The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano]

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

Who is defending 'big corporate tax dodging'?

 

I just asked if you knew that 'sales' and 'profits' are not the same thing. Apparently not?

 

Labour are not the answer  - it's alright for JC to say he'll  increase the living wage to £10 per hour, £19,200 per year for a 40 hour week over a 48 week working year, less tax and national insurance obviously, when he's sat in his million pound house with a wage three times the national average and all whilst enjoying the very generous perks that MP's get. 

 

Everyone's equal comrade, but some are more equal than others. 

 

 

So you think that labour party mp's should live in council house's then? And if they dont then they have no rights voicing their opinion..

[L00b]

5 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Really? 

 

Figures show the 'stock' of inward foreign direct investment in the UK is at a record high. 

 

https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2019_en.pdf

Is it? Page 62 at your link paints rather a different, much more muted picture:

 

FDI flows to the United Kingdom declined by 36 per cent to $64 billion. The impact of the impending Brexit on FDI, however, is still unclear. Equity investment halved to $40 billion. But reinvested earnings rose by 73 per cent to $33 billion, and net M&A sales trebled to $94 billion. The number of cross-border acquisitions targeting United Kingdom assets (gross sales) also increased by 8 per cent. The average number of such deals before and after the EU referendum indicate an unchanged upward trend (822 annual transactions in 2012–2016 compared with 953 annual transactions in 2017–2018). The average number of announced cross-border greenfield projects – an indicator of future FDI trends – also registered a 20 per cent increase after the referendum (from 1,192 projects per year over the period 2012–2016 to 1,428 projects over 2017–2018), compared with a 24 per cent increase in the rest of the EU. 

[Robin-H]

20 minutes ago, L00b said:

Is it? Page 62 at your link paints rather a different, much more muted picture:

 

 

 

It is yes.

 

The measure I quoted, which was the stock of inward foreign investment, is at a record high. The 'flow' may have decreased, but the 'stock' values are at a record high. Flow values are very volatile, and there was a massive spike in 2016, so it would be misleading to suggest that there is a worrying downward trend. 

[sheffbag]

3 hours ago, geared said:

Corbyn got more votes in 2017 than anyone since Blair, in fact with the exception of 1997 you have to go back to 1966 to find someone who beat the 12.8m votes Corbyn managed in 2017.

(yes the population was lower then)

Yawn - and your point is ????

Labour has 243 seats regardless whether it got 12.8M or 5.8M votes.  Thats still 80 seats short of winning.

They had more seats in 1992 but, and here's the crucial bit when it comes to elections.... they didnt win then either

Go back to 1974 where they won with more seats but less votes. That was the last time "true labour" (as it seems most Labour people on here don't count Blair) won

 

Total number of votes don't mean jack, the number of seats do and Labour have not had enough to be the governing party under the same style that JC wishes to do for the last 10 general elections or 40 years

 

So same question - where's the 80 seats Labour needs to form a majority government?

Edited November 19, 2019 by sheffbag

[geared]

2 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Yawn - and your point is ????

 

 

People are so quick to write the man off, but at least by previous voting numbers he (and Labour) appear to be pulling some of the best numbers in the last few decades, unless 12.8m people voted for a joke?

 

I doubt he will get 80 more seats, I think they're in danger of losing some due to their behaviour over the last two years.

Labour sat on the fence far too long and got massively carried away with political point scoring and trying to embarrass the Torys, voters are going to look elsewhere for answers I believe.

 

[sheffbag]

1 minute ago, geared said:

 

People are so quick to write the man off, but at least by previous voting numbers he (and Labour) appear to be pulling some of the best numbers in the last few decades, unless 12.8m people voted for a joke?

 

I doubt he will get 80 more seats, I think they're in danger of losing some due to their behaviour over the last two years.

Labour sat on the fence far too long and got massively carried away with political point scoring and trying to embarrass the Torys, voters are going to look elsewhere for answers I believe.

 

true but my point was that the OP was saying that Corbyn is the most popular leader of a party since 1966.

My counter point was that,it makes no difference how many votes, its all about seats.

 

If he loses yet another election he deserves to be written off (and im speaking as a former Labour voter)

[geared]

He does and I believe John McDonnell recently said words to that effect.

[Anna B]

5 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Anna - The Labour you desire have been unelectable for 40 years now to the British public (since you denounce the only Labour leader who actually managed to win an election since 1979)

What makes you think

a) It will be different this time around?

b) Where the 80 seats are that Labour would have to win (and not lose any)  in order to form a government?

 

And that's the simple crux - Labour need 80 more seats for a working majority unless they are going to throw their lot in with Jimmy Krankie (who is more obsessed with getting indpendence than a GE so wont be happy with JC proclaming no Independence referendum will be allowed). Where are they and do you think Labour will hold onto every seat they currently hold?

