The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[TJC1]

A lot of people think that capital punishment should be brought back in. He seems like the kind of guy that is open to it. Should the reintroduction of capital punishment be a Corbyn Labour party policy?

 

I seriously doubt capital punishment will be on a socialist party agenda.

 

---------- Post added 15-09-2015 at 11:26 ----------

 

and yet another quote taken out of context....its quite easy to twist words, or play video clips and chop it where it suits to avoid giving a true meaning or context

 

big deal if he said it...heard worse.

[drummonds]

and yet another quote taken out of context....its quite easy to twist words, or play video clips and chop it where it suits to avoid giving a true meaning or context

 

it would seem to be a fair reflection of the nature of the man. but more importantly is the appointment of john mcdDonnell as shadow chancellor is as clear an indication that the labour party is going to become even more anti business. high tax low reward for enterprise. i note the media and labour's backers have already noticed this.

[Gamston]

I have a theory.

 

When Milliband resigned Chucker Ammonia was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show, at the time he indicated he would be running for leader and looked like a shoe in.

 

On the program was the Prince of darkness Peter Mandelson, a man who steered Labour to three consecutive election wins.

 

I reckon Mandie had a quiet with with Chucker, told him that the election was more open than he thought and to back off, keep out of it and await his time.

 

Let the party go through its ritual cull and await his turn as savior of the party.

 

Chucker the mooner will lead the Labour party into the 2020 election.

 

Mandelson is in charge, as he always has been.

 

 

Would Chucker Ammonia not be labelled a 'bottler' by his opponents if he stood again ?

 

Those Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn just to have a contest are to blame for the current situation . The scale of Corbyn's victory makes it difficult for Labour MP's to really justify a leadership challenge until after the next general election . Their only hope is that Corbyn decides to resign in about two years time claiming he has achieved his goals by changing politics in the UK .

[TJC1]

it would seem to be a fair reflection of the nature of the man. but more importantly is the appointment of john mcdDonnell as shadow chancellor is as clear an indication that the labour party is going to become even more anti business. high tax low reward for enterprise. i note the media and labour's backers have already noticed this.

 

this is what he said last month:

 

Let me make it absolutely clear that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is committed to eliminating the deficit and creating an economy in which we live within our means.... We accept that cuts in public spending will help eliminate the deficit, but our cuts won’t be to the middle-and low-income earners and certainly not to the poor....alongside deficit elimination, the Corbyn campaign is advocating a fundamental reform of our economic system. This will include the introduction of an effective regulatory regime for our banks and financial sector; a full-blown Glass-Steagall system to separate day-to-day and investment banking; legislation to replace short-term shareholder value with long-term sustainable economic and social responsibilities as the prime objective of companies; radical reform of the failed auditing regime; the extension of a wider range of forms of company and enterprise ownership and control including public, co-operative and stakeholder ownership; and the introduction of a financial transactions tax to fund the rebalancing of our economy towards production and manufacturing.

[apelike]

A lot of people think that capital punishment should be brought back in. He seems like the kind of guy that is open to it. Should the reintroduction of capital punishment be a Corbyn Labour party policy?

 

No because it does not work as a deterrent.

[Hogg]

Good to see an even gender balance on the shadow front bench.

[TJC1]

more info on glass-steagal:

 

The Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking was in four sections of the 1933 Banking Act (sections 16, 20, 21, and 32).The Banking Act of 1935 clarified the 1933 legislation and resolved inconsistencies in it. Together, they prevented commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

 

dealing in non-governmental securities for customers

investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves

underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities

affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities

Conversely, Glass-Steagall prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits.

 

The law gave banks one year after the law was passed on June 16, 1933 to decide whether they would be a commercial bank or an investment bank. Only 10 percent of a commercial bank's income could stem from securities. One exception to this rule was that commercial banks could underwrite government-issued bonds.

 

There were several “loopholes” that regulators and financial firms were able to exploit during the lifetime of Glass-Steagall restrictions. Aside from the Section 21 prohibition on securities firms taking deposits, neither savings and loans nor state-chartered banks that did not belong to the Federal Reserve System were restricted by Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall also did not prevent securities firms from owning such institutions. S&Ls and securities firms took advantage of these loopholes starting in the 1960s to create products and affiliated companies that chipped away at commercial banks' deposit and lending businesses.

