next labour leader

[Crono]

Does anyone have a subscription for Trotskyist rag The Times? The crypto-Stalinist Jonathan Portes appears to have written an article addressing the critics of Corbyn's economic agenda.

This morning on the Today Programme, Jack Straw described Jeremy Corbyn's proposals to "print money" in order to "pay people's wages" and "build houses"- a policy Mr Corbyn has described as People's Quantitative Easing (QE) - as "economically illiterate." He said that this would lead to hyperinflation, as in the Weimar Republic or Venezuela, adding that "we can see the beginnings of this in Greece".

Even allowing for the fact that this was a radio interview, it would be difficult to get much more economically illiterate than Mr Straw. For starters, central to Greece's current problems is that it does not have its own currency or autonomous central bank, so cannot unilaterally engage in quantitative easing of any variety. Mr Straw, like many of Mr Corbyn's critics, seems not to understand either the economic rationale for QE or its intellectual pedigree.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/to...-peoples-qe-basic-economic-literacy-is-enough

I would like to read the whole thing if anyone can get behind the paywall, cheers.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Many economists have claimed the contrary, its a matter of perspective. Its all good for Cooper to start picking apart Corbyn's policies with her own figures, but it'll also be nice to hear some of her own suggested policies.

Even Richard Muprhy. one of the authors of Corbynomics, had to admit to some duplicity on the part of the Corbyn campaign. For weeks there has been talk aabout this £120bn in uncollected taxes and all that it might achieve for the nation, yet upon closer examination it was discovered to be but a wheedle to secure votes. The aforementioned Mr Murphy, later confirmed the fact, stating that barely 17% of the figure could actually be realised (in an ideal world no doubt). So here we are, with this thoroughly decent man, involved in political mis-selling akin to PPI.

From where comes the money to bring about this re-nationalisation of utilities, is that where an otherwise growing economy begins QEing without consequence?

If Corbyn's policies wont' stand up to scrutiny during this internal battle of 2015 then what the hell use will they be in the heat of a general election debate.

 

[Crono]

Even Richard Muprhy. one of the authors of Corbynomics, had to admit to some duplicity on the part of the Corbyn campaign. For weeks there has been talk aabout this £120bn in uncollected taxes and all that it might achieve for the nation, yet upon closer examination it was discovered to be but a wheedle to secure votes. The aforementioned Mr Murphy, later confirmed the fact, stating that barely 17% of the figure could actually be realised (in an ideal world no doubt). So here we are, with this thoroughly decent man, involved in political mis-selling akin to PPI.

From where comes the money to bring about this re-nationalisation of utilities, is that where an otherwise growing economy begins QEing without consequence?

If Corbyn's policies wont' stand up to scrutiny during this internal battle of 2015 then what the hell use will they be in the heat of a general election debate.

You have made post after post attacking Corbyn on this, so I have to challenge you here.

Could you find me a single instance of Corbyn claiming that the whole £120bn could be recouped? As far as I have read, seen or heard, none of his economic agenda assumes the collection of this whole figure. He uses the figure in his manifesto to highlight tax injustice.

But whatever tax laws we pass, we won’t get a progressive tax system in reality unless we can enforce it and collect the tax we are owed. A detailed analysis last year produced by Richard Murphy suggests that the government is missing out on nearly £120 billion in tax revenues, per year.

That’s enough to double the NHS budget; enough to give every man, woman and child in this country £2,000.

It's rhetorical. He is not actually suggesting as a matter of policy that he will collect £120bn and hand out £2000 to everyone in brown envelopes.

 

[sun_tzu]

It's rhetorical. He is not actually suggesting as a matter of policy that he will collect £120bn and hand out £2000 to everyone in brown envelopes.

true - its red envelopes addressed dear comrade

In all seriousness though some of the things he has suggested - free university education, decommissioning nuclear, re-nationalising utilities / public services would carry a hefty price tag and there is no real plan as to how we would pay for this... nor is there any real mention of the fact that borrowing on the scale to do this would likely see the interest rates we have to pay to lend the money increase as well.

