Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

if the government is running a surplus (net flow of money from the private sector as a whole to the government), then reverse is true: the private sector is running a deficit (net flow of money from the private sector to the government). This is just an accounting identity - given a set amount of money, if you have two bodies and one is gaining money the other must be losing it.

If the government takes more money through tax out of the private sector than it puts back in through spending (this is by definition what a surplus is), then the private sector, as an aggregate body, is losing money - so its savings are going down. If the net private sector has 0 money (no savings), and the government continues to run a surplus, then the private sector as a whole *must* be going into debt - given that there was 0 money but the government is continuing to get net money (surplus) out of it, the private sector must now be in negative money (debt).

This isn't to say every single person runs up debt. Some people in the private sector will still have savings. Just, on net, the private sector will not.

The above is true just given what the definitions of all the words mean, but the last part of the article on the other hand makes empirical claims that are more disputable. I think the link is at least somewhat plausible - if the private sector as a net is running a deficit, then the average person must also be running up a deficit (this is true because maths). The average person also doesn't like doing this, so they'll try pulling back on their spending. This causes a recession (or so the argument goes). I do think the evidence is inconclusive on this one, and I think the use of the last graph in the article is basically wrong. 2008 was almost certainly not caused by the brief Labour surplus in 2001, but rather because of a liquidity crash stemming from the fact a tonne of banks didn't actually understand what they were trading. Nevertheless, it is probably true that extended periods of surplus are probably unhealthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au2N07eHa-Q

 

[jimbobsmells]

.

Sustained and deliberate inflation of the housing market makes sense in this context.

 

[phisheep]

Small business owners pay corporation tax on their profit already, they are getting hammered twice now. It's basically the government taking more money out of businesses which makes up the largest portion of the economy.

There's generally much less money in small businesses so it will encourage cost savings, and the easiest way to do that is to lower the work force or "employ" more members of direct family to distribute the the payments and tax liability ...

Nothing more than a cash grab. I'm in this boat, sad to say I'm probably going to let someone go and take on more responsibility myself.

I'm in this boat too, but I don't see it that way.

Very roughly (it is a lot more complicated of course, but for illustration of where I'm coming from): corp tax is 20%, basic rate income tax is 20%, basic rate NI is 12% - so by taking dividends in preference to salary you're saving 12% in NI. I see no reason small business owners should get a free pass on this as opposed to the rest of the population. And I mean this in exactly the same way that I don't see why multinationals should apply transfer costs to avoid corp tax. Can't argue against the one without also arguing against the other.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm in this boat too, but I don't see it that way.

Very roughly (it is a lot more complicated of course, but for illustration of where I'm coming from): corp tax is 20%, basic rate income tax is 20%, basic rate NI is 12% - so by taking dividends in preference to salary you're saving 12% in NI. I see no reason small business owners should get a free pass on this as opposed to the rest of the population. And I mean this in exactly the same way that I don't see why multinationals should apply transfer costs to avoid corp tax. Can't argue against the one without also arguing against the other.

yup. there should be no difference in taxation rates between labour and capital; there's just no real good argument otherwise.

 

[jimbobsmells]

I'm in this boat too, but I don't see it that way.

Very roughly (it is a lot more complicated of course, but for illustration of where I'm coming from): corp tax is 20%, basic rate income tax is 20%, basic rate NI is 12% - so by taking dividends in preference to salary you're saving 12% in NI. I see no reason small business owners should get a free pass on this as opposed to the rest of the population. And I mean this in exactly the same way that I don't see why multinationals should apply transfer costs to avoid corp tax. Can't argue against the one without also arguing against the other.

I'm with you on this one phisheep.

 

[phisheep]

yup. there should be no difference in taxation rates between labour and capital; there's just no real good argument otherwise.

I'm with you on this one phisheep.

Thank you guys. Now let's look at the flipside of the coin.

Small business owners (whether incorporated or self-employed or in partnerships) are exempt from the minimum wage legislation. For me that means I am working about 70 hours a week for about half the minimum wage (yeah, that currently does include wages-taken-as-dividends if you were asking). Or to put it another way, if I were to employ someone I would have to pay them double what I am earning. In the context of "equality" that seems arse-backwards to me.

