Support NeoGAF

[Moosichu]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...ch-today-was-written-for-ed-miliband-in-2011/

Interesting stuff.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-conference-speech

It's yet another nontroversy.


Peter Oborne (The Telegraph's chief political commentator who resigned because he was sick of the control the advertising arm of the company had over the editorial content) has some interesting tweets on it.
https://twitter.com/OborneTweets

 

[twobear]

it was rejected at the time so i don't really see what the issue is

 

[tomtom94]

Telegraph running with parts of the speech being written in the eighties; insert your own joke here. They've also found a hilarious picture of Corbyn to illustrate their point:

 

[War Peaceman]

I think Uzzy is right - we could explore other options if government after government didn't kick the issue into the long grass, just like power generation, runway capacity etc.

Also Corbyn himself said that he wants a balanced budget but given he wouldn't become PM until 2020, when the OBR anticipate it will be balanced, means he won't need to make that decision. But that kinda implies he's OK with the cuts. If he isn't, he'll reverse a bunch come 2020 and we'll be back into a deficit.

No it doesn't?

They've said they'll have a different approach with greater focus on tax collection from wealthier individuals and businesses.

The Telegraph are fucking terrible, nobody should give them the time of day. Everyone knows their game. They are as bad as the DM just less popular.

 

[tomtom94]

Currently staying awake just to see if the Daily Mail go all-out. In other news the Mirror have just caused jubilation at Tory HQ with this headline:

 

[Beefy]

I wonder what the front page of The Sun will be like...

 

[Moosichu]

No it doesn't?

They've said they'll have a different approach with greater focus on tax collection from wealthier individuals and businesses.

The Telegraph are fucking terrible, nobody should give them the time of day. Everyone knows their game. They are as bad as the DM just less popular.

Telegraph did used to be good until the editorial started to be slowly kicked out due to corporate interests.

 

[tomtom94]

I wonder what the front page of The Sun will be like...

The Sun went with the suicide of Jim Carrey's lover for the front page, but they provide this handy pull-out guide:

EDIT: The Daily Mail didn't put Corbyn on the cover but they criticised him for not mentioning migrants. the next four years are going to be hilarious

 

[Kuros]

In fairness to the telegragh as one sided as they are they do actually do investigative journalism.

They're the ones who brought the expenses scandal to public attention for one thing.


The mail is a whole additional level of trash.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Man, that telegraph picture makes him look like an ostrich.

From what I gather, having looked at a few blogs, it's mostly to do with timing. The successor to the Vanguard SSBN's needs to be picked very soon, as the existing submarines cannot last much longer. Even with refits we'll see HMS Vanguard reach end of life at 2022, HMS Victorious by 2024, HMS Vigilant by 2026 and HMS Vengeance in 2029. So by 2024, we'd no longer have a continuous at-sea deterrent in place. Which is bad if you want to keep being a nuclear power.

So the successors need building soon. The exact decision on how many to build, and what design to go for, is due to take place in 2016, but design work has already been going on. Given this time constraint, it makes sense for the submarine designers to work with what they already know and can use, namely the Trident system. There's a whole host of co-operation with the Americans, on a range of issues, already in place to enable this to happen. Just one big example, there's co-operation on the development of a common missile compartment already going on. The M51 Missile is slightly larger than Trident, and I don't think you want to stick a nuclear missile into a launch tube that's not the right size for it. That seems like a bad idea.

There's also some legal issues to resolve. Would France be in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty if they sold us some M51 missiles? Maybe?

Really though, it's the time thing. If we wanted to use the M51's, we'd have had to been having discussions with the French back in the early 2000s, if not before then. Meanwhile, we've been co-operating with the Americans on nuclear issues since 1943. Makes sense to go with what you know on something this major.

Good points.

 

[PJV3]

The Sun went with the suicide of Jim Carrey's lover for the front page, but they provide this handy pull-out guide:

EDIT: The Daily Mail didn't put Corbyn on the cover but they criticised him for not mentioning migrants. the next four years are going to be hilarious

"nicked a speech from the 80s"

The bloke who wrote it posted it to him last week. He wrote it in the 80s but it was never used.