Nothing wring with having the aspiration and the policy - but if its not costed fully then its difficult to vote in favour of it

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

You have made post after post attacking Corbyn on this, so I have to challenge you here.

Could you find me a single instance of Corbyn claiming that the whole £120bn could be recouped? As far as I have read, seen or heard, none of his economic agenda assumes the collection of this whole figure. He uses the figure in his manifesto to highlight tax injustice.

It's rhetorical. He is not actually suggesting as a matter of policy that he will collect £120bn and hand out £2000 to everyone in brown envelopes.

So it's all just rhetoric then? The tax windfall, the QE, the re-nationalisation plan, the whole raft of policy proposals are simply the disingenuous machinations of a politician?

I wonder how many of his new supporters realise that he lacks for a money tree just like the other three candidates.

It would not have been an unreasonable assumption on the part of a voter, to believe that he meant to produce an appreciable amount of those billions, this is not the case. Corbyn has been prepared to allow a lack of candour to serve his own ends. He used the 120bn figure, quite without qualification, as a means of PR.

I don't find fault with each and everyone of his objectives you know, we do share some common ground, However his lack of finesse is likely to prove a bar to such, with ideology and dated methods preventing practicable advances.

 

[Crono]

So it's all just rhetoric then? The tax windfall, the QE, the re-nationalisation plan, the whole raft of policy proposals are simply the disingenuous machinations of a politician?

I wonder how many of his new supporters realise that he lacks for a money tree just like the other three candidates.

It would not have been an unreasonable assumption on the part of a voter, to believe that he meant to produce an appreciable amount of those billions, this is not the case. Corbyn has been prepared to allow a lack of candour to serve his own ends. He used the 120bn figure, quite without qualification, as a means of PR.

I don't find fault with each and everyone of his objectives you know, we do share some common ground, However his lack of finesse is likely to prove a bar to such, with ideology and dated methods preventing practicable advances.

Calm down Nick, no-one could reasonably interpret that from what I said. The £120bn figure absolutely should be put out there, to educate the public on how scandalously they're being cheated by the rich.

Richard Murphy agrees that Corbyn never misused his words.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/12/is-there-a-100-billion-hole-in-corbynomics/

So Jolyon is wrong. And so are the Telegraph. Both found a scoop where there was no story to tell. Because I had always said there was only £20 billion at best to collect, and Jeremy Corbyn never implied otherwise as far as I can see.

true - its red envelopes addressed dear comrade

In all seriousness though some of the things he has suggested - free university education, decommissioning nuclear, re-nationalising utilities / public services would carry a hefty price tag and there is no real plan as to how we would pay for this... nor is there any real mention of the fact that borrowing on the scale to do this would likely see the interest rates we have to pay to lend the money increase as well.

Nothing wring with having the aspiration and the policy - but if its not costed fully then its difficult to vote in favour of it

The cost of renationalisation of utilities in particular just speaks to what an absolute scandal it was Thatcher giving them all away on the cheap, to serve her crazed ideology.

I don't think you are right on the bolded.

Does more government borrowing push up interest rates – or, worse still, risk a “Greece-style” panic in the bond markets? I have written about this numerous times over the last five years: here and here for example. I have argued consistently that it is one of the rare macroeconomic questions to which we can give an absolutely definitive answer. We have overwhelming evidence, both empirical and theoretical, that in countries (like the UK) which are at the zero lower bound for interest rates and which borrow in their own (floating rate) currency, the answer is no.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/government-borrowing-and-long-term-interest-rates-natural-experiment

 

[bishblaize]

You have made post after post attacking Corbyn on this, so I have to challenge you here.

Could you find me a single instance of Corbyn claiming that the whole £120bn could be recouped? As far as I have read, seen or heard, none of his economic agenda assumes the collection of this whole figure. He uses the figure in his manifesto to highlight tax injustice.

It's rhetorical. He is not actually suggesting as a matter of policy that he will collect £120bn and hand out £2000 to everyone in brown envelopes.

