BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:56 AM

Nice bit of whataboutery there, Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:54 AM

Oops, sorry, Nigel. I failed to spot that narrow white strip at the top of the table. That doesn't change my view that the Tower should in no way be regarded as a royal asset. As you point out, it has not be used by the royals for four hundred years except to house their disgusting collection of jewellery, which anyone with even a smidgeon of principle should boycott.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:51 AM

Of course to you or me these are large sums. But in the context of total public spending of £1182 billion a year the £125m Sovereign Grant represents only 0.01%. As I said in a previous post, that's a rounding error.

If every penny of public expenditure were spent effectively then perhaps if the Sovereign Grant were abolished it might make a difference. The fact is that some waste and inefficiencies are inevitable even in the most rigorous organisation, and the public sector does not have a record of rigorous financial controls or efficiencies. The reality is that even if the Sovereign Grant could be entirely abolished it would not enable the government to cut taxes or improve public services. This is why I used the word "trivial".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:48 AM

Well I'm not going to argue with you over those technicalities but I'd like to come back at you with two points. First, so he's "only" no 263 on the Sunday Times rich list and you don't think that's exceptional. Well in a country of sixty-odd million people, I think that 263rd richest is exceptionally exceptional. By the way, he's as rich as that because he inherited his riches, not because he worked for them, and his ancestors amassed that wealth over centuries by nefarious means, including taking it from the people, exploiting the labour of the people and indulging in the slave trade. Nice.

Second, you say that the amount is trivial in the overall scheme of things. Apart from the fact that £125 million is hardly what I'd call trivial, it's the principle of the thing. Millions of people in this country, given the choice and the facts of the matter, would probably disapprove of this gift from the nation, but choice in the matter we have not. As for his necessary expenses, etc., which he has the money hundreds of times over to pay for out of his own pocket, he travels everywhere in the lap of luxury and is carted around, not in a J-reg Astra or on Ryanair but in a fleet limousines that has cost us millions and in private jets that are entirely at his disposal. A bit more comfy than my budget flight to Malaga in a few weeks' time, yet I'm giving HIM money and he gives me nothing.

Trivial? Well that bunch of bananas I'm thinking of stealing from Sainsbury's is trivial to Sainsbury's, almost representing a victimless crime. But you wouldn't defend it, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:37 AM

Steve: Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-

Nice of you to iterate. But you haven't given a link to your source. Yes 'Visit Britain' can be searched, and their list of attractions is Here
Not only is it false to claim that The Tower doesn't appear, it is listed as No1 in the 'paid' attractions.

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? 1603 apparently

Shifting the goalposts?
hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

There is a difference between 'royal assets' and assets 'occupied' by royals.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:26 AM

"However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial"

Perhaps you could arrange for me to have just 10% of the costs of running Downing Street, as you say £2.2 million is a trivial amount. I promise you will never hear me complain ever again.


.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 23 - 06:12 AM

In the British constitution (and we do have one, even if it's not set out in a single document) "the Crown" represents what in other countries might be referred to as the State. It includes not only the Sovereign but also the executive (the UK and devolved governments), the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary. Most of the powers of the Crown are exercised by these institutions.

You don't seem to recognise the distinction between Charles as an individual and the position he holds. As an individual is indeed very wealthy (although not exceptionally so - he is only 263 in the Sunday Times Rich List). However as Sovereign he also performs an official role on behalf of the State, and the cost of this should be paid for by the State. These costs don't come out of your or my taxes but from income from property owned by the State.

You call for the Crown Estate to be nationalised. The Crown Estate belongs to the Sovereign, but this means the role rather than the person holding it. In other words, it belongs to the State, and to all intents and purposes has done since the eighteenth century. It is not King Charles's personal property. It is managed by an independent board who are accountable to Parliament, and its profits all go to the Treasury. In what respect is this not nationalised?

The State has overheads, which include the costs of performing the Sovereign's official duties. To repeat myself, the Sovereign Grant is not a personal payment to the King, any more than the £22m or so it costs to run Downing Street are a personal payment to Rishi Sunak.

You may consider some of these costs to be unnecessary or wasteful. That's a perfectly respectable point of view. However in the context of total public spending the amount is trivial, and even if the Sovereign Grant were to be abolished entirely it would make no discernible different to the public finances.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:25 PM

Good post. Just to reiterate that the Visit Britain website includes neither Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle nor the Tower in either top ten. Though I must say, you did forget the Beefeaters... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:12 PM

That is a bit of a daft presumption, isn't it?

