BS: uk by-elections

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:50 PM

"as is the anti-Semitism in the party."
So sayeth the man who blames the Jewish People for the srimes of the Israeli regime and would rather pander to antisemites by refusing to comment on an accusation the the Jewish members of Parliament refused to identify Labour semitism for the good of the party - not to mention dismissing all Jews who criticise Israel, such as Gerald Kaufman, as "Self Hating".
Give it a rest Bobad - your cover is well blown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:40 PM

i suppose the reason virtually everyone is questioning Corbyn's leadership is that we don't really have a clear idea of whither we are headed.

there's a deal of confusion being felt.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:34 PM

Can't speak for the media but I am questioning his leadership because he won't stand up for the future of Britain in Europe.

The media are, as you know bobad, very largely foreign owned. And they have has such a corrosive influence on public discourse, not only over the last year but the last three decades, that I cannot help but feel that their proprietors, and one in particular, really wish the British people ill.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 02:02 PM

So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership

It's all a plot by the Jew owned media and that nefarious "foreign government", don't you know, as is the anti-Semitism in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:31 PM

"So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership,"
Like God, they are not on our side Dick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 01:11 PM

LABOUR came first in Stoke on Trent, So why are the mediaquestioning Corbyns leadership, and not the leadership of the lib dems or ukip?two parties that failed to win seats?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 11:32 AM

This excellent article from the Times, this morning
Makes sense to me
Jim Carroll

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, CORBYN SHOULD LEAN FURTHER LEFT
Instead of continuing with this pathetic muddle, Labour's leader ought to go down fighting for a radical subversive agenda,
Let's be fair to Labour. Preparing briefing notes on what to say if you lose a by-election is a thankless task. I've done it quite a few times, and struggled even to convince myself.
Twenty years ago this week, when I was working for the party, the Tories lost a seat we held, Wirral South, with a 17 per cent swing to Labour. We were only a few weeks from a general election, but the advice we gave ministers who appeared on television was to say that this was only a protest vote. We had always regained the seats we lost at by-elections. Wirral South would come home in May and so would the country.
This wasn't remotely plausible. It sounded completely unconvincing at the time. And the country didn't come home at the general election. Nor did Wirral South. Indeed it is still held by Labour, five general elections laterf But what were we supposed to advise ministers to say? What was there to say?
When I was in the SDP we gave our spokesman some lines to use on the television results programme following the Bootle by-election. When the SDP finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party, he looked at his briefing and opted to tell the presenter: "I was sort of hoping you had forgotten I was here."
In another SDP catastrophe, my friend as party campaign manager rang headquarters with the result and started giving the winner's percentage with several decimal places. You don't need all those, said HQ. Yes I do, replied my friend. If I don't include the decimal places, we scored zero. Some results simply can't be spun.
Yet even allowing for this, Labour's attempt to explain their debacle in Copeland last week has been abysmal. Their briefing paper leaked to my Times colleague Sam Coates, as most things do in the end, and it was an astonishingly weak effort.
The aim was to convince people that winning Copeland "was always going to be an uphill task", which is absurd, and that the real problem was "unique circumstances". My favourite part was the bit that blamed defeat on the Conservatives. "The Tories threw everything at Copeland," the brief complained. They then said the same thing about
Voters are fed up with mainstream offerings, they want an outsider
Stoke (the Tories "threw everything at it"). It is not necessary to write a statistics column to work out that this doesn't quite compute.
Unsurprisingly, given this thin stuff, party spokesmen have been freelancing, trying just about any old line since last Thursday.
Blaming the weather has been a particular favourite.
What's strange about this is that there was a ready-made position that could have been taken. And the fact that Labour hasn't taken it suggests that even Jeremy Corbyn has lost faith in his own thesis.
Here is the argument for a left- wing leadership: New Labour may have won three elections but its appeal had faded and cannot be renewed. This is not just because core Labour voters had begun to lose faith in it. It is also because it depended for success on a strong economy. This allows spending increases and redistribution without higher taxes on the well-off. After the banking crisis this was no longer possible.
So a more radical position was needed after both the Blairite and then Brownite versions of New Labour ran out of steam. The party can't repeat what Ed Miliband did, nor return to the politics of Tony Blair.
All over the world, this argument contends, centrists are being overthrown by radicals. The idea that you can only win elections by bunching in the middle has been disproven. Voters are fed-up with the mainstream offerings. They want an outsider, someone who isn't just another cookie-cutter pol, but an anti-politician. Labour needs to try something new, a bold radical departure. It can win on the left.
Instead of a traditional party centred on parliament, Labour should be a grassroots campaign, built through social media and attracting radical parties and pressure groups which can bring energy to the cause. The economy is going to hit a rough patch, the Tories will get tired and a vigorous extra-parliamentary campaign can run them ragged.
I've never been persuaded by this theory of how to win or remotely attracted to the sort of politics it leads to. But then I wouldn't be.
What astonishes me is the lack of faith Corbyn himself shows in what is the only argument for his leadership.
Daniel Finklestein, The Times 1st March 2016

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 06:40 AM

I have a cousin called David Carter who comes from Gorton, would you believe! My uncle still lives there.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 04:47 AM

Ukip came second at Stoke and gained vote share in both.
That is not a "massive defeat."