Firstly, I suspect that most people reading that would take it as him suggesting that was the £120Bn was a target. Saying that we need a progressive tax system that will be able to collect what we're owed, and then going on to say in the next moment that what we're owed is £120Bn, and then going on to say what we could do with that £120Bn rather implies that these are his intentions. You can hardly blame the reader there for the misunderstanding.

Secondly, as pointed out here the tax gap is not £120Bn anyway, but rather £34Bn. The £120Bn includes a number of things that Murphy thinks that we should be taxing in this country but are choosing not to, such as our level of corporate tax. He may or may not be right by the way, but this isn't stopping avoidance/evasion, this is simply increasing taxes by £80Bn per year.

Thirdly, Murphy himself has now said that the additional amount of collectible tax is closer to £20Bn. This figure comes from some fairly rudimentary analysis. The ARC put together a well costed report in 2013 showing that an investment in HMRC of £312M could have a return of £8Bn over four years. Murphy took that report and claimed that an additional £1Bn investment could have a yield of £12Bn (see that first link). There are no publicly available calculations I could find out there for this £12Bn figure of Murphy's, so its simply impossible to say that he's right, and there are some very reasonable reasons to doubt him (not least a questionable maximum capacity of the HMRC). A lot of his work is found here in a report from last year (page 70) but sheds no real light on how he expects to get this. Not only that, but the return over a four year period in the ARC report became part of an annual return in the Corbyn economic policy. Not really sure who to blame there, suffice to say its a basic error that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

As for that £120Bn figure, Id like to see someone other than Murphy refer to it before having any confidence that the figure is true. And as the for the actual collectible amounts, given the errors involved and the lack of any calculations to support it, I don't see how anyone could believe them at face value either.

 

[Crono]

Firstly, I suspect that most people reading that would take it as him suggesting that was the £120Bn was a target. Saying that we need a progressive tax system that will be able to collect what we're owed, and then going on to say in the next moment that what we're owed is £120Bn, and then going on to say what we could do with that £120Bn rather implies that these are his intentions. You can hardly blame the reader there for the misunderstanding.

Secondly, as pointed out here the tax gap is not £120Bn anyway, but rather £34Bn. The £120Bn includes a number of things that Murphy thinks that we should be taxing in this country but are choosing not to, such as our level of corporate tax. He may or may not be right by the way, but this isn't stopping avoidance/evasion, this is simply increasing taxes by £80Bn per year.

Thirdly, Murphy himself has now said that the additional amount of collectible tax is closer to £20Bn. This figure comes from some fairly rudimentary analysis. The ARC put together a well costed report in 2013 showing that an investment in HMRC of £312M could have a return of £8Bn over four years. Murphy took that report and claimed that an additional £1Bn investment could have a yield of £12Bn (see that first link). There are no publicly available calculations I could find out there for this £12Bn figure of Murphy's, so its simply impossible to say that he's right, and there are some very reasonable reasons to doubt him (not least a questionable maximum capacity of the HMRC). A lot of his work is found here in a report from last year (page 70) but sheds no real light on how he expects to get this. Not only that, but the return over a four year period in the ARC report became part of an annual return in the Corbyn economic policy. Not really sure who to blame there, suffice to say its a basic error that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

As for that £120Bn figure, Id like to see someone other than Murphy refer to it before having any confidence that the figure is true. And as the for the actual collectible amounts, given the errors involved and the lack of any calculations to support it, I don't see how anyone could believe them at face value either.

I may come back to this later but the idea that the £34bn tax gap figure as produced by the HMRC is being challenged only by Murphy is simply wrong. This has been the consistent line from the Public Accounts Committee.