 

The world has changed in the last 40 years . We've had Thatcher,  Blair, Coalition and now Boris, wars, creeping privatisation that has sold off the family siver and lost us our infrastructure, wars, the expenses scandal, not to mention a ife altering financial crash caused squarely by the banks leading to years of 'austerity.' 

A lot of the things I thought were inviolate,  hard won rights to things like free education, affordable council housing, welfare, cradle to grave NHS care, and more egalitarian times when the chance to get on in life, etc have been dismantled by governments both Conservative and Blair's Labour.

 

From the 1980's,  onwards the post war world I grew up in has slowly changed beyond recognition, and not for the better. Kids can now leave university with £50,000 of debt, affordable housing is a thing of the past for many young people, sky high rents and low wages and benefit cuts has lead to record numbers of homeless, in places the NHS resembles a third world country, and our politicians have been running the country like a banana republic with cronieism and corruption. They worked hand in hand with the bankers and allowed massive fortunes to be accumulated and jobs for the boys with massively inflated salaries.

 

Workers rights meanwhile have been downgraded leading to falls in wages and poorer working conditions. In other words previous governments for the last 40 years have allowed / caused the to gap between rich and poor to widen considerably. Now IMO most people don't want to be super-rich, but they do want to have enough to not spend sleepless nights worrying. They're not greedy but they work hard, pay their taxes and want enough to at least feel comfortable and secure.  And they want to be able to trust the government to do right by them.  

 

And whoever you voted for, Tory or Labour, changed nothing.

 

It got to the point where public unrest was such that people were refusing to vote and saying we needed a revolution. I believe the vote to leave the EU and general distrust and disgust with politicians was part of that rebellion. 

 

Fortunately we are a mainly law abiding nation who don't want to see blood on the streets, but we still want change. Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. He isdifferent. He saw the need for real people to have someone to represent them, for their needs to be addressed. he saw the need for a change of direction in the Labour party. He's not a communist, jew hater, a joke or any of the other things you read in the media. He is a decent, honest and fairminded man with principles, uncorrupted, who genuinely wants to do his best for the ordinnary people who are the real strength of this country, (that's you and me folks.)

 

All his policies are to that end - for the many, not the few. That's why he deserves to win.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Anna B

[Padders]

Well said Anna  .

[Robin-H]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The world has changed in the last 40 years . We've had Thatcher,  Blair, Coalition and now Boris, wars, creeping privatisation that has sold off the family siver and lost us our infrastructure, wars, the expenses scandal, not to mention a ife altering financial crash caused squarely by the banks leading to years of 'austerity.' 

A lot of the things I thought were inviolate,  hard won rights to things like free education, affordable council housing, welfare, cradle to grave NHS care, and more egalitarian times when the chance to get on in life, etc have been dismantled by governments both Conservative and Blair's Labour.

 

From the 1980's,  onwards the post war world I grew up in has slowly changed beyond recognition, and not for the better. Kids can now leave university with £50,000 of debt, affordable housing is a thing of the past for many young people, sky high rents and low wages and benefit cuts has lead to record numbers of homeless, in places the NHS resembles a third world country, and our politicians have been running the country like a banana republic with cronieism and corruption. They worked hand in hand with the bankers and allowed massive fortunes to be accumulated and jobs for the boys with massively inflated salaries.

 

Workers rights meanwhile have been downgraded leading to falls in wages and poorer working conditions. In other words previous governments for the last 40 years have allowed / caused the to gap between rich and poor to widen considerably. Now IMO most people don't want to be super-rich, but they do want to have enough to not spend sleepless nights worrying. They're not greedy but they work hard, pay their taxes and want enough to at least feel comfortable and secure.  And they want to be able to trust the government to do right by them.  

 

And whoever you voted for, Tory or Labour, changed nothing.

 

It got to the point where public unrest was such that people were refusing to vote and saying we needed a revolution. I believe the vote to leave the EU and general distrust and disgust with politicians was part of that rebellion. 

 

Fortunately we are a mainly law abiding nation who don't want to see blood on the streets, but we still want change. Step forward Jeremy Corbyn. He isdifferent. He saw the need for real people to have someone to represent them, for their needs to be addressed. he saw the need for a change of direction in the Labour party. He's not a communist, jew hater, a joke or any of the other things you read in the media. He is a decent, honest and fairminded man with principles, uncorrupted, who genuinely wants to do his best for the ordinnary people who are the real strength of this country, (that's you and me folks.)

 

All his policies are to that end - for the many, not the few. That's why he deserves to win.

 

 

 

Shame that instead of coming up with credible and workable ideas, they come up with nonsense like nationalising broadband and then giving it away for free. It shows not only economic illiteracy, but a weird sense of priorities.