Do you really believe that the draw to the Tower of London is the current members of the royal family? I would have thought that the attraction would be the associations with William the Conqueror, the tudors, imprisonments, tortures and executions, the ravens. In all, distant history - I don;t think the 1940s executions are much of a royal connection. I will concede that the crown jewels is an attraction, but I would dispute id this would a sole reason or even a main reason for visiting the attraction. I would argue that people visit Windsor castle because it is a castle that is accessible and just outside of London. I suppose I should concede regarding Buckingham Palace which would mean that the royal family co contributes to no more than 5% if hospitability and tourism. Also, if the monarchy was abolished, would Buckingham Palace be any less of interest? From my knowledge the Palace of Versailles doesn't suffer in visitor numbers through France being a republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 08:01 PM

So your best shot is Buck House at number 11! And we've had this thing about the Tower of London before, haven't we? Would you care to tell us when it was last occupied by any royal? And please don't regale me with the fact that it's the shameful home of the disgusting Crown Jewels...

As for the most popular, it's depends on which website you look things up. The Visit Britain site gives two top ten lists, free ones and paid ones. No royal attraction makes it to either list, not even the Tower if you really insist on having it as a royal attraction, which I heartily dispute. And that website does it by numbers of visitors, not by someone's subjective opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 07:36 PM

Steve: hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country.

This site gives:
#9 The Tower of London
#11 Buckingham Palace
#12 Windsor Castle

Would you care to let us know where you find your top 20?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:42 PM

That Charlie or his parasitic offspring owns, I should have said...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 06:40 PM

"Buck House is mainly an administrative building for the head of state, with offices and function rooms."

Absolutely not the case. Do read the wiki article on Buckingham Palace. You'll be amazed at what goes on there on top of the "administrative" side of things (which could easily be executed in ordinary offices anywhere in the country, by the way). And we pay for it, including the hundreds of millions needed to renovate it. As for the Crown Estate, and those huge "duchies" that Charlie owns, they simply should not exist beyond full nationalised control, and the filthy-rich monarch should not be able to hive off tens or hundreds of millions per annum from them for purposes that are generally hidden from public view and which are dubious at best.

Finally, are you able to tell us what happens to the fifty million that the "royal residences"(gosh, don't they need so many of them! Still, I don't suppose there are too many grouse to shoot at round Buckingham Palace) earned last year?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 03:49 PM

When an extremely rich man is obtaining the price of a half-pint from someone on a low wage who relies on food banks, and does it without that person's permission, I call that stealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 02:18 PM

I doubt many publicly owned buildings generate income, that is not really what most state activities are intended for. Nevertheless the royal residences earned nearly £50m from tourism in 2019-20.

Buck House is mainly an administrative building for the head of state, with offices and function rooms. Come the revolution you can sell it off, and it might raise enough to pay for the NHS for a day or two. Until then it is the responsibility of the state. It is not the King's roof, it is the government's, and they are giving him the money to fix it. An elected head of state will still need an official residence and an administration.

The role of head of state, whether a hereditary monarch or elected president, is a function of government to be paid for from the public purse, which is funded by taxation and income from revenue-producing activities, including the Crown Estate. It is legitimate to question those costs, and in a democracy to campaign for change. However it is a nonsense to claim that this is "stealing" from us, any more than the costs of running other state functions such as 10 Downing Street, the Foreign Office or indeed your local library are stealing from us.

In the context of the public finances £125m is a rounding error.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Rain Dog
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 01:24 PM

"brainless tourists who go to gawp"

And how many places have you gone to gawp? Or does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 10:31 AM

Minimising the impact of the grant on us all is the real red herring. It's the principle of the thing. He's one of the country's richest men yet we get to pay for his new roof "because it's a state asset." Really? It's actually a very average building and an "asset" to no-one except brainless tourists who go to gawp through the railings. And you'd have a tough time showing that its presence brings in any extra revenue, as (as has been mentioned several times before) hardly any of the "royal assets" ever make the top twenty tourist attractions in this country. We'd get by very nicely thank you in terms of tourism without their "assets." Pretending that it doesn't matter because it's only the price of a half-pint he's stealing from each and every one of us is like me justifying stealing a bunch of bananas from Sainsbury's because "they're only worth a quid." Yeah, right...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:57 AM

I'd rather have the half.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: G-Force
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:50 AM

£125 million is about £2 each, which is less than half a pint in a pub round here. I'd miss the monarchy but I don't notice the half pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Jul 23 - 09:11 AM

When you say the profits from the Crown Estate should go to the people, that is what happens. Or rather, they go to the Treasury, which is as close as "the people" are going to get. The Sovereign Grant isn't the King's wages but is to cover the cost of official duties, including staff salaries and travel. It doesn't go to enrich the King personally, and any surplus goes to a reserve fund to be used for future spending.