2. Each year HMRC publishes its estimate of the tax gap to set out the difference between the amount of tax it collects and the amount that should be collected according to its interpretation of the intention of Parliament in setting tax law (the theoretical liability).[5] HMRC's most recent estimate of the tax gap, for 2011-12, is £35 billion, a £1 billion increase on 2010-11, although the tax gap as a proportion of the theoretical tax liability decreased slightly from 7.1% to 7.0%.[6]

3. HMRC's calculation of the tax gap does not include an assessment of the amount of tax lost through tax avoidance, therefore it represents only a fraction of the amount that the public might expect to be payable.[7] The Prime Minister has called for measures to tackle tax avoidance and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is also considering this issue. However, HMRC said it had not attempted to calculate how much more tax would be owed to the UK by multinationals were such anti-avoidance measures introduced. It considered that any calculation based on the OECD's initiatives to date would require a significant amount of work and be unreliable, as the OECD's work was still on-going. HMRC said that the OECD was uncertain about how much money would be involved globally, and how this should be allocated between different states.[8]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/666/66605.htm

 

[sun_tzu]

The cost of renationalisation of utilities in particular just speaks to what an absolute scandal it was Thatcher giving them all away on the cheap, to serve her crazed ideology.

I don't think you are right on the bolded
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/government-borrowing-and-long-term-interest-rates-natural-experiment

.



I'm pretty certain I am right - I worked as a quant and trader so would say I have some record in this market.
The reason rates are as low as they are is partly due to the cuts in spending by government - it is seen by the IMF but banks in general as having somewhat of a handle - or at least a costed plan to cut the deficit long term.
Would a Corbyn plan been seen as more risky - almost certainly - and as banks / lending institutions correlate risk with reward the inevitable conclusion is the commercial borrowing rate would have to go up.
Similarly would investors want to see a higher yield on government bonds - abso-f'in-loutly.

it wouldn't necessarily be all doom and gloom as interest rates being as low as they are always keeps you in risk of deflation and of course the bank of England would have some leway to try and rationalise any impact into the high street lending arenas - though the bad would in my opinion far outweigh the good

The fact that the last labour party manifesto had pretty much pledged to similar spending targets as the tories (hence the tory lite jibes from the left) would surely render that study you cite of complete irrelevance against a Corbyn lead economic outlook as he is pledged to be radically different... or was the other policy only tory lite when it suits a particular narrative?

I like Corbyn - he seems decent and principled - Ill almost certainly be putting hum above Burnham on my ballot (though that may say more about how odious I find Burnham) - but to suggest that they would implement his economic policy without there being quite a reaction from international markets - and infact to even suggest the kind of policies he is whilst we are running a deficit and without them being fully costed is absolute madness as far as I can see.

 

[bishblaize]

I may come back to this later but the idea that the £34bn tax gap figure as produced by the HMRC is being challenged only by Murphy is simply wrong. This has been the consistent line from the Public Accounts Committee.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/666/66605.htm

The HMRC tax gap report clearly includes a value for tax avoidance (see the last annual report). Indeed Murphy bases his own calculations on theirs (p43 onwards), so there's no dispute that avoidance is included in the tax gap. Maybe it refers to some distinct category of avoidance?

 

[Crono]

.



I'm pretty certain I am right - I worked as a quant and trader so would say I have some record in this market.
The reason rates are as low as they are is partly due to the cuts in spending by government - it is seen by the IMF but banks in general as having somewhat of a handle - or at least a costed plan to cut the deficit long term.
Would a Corbyn plan been seen as more risky - almost certainly - and as banks / lending institutions correlate risk with reward the inevitable conclusion is the commercial borrowing rate would have to go up.
Similarly would investors want to see a higher yield on government bonds - abso-f'in-loutly.

it wouldn't necessarily be all doom and gloom as interest rates being as low as they are always keeps you in risk of deflation and of course the bank of England would have some leway to try and rationalise any impact into the high street lending arenas - though the bad would in my opinion far outweigh the good

The fact that the last labour party manifesto had pretty much pledged to similar spending targets as the tories (hence the tory lite jibes from the left) would surely render that study you cite of complete irrelevance against a Corbyn lead economic outlook as he is pledged to be radically different... or was the other policy only tory lite when it suits a particular narrative?