I think Corbyn has done OK, it was all about surviving and avoiding a meltdown, he's managed it and has a tiny bit of breathing room for a few months.

 

[Moosichu]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...over-human-rights-council-place?CMP=edit_2221

We have a PM doing this and it's barely being mentioned.

 

[tomtom94]

I've come to the conclusion that the newspapers are our penance for having reasonably sensible news television compared to America.

But the times, they are a-changin'...

 

[PJV3]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...over-human-rights-council-place?CMP=edit_2221

We have a PM doing this and it's barely being mentioned.

Yeah, I just read about the bid from the ministry of justice to get involved with the Saudi prison system, fuck that.

 

[Moosichu]

I've come to the conclusion that the newspapers are our penance for having reasonably sensible news television compared to America.

But the times, they are a-changin'...

The problem is, in an attempt to appear 'balanced' and despite the papers' waning influence, the narrative presented on television is still hugely influenced by the press.

 

[Nicktendo86]

"nicked a speech from the 80s"

The bloke who wrote it posted it to him last week. He wrote it in the 80s but it was never used.

I think Corbyn has done OK, it was all about surviving and avoiding a meltdown, he's managed it and has a tiny bit of breathing room for a few months.

The thing that makes me laugh is that it was a speech offered to Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Miliband who all rejected it yet Corbyn thought it was good enough. Now you might say it fit his particular narrative better but when you mention people 'fizzing with ideas' in a speech you would have thought he would have been able to come up with his own words for his debut conference speech.

You're right as well, it was ok enough to keep surviving, cchq will be very happy.

Would love to know the conversation Ununna, Hubt et all had on that train from conference.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No it doesn't?

They've said they'll have a different approach with greater focus on tax collection from wealthier individuals and businesses.

And when that inevitably fails? Given his talk about how austerity is rubbish and how the "peoples quantitative easing" effectively requires an end to BoE independence (despite constantly saying that it doesn't), I don't see why he even cares about balancing the budget.

 

[ruttyboy]

And when that inevitably fails? Given his talk about how austerity is rubbish and how the "peoples quantitative easing" effectively requires an end to BoE independence (despite constantly saying that it doesn't), I don't see why he even cares about balancing the budget.

???

It only fails at the moment because no politician is prepared to do what is necessary, ie. piss off the 'influential'.

 

[CyclopsRock]

???

It only fails at the moment because no politician is prepared to do what is necessary, ie. piss off the 'influential'.

You reckon? Because right now the top 1% of earners pay 26% of all income tax, which is about as high as it's ever been. For reference, when Thatcher dropped the top rate down to 60%, they were paying 14%. When Labour were all ditzy and mental in the 70's and it was 83%, the top 1% paid just 11% of all income tax. Corporation tax take has been on a strong upwards trend ever since GO started hacking away at it in 2010 (and it's even stronger if you take away the North Sea Oil's erratic contribution - see here). Analysis of the effects of the rise in top rate from 40-50% are sketchy because it was only there for a short period of time, but the general concensus is that it raised very little if anything and that the behavioural response was significantly greater than was anticipated by Labour in their analysis before they brought it in. This, as a trend, will only continue as the global workplace and labour markets become more and more mobile (for example, there are 104 billionaires in the UK and 44 of them are from abroad - and it's great that they've chosen to come to the UK, but we can't assume they'll stay, nor that our own, home-grown billionaires will either).

Even on closing loopholes, his advisor chappie seems to think that £20bn of the £120bn he thinks is out there is claimable by the exchequer. Even if we assume he's right, then woop de do, that's our borrowing for ~2 months. What about the other 10?

Basically, I think the problem is that everyone - conservative, labour, green, snp, ukip, whoever - think that the best way to raise greater revenues is to have a strong economy, lots of people working (which simultaneously raises taxes and lowers government spending), businesses thriving, investment going up to make it sustainable etc. Everyone loves this stuff - the glorious cream of capitalism - so it really comes down to "who's going to make the economy do better?" As such, I dunno why Corbyn and his gang of backbench rejects bang the gong about "high worth individuals" and corporations and the like when a) it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to actually squeeze anymore, pips squeaking or no and b) it's a drop in the ocean anyway when the real solution actually has little to do with the specific rates and more to do with the economy at large.

