Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[southern442]

Maybe not, but that should be no barrier. I'd be much more supportive of a leader who was willing to debate these things, though maybe if I were a party leader I'd be more supportive of her position.

I doubt she'd have much trouble with Corbyn, though Sturgeon, who is an excellent orator, might run rings around her...

You never know. I think a lot of people are supporting the Tories now because they don't know what the alternative is, and the Tories seem to be 'strong enough'. I'm confident that Labour will be able to win votes back from the Conservatives, once Corbyn gets his message out. Whether he can get enough is a different story. I do expect the Tories to lose lots of votes in Scotland, and there is a good chance the Lib Dems will be able to prove themselves to the public and snatch a few votes off of them too. Once the debates start the ratings will change significantly.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I do: because without a credible leader we have no chance of power. The supporters of Corncob own and are responsible for whatever comes next. By saddling us with a joke of a leader they ensure the Tories keep power and have a free hand to do as they please to the institutions we all rely on. That this point doesn't seem to register drives me bananas! FFS we didn't even vote in an old school left wing firebrand - we voted in a timid geography teacher.

I remember all too clearly how the Foot/Kinnock era ensured the continuation of Thatcherism far beyond what many people in all walks of life thought was half-way reasonable.

If the party was led by a glass of water wearing a donkey jacket would it make sense to support the leader even if the manifesto was great?

By your logic it doesn't matter who the leader is as long as the policies are right. If you haven't got the right people to lead, you won't get votes.

I enjoy watching Corbynites paddle furiously towards, and then sail over the waterfall in their raft, singing The Red Flag. Give us a wave and a cheery smile as you go over! Wheeeee!

The trouble is that there are still many, many constituencies that will always return the candidate wearing the red rosette regardless of their ability. I have absolutely no doubt that nearly all the northern districts that voted heavily in favour of Brexit will also return Labour MPs just as they always do. A lot of these constituents are largely forgotten by Labour because its policies and conduct make almost no difference to either side.

Of course similar arguments can also be made regarding certain true blue areas of the Home Counties.

Totally agree mate. If you won't back the Leader in a general election, stand down and leave the Party.

Why should they? Many of those MPs are people who have built their political careers serving the Labour movement. Surely you must agree that a political party which goes back generations is far bigger than its current leader?

The tone of your post smacks more of a dictatorial cult than a political party. There is a risk that is the direction Labour is now heading.

Many younger people are probably not aware of just how the Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement. Traditional Labour supporters still expect that the party will eventually return to that ethos. And that also applies to many Labour MPs, Councillors and so on. But it's difficult to see that happening under Corbyn. It perhaps says something about how relatively unprincipled many politicians are these days. My view during the Brexit campaign was that sooner or later the major parties would undergo permanent divisions as the only way to resolve the deep disagreements over the issue. But FPTP voting makes it extremely difficult for new parties to gain any sort of foothold even if the personalities within them are well-known. If they had any decency the anti-Corbynites would already have moved to forming SDP Mk2.

I can assure you there is a enormous, yawning gulf, several miles wide, between what the political/leadership arms of unions say and the views of the grass-roots membership!

Not only can I completely agree with the truth of this statement I would also say that it illustrates just how far from its roots the Labour Party has moved.

 

[backontrack]

You never know. I think a lot of people are supporting the Tories now because they don't know what the alternative is, and the Tories seem to be 'strong enough'. I'm confident that Labour will be able to win votes back from the Conservatives, once Corbyn gets his message out. Whether he can get enough is a different story. I do expect the Tories to lose lots of votes in Scotland, and there is a good chance the Lib Dems will be able to prove themselves to the public and snatch a few votes off of them too. Once the debates start the ratings will change significantly.

Yeah, it can still all change. I wonder if UKIP will enter the debates.

 

[southern442]

Yeah, it can still all change. I wonder if UKIP will enter the debates.

They will but they aren't gonna do well. Why vote UKIP when you could just vote Tory and get more or less what you wanted?

 

[backontrack]

They will but they aren't gonna do well. Why vote UKIP when you could just vote Tory and get more or less what you wanted?

Anarchism? That answer's only half-silly, actually...

 

[southern442]

Anarchism? That answer's only half-silly, actually...