I like Corbyn - he seems decent and principled - Ill almost certainly be putting hum above Burnham on my ballot (though that may say more about how odious I find Burnham) - but to suggest that they would implement his economic policy without there being quite a reaction from international markets - and infact to even suggest the kind of policies he is whilst we are running a deficit and without them being fully costed is absolute madness as far as I can see.

If our interest rates are low due to a plan for deficit/debt reduction why are countries like Italy and Japan able to borrow just as cheaply or even cheaper than us, with much higher debts?

I only go by the balance of evidence that I've seen, and from the economists and economic commentators I've read the evidence shows that merely borrowing more (even a lot more) per se would not lead to a higher price of borrowing. The point summed up in Krugman's IMF Conference paper:

For non-euro countries, then, the effect of debt is both statistically and economically insignificant, even as it is strongly apparent for euro countries. It looks, in other words, as if the currency regime makes a huge difference to the stories we tell about debt. Of course, the absence of any apparent relationship between debt and borrowing costs outside the euro area might be an accident – or, if you like, America might be an accident waiting to happen. But I will argue otherwise.

I am by no means the first to make this argument. The seminal paper in this area is De Grauwe (2011), who pointed in particular to the comparison between Spain and Britain, which have similar levels of both debt and deficits, but pay very different interest rates. De Grauwe argued that the crucial difference was that Spain lacks a lender of last resort, leaving it vulnerable to self-fulfilling liquidity crises: investors might pull back from a euro zone nation’s debt, fearing default, and in so doing drive that nation’s borrowing costs so much higher (and depress that nation’s economy so much, reducing revenues) that they provoke the very default investors fear. This can’t happen in Britain, he suggested, because the Bank of England can always step in to buy government debt in a pinch.

Since De Grauwe circulated his analysis in May 2011, several developments have occurred that offer strong support for his hypothesis.

It seems to be a near consensus among macroeconomists that our failure to borrow to invest 4-5 years ago was a massive error. The chief economics correspondent for the FT Martin Wolf in particular has been withering of Osborne's failure to invest massively for growth at historically cheap rates of borrowing. I know you were a quant for a bit, but I don't think all these blokes are talking bollocks.

The HMRC tax gap report clearly includes a value for tax avoidance (see the last annual report). Indeed Murphy bases his own calculations on theirs (p43 onwards), so there's no dispute that avoidance is included in the tax gap. Maybe it refers to some distinct category of avoidance?

Apparently so. I haven't found the £120bn figure replicated outside of Murphy's research. The only similar figure I've seen quoted (from a John McDonell speech) is £111bn as an admitted underestimate of the size of the black economy in a 2004 study in the Economic Journal.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/honest-victims-of-tax-dodgers-6967124.html

 

[Crono]

YouGov have revised Corbyn's first preferences up to 57% from 53% to account for the late surge.

Another YouGov poll for the Evening Standard found Corbyn to be clearly the most popular choice for Londoners.

An exclusive YouGov poll for the Evening Standard reveals he has more support among the London public than his nearest rivals, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, put together.

Moreover, he is more popular with the better-off ABC1 social classes, among both younger and older people, and those who voted Ukip or Liberal Democrat at the general election.

YouGov found 46 per cent of Londoners with an opinion thought Mr Corbyn would make the best Labour leader.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...n-is-first-choice-for-londoners-a2633546.html

F*cking trots are everywhere.

 

[Crono]

A national poll from Survation released today is looking pretty good for Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is most popular among voters from all parties, poll suggests

Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than the other Labour leadership candidates with the wider electorate and fares particularly well with Ukip supporters as well as those from his own party, a Survation poll suggests.

The survey of 1,000 people found that Corbyn scored the highest when they were asked about his personal qualities and which candidate would be the best at holding the government to account as the leader of the opposition.

Among Ukip voters, 39% of them liked him the most, higher than the 38% of Labour voters who said so. But just 22% of Conservatives liked Corbyn, compared with 25% who preferred Andy Burnham.

Fancy that.

Ukip and Labour supporters appeared especially keen on Corbyn, ranking him the highest for being the most likely to take the Labour party in the right direction, having the best ideas about the future of the UK, caring the most about helping the British people and making the best leader. In contrast, Conservatives opted for Burnham on most measures.