 

[ruttyboy]

You reckon? Because right now the top 1% of earners pay 26% of all income tax, which is about as high as it's ever been. For reference, when Thatcher dropped the top rate down to 60%, they were paying 14%. When Labour were all ditzy and mental in the 70's and it was 83%, the top 1% paid just 11% of all income tax. Corporation tax take has been on a strong upwards trend ever since GO started hacking away at it in 2010 (and it's even stronger if you take away the North Sea Oil's erratic contribution - see here). Analysis of the effects of the rise in top rate from 40-50% are sketchy because it was only there for a short period of time, but the general concensus is that it raised very little if anything and that the behavioural response was significantly greater than was anticipated by Labour in their analysis before they brought it in. This, as a trend, will only continue as the global workplace and labour markets become more and more mobile (for example, there are 104 billionaires in the UK and 44 of them are from abroad - and it's great that they've chosen to come to the UK, but we can't assume they'll stay, nor that our own, home-grown billionaires will either).

Even on closing loopholes, his advisor chappie seems to think that £20bn of the £120bn he thinks is out there is claimable by the exchequer. Even if we assume he's right, then woop de do, that's our borrowing for ~2 months. What about the other 10?

Basically, I think the problem is that everyone - conservative, labour, green, snp, ukip, whoever - think that the best way to raise greater revenues is to have a strong economy, lots of people working (which simultaneously raises taxes and lowers government spending), businesses thriving, investment going up to make it sustainable etc. Everyone loves this stuff - the glorious cream of capitalism - so it really comes down to "who's going to make the economy do better?" As such, I dunno why Corbyn and his gang of backbench rejects bang the gong about "high worth individuals" and corporations and the like when a) it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to actually squeeze anymore, pips squeaking or no and b) it's a drop in the ocean anyway when the real solution actually has little to do with the specific rates and more to do with the economy at large.

Could that not also be explained by the top 1% earning a higher proportion of total earnings now than they did back then? Genuine question, I don't know the figures.

Also it's a pretty weak sauce argument to say there's no point in closing loopholes because it's only £20bn. Once those loopholes are closed others will be found, which then need to be closed, you have to at least try to sort out the tax system from the mess it is at the moment, and it is such a mess that it would take a continued effort, but it could be done if the will was there.

The idea bandied about that companies, especially retail companies like Amazon, would stop doing business in one of the wealthiest consumer economies in the world just because they now have to actually pay tax seems ludicrous to me.

 

[War Peaceman]

And when that inevitably fails? Given his talk about how austerity is rubbish and how the "peoples quantitative easing" effectively requires an end to BoE independence (despite constantly saying that it doesn't), I don't see why he even cares about balancing the budget.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong. Just that he is actually saying how they will try and balance the budget in a way different to the Tories.

The current govt/coalition have done better in enforcing tax payments from these wealthier individuals/businesses, but there is definitely an argument that it could be done better and at higher rates. An argument. Just because things proposed are different to the status quo doesn't make them impossible.

 

[Par Score]

You reckon? Because right now the top 1% of earners pay 26% of all income tax, which is about as high as it's ever been. For reference, when Thatcher dropped the top rate down to 60%, they were paying 14%. When Labour were all ditzy and mental in the 70's and it was 83%, the top 1% paid just 11% of all income tax.

1) The top 1% now have a much greater share of income than at any of those points, something on the order of 200% what it was in the 70s and 80s, such that the share of income tax they pay is actually comparatively lower.

2) Income is not the only issue, nor the only tax. Wealth has accumulated at the top at an even more staggering rate, and this is largely untaxed, while regressive taxes like VAT are hiked which disproportionally hit the poor.

Basically, I think the problem is that everyone - conservative, labour, green, snp, ukip, whoever - think that the best way to raise greater revenues is to have a strong economy, lots of people working (which simultaneously raises taxes and lowers government spending), businesses thriving, investment going up to make it sustainable etc. Everyone loves this stuff - the glorious cream of capitalism - so it really comes down to "who's going to make the economy do better?" As such, I dunno why Corbyn and his gang of backbench rejects bang the gong about "high worth individuals" and corporations and the like when a) it's incredibly difficult if not impossible to actually squeeze anymore, pips squeaking or no and b) it's a drop in the ocean anyway when the real solution actually has little to do with the specific rates and more to do with the economy at large.