It's entirely legitimate to argue that these duties should be reduced in scale, but for the time being most people seem to quite like having a royal come to open their new hospital wing. Even if we replaced the monarchy with a president, that would still have to be paid for.

The Sovereign Grant is higher than usual because it includes the cost of refurbishing Buckingham Palace. The building is an asset of the state, and if it weren't paid for through the Sovereign Grant it would simply come out of some government department's budget.

£125 million sounds a lot, and it is. However set against total government spending of £1,283 billion a year it is a drop in the ocean. If it were to be abolished entirely (and there will always be some costs to have a head of state) this would make no discernible difference to the public finances.

There are very good arguments both for and against abolishing the monarchy, but the Sovereign Grant is a red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 23 - 05:51 PM

I'm seeing news reports on the BBC about the devastation caused to civilians in the civil war in Yemen. Villages devastated, children with limbs blown off, that sort of thing. Not a single mention of the fact that we have provided £15 billions of weapons to Saudi and the UAE since the start of the war. Weapons being used to bomb villages and blow children up. Still, never mind. We can just let them infiltrate and take over our biggest sports teams and mop up our best footballers with promises of wages of tens or hundreds of millions a year. I think we call it sportswashing.

Let me guess: oil...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:54 PM

Mrs Steve and I were very sad when we heard of the passing of George Alagiah. What a fantastic reporter he was, and, by all accounts, he was a great humanitarian and a lovely man to work with.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:20 PM

What do you mean by "the Crown"?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 08:08 AM

Is the Crown more powerful than the banks?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:55 AM

Yup! The profits from the Crown Estate should go back to the people, which is who the Crown Estate should morally belong to. Instead, a huge sum from those profits is hived off every year to further enrich one of the richest men in the country, a man who does nothing in connection with the Crown Estate to earn that money. In my view it's a massive scandal, but, as ever, the establishment will do its damnedest to legitimise it, and will succeed. That's how people like Stanron are hoodwinked into thinking that it's all OK. Stick a crown and a few robes on Charlie (slaughter a bit of game first), send him abroad every now and then to be cheered by flag-waving picaninnies, get him to ride his regalia-bedecked horse every June and wave at us from a balcony surrounded by his fellow parasites and their brats, and hardly anyone will notice...

Worth a moment looking into the Crown Estate, by the way. It's one of the most powerful institutions in the country. It owns all of our seabed and over half the foreshore, thousands of acres of land and lucrative properties in our towns, cities and countryside, among other things. A graduated land tax would sort 'em out, but there I am again sailing into cloud cuckoo land...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:12 AM

”I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree.”

And, right on cue, up pops the second brainwashed one I was thinking of… :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Stanron
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 07:01 AM

"Feeling the pinch in these days of rip-roaring inflation? Happy to settle (after years of pay freezes and austerity, even though "we are all in it together") for a pay rise around half the rate of inflation? Why, the answer is to be the King! As from 2025, he's to get a 45% rise!"

"I think you’re preaching to the wrong congregation on here, Steve. I get the feeling that the majority of us are already in agreement with you, and I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree."

Typical lefty group think. Stoking jealousy with lies.

Sovereign Grant only occurs after all income from royal estates go directly to the Treasury. An inconvenient truth for lefties.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 06:32 AM

I think you’re preaching to the wrong congregation on here, Steve. I get the feeling that the majority of us are already in agreement with you, and I can think of only one contributor, maybe two, who is/are sufficiently brainwashed by Right-Wing propaganda to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 06:25 AM

.... Man shall not live by bread alone, but try thou convincing thine income tax inspector.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 05:09 AM

Oh and by the way, during the ten years of Tory austerity since 2013, the Sovereign Grant has gone up from £31 million to £86 million. To them that have, it shall be given, commenteth the Lord....

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 23 - 05:03 AM

Feeling the pinch in these days of rip-roaring inflation? Happy to settle (after years of pay freezes and austerity, even though "we are all in it together") for a pay rise around half the rate of inflation? Why, the answer is to be the King! As from 2025, he's to get a 45% rise!