Corbyn scored highest for seeming to be in touch with ordinary people at 57%, trustworthy at 40%, intelligent at 79%, and most likely to fare best in a television debate against David Cameron at 33%. Burnham scored highest for seeming tough at 43% and Kendall for seeming normal at 69%.

Asked whether the candidate would make you more or less likely to vote for the Labour party, a net 32% said yes to Corbyn, compared with 25% for Burnham, 22% for Kendall and 20% for Cooper.

"Electoral annihilation"

 

[Ubik]

Pretty sure "Who is Jeremy Corbyn, and what is he doing in my garden?" would've outscored the lot of them.

 

[soap]

What are twerps like Hunt and Umunna to do if Corbyn wins? Do they keep their heads down and stay quiet in the hope they come back in 2020 and say "told you so" or agitate for a coup?

 

[Silva]

What are twerps like Hunt and Umunna to do if Corbyn wins? Do they keep their heads down and stay quiet in the hope they come back in 2020 and say "told you so" or agitate for a coup?

Going for a coup is the worst thing they could do.

 

[soap]

Going for a coup is the worst thing they could do.

You'd certainly think it'd reflect very badly on them. They both seem like complete cnuts though (especially Umunna).

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

You'd certainly think it'd reflect very badly on them. They both seem like complete cnuts though (especially Umunna).

Why so much ire directed at Umunna?

 

[soap]

Why so much ire directed at Umunna?

Editing his own Wikipedia article to compare himself with Obama (), insulting Corbyn supporters and saying theyre "throwing their toys out of the pram that the vote didnt go their way" seemingly without an ounce of self awareness that he was literally doing the exact same thing, asking how to avoid "human trash" on nights out on a social media site for millionaires, and just general being a smarmy prick who strikes me as the archetypal career politician. I don't like the bloke at all.

 

[Kaos]

I hope Ummuna and Hunt do try and plot their little coup if Corbyn wins. Would expose them for the swarmy toolbags they are, I'm sure their constituents would be thrilled with their attempts in antagonising a democratic process and sabotaging their own party

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Obviously it's just one poll, but it confirms a few of the points myself and other Corbyn supporters have been making in this thread for a while. I think it's clear to his detractors in the Labour party that the electability argument doesn't hold water, which is why they've now turned to attacking his policies. Unfortunately for them his policies are very popular, and they're attacking them pretty unconvincingly (i.e - Jack Straw saying that quantitative easing caused the Greece situation)

 

[bishblaize]

I may come back to this later but the idea that the £34bn tax gap figure as produced by the HMRC is being challenged only by Murphy is simply wrong. This has been the consistent line from the Public Accounts Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/666/66605.htm

There's a more subtle point to bear in mind as well. When the Government sets tax policy, its starting point is how much money it wants to take out of the country. It then figures out how to get that much money by setting tax levels, factoring in how much it will actually be able to collect ie by considering the tax gap.

When Corbyn says that he wants to collect an extra £213Bn (the £120Bn and £93Bn from his policy document) from the country via the end of avoidance/evasion/corporate welfare, what he means is that he wants to increase taxes by that amount. That equates to a 35-40% total tax increase. The fact that the increase comes from the tax gap rather than a change in % rate is academic. The net results are the same, a large increase in tax take from the country.

I fee like it puts the discussion in a different light when you put it that way. This isn't like picking up money lying on the ground, its taking more money out of the country. Now that may or may not be morally right. I'm very relaxed about paying tax personally, I agree with Corbyn that its our subscription to society. But when you present it as Corbyn looking to fund a spending programme by increasing taxes by 35-40% (which is exactly how it will be presented by his opponents) it does sound far less appealing.

 

[sun_tzu]

What are twerps like Hunt and Umunna to do if Corbyn wins? Do they keep their heads down and stay quiet in the hope they come back in 2020 and say "told you so" or agitate for a coup?