The idea that the wealthiest have been squeezed at all is absurd, as is the idea that businesses would flee the 5th largest economy in the world just because they're asked to pay their way and contribute to society.

The financial crisis made at the very top is being paid for by those at the very bottom, and that's what Corbyn's Labour looks to be challenging.

 

[Moosichu]

Ok, so the assertion is that A) everything Corbyn is proposing will lead to the economy being ruined, and B) that the current conservative government, have the best interests of the country at heart, but are doing what is necessary to bring the UK back to prosperity.

Let's look at differences in a couple of Policies:

The environment:
The government has cut subsidies in renewals, causing companies to pull out of huge infrastructural projects and the uptake of things like solar to decrease massively. Sure this might help the economy in the extremely short term (even that is contestable), but is going to do huge damage in the long term. As warned by Mark Carney. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34396961

I think it's fair to assume that Corbyn would go further than the current government in trying to increase renewables in the country.

The NHS:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...mn-disgraceful-410000-payoff-to-nhs-executive
The new Junior Doctor's contract isn't even being subtle about what it's doing, it's a disgrace.
The NHS makes back far more money for the economy than it costs, but it's being cut off at the knees. Either the current government are hugely incompetent on this are actively malicious.

Also, again cut's to social services have also hugely impacted the NHS as now people are stuck in hospitals with no where to go. It's disgraceful.

There is also money being wasted on the absurd administrative system designed to allow private companies get involved in the NHS.


If anything I have said is incorrect, please do say so. Or if you would like anything to be sourced more thoroughly I would gladly do so as well. The main crux of my argument comes down to this, the BBC were interviewing randomers on the street about Corbyn's speech and wether they would vote for him and one person said something along the lines of "He said he wants a fairer society, which is a bit pointless to say because doesn't everybody want that? Where is he going to get that money to spend it in the way he wants?", however I would really contest that the bolded is true considering the actions of the current government. (Again though, there are some Tory MPs I do quite like and would vote for in an election if they were leader of the conservative party, maybe.)

 

[twobear]

The Tories preach that they want a fairer society, but if they genuinely wanted it they wouldn't be pursuing the policies that they're actually pursuing, which have a track record of lowering social mobility, concentrating wealth in the hands of the already wealthy, and marooning the worst-off members of society in a level of poverty that they have no way of leaving. That doesn't strike me as fairer.

 

[Moosichu]

https://youtu.be/8ABghHHFv5k

I'm so glad he isn't an interview trainwreck.

The cheap attempts to get a rise out of him are quite funny.

 

[tomtom94]

https://youtu.be/8ABghHHFv5k

I'm so glad he isn't an interview trainwreck.

The cheap attempts to get a rise out of him are quite funny.

dat like/dislike ratio

Private Eye came today, letters page is full of Corbynites threatening to cancel their subscriptions; Hislop says the letters have been filed next to the ones from UKIP and SNP supporters threatening the same. Which is admittedly quite funny, even if I do feel in the two issues since Corbyn became leader they've attacked his fans while leaving the hypocrisy of the papers largely untouched.

 

[ruttyboy]

Does anyone else get a feeling from the media that they're really annoyed that after their ridiculous buildup of 'Corbynageddon', it's actually gone pretty well so far?

The way they are still phrasing every question in the framework of 'So, a when's the date that you're getting rid of him?' is infuriating.

 

[Moosichu]

dat like/dislike ratio

Private Eye came today, letters page is full of Corbynites threatening to cancel their subscriptions; Hislop says the letters have been filed next to the ones from UKIP and SNP supporters threatening the same. Which is admittedly quite funny, even if I do feel in the two issues since Corbyn became leader they've attacked his fans while leaving the hypocrisy of the papers largely untouched.

Private eye gonna private eye.

Yeah, I really hope that a lot of his supporters still realise Corbyn isn't perfect and that behaviour like that is alienating rather than convincing.
Then again the Private Eye isn't perfect either.