It would be splitting the vote, which could result in a Lib Dem or Labour victory. I can only imagine the horror that a ukipper would experience over that.

 

[EM2]

How is he credible?

That's not for me to argue. I'm not a Labour member or a Labour voter. I'm interested as to why Labour supporters say that he's not credible.

 

[backontrack]

That's not for me to argue. I'm not a Labour member or a Labour voter. I'm interested as to why Labour supporters say that he's not credible.

I'm sure that JPR Williams would be proud of the way that you sidestepped answering that question.

I would point to the fact that he surrounds himself with people like Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry.

 

[backontrack]

It would be splitting the vote, which could result in a Lib Dem or Labour victory. I can only imagine the horror that a ukipper would experience over that.

Meh, they don't really care about that I think. Any UKIPer who wouldn't vote Tory instead would probably be too drunk to really think about the consequences. That's pretty much what anarchism voting (if that's a thing) is.

 

[EM2]

I'm sure that JPR Williams would be proud of the way that you sidestepped answering that question.

It's a question I can't answer, because the Labour leadership is something I've taken little notice of since the last election.

I would point to the fact that he surrounds himself with people like Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry.

Isn't that because he doesn't have the support of most of the PLP? What are the reasons for their lack of support?

 

[backontrack]

Isn't that because he doesn't have the support of most of the PLP? What are the reasons for their lack of support?

That varies. Reasons include a disparity between MPs' views and Corbyn's on key issues (e.g. Brexit, National Education Service), the perception of a weakness/weaknesses in Corbyn as a leader, a lack of communication between Corbyn and MPs, bad word or actions between Corbyn/his staff and MPs, MPs' individual views altering, a feeling of an MP that they would rather lead the party him/herself or that they would do a better job than Corbyn, a feeling that Corbyn is unable to connect to voters in that MPs' constituency or in others', yadda yadda. There are probably any reasons - I expect that, for many Labour MPs opposed to Corbyn, there are multiple reasons for their lack of support towards him.

 

[EM2]

There are probably any reasons - I expect that, for many Labour MPs opposed to Corbyn, their are multiple reasons for their lack of support towards him.

And is that why he is not a credible leader?

 

[tspaul26]

I said higher earners and given the 40p threshold is now £45,000, it's around triple the minimum wage for full time workers. If you earn 3 times the minimum wage you can't call yourself a low earner.

However, the latest provisional release of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings by ONS indicates that in April 2016 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £539 (i.e. over £28,000 per annum). The higher rate of income tax would apply at only circa 160% of this median.

Incidentally, the basic rate band goes up to only £31,500 per annum for taxpayers domiciled in Scotland, as opposed to £33,500 per annum elsewhere.

 

[backontrack]

And is that why he is not a credible leader?

Because of the people he surrounds himself with? Yes, that's probably one of them. I don't know really, it's not that easy for a 15-year-old sitting at a desk to do political analysis.

 

[EM2]

Because of the people he surrounds himself with? Yes, that's probably one of them. I don't know really, it's not that easy for a 15-year-old sitting at a desk to do political analysis.

OK. So people vote for Labour MPs, and many of those same people vote for Corbyn as Labour leader.
Shouldn't those MPs therefore realise that a number of the people that have put them in a job in the first place also support Corbyn?
How do they square that circle?
(This is not a question aimed just at you)

 

[backontrack]

So people vote for Labour MPs...shouldn't those MPs therefore realise that a number of the people that have put them in a job in the first place also support Corbyn?

Do I have to support Chelsea purely because I live in Britain and some other people in Britain support Chelsea?

 

[tspaul26]

Indeed. The Conservatives have changed the 40p rate threshold so that higher earners pay less tax. They also tried to scrap the 50p tax rate when in Coalition but Lib Dems prevented them from doing it but accepted a reduction to 45p as a compromise for getting their £10,000 allowance through. They could have lowered the 40p and 50p tax thresholds so that higher earners didn't benefit from the £10,000 allowance.

Additional rate taxpayers do not benefit from an income tax personal allowance at all and higher rate taxpayers earning over £100,000 per annum see theirs tapered to nothing (very roughly, you lose £1 of the allowance for every £2 of income above £100,000).

 

[EM2]

Do I have to support Chelsea purely because I live in Britain and some other people in Britain support Chelsea?