 

While permitting affiliations between securities firms and companies other than Federal Reserve member banks, Glass-Steagall distinguished between what a Federal Reserve member bank could do directly and what an affiliate could do. Whereas a Federal Reserve member bank could not buy, sell, underwrite, or deal in any security except as specifically permitted by Section 16, such a bank could affiliate with a company so long as that company was not “engaged principally” in such activities. Starting in 1987, the Federal Reserve Board interpreted this to mean a member bank could affiliate with a securities firm so long as that firm was not “engaged principally” in securities activities prohibited for a bank by Section 16. By the time the GLBA repealed the Glass-Steagall affiliation restrictions, the Federal Reserve Board had interpreted this “loophole” in those restrictions to mean a banking company (Citigroup, as owner of Citibank) could acquire one of the world’s largest securities firms (Salomon Smith Barney), as described in the article Glass–Steagall: decline.

 

By defining commercial banks as banks that take in deposits and make loans and investment banks as banks that underwrite and deal with securities the Glass Steagall act explained the separation of banks by stating that commercial banks could not deal with securities and investment banks could not own commercial banks or have close connections with them. With the exception of commercial banks being allowed to underwrite government-issued bonds, commercial banks could only have ten percent of their income come from securities.

 

The Glass Steagall Legislation page specifies that only Federal Reserve member banks were affected by the provisions which according to secondary sources the act "applied direct prohibitions to the activities of certain commercial banks".

[drummonds]

this is what he said last month:

 

Let me make it absolutely clear that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is committed to eliminating the deficit and creating an economy in which we live within our means.... We accept that cuts in public spending will help eliminate the deficit, but our cuts won’t be to the middle-and low-income earners and certainly not to the poor....alongside deficit elimination, the Corbyn campaign is advocating a fundamental reform of our economic system. This will include the introduction of an effective regulatory regime for our banks and financial sector; a full-blown Glass-Steagall system to separate day-to-day and investment banking; legislation to replace short-term shareholder value with long-term sustainable economic and social responsibilities as the prime objective of companies; radical reform of the failed auditing regime; the extension of a wider range of forms of company and enterprise ownership and control including public, co-operative and stakeholder ownership; and the introduction of a financial transactions tax to fund the rebalancing of our economy towards production and manufacturing.

 

hey that's cool. sadly his chancellor said he would rather swim though vommit than implement spending cuts. the city seems worried.

 

however as yesterday the trade union reform bill passed it's second reading in the commons with barely a whimper. it seems the labour party was too busy with in fighting at their own meeting.

 

you should read what the financial times had to say about it. or perhaps you shouldn't :hihi:

 

I'll give you a link anyhow..

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2e71afc-5adf-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3lnp3rh2m

 

The appointment of Mr McDonnell, a man who lists his hobby as plotting “the overthrow of capitalism”, sparked high anxiety among Labour MPs as Mr Corbyn, a veteran Labour rebel, put his stamp on the party.

Mr McDonnell says he wants to balance the books but advocates nationalisation, a big increase in public spending, a 60p top rate of tax and ending the independence of the Bank of England.

 

Mr Corbyn’s allies said the new Labour leader felt isolated at Westminster and wanted to keep Mr McDonnell, a longstanding friend, at his side. But one shadow cabinet member called the appointment “an absolute nightmare”.

Unite, Britain’s biggest union, had implored Mr Corbyn not to appoint his campaign chief to the shadow Treasury brief, as had some of the new leader’s closest allies at Westminster.

Two Labour insiders said Unite had favoured the moderate Angela Eagle for the post. “McDonnell is just too hard line,” one union official said. Charles Clarke, the former Labour home secretary said he was “aghast”.

Sajid Javid, business secretary, said the new party leader and Mr McDonnell posed “a real threat” to the country’s financial stability. Asked if business should fear a Corbyn government, Mr Javid said: “Yes. They should fear it a lot.”

Edited September 15, 2015 by drummonds

[Alan Ladd]

Would Chucker Ammonia not be labelled a 'bottler' by his opponents if he stood again ?

 

Those Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn just to have a contest are to blame for the current situation . The scale of Corbyn's victory makes it difficult for Labour MP's to really justify a leadership challenge until after the next general election . Their only hope is that Corbyn decides to resign in about two years time claiming he has achieved his goals by changing politics in the UK .

 

Chucker would be seen as the saviour of the party, I think with Mandelson behind him he would have the greatest political fixer this country has had for a century.

[TJC1]

hey that's cool. sadly his chancellor said he would rather swim though vommit than implement spending cuts. the city seems worried.

 

 

The quote wasnt corbyn...it was Mcdonnel. It couldnt be any clearer:

 

Let me make it absolutely clear that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is committed to eliminating the deficit and creating an economy in which we live within our means....

 

---------- Post added 15-09-2015 at 12:50 ----------

 

to give credit to the shadow chancellor he has managed a 3bn budget for the city of london. He's not a fruitcake.