 

[twobear]

Does anyone else get a feeling from the media that they're really annoyed that after their ridiculous buildup of 'Corbynageddon', it's actually gone pretty well so far?

The way they are still phrasing every question in the framework of 'So, a when's the date that you're getting rid of him?' is infuriating.

They had already worked out their plan of attack before he was elected. The only permissible questions are, 'how much of a disaster will Corbyn's leadership be?' and 'do you regret electing Corbyn?'.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

https://youtu.be/8ABghHHFv5k

I'm so glad he isn't an interview trainwreck.

The cheap attempts to get a rise out of him are quite funny.

What a bizarre interview.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Eamonn Holmes was an absolute shit breakfast TV presenter, I don't know which idiot's idea it was to put him behind a newsdesk.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'll properly address the posts when I'm not at work (sneaky sneaky) but, broadly, I'd say that I have no problem with the rich paying more, I just don't think it's particularly possible - no matter how much you think they're currently being squeezed. I also didn't mean to suggest that closing loopholes is a waste of time, merely that it can't be relied upon as a catch-all. It should be done, but it's also worth noting that tax loopholes are not some mysterious, arcane matthew mcconaughey wormhole that pop in and out of existence and need to be closed. They exist because government after government have seen fit to incentivise this, disincentivise that, reward this behaviour whilst seeking to limit that etc etc. They all exist for a specific reason (and with the knowledge that they'd be "used" - for example, the film industry in the UK has tax brakes, which leads to companies attempting to register as film companies with only a tangential relationship with the industry - these are "loopholes" but ones created with a very specific intent; to make the UK film industry more competitive internationally) and this needs to be considered when they're "closed" because there's more to them than simply a tax P&L. Finally, it's not a matter of "businesses fleeing" or they aren't. We're in the EU, you don't need to directly operate within the UK to do business here. That's how all these double Irish, Dutch sandwich things work. So we have to ask, why - given the expensive costs of operating an office and all that shit - did the UK have such massive growth in employment in the last several years, compared to our European neighbours? Why do so many ambitious young French people find themselves going to London rather than Paris? There's a thousand and one reasons, obviously, a lot of which have nothing to do with tax regimes. But the whole thing's an organ in the body of the UK and it can't be divorced from its context. In other words, direct "this causes that" lines are very difficult to draw, but right now the UK's operating well compared to our neighbours, people and businesses taxed less have more money to spend elsewhere and everyone's happy all the time.

 

[twobear]

Tax loopholes do exist because the government puts them there--at the recommendation of tax 'experts' who then turn around and sell knowledge of the tax regulations to corporations and the wealthy who in turn abuse them. The suggestion that tax loopholes all exists for economically beneficial reasons is false.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

dat like/dislike ratio

Private Eye came today, letters page is full of Corbynites threatening to cancel their subscriptions; Hislop says the letters have been filed next to the ones from UKIP and SNP supporters threatening the same. Which is admittedly quite funny, even if I do feel in the two issues since Corbyn became leader they've attacked his fans while leaving the hypocrisy of the papers largely untouched.

Wasn't there a big street of shame spread two or three issues back on various newspapers visavis the tame stuff Corbyn said and the nasty hyperbolic way the papers reported it?

 

[tomtom94]

Wasn't there a big street of shame spread two or three issues back on various newspapers visavis the tame stuff Corbyn said and the nasty hyperbolic way the papers reported it?

That is true, I do remember that now. Was that before or after the election?

 

[Moosichu]

That is true, I do remember that now. Was that before or after the election?

Before

 

[nib95]

https://youtu.be/8ABghHHFv5k

I'm so glad he isn't an interview trainwreck.

The cheap attempts to get a rise out of him are quite funny.

This is one of the worst interviews I've ever had the displeasure of listening to and watching. I mean, wow. Cringe worthy. Sky News is an embarrassment. Running a country or party really is just like coaching a football team…..

 

[Roberto Larcos]

This is one of the worst interviews I've ever had the displeasure of listening to and watching. I mean, wow. Cringe worthy. Sky News is an embarrassment. Running a country or party really is just like coaching a football team…..

Sky News pro-dictatorship confirmed.

 

[nib95]

Labour promises to renationalise English railways

Yay?

