unfortunately the North will have to survive on hand-me-downs like the ex-London Underground trains to replace the Pacers on the Carlisle to Newcastle line.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
People always ask this, but don't ask where the money comes from for quantative easing, or for dropping bombs on Syrians that cost over £200k a pop.

He has already said he'd clamp down on tax avoidance and raise the amount the richest pay. Then ultimately, with more people in work and paying tax when he gets some of his projects are in place, the economy, and and government spends will be able to rise on a self sufficient basis. Also, if he goes through with renationalising the railways and other public services, they'll be able to add extra money into the kitty too, but may cost a little bit initially.

Throbinhood wrote:
My English colleagues know full well that the Eastern Europeans work harder. There's no shame in it.

cufcmike wrote:
I can understand the avoidance bit but you can only tax the richest so far. Usually the rich people are big employers and will cut their cloth accordingly! This is why they are rich, they understand business and how to make money, if you over tax them, they decide to make slightly less and therefore pay less tax, they may do this by slimming their businesses and shedding jobs. We should be encouraging people to make money, not making them frightened to make money. If taxation levels are sensible those who make money will, in general, pay their tax. You say more people in work?but successive govts have raised the tax free threshold to take lower paid workers out of paying tax? Lower paid workers have for a number of years now been getting tax credits, another contentious issue but also one that has allowed people to actually avoid full time work ( I know someone who did this and is openly proud of the fact) and was at it's inception, I can say as a recipient, over generous and fatally flawed. Bombs on Syria? fair point. Renationalising anything will cost the public purse an absolute fortune, the deficit is already out of control despite georges efforts and protestations, this would add to it massively, are you happy that a govt led by JC could deal with this? I'm not! I don't think it's wrong to ask "how will it be paid for". In your household mike, if you want a new car or to extend your house and this requires finance, you sit down and do the maths, you see if your personal circumstances will allow this new expenditure, don't you? Some things are not reversible, or at least not without massive cost somewhere or to someone.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
I agree completely its a fair question. And what you were saying about taxing the rich is true, but there are so many loopholes it is ridiculous. Same with the likes of Vodafone, Amazon, Facebook etc not paying a penny in corporation tax. Its hardly fair, when I have paid more into the system than they have combined!

While not a capitalist at all, I can completely understand the concept of it. Look after the rich businessmen, they'll get loads of money and use it to expand their business and create more jobs and all that. But this just doesn't seem to be the case. They seem to just get more and more money and keep the lot, while putting the bare minimum back into their business, IE, Mike Ashley.

I said on another thread, Osbourne said in 2010 that the defecit would be cleared by now, it isn't. Who'd have thought that cuts resulting in people losing their jobs wouldn't result in a booming economy?

Too bad the "Labour left us in this mess" myth is starting to wear thin, I never believed it in the first place, the tories, largely bankrolled by bankers, were never going to regulate the banks if they were in power, but the tories have had plenty of time to sort this mess out now, and they just haven't. Hopefully the people will finally wake up to the fact that their "Long term economic plan" is more of a "long term economic scam."

you may well disagree with the tory long term plan, Osbourne has missed his targets but personally I'd be very fearful of the Labour party long term plan because I doubt they have anything that would work. At least Ed Balls won't be chancellor anytime soon. I would be interested to see a graph of unemployment stats since 1997 to date. Labour did expand public sector employment thats for sure, and these are possibly some of the jobs that have been lost since the tories got in, but is unemployment actually at a level massively higher than a few other years in the last two decades or so?I don't think it is, we've emerged from the recession, somehow avoided a double dip, and seem to be starting to improve in my opinion. I'm not rich by any means, Im self employed and Ive seen a definite improvement in how I feel about my personal finances without working much harder or having to increase my rates, so somethings changed? Previously in the last 10 or 12 years I had noticed a tendancy for there to be more month left than money!

Bruntonpasty wrote:
I understand you might be sceptical, but the Tories don't have anything that works either. The only way we will ever know if Labour's plans are any better is by giving them a shot.

If Carlisle were on a poor run of form, we'd be asking Keith to change the tactics up. Its the same here. Austerity isn't working, so we need something different.

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Bruntonpasty I'm sure we will never really know the true level of unemployment because that despicable failed leader of the tory party IDS has changed the criteria so often I doubt if you could ever find out, also the zero hour contracts confuse the issue further because even if you haven't worked for weeks your not classed as unemployed

The fact there hasnt been a socialist government since 1979,tells you all you need to know.
There just isnt the appetite for that brand of government amongst the general population. The only ones that do,are the likes of those that truly believe in it or the 'I vote Labour,just like my Dad and my Grandad before him.'

High Street wrote:
Or because the heavy right wing media bias keeps telling people Capitalism is a good thing, when it clearly isn't working. The socialist government of Clement Atlee is probably the best government we have ever had, and he inherited a much worse situation that Cameron.

The Left love to chant that austerity is not working but on what do they base that? By looking at the deficit? The deficit is probably there for good despite Osborne's efforts but it would be much bigger under Labour. We are in the midst of a global slowdown with falling commodity prices. Sterling has remained strong against the euro and smaller currencies. We have positive economic growth and employment is up. Half the world would like to migrate here. Our tax system is becoming fairer with the rich paying more tax and the poorer being taken out of paying income tax altogether. Most people are better off in terms of their spending power thanks to Aldi, Lidl, pound shops and the internet driving prices down. Our NHS faces huge problems but that is largely due to people living longer, population growth and higher expectations from patients.

The standard of living for most people is gradually improving. On that basis I would say that this so-called austerity is working.

I don't know if the Labour Party is dead but sha**ing Diane should cast doubts over Corbyns mental suitability to lead the party forward.

carwash wrote:
Unfortunately the economy is flat and has been for sometime, 0% growth. The tories have borrowed more money over the last 5 years the labour did in 13. As for people being better off, tell that to the increasing number of people relying on food banks. As for half the world wanting to move hear, half our population would like to get out. Tax system fairer, I don,t think so, reduction on the tax rate for the top earners, reduction in welfare payments to those that really need it due to the tories low pay strategy and companies using the welfare state to prop up and expand their profit margins.

As for unemployment, I would estimate that if you used the criteria for unemployment at 1997 levels it would be over 3million

nobbyblue wrote:

Another childish and immature reply,

Bruntonpasty wrote:
Currently Cadbury's, Facebook, Amazon and several other multinational companies pay no or virtually no tax. Would I trust a Chancellor of Exchequer to remedy that when he keeps millions offshore himself? No, Osborne is the ultimate social security scrounger.
Anyone who thinks Corbyn is unacceptable should remember that Gyles Brandreth was a Tory MP. Yuk