I'd like to see a minimum-wage exemption for small businesses so that you don't have to pay employees more than the owners are getting. This would be good for getting people into jobs, good for local economies everywhere, good for small businesses, and I'd have a queue a mile long of people applying to work here.

Of course, the minimum-wage/living wage brigade would hate this, but why on earth should they be so long as there are people willing to take the job?

For clarity, essentially I am looking at people who either (a) have some other income or (b) are new to the job market; and yes, benefits/tax credits impacts are relevant too - but in principle?

The political parties seem to be under the impression that the poorest workers in society are those on minimum wage, but that is far from true if you include small business owners.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Thank you guys. Now let's look at the flipside of the coin.

Small business owners (whether incorporated or self-employed or in partnerships) are exempt from the minimum wage legislation. For me that means I am working about 70 hours a week for about half the minimum wage (yeah, that currently does include wages-taken-as-dividends if you were asking). Or to put it another way, if I were to employ someone I would have to pay them double what I am earning. In the context of "equality" that seems arse-backwards to me.

I'd like to see a minimum-wage exemption for small businesses so that you don't have to pay employees more than the owners are getting. This would be good for getting people into jobs, good for local economies everywhere, good for small businesses, and I'd have a queue a mile long of people applying to work here.

Of course, the minimum-wage/living wage brigade would hate this, but why on earth should they be so long as there are people willing to take the job?

For clarity, essentially I am looking at people who either (a) have some other income or (b) are new to the job market; and yes, benefits/tax credits impacts are relevant too - but in principle?

The political parties seem to be under the impression that the poorest workers in society are those on minimum wage, but that is far from true if you include small business owners.

How do you get around $1 millionaires? (those company owners who have a $1 salary and make all of their money through capital returns/dividends). Also, while a company owner may be receiving a salary that's less than the minimum wage, in the long run that's part of an investment to grow their company that should have returns in the future. Workers won't see those returns in the same way business owners do. Even if a company owner and a company worker are on the same sub-minimum wage, the company owner stands to gain more in the long run. That is, after all, why you are sticking with your business - if you thought you'd have sub-minimum wage forever, you'd probably just give up on your business and do something else.

For what it's worth, compared to The Perfect World, I don't like the minimum wage very much. It's a very clumsy way to try and restore some semblance of agency to workers that ends up robbing some workers who would legitimately like to work sans compulsion for some more income. I'd massively prefer a basic income scheme, at which point the minimum wage becomes redundant. Nevertheless, while that's not on the table a minimum wage is strongly better than nothing.

 

[phisheep]

How do you get around $1 millionaires? (those company owners who have a $1 salary and make all of their money through capital returns/dividends). Also, while a company owner may be receiving a salary that's less than the minimum wage, in the long run that's part of an investment to grow their company that should have returns in the future. Workers won't see those returns in the same way business owners do. Even if a company owner and a company worker are on the same sub-minimum wage, the company owner stands to gain more in the long run. That is, after all, why you are sticking with your business - if you thought you'd have sub-minimum wage forever, you'd probably just give up on your business and do something else.

For what it's worth, compared to The Perfect World, I don't like the minimum wage very much. It's a very clumsy way to try and restore some semblance of agency to workers that ends up robbing some workers who would legitimately like to work sans compulsion for some more income. I'd massively prefer a basic income scheme, at which point the minimum wage becomes redundant. Nevertheless, while that's not on the table a minimum wage is strongly better than nothing.

How you get around £1 millionaires is with income tax, dividend tax and capital gains tax.

What you don't do is bash every business owner on the assumption they are going to be rich eventually, because mostly they aren't. The company owner may stand to gain more in the future, but they also stand to lose more. The future, not the putative present, is where it should be taxed - not all businesses grow that much.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How you get around £1 millionaires is with income tax, dividend tax and capital gains tax.

We can't do that properly now, never mind when you massively increase the incentive for it to be done.

What you don't do is bash every business owner on the assumption they are going to be rich eventually, because mostly they aren't. The company owner may stand to gain more in the future, but they also stand to lose more. The future, not the putative present, is where it should be taxed - not all businesses grow that much.