It takes 47 labour MP's to trigger a leadership election... So I doubt they would have to wait until 2020
2016 seems more realistic

 

[Ducklegs]

There's a more subtle point to bear in mind as well. When the Government sets tax policy, its starting point is how much money it wants to take out of the country. It then figures out how to get that much money by setting tax levels, factoring in how much it will actually be able to collect ie by considering the tax gap.

When Corbyn says that he wants to collect an extra £213Bn (the £120Bn and £93Bn from his policy document) from the country via the end of avoidance/evasion/corporate welfare, what he means is that he wants to increase taxes by that amount. That equates to a 35-40% total tax increase. The fact that the increase comes from the tax gap rather than a change in % rate is academic. The net results are the same, a large increase in tax take from the country.

I fee like it puts the discussion in a different light when you put it that way. This isn't like picking up money lying on the ground, its taking more money out of the country. Now that may or may not be morally right. I'm very relaxed about paying tax personally, I agree with Corbyn that its our subscription to society. But when you present it as Corbyn looking to fund a spending programme by increasing taxes by 35-40% (which is exactly how it will be presented by his opponents) it does sound far less appealing.

Nobody will pay that amount of tax.

You and I will have to, but the people who actually pay the huge sums of money that fund the country, won't.

Tax hikes on that level would be disasterous, it really is 6th form level economic policy, the money will just be pulled out of the country.

 

[Ubik]

It takes 47 labour MP's to trigger a leadership election... So I doubt they would have to wait until 2020
2016 seems more realistic

Wasn't aware of this. They wouldn't do it straight away though or he'd just stand again and win, probably more convincingly. The polls will have to dive bomb and stay that way for a while before anything happens. They should be preparing their alternative programs from the off though.

 

[soap]

Obviously it's just one poll, but it confirms a few of the points myself and other Corbyn supporters have been making in this thread for a while. I think it's clear to his detractors in the Labour party that the electability argument doesn't hold water, which is why they've now turned to attacking his policies. Unfortunately for them his policies are very popular, and they're attacking them pretty unconvincingly (i.e - Jack Straw saying that quantitative easing caused the Greece situation)

According to this, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-jeremy-corbyn-policies-public-6126442 the thing he'd probably need to compromise most on is immigration, as I suspected. Even though Cameron has done nothing to cut immigration he's at least talked tough on it before.

 

[Penna]

I am being spammed by Labour leader/deputy leader candidates. I've never been so popular.

 

[ThierryHenry]

I am being spammed by Labour leader/deputy leader candidates. I've never been so popular.

And the Mayoral candidates! It's worse when someone else catches a glimpse of your phone - "Ooh, is that a text from... Tessa Jowell??!"

 

[Crono]

I hope Ummuna and Hunt do try and plot their little coup if Corbyn wins. Would expose them for the swarmy toolbags they are, I'm sure their constituents would be thrilled with their attempts in antagonising a democratic process and sabotaging their own party

Some are calling their poxy little anti-Corbyn group "The Resistance". No WUM.

 

[Penna]

Some are calling their poxy little anti-Corbyn group "The Resistance". No WUM.

Really? Wasn't Umunna was the one who got all upset when he realised that there would be interest in his family and personal life if he stood for leader?

 

[Crono]

Really? Wasn't Umunna was the one who got all upset when he realised that there would be interest in his family and personal life if he stood for leader?

That's him. According to Labour people I know in Streatham he couldn't be any more of an empty suit. I would love to know which Labour MPs will be facing reselection once the Tories' boundary change plans go through, should be about 50 in all.

 

[Crono]

Who's everyone thinking of voting for as deputy / London mayor candidate?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

How to speak like a Corbynite: a helpful guide

Struggling to understand what Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters are on about? This should make it all clear

By Michael Deacon
14 Aug 2015

Eager to join the debate about Jeremy Corbyn, the Left-wing Labour leadership favourite? Help is at hand, with our essential glossary of Corbynite words and phrases.

Blair, Tony. Genocidal Right-wing dictator who led Labour to three disastrous election victories.