From the Guardian:

...the government has seen fit to offer the new king a rise estimated to be 45% from 2025. The precise figure will depend on profits from the government property portfolio known as the crown estate. The projected increase of £38.5m, taking the sovereign grant from £86m to £125m, undermines King Charles’s often-cited commitment to “slim down” the monarchy.

The decision, which was taken by a committee of three people – prime minister Rishi Sunak, the chancellor Jeremy Hunt, and the keeper of the privy purse, Sir Michael Stevens...

So is this ancient, bumbling national parasite worth it, d'ye think? Does it swing it for you that his missus is such a sparkling, witty personality?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Jul 23 - 02:10 PM

For once, Steve, I hope you’re right.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jul 23 - 02:08 PM

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Khan and Starmer have their private barney about ULEZ. I'll bet anyone here at least sixpence that the policy on ULEZ will change.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:26 PM

I said just after he was elected leader that Starmer is a loser and a follower of what he perceives to be fashion. I said that he will not win the next election.

This will continue for as long as Keir Starmer tries to be everything to everybody without committing himself to any policies.

I'm quite happy to let him continue as he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 06:47 PM

I said just after he was elected leader that Starmer is a loser and a follower of what he perceives to be fashion. I said that he will not win the next election. Since then we've had Johnson's disreputable behaviour and we've had Truss and Kamikaze, and a pandemic that the Tories handled so badly that there were tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. I still don't think that Stodgy Starmer will win. At best, he might end up leading the biggest party. Then what. He makes misstep after misstep. He told his MPs that they mustn't join picket lines. The leader of a party spawned by trade unions telling his ministers not to join legitimate trade union pickets! He's tried to sideline the left using the most dishonest and flimsy ploys. He's refused to support public sector unions in their fight against Tory austerity and thirteen years of pay freezes. He supports the Tories' inhuman cap on child benefit. He won't even say that he'll honour pay review body recommendations. Plenty more, including broken pledges. A terrible shadow chancellor. A London Labour mayor who is screwing the poor and indulging the wealthy.

We might hold our noses and do whatever we can to vote out the Tories. Out. But there will be no ringing endorsement of Starmer. Wrong man, wrong time.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:49 PM

Exactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:39 PM

As I said previously, I agree about the folly of Khan’s ULEZ expansion, for the reasons you’ve given. And the Tories already know that ‘single issues can swing elections’ - don’t tell me you’ve already forgotten ‘Get Brexit Done’?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 01:10 PM

But the ULEZ thing has opened a Pandora's box. These schemes are in the offing in several other large urban (Labour) areas. In each case you are, in effect, telling poorer motorists, the ones with older cars, that they'd better scrap them. I bought a diesel in 2010 when the story was that diesels were the saviours of the world. Its emissions were so low that my road tax was thirty quid a year. I changed that car last year and I don't live in the ULEZ zones, so it doesn't apply to me, but if it had my car would have been non-compliant. Had I been told that I either get rid of my car or pay £12.50 per day, not only would I be hopping mad but I'd also feel cheated after having bought it in good faith. Not good enough, Labour, favouring the rich and shitting on the poor.

And give the Tories the notion that single issues can swing elections. Disastrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:33 AM

I agree about Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ changes, a bad miscalculation on his part. But there was still a swing to Labour - a 7k Tory majority reduced to 475. On that basis, ‘vulnerable’ Labour seats in Greater London must surely be ‘safer’?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 07:08 AM

Mebbe it's just me, but I regard the Uxbridge result as a shot across Labour's bows. The ULEZ factor clearly lost Labour this seat and there are plenty more vulnerable seats in London. The ULEZ expansion is an unfair and clumsy move, and, now that it's lost us what should have been an easy seat to pick up, it's going to be hard to reverse without Labour looking bloody stupid. Not trying to be environmentally unfriendly here, by the way, but blackmailing thousands of Londoners into having to change their cars within nine months (whilst leaving most Chelsea tractor gas-guzzlers alone) or pay punitive daily fees is simply not the way forward. If you have an older, non-compliant car, you're more likely to be among the less well-off. Punishing their owners is not my idea of the Labour way. Bad judgements costs seats. Blair got in by avoiding bad judgements in the mid-1990s. Can't trust Starmer to do the same. He's put an unfair cap on child benefits, he won't support public sector trade unions, he's backtracked on several pledges already...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 04:03 AM