I mean, it's not really 'bashing' business owners to suggest they pay their employees the minimum wage necessary for those employers to actually be able to get a roof over their heads and food on the table. And if your income really is sub-minimum wage, then your present rate of taxation will indeed be very low, so you are indeed getting taxed on the present. But this is besides the point, you didn't argue about tax, you argued about the minimum wage. Your suggestion is basically "I own a business, and am willing to take the risk of working for very low wage rates with the expectation (albeit not guaranteed) of high wages/big capital returns in the future. Because of this, I ought to be able to pay labourers very low wage rates as well, even though they don't even have the prospect of high wages/big capital returns in the future at all". It's pretty obvious why this is not a particular fair arrangement.

 

[Moosichu]

It's not good. The 'judicial overview' in this case amounts to little more than a rubber stamp process.

Data should not be collected AT ALL until a warrant is obtained from a judge that has a full understanding of the case and the power to deny the warrant.

Labour seem to be supporting this. Burnham (shadow home secretary) expressed his support, and Corbyn hasn't said anything. I cannot imagine voting for them in 2020. They are as craven to the security services as the last lot.

quote from David Davis, Tory MP:

That comment what was based on what was originally announced, I was being far too optimistic. Civil liberties are imo the single most important thing in a healthy democracy. Yeah, I'm really pissed Labour seem to be behind this as well.

 

[phisheep]

Ah, sorry Crab, looks like I have taken you the wrong way (I'm posting between customers here). Might have to take a few steps back.

We can't do that properly now, never mind when you massively increase the incentive for it to be done.

Fair point. What I mean is if (big if) we can pin down the income of owners then we should have a baseline for employees.

I mean, it's not really 'bashing' business owners to suggest they pay their employees the minimum wage necessary for those employers to actually be able to get a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Now now, you know very well that the minimum wage in legislation is only tangentially related to keeping a roof over your head and food on the table. I'd have a queue round the block for jobs at £3 an hour (more if I could pay them in beads! - but benefits-in-kind is another bit of rubbish legislation). Because of either already having a roof over their head, or having additional income.

And if your income really is sub-minimum wage, then your present rate of taxation will indeed be very low, so you are indeed getting taxed on the present. But this is besides the point, you didn't argue about tax, you argued about the minimum wage.

My mistake. I started arguing about taxation and sort of segued into minimum wage and I got confused about what you
were pushing against.

Your suggestion is basically "I own a business, and am willing to take the risk of working for very low wage rates with the expectation (albeit not guaranteed) of high wages/big capital returns in the future. Because of this, I ought to be able to pay labourers very low wage rates as well, even though they don't even have the prospect of high wages/big capital returns in the future at all". It's pretty obvious why this is not a particular fair arrangement.

That can be spun another way. I earn low wages, indeed in the expectation of big returns later (though actually even now I am a load happier than I was when I was earning big wages). But because of this I see no reason to deny people employment if they are willing to work for less than the minimum wage. As it is they can either volunteer for free (for which, again, I have a queue) or not work at all (because legislation). In London that might seem a fair cutoff. In somewhere like, say, Merthyr Tydfil, it could be the difference between having an economy and not having one.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

snip

I mean, in some ways we don't disagree. There is definitely a set of workers who would chose to work for £3 an hour who are not doing so purely to provide for themselves and have consciously chosen to do so because they want a little extra money to go towards luxuries and leisure. There's also a set of workers who will work £3 an hour if it is available because they have no other choice. These groups are obviously in competition - nobody will hire the second group for £4 an hour when they can hire the first group for £3 an hour, so the second group *has* to work at the wage set by the first group, even though the first group are just working for a little bit more cash and the second group is doing so because they have no alternative. Yes, the minimum wage screws the first group over in order to protect the wages of the second group. But that's probably a fair trade-off: the second group definitely needs that income support more than the first group does! If the choice is minimum wage or no minimum wage and everything else is the same, the second group is reason enough to want a minimum wage.