Sir Keir Starmer on the results for Labour,

"Sir Keir also dismissed excuses for Labour's Copeland by-election defeat put forward by Mr Corbyn and his allies, declaring: "I don't think some of the reasons put forward are compelling."
And pointing the finger of blame at Mr Corbyn, he added: "A number of things came up, including the direction of travel of the Labour Party, Labour's ability to communicate and understand what people are saying to them and, of course, the leadership of the Labour Party and we all know that."
http://news.sky.com/story/shadow-cabinets-keir-starmer-writes-off-labours-election-chances-10785427

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 01 Mar 17 - 03:50 AM

Whilst I agree with your last three words Steve, I think that the rest of your post might be over-optimistic. The issue at the moment is that the Tories, and even Labour, have stolen their clothes. This in the long run is not good for the country, and if and when the larger parties return to a more pragmatic approach (e.g. a Blair/Major approach), then the nastiness will resurface. I returned to supporting Labour after the Lib Dems sold out on tuition fees, after Labour have sold out on something more important I will not make that mistake again.

Manchester Gorton is a community which is both ethnically diverse, and highly educated (a lot of students and staff from the Manchester universities live there). I would see both the Lib Dems and the Greens doing very well, and if they formed some kind of a pact they could even take the seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 PM

The Labour victory in Stoke has gone a long way towards nobbling UKIP for good. They're imploding at the moment. Ragbag scumbag ratbags.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:39 PM

A massive defeat for UKIP, ONE GOOD RESULT FOR LABOUR AND ONE GOOD RESULT FOR THE CONSERVATIVES.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 02:37 PM

A UKIP

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Stu
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:35 AM

"The Lib Dems achieved what?"

They're not going to achieve much in Stoke, which come as no surprise to anyone. The Lib Dems strengths are in other areas of the country and they will make gains here, after all they are the only ones sticking up for the 48%.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Definition of hypocrisy:

Shaw to Teribus: Have another ten pints, Bill.

Shaw to Teribus: rude sod

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:43 AM

"You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not."

I absolutely never touch alcohol during the day to "see myself through" or for any other reason, but I probably would if I were forced to live anywhere near you, rude sod. Oddly, despite your usual amusing splenetic outbursts, you seem to be agreeing with me about a local income tax.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:21 AM

I would expect the Greens to do very well. If there was some tactical alliance with the Lib Dems, one of them could take the seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

"The loss of Copeland is hugely significant for Labour as opposition parties hardly ever lose seats in by-elections. The public generally use the opportunity to deliver a blow against whoever is in power but on this occasion no anti-establishment feeling presented itself."
The Telegraph;

It appears the public know how to prioritise:
"Copeland is the home of the Sellafield nuclear decommissioning site which employs thousands of people in the area. Jamie Reed was a big advocate for Sellafield - indeed he resigned to go and work at the plant - but Jeremy Corbyn's lukewarm approach to protecting jobs there seems to have put voters off.

It seems that protecting these jobs was more important to voters in the area than the proposed closure of maternity services at Copeland hospital - something that Labour were relying on to fuel their vote."

It will be interesting to see the by election results for Gerald Kaufman's constituency when they appear. It was a very strong labour seat.
General Election 2015: Manchester Gorton[8][9] Party                                     Candidate                                 Votes          %         +/-                                                       Labour                Sir Gerald Kaufman         28,187         67.1         +17.0
Green                Laura Bannister         4,108         9.8         +7.0
Conservative         Mohammed Afzal         4,063         9.7         −1.4
UKIP                Phil Eckersley         3,434         8.2         N/A
LiberalDemocrat Dave Page                1,782         4.2         −28.4
TUSC                Simon Hickman                264         0.6         −0.3
Pirate                Cris Chesha                181         0.4         −0.2

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:27 AM

They are facts, but not the important ones.
Labour held one seat but lost the other, and lost vote share on both.
The Tories took a seat, which is very unusual for a governing party, and gained vote share.
Ukip had a small gain in vote share in both, and beat both Tories and Lib Dems at Stoke.
The Lib Dems achieved what?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:24 AM

Well no GSS

Stoke - Labour held a seat - with their 2015 majority cut by half. But UKIP ran them a creditable 2nd in Stoke (Had they stuck with their 2015 Candidate they might have won it)