No, but if you did support Chelsea, and Roman Abramovich sold his shareholding to a new owner of whom you did not approve, would you stop supporting Chelsea? Or perhaps more pertinently, would you expect the players to stop playing for Chelsea if they didn't approve of the new owner?

 

[pemma]

Additional rate taxpayers do not benefit from an income tax personal allowance at all and higher rate taxpayers earning over £100,000 per annum see theirs tapered to nothing (very roughly, you lose £1 of the allowance for every £2 of income above £100,000).

Everyone earning up to £123,000 gets the income tax personal allowance which is now £11,500 while those earning over £150,000 benefit from the 50p tax rate being reduced.

 

[507021]

If the party was led by a glass of water wearing a donkey jacket would it make sense to support the leader even if the manifesto was great?

By your logic it doesn't matter who the leader is as long as the policies are right. If you haven't got the right people to lead, you won't get votes.

I enjoy watching Corbynites paddle furiously towards, and then sail over the waterfall in their raft, singing The Red Flag. Give us a wave and a cheery smile as you go over! Wheeeee!

I doubt that's ever going to happen, somehow. :roll:

My 'logic' is that if you don't support your party's leader, then leave the party or keep quiet about it and get behind them. Instead, Labour MPs have decided to publicly attack the leader which is just petty and childish, and have in my view done more damage to Labour's credibility than a leader who hasn't even had a chance to lead the party into a General Election (until now).

At least they're proud to stand up for what they believe in, unlike Mrs May who pathetically refuses to take part in television debates to debate the policies she is "proud of" with the other party leaders. And before you ask, no, I am not a "Corbynite" and I am not a member of the Labour Party.

 

[backontrack]

Or perhaps more pertinently, would you expect the players to stop playing for Chelsea if they didn't approve of the new owner?

If I were manager, I wouldn't stop them from doing so. Look at what's happening at Leyton Orient. New owners can be very damaging.

 

[backontrack]

My 'logic' is that if you don't support your party's leader, then leave the party or keep quiet about it and get behind them.

And my logic is...free speech!

Also, humans have a right to hope. Hope unifies all humans, as the idea that things can get better. And we can fight for things we care about because of that hope. Your 'logic' shouldn't and won't stop people from fighting from these things, because it can't kill that hope.

 

[pemma]

However, the latest provisional release of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings by ONS indicates that in April 2016 median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees were £539 (i.e. over £28,000 per annum). The higher rate of income tax would apply at only circa 160% of this median.

Incidentally, the basic rate band goes up to only £31,500 per annum for taxpayers domiciled in Scotland, as opposed to £33,500 per annum elsewhere.

Old figures. It's £45k for England and Wales now. The SNP decided higher earners shouldn't get the big tax cut the Conservatives were handing out elsewhere and why should they when there's apparently no money to fill in pot holes?

 

[507021]

And my logic is...free speech!

Also, humans have a right to hope. Hope unifies all humans, as the idea that things can get better. And we can fight for things we care about because of that hope. Your 'logic' shouldn't and won't stop people from fighting from these things, because it can't kill that hope.

My view on the matter is that party members should unite behind their leader until they have been given a chance to lead the party into a general election. This is Jeremy Corbyn's first general election as leader, and I feel it is only fair he is given the chance to prove to the party and the public he is electable. If they decide he isn't and another party wins, then by all means look for a new leader.

 

[tspaul26]

Old figures. It's £45k for England and Wales now. The SNP decided higher earners shouldn't get the big tax cut the Conservatives were handing out elsewhere and why should they when there's apparently no money to fill in pot holes?

Current figures. The personal allowance of £11,500 plus the relevant basic rate band gives the higher rate threshold.

I'm not sure that £400 per year really qualifies as a "big tax cut".

 

[backontrack]

My view on the matter is that party members should unite behind their leader until they have been given a chance to lead the party into a general election. This is Jeremy Corbyn's first general election as leader, and I feel it is only fair he is given the chance to prove to the party and the public he is electable. If they decide he isn't and another party wins, then by all means look for a new leader.

That would be good, but Jeremy's supporters haven't helped by trying to unseat Labour MPs.

 

[507021]

That would be good, but Jeremy's supporters haven't helped by trying to unseat Labour MPs.

In all honesty, I think the whole thing is ludicrous. It's a