But yes,you've highlighted how the minimum wage definitely has imperfections and why a basic income scheme would be much better than both the "has minimum wage" and "has no minimum wage" worlds.

 

[phisheep]

I mean, in some ways we don't disagree. There is definitely a set of workers who would chose to work for £3 an hour who are not doing so purely to provide for themselves and have consciously chosen to do so because they want a little extra money to go towards luxuries and leisure. There's also a set of workers who will work £3 an hour if it is available because they have no other choice. These groups are obviously in competition - nobody will hire the second group for £4 an hour when they can hire the first group for £3 an hour, so the second group *has* to work at the wage set by the first group, even though the first group are just working for a little bit more cash and the second group is doing so because they have no alternative. Yes, the minimum wage screws the first group over in order to protect the wages of the second group. But that's probably a fair trade-off: the second group definitely needs that income support more than the first group does! If the choice is minimum wage or no minimum wage and everything else is the same, the second group is reason enough to want a minimum wage.

But yes,you've highlighted how the minimum wage definitely has imperfections and why a basic income scheme would be much better than both the "has minimum wage" and "has no minimum wage" worlds.

We probably agree on most things I suspect.

And in real life I'd take the £4/hour worker who needs a leg up over the £3 an hour worker who needs the pin money - because social justice and all. It just galls me somewhat that I can't employ either of them because legislation.

I'm inclined towards minimum income as an ideal, but I can't see any possibility of it working in practice in an open society.

 

[CyclopsRock]

£3 an hour for pin money?! We need a London Pin Wage I think.

 

[JonathanEx]

Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion on wages and employment, but I feel it would be wrong of me not to point out that the House Of Lords are discussing the evils of pornography and it's obviously amusing.

Carry on.

 

[phisheep]

Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion on wages and employment, but I feel it would be wrong of me not to point out that the House Of Lords are discussing the evils of pornography and it's obviously amusing.

Carry on.

What, all of the evils of pornography? Should be fun. Tuning in now.

 

[Mindwipe]

Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion on wages and employment, but I feel it would be wrong of me not to point out that the House Of Lords are discussing the evils of pornography and it's obviously amusing.

Carry on.

You say amusing, I say tremendously fucking depressing.

 

[JonathanEx]

I'd be more worried if they were discussing it in relation to any legislation and not just recreationally.

Some quotes on the live blog here http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live#block-563b58f1e4b090d28493c68c

 

[FlammableD]

Yeah, it's not great from what I've read.

What's the purpose of this debate? Is it actually formulating some policy or is it just an excuse for a bishop to spout some bullshit?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah, it's not great from what I've read.

What's the purpose of this debate? Is it actually formulating some policy or is it just an excuse for a bishop to spout some bullshit?

Most of the commentators I've seen have been bashing the bishop pretty hard after watching him.

 

[FlammableD]

Most of the commentators I've seen have been bashing the bishop pretty hard after watching him.

 

[phisheep]

Most of the commentators I've seen have been bashing the bishop pretty hard after watching him.

Which Bishop was that?

 

[kitch9]

Thank you guys. Now let's look at the flipside of the coin.

Small business owners (whether incorporated or self-employed or in partnerships) are exempt from the minimum wage legislation. For me that means I am working about 70 hours a week for about half the minimum wage (yeah, that currently does include wages-taken-as-dividends if you were asking). Or to put it another way, if I were to employ someone I would have to pay them double what I am earning. In the context of "equality" that seems arse-backwards to me.

I'd like to see a minimum-wage exemption for small businesses so that you don't have to pay employees more than the owners are getting. This would be good for getting people into jobs, good for local economies everywhere, good for small businesses, and I'd have a queue a mile long of people applying to work here.

Of course, the minimum-wage/living wage brigade would hate this, but why on earth should they be so long as there are people willing to take the job?

For clarity, essentially I am looking at people who either (a) have some other income or (b) are new to the job market; and yes, benefits/tax credits impacts are relevant too - but in principle?

The political parties seem to be under the impression that the poorest workers in society are those on minimum wage, but that is far from true if you include small business owners.