Conservatives won what has always been considered a safe Labour seat.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

the party that fared the worse was UKIP, FOLLOWED BY LIB DEMS, the other two parties held a seat.
whatever spin the mediaputs on results, the above are facts

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:43 AM

The only fair way to raise the required funds is from income, each according to their means. The easiest way to raise it would be by diverting a set percentage of income tax, as the mechanism for collection is already in place.
Of course the raving socialists would want to place a tax on capital as well:- the typical politics of envy.
The system in place at the moment of taxing a properties worth is heavily skewed to shaft those at the bottom. Typically the lowest band payment is about 1/3 of the highest, spread among 8 bands. House prices range from 100k£ to millions. This system is as unfair as the poll tax but did not generate as much resistance when introduced.
To put that in perspective the 8 bands range roughly 1k-3.5k£ p.a.
Av income, depending on sources, is 26/27k£ before deductions.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:03 AM

Pathetic Shaw - pity you weren't carried far away enough.

You may have to resort to alcohol to see yourself through the day Shaw I do not. Human nature drives people to pay only what they absolutely have to and what was shown to be the case in your "socialist", incentive free, workers paradises was that people only do the bare minimum, everything else then comes from graft, corruption and a black economy that is so essential and becomes so powerful that nobody can dare to take any effective action against it.

A local authority is required to raise £500,000,000 from a community that consists of 100,000 properties and 361,000 wage earners. The properties if following national statistics will comprise 64% privately owned, 18% privately owned rented property, 11% Housing Association stock and 7% Council owned.

Average bill required to provide the services from the local authority is £5,000 per property per year (£96.15 per week). 18% of this is Government or Council in effect paying itself with all associated admin costs as they collect their council taxes as a portion of the rent.

If however you raise the required sum by imposition of a local income tax that works out at £1,385 per person per year (£26.64 per week). Deducted at source the machinery is already in place to do this at no additional expense and no expense to the council.

In addition you make that local income tax deductible from your national income tax as it is an expense essential for life. Every wage earner pays it and the impact on national tax revenue is marginal. Were you to do the same thing with your property based system the impact would be marked and a gift to the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:15 PM

Have another ten pints, Bill. Hope your head's ok in the morning! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:35 PM

Steve Shaw - 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM
"I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Rare for you? You voted for them you lying prat. That quoted passage of yours equates to:

David Carter (UK): "Sir we have two options A and B which one should we adopt A means we have more people paying in less and the second is based on making people pay more based upon an asset that they cannot realise. A graduated property tax."

Shaw: "Well I like the idea of A as it is fair, but a bit inconvenient to administer. But I like B better as it sits better with my ideology. I know property is only worth anything when it is actually sold. But according to what our comrades tell us only rich bastards have property so let's make them pay for the lot".

The rich bastards sell up and move elsewhere, nobody buys the property because of the taxes Shaw has to raise, so you end up collecting F**k All. Well done Shaw. No bloody wonder Labour is in such a God awful mess.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:49 PM

Carried away. I didn't get carried away enough.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:47 PM

The money that council tax raises is a small proportion of what local services cost so let's not get too carried . We could raise the whole amount by income tax, but the concept of a local tax gives local people a stake in local politics. The argument is all about how to make that fair. A tax based on the supposed value of a house that is reviewed once in a blue moon is at best an extremely blunt instrument, and is unfairly skewed towards those at the bottom end paying disproportionately more. What price a mansion tax?

I'm with the LibDems (rare for me) in supporting a local income tax. Bureaucratic nightmare, of course, but fairer is fairer. Even better, what David says, a graduated land tax. You can't hide your land in offshore accounts. And it's fair because you didn't make the land.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 03:36 PM

Nothing to do with encouraging wage earners Mr. Carter is it? We are talking about funding the services that the council provides in the example I quote one pensioner ends up paying more than four people who all benefit. A fair and equitable arrangement would be that all pay for the services.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

The problem of the retired widow is solved by offsetting some of the tax liability against equity in the property. But surely, we want to encourage wage earners?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:13 PM

Unfortunately "Land" irrespective of value does not use local authority resources so you still end up with the retired widow living in her own home that she has saved, bought and paid for, paying more than a family with four wage earners living in a council house. I know which "Property" uses more of and puts greater strain on the facilities paid for and provided by the local authority.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:06 PM

Because she was replaced with similarly baleful people. Though some were reversed as with the Poll Tax you mention.

I would replace Council Tax with Land Value Tax. That would be much fairer.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:37 AM

If her influence was so baleful how come none of the measures she implemented were reversed?