Good. Wish we never sold off Royal Mail either tbh. Unless there's already a tonne of competition in that particular industry or field, privatisation of said businesses is not the way forward.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

That is true, I do remember that now. Was that before or after the election?

just before (though well after his ascent was a foregone conclusion).

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

RE: Trident argument

In what situation would it be acceptable for the nukes to be launched? Like, what's the line that would have to be crossed? Because surely for something to act as a deterrent, there needs to be the threat of it being used?

 

[Moosichu]

RE: Trident argument

In what situation would it be acceptable for the nukes to be launched? Like, what's the line that would have to be crossed? Because surely for something to act as a deterrent, there needs to be the threat of it being used?

When nukes are already being launched towards us. By which point it's already too late.

 

[ruttyboy]

When nukes are already being launched towards us. By which point it's already too late.

The idea being that the threat of retaliation would mean it doesn't happen in the first place. IMHO the reasoning is massively flawed, if people in charge of a country* are actually mad enough to launch a nuclear first strike then the thought of some of their own people dying is not going to stop them, so at that point it's about revenge (on other innocent people).


* The only people I can see actually using nukes are lone agents/terrorists against which nuclear retaliation is impossible anyway.

 

[kmag]

When nukes are already being launched towards us. By which point it's already too late.

We'd all be dead by the time Trident would launch, if it launched at all (the ultimate decision for a retaliation strike is the sub commanders itself based on the Prime Ministers wishes in the letter of last resort). The system aims to have a retaliatory strike ready within 12 to 48 hours of an initial hit. Even during the cold war Trident was most likely to hit the pile of ash which was Moscow after the initial US/USSR exchanges.

There's no button, or launch code in the UK system. It's a three man system (sub commander, 1st Officer and Weapons Officer) for launch.

 

[Moosichu]

We'd all be dead by the time Trident would launch, if it launched at all (the ultimate decision for a retaliation strike is the sub commanders itself based on the Prime Ministers wishes in the letter of last resort). The system aims to have a retaliatory strike ready within 12 to 48 hours of an initial hit. Even during the cold war Trident was most likely to hit the pile of ash which was Moscow after the initial US/USSR exchanges.

There's no button, or launch code in the UK system. It's a three man system (sub commander, 1st Officer and Weapons Officer) for launch.

So if the first barrage of nukes were launched at Trident itself there would be no way to retaliate at all?

 

[kmag]

So if the first barrage of nukes were launched at Trident itself there would be no way to retaliate at all?

You can't launch at the subs because they're out hiding in the middle of the Atlantic, it's why there's always one on patrol, and why due to the training, armament and maintenance cycles we have four subs. It takes 4 subs to allow for one to be operational at all times.

 

[PJV3]

If we got properly nuked I don't see the crew following an order to drive around the Atlantic doing nothing.

 

[kmag]

If we got properly nuked I don't see the crew following an order to drive around the Atlantic doing nothing.

If we got properly nuked there would already be shit all left to target by the time the crew had assessed the situation.

The other nuclear countries with more immediate response would have almost certainly turned each other to ash by that point.

It's an ultimately pointless system. A me-too system of a country desperately trying to pretend we're still big players. It's the height of madness to continue pumping that much money into the system while the rest of our armed forces get progressively weaker. Lord knows if we weren't going to splurge £100 billion on these, we might be able to afford some planes for the £5bn worth of scrap metal currently being assembled in Fife.

 

[Protome]

If we got properly nuked there would already be shit all left to target by the time the crew had assessed the situation.

The other nuclear countries with more immediate response would have almost certainly turned each other to ash by that point.

It's an ultimately pointless system. A me-too system of a country desperately trying to pretend we're still big players. It's the height of madness to continue pumping that much money into the system while the rest of our armed forces get progressively weaker. Lord knows if we weren't going to splurge £100 billion on these, we might be able to afford some planes for the £5bn worth of scrap metal currently being assembled in Fife.

Your scenario seems to rely entirely on other countries responding to the UK being nuked, that's not necessarily what would happen.

 

[Moosichu]

Your scenario seems to rely entirely on other countries responding to the UK being nuked, that's not necessarily what would happen.

Why would the UK be the only country targeted though?