Compassion. What Corbynites’ political views are inspired by, along with empathy, kindness, decency and fellow feeling. That and Aneurin Bevan’s dictum that all Tories are “lower than vermin”.

Foot, Michael. Visionary thinker who led Labour to triumphant defeat.

Hatred. What Tory scum are full of.

Ideological. Adjective describing the political motives of Corbynites’ opponents. “The Tories’ cuts to public services are merely ideological.” Compare: Principled.

Labour party membership. Body of people that is precisely representative of the electorate at large, proving that if Jeremy Corbyn wins the party leadership he can win a general election.

Media. Network of corrupt Establishment puppeteers who dictate the result of every general election through their brainwashing of the proletariat. There is no other explanation for the working class’s rejection of socialism, because the proles are incapable of forming their own opinions.

Neoliberal. Useful catch-all epithet for any policy, idea, opinion or action not endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. “You pour the milk in first, rather than the hot water? That’s so neoliberal.”

Non-voters. Vast army of hitherto disillusioned socialists who will sweep Jeremy Corbyn to Downing Street in 2020. Please ignore polling by the Trades Union Congress that shows the top three reasons non-voters gave for not voting Labour in May, namely: “They would spend too much”, “They would make it too easy for people to live on benefits” and “They would raise taxes”.

Opposition. Pinnacle of political power.

Personal abuse. Something Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters will never stoop to. Unlike those evil selfish Tories, and that murdering war criminal Blair, and that Thatcherite cow Liz Kendall, and those washed-up irrelevances the Lib Dems, and those racist thugs Ukip.

Principled. Adjective describing the political motives of Corbynites. “My support for reopening the coal mines is principled.” Compare: Ideological.

Protest. Attractive new name for the revitalised Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Smear. Unhelpful fact.

Tory. Any human being who opposes, or has yet to declare public support for, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaign. Examples of Tories include ******* Harman, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, and Stalin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...o-speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html

According to this, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-jeremy-corbyn-policies-public-6126442 the thing he'd probably need to compromise most on is immigration, as I suspected. Even though Cameron has done nothing to cut immigration he's at least talked tough on it before.

Which he will scarcely contemplate. Corbyn is far more likely to declare his support for higher levels of immigration if anything.

Really? Wasn't Umunna was the one who got all upset when he realised that there would be interest in his family and personal life if he stood for leader?

Whilst that was the reasoning put out at the time, many suspected his withdrawal to have been a strategic decision given the inherent difficulties of the 2020 campaign.

 

[Sweet Square]

Ah come now Nick. Stalin was bad guy like but it's a bit low calling him a Tory, I mean he was for publicly owned services.

 

[Drifter]

Who's everyone thinking of voting for as deputy / London mayor candidate?

Let's keep it left Diane Abbott.

 

[Ubik]

Ah yes the died in the wool socialist Diane Abbott, who sent her son to a private school.

Who's everyone thinking of voting for as deputy / London mayor candidate?

Creasy then Flint. Don't think I can vote for the mayor but would be Jowell. Nice that the clear stand-outs across the board are women.

How to speak like a Corbynite: a helpful guide

I'd laugh but it's all too true.

 

[Jippy]

Ah yes the died in the wool socialist Diane Abbott, who sent her son to a private school.

Tbf that was because black mothers are better than white ones and do their best for their children.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Ah come now Nick. Stalin was bad guy like but it's a bit low calling him a Tory, I mean he was for publicly owned services.

And Polly Toynbee is one of the more annoying lifeforms in this arm of the Milky Way galaxy, but to damage her own self-image in that way...

 

[Silva]

Ah yes the died in the wool socialist Diane Abbott, who sent her son to a private school.

Oh come on now, that's not a particularly good criticism. That kind of logic might make you think Tony Benn was a hardcore capitalist.

 

[DOTA]

Oh come on now, that's not a particularly good criticism. That kind of logic might make you think Tony Benn was right wing all along.

Problem is more that she'd previously criticised both Blair and Harman for sending their kids to selective schools.