Big questions about council tax looming. At present it is grossly unfair, Poll Tax wasn't and it is a pity that Council Tax replaced it. Strong contender for replacement of Council Tax is a form of local income tax which is just another form of levying a poll tax - i.e. each wage earner pays it not each householder.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:20 AM

Every single general election since. And if some were emulated by other European governments this just goes to show that her baleful influence did not stop at the channel.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

Of course it's all Thatcher's fault - how boringly predictable of you Mr. Carter.

Tell me what opportunities have there been to reverse every single measure enacted under Thatcher's Ministry? How many of them were? How many were emulated by other European Governments?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 06:16 AM

Big Al, I don't think that any of that had to do with the EEC, that had to do with electing Thatcher, when we had already been in the EEC for 4 years. The EEC and the EU served to mitigate some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism. Also, if you think there were no beggars on the streets before 1975 you have either a very poor memory or you were walking around with your eyes closed.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 04:40 PM

i don't think the eec 'worked'. i didn't vote for it. sick man of europe was what the toffs said.

i was proud of that england. nearly full employment. no beggars on the street, no hard drugs problem.   a socialist government that wouldn't join in America's vietnam adventure.

entry into the eec meant the start of the end for the one nation tories, and the end of respect for the society we had planned after the second world war.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 03:35 PM

Works for me. Framework I-VII, Horizon2020, Erasmus, ERDF. Not easily replaced, and definitely not replaced by anything in the knowledge of UK tories. The EU has been and remains a brilliant success, and the UK's future exclusion is to its detriment.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 01:27 PM

Lots of things have changed since 1973 David. In the world, in the UK and in Europe. The EEC worked, the EU does not.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 07:23 AM

No, before being in the EU the UK was known as the "sick man of Europe", remember that? Sure it was trading with the rest of the world, mostly at a loss.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

"Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK."

Excellent Mr.Carter, looks like we got the Brexit vote right then. And as we are such poor performers doesn't that mean that our last 43 years in the EU has done us no good at all. So we as fifth largest economy in the world, shake loose from the restraints of the EU and go back to trading with the rest of the world. Win-Win situation all round apart from the fact that Germany loses it's best "European customer" and the EU as a whole loses it's second largest net contributor. Can't really work out what the "Remoaners" are complaining about.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:51 PM

Don't get me wrong Al, I would prefer it to be "nice", but something tells me the establishment won't leave without employing every low underhand trick in the book.

Unfortunately there never seems to have been a nice and effective leader.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:32 PM

we do indeed disagree, isms and ocracies come a long way behind being nice.

niceness is vital.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

Teribus, you know very well that they would be better without the UK.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/balance-of-trade

Scroll down to where it is broken down by country.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM

Ah well Al, there we must disagree, a future socialist system will not be "nice", it will be gruelling and selfless, much more so than Mrs Thatcher's regime.

It will not be a choice, it will be a survival technique for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 11:27 AM

Yes I suppose if the world were to start again tomorrow that would be fine. Unfortunately we are where we are. Ex imperialist nation with unfriendly faces everywhere.
Education system somewhere in pounds shillings and pence era. All the caPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILIES WHO WERE AT hENRY viii'S COURT. so no chance of investment, not when you can get a ten year old digging up coal on the other side of the world - what with free movement of capital. In the EU with all our trading partners particularly the Spanish nicking the fish from our chips - we don't even drive on the same side of the road as them!

socialist system would be nice, but Corbyn for godsake...

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 10:21 AM

Good heavens David is that why the economy of the EU is stagnant do those figures you are using for the performance of the EU include the performance of the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 09:41 AM

The mainstream EU which runs a trade surplus in both goods and services Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:03 AM

I'm afraid I agree with much of what you say Al, but I am supporter of a socialist soci-economic system which can prove sustainable in the very long term.....we shall all be financially worse off, there will be none of the waste we see today, we will be required to be responsible for aspects of our behaviour and that of our families.
Waste of resources will be viewed as a crime.....and all "liberals" will be transported to Rockall. I think we can reckon on about five ....after three weeks on half the minimum wage.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:41 AM

You speak as though you're a supporter of Corbyn,   Ake. I've not much time for the man. he seems a bit of an idiot to me. Not a great orator, no strong positive ideas - except spend a lot of money, no desire to face down anyone who's got us in the shit, and expects the armed forces to put their lives on the line armed with sticks and cardboard boxes.

Plus he has got together a gang of foul mouthed delinquents into the Labour Party who will drive out any moderate support.

Subject: RE: BS: uk by-elections
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:35 AM

"Mainstream" David? What "mainstream"? Where?

By every metric going our economy is out performing that of the EU. Unemployment rate roughly half that of the EU. London still remains as the largest financial hub in the world and that will continue to be the case, it will certainly not lose out to Europe where the EU hopes to increase taxes on EVERY transaction whether inter EU or International.