I’ve never understood the obsession of the press and media with Farage - a failed would-be politician, the former leader of a small minority-party, who never even managed to get elected to Parliament. He’s a has-been, more likely a never-was, a nobody.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jul 23 - 02:29 AM

It was the last two lines in Attila’s little piece that were the most telling and important, AFAIC. I don’t give a flying you-know-what about the gobby man-frog’s financial arrangements or lack of them, and his public display of self-pity disgusts me, but every time there’s a media tempest in a teapot about something inconsequential to the vast majority of us, I wonder what they’re trying to distract us from - usually the actions of this dishonest, rapacious government.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 06:02 PM

Most banks have right-wing leanings, at least it seems that way if we scrutinise their predilection for investing our money in organisations which will give them the best returns as opposed to organisations that try to be moral or ethical. There are several banks that abide by Sharia law, and in many ways they are far more "moral" than our friendly high street banks. For example, they will not invest in companies that deal in alcohol or gambling. But hey.

The Farage farrago should be seen for what it is: the distempered blustering of a man who is providing us with an amusing aside. He said today that Coutts is just a political campaigning setup. As they won't have you unless you have three million, I was wondering which side they are supposedly campaigning for. Doubt whether it would for anyone on the left...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 04:59 PM

Of course, the Coutts/Farage story was reported by the BBC who claimed that his account was closed because his funding was insufficient for a Coutts account.
It has now been proved otherwise.

Remember Pastor Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Do we really want banks that can deny you an account because they disagree with your political leanings?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jul 23 - 02:52 PM

From Attila The Stockbroker today - right on the button as usual…

”Farage is a banker
Who can no longer bank
The rhyme is far too obvious
But just once Coutts I’ll thank
Though while we roar with laughter
And try not to think of tissues
Remember it’s a smokescreen
To distract from other issues”

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 11:47 AM

No-one in Labour is ever going to admit it, but the onslaught on Corbyn from within the party during that two years, executed in the knowledge that the Tories would never contemplate a full term with a shabby minority shored up only by a bunch of illiberal antediluvian types in Northern Ireland, amounted to a deliberate suicide note for the next election. Even had Corbyn resigned before the election, the scramble for a new leader (go on - tell me who!) would still have guaranteed defeat. In the unlikely event of a Corbyn victory in 2019, the right in the party would not have been able to stomach him as PM. The party right wanted him to lose so that they could then do what they're doing now, trying to abolish the left of the party completely and ruthlessly. The last time we had a leftie PM was Atlee, when the circumstances were extraordinary. Labour's core at the top has always been to the right of its centre. It's their party and they're ruthless bastards...

But it won't work for long. That's history for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 10:23 AM

Well it was a general election with two main antagonists. Admittedly, the old saw that elections are lost rather than won has more than a grain of truth, as you're suggesting in this case. But the result was unexpected (and she did lose her overall majority: trashed?), it set alarm bells ringing on the right (as well as among the right in the Labour Party) and it triggered an onslaught by the right-wing media and from within his own party for the next two years. He is a naive, unspun man (not good qualities in a leader, I'm the first to admit) and he didn't know how to counter the attacks, and he accorded his opponents a field day when it came to brexit. Elections are won and lost for many complex reasons and it's impossible to to assign relative importance accurately to any one of them, but I take your point.

Cheers for your civilly-expressed and thoughtful disagreement, Nigel. We could use more of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 10:23 AM

Who is being a little disingenuous now, Nigel?

Do you not think that the media and right wing of the Labour party had anything to do with Corbyn's defeat 2 years later? When it is known that members of his own party would rather lose the election than have him as leader it became impossible to repeat the earlier result.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jul 23 - 09:57 AM

Steve:
I think you're being a little disingenuous (or looking through RED-tinted glasses) in claiming that Corbyn trashed May's majority.
My view would be that that was mainly down to Theresa may failing to make good on Brexit, and making too many concessions to Brussels thus leaving us in a much poorer negotiating position.
If it was down to Corbyn, why did he not repeat the result against Boris two years later?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 3
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 23 - 11:47 AM

When I refer to the party, I'm talking about the party's political establishment, not the hundreds of thousands of party members who joined when he was elected leader. The right in the party don't like us much, either. They don't care that we're leaching away in droves. In fact, they welcome it. Too many of us are on the left for their taste. And look what we have now: an unprincipled leader whose best skill is U-turning on policy and who is just as unconvincing as Corbyn, with his only saving grace being that the right of the party prop him up while the left are either expelled on the most puny of pretexts or who, alternatively, had better shut up.