Let's keep it simple, as a small business owner who was probably taking dividends to the lower limit which isn't a lot by any stretch of the imagination you are now being asked to find 3-4k extra in tax. This is on top of the Corporation tax, vat, paye, ni, rates you write quarterly cheques for.

 

[Jezbollah]

So, another night of violent protest - something called the "Million Mask March".

I'm trying to wonder when was the last time a protest was both violent and those people got what they wanted..

EDIT: so it's an annual anti-capitalist protest that's been going on this day since 2012. Oh well.

 

[Wrestlemania]

Oh no, "violent protest"! Let's see what this violence entailed...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ion-mask-march-gathers-in-london-live-updates

So one burned police car, which police say "was an isolated incident with a small number of people involved, away from the main protests". A few arrests in the afternoon. A few reports of things being thrown at police. Kettling by police and people being hit by batons.

Don't have nightmares, everyone!

 

[Jezbollah]

At least 49 arrests. So was it a minority who caused the "violence" or was it just another excuse to kick off? Enlighten me, if you feel the need.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Fwiw my (politically neutral, the poor sap) girlfriend had to walk through them yesterday and said she felt very intimidated - lots of groups of people with masks (like, balaclavas, not Guy Fawkes masks) covering their faces and - here's the kicker - listening to dubstep. Brrrrr. Time to crack down.

 

[Uzzy]

Wubstep? That's just unacceptable in modern Britain. May's new spying laws are completely justifiable if they're used to combat the Wubstep menace.

 

[Jezbollah]

Fwiw my (politically neutral, the poor sap) girlfriend had to walk through them yesterday and said she felt very intimidated - lots of groups of people with masks (like, balaclavas, not Guy Fawkes masks) covering their faces and - here's the kicker - listening to dubstep. Brrrrr. Time to crack down.

Dubstep aside, I and plenty of my friends have had to walk through anti-capitalist protests to get to and from work, and had bad experiences (although fortunately in the minority) - I've also known people who have been on the receiving end of excessive police tactics (including one poor guy that made the headlines) - my question remains: If these people who turn the protest violent are in such a minority, isn't it in the best interests of the message of the protest getting through (and earning public sympathy) that the majority self manage and stop those people from kicking off?

Or are people who are organizing this just basically allowing people to turn up and vent in whatever way they want to? Do they really care about any kind of message they want to send? Do they want to change anything? The whole "anti-capitalism" thing has been going on since the mid-90s. and if it isn't that, it's Gentrification or something else. It's hard to actually understand what these people want to achieve when the newspaper columns (including the Guardian) are filled up by the negative actions of the few. The golden rule to any protest outcome is to see any major political party reference or align with that movement - and I wouldn't be surprised if no one touches this kind of cause with a barge pole.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Dubstep aside, I and plenty of my friends have had to walk through anti-capitalist protests to get to and from work, and had bad experiences (although fortunately in the minority) - I've also known people who have been on the receiving end of excessive police tactics (including one poor guy that made the headlines) - my question remains: If these people who turn the protest violent are in such a minority, isn't it in the best interests of the message of the protest getting through (and earning public sympathy) that the majority self manage and stop those people from kicking off?

Or are people who are organizing this just basically allowing people to turn up and vent in whatever way they want to? Do they really care about any kind of message they want to send? Do they want to change anything? The whole "anti-capitalism" thing has been going on since the mid-90s. and if it isn't that, it's Gentrification or something else. It's hard to actually understand what these people want to achieve when the newspaper columns (including the Guardian) are filled up by the negative actions of the few. The golden rule to any protest outcome is to see any major political party reference or align with that movement - and I wouldn't be surprised if no one touches this kind of cause with a barge pole.

How do you self manage a bunch of anarchists/stop them kicking off? How do you stop unaffiliated people from turning up?

 

[kitch9]

Oh no, "violent protest"! Let's see what this violence entailed...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ion-mask-march-gathers-in-london-live-updates

So one burned police car, which police say "was an isolated incident with a small number of people involved, away from the main protests". A few arrests in the afternoon. A few reports of things being thrown at police. Kettling by police and people being hit by batons.

Don't have nightmares, everyone!

The second one bit of damage is done, it kills the cause as they lose all sympathy.

Anarchists are morons.

 

[kitch9]

yup. there should be no difference in taxation rates between labour and capital; there's just no real good argument otherwise.

My business paid £25k in corporation tax last year and I paid myself a smidge above that.

£7k in rates.
£12kish Paye Employer contributions.
A shit load of vat which I have to pay someone to administer.
NI.


Don't worry, small business owners contribute to the cause.

 

[Jezbollah]

How do you self manage a bunch of anarchists/stop them kicking off? How do you stop unaffiliated people from turning up?

Yep. You would hope that the people that want to deliver a message in such a protest would care enough to want to do that. Otherwise you end up with people who don't care about any cause joining up just to kick off. See the UK wide riots a few years back. I suspect most didn't know who Mark Duggan was..

The second one bit of damage is done, it kills the cause as they lose all sympathy.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Yep. You would hope that the people that want to deliver a message in such a protest would care enough to want to do that. Otherwise you end up with people who don't care about any cause joining up just to kick off. See the UK wide riots a few years back. I suspect most didn't know who Mark Duggan was.

No, it was a serious question. I mean, say I wanted to hold a protest in London tomorrow and put up an advertisement for it online to attract like-minded people to join my protest, and an anarchist sees up and turns up my protest, and he or she goes off and does violent things at my protest away from my main group, what could I have actually done to stop this? Not advertise my protest openly? That basically just stops all protests. Keep an eye on every person who is present in the protest? That basically just stops all protests.

 

[Jezbollah]

No, it was a serious question. I mean, say I wanted to hold a protest in London tomorrow and put up an advertisement for it online to attract like-minded people to join my protest, and an anarchist sees up and turns up my protest, and he or she goes off and does violent things at my protest away from my main group, what could I have actually done to stop this? Not advertise my protest openly? That basically just stops all protests. Keep an eye on every person who is present in the protest? That basically just stops all protests.

As I said, it depends on how you want to project your message and in what light it is received. Do you accept that anarchists might turn up with no intention to behave in the way you intended to? Or do you challenge them when they start causing issues? Considering that those watching outside of the protest movement can likely not tell who intends peaceful protest and who doesn't, its not to the better interests of the bigger picture of the message the majority want to send to have a minority do damage to it. Especially when there are limited column inches at stake.

 

[Moosichu]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-attempt-to-pave-way-for-a-coup-a6723186.html

I really don't get why Blairites are called 'moderates'. Scheming to get rid of the party leader like that is really not moderate behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-attempt-to-pave-way-for-a-coup-a6723186.html

I really don't get why Blairites are called 'moderates'. Scheming to get rid of the party leader like that is really not moderate behaviour.

I'm baffled they think it will work. Corbyn won a first round victory with an enormous margin. Liz Kendall got less than 5% of the vote. It's like watching a congregation of aging and muddied dinosaurs desperately plotting about how to take that terrifying second sun out of the sky.

Heck, people in this thread will remember that I initially started backing Burnham and even now think it is highly unlikely Corbyn will be elected, and even I have absolutely zero interest in this stupidity.

 

[Maledict]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-attempt-to-pave-way-for-a-coup-a6723186.html

I really don't get why Blairites are called 'moderates'. Scheming to get rid of the party leader like that is really not moderate behaviour.

Moderate in terms of political leaning, not behaviour. And heck, all sides of all parties are capable of plotting assassinations and coups - be they the left wing moderates on the conservative side or the hard left on labour, it's built into politics. No-one has the high ground here...

 

[Moosichu]

Moderate in terms of political leaning, not behaviour. And heck, all sides of all parties are capable of plotting assassinations and coups - be they the left wing moderates on the conservative side or the hard left on labour, it's built into politics. No-one has the high ground here...

Even then I think it's the wrong word to use. I found Frankie Boyle's article quite amusing on the subject. http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ted-tennis-ball-slytherin-chancellor-politics

There seems to be a real split on Trident in the party between extreme elements who don’t think we should recommission it, and more moderate voices who want to retain the ability to heat hundreds of thousands of people’s skeletons to the surface temperature of the planet Mercury, in case 1970s Russia tries to attack us through some kind of Stargate

Fair enough, but in the context of the labour party at the moment, I think Blairite's talk of coups and unelectability is extremely self serving and bad for the Labour party. And if it was the other way round with leftists plotting to take down the right I would disagree with that just as much.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

To quote Chukka Umunna, they're behaving like a petulant child who has been told they can't have the sweeties in the sweet shop

Man I love that quote

 

[Jezbollah]

I'm baffled they think it will work. Corbyn won a first round victory with an enormous margin. Liz Kendall got less than 5% of the vote. It's like watching a congregation of aging and muddied dinosaurs desperately plotting about how to take that terrifying second sun out of the sky.

Heck, people in this thread will remember that I initially started backing Burnham and even now think it is highly unlikely Corbyn will be elected, and even I have absolutely zero interest in this stupidity.

Crab, as a member of the Labour party, how would you feel (and how would you think other Party members would react) if this actually went down a year after so many voted for JC? In addition, how would you react to another Leadership election so soon after the last?

Genuinely interested in the dynamics this kind of scenario could bring here.

 

[cabot]

Some harrowing information deep within the Snooper's Charter draft

We can only hope it gets ironed out through the usual channels.I'm rarely optimistic when it comes to politicians and technological bills though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Crab, as a member of the Labour party, how would you feel (and how would you think other Party members would react) if this actually went down a year after so many voted for JC? In addition, how would you react to another Leadership election so soon after the last?

Genuinely interested in the dynamics this kind of scenario could bring here.

I have no idea how the majority of the Labour party would react; I have no good sample to ask. I suspect based on purely anecdotal evidence that the vast majority of the Labour membership would absolutely lose it, and that extends even to those who voted for Burnham and Cooper. The current behaviour of the "moderates" is absolutely disgraceful. If there were another leadership election that was triggered by political chicanery rather than any genuine cause like especially bad electoral results, I would personally vote for Corbyn to make a point. I mean, I can't think of any kind of action more likely to swing people in favour of deselection, and while I oppose it now, I almost certainly wouldn't if this were to happen.

 

[twobear]

if there's anything that's sure to rouse support among their party base, it's trying to overthrow the person who the party base voted for

 

[Moosichu]

If Corbyn does somehow make it to PM, I cannot wait for the 'Corbyn's Comprehensive' section the Private Eye.

Also, those Britain In adverts on Facebook really remind of those shitty adverts that used to say stuff like This middle aged mum has discovered the secret to staying young that your Doctor doesn't want you to know.

The Britain In advert being Get the facts Nigel Farage doesn't want you to hear - like our page today.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Andrew Fisher has been suspended from the Labour party but remains as Corbyn's policy chief.

Not sure how anyone is supposed to take them seriously nowadays.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Andrew Fisher has been suspended from the Labour party but remains as Corbyn's policy chief.

Not sure how anyone is supposed to take them seriously nowadays.

I dunno, it's not like he had to resign because of child porn accusations. Though those are only accusations, so they might not be true and it's therefore unfair to assume.

On the other hand, what about the guy who got sentenced to 18 months in jail?

No, those aren't important. What's important is a tweet from fucking August of last year. Clearly.

 

[Jezbollah]

I dunno, it's not like he had to resign because of child porn accusations. Though those are only accusations, so they might not be true and it's therefore unfair to assume.

On the other hand, what about the guy who got sentenced to 18 months in jail?

No, those aren't important. What's important is a tweet from fucking August of last year. Clearly.

Those examples are irrelevant in this case, as Fisher was suspended due to rules governing the Labour party internally. He broke his own party rules.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Those examples are irrelevant in this case, as Fisher was suspended due to rules governing the Labour party internally. He broke his own party rules.

Yeah, ok, that's unfair. It just annoys me that a single tweet from 9 months before the actual election counts as campaigning for another party, and is clearly going to be used as "LABOUR IN SHAMBLES" material forever. Argh.

 

[f0rk]

and is clearly going to be used as "LABOUR IN SHAMBLES" material forever. Argh.

Yes people are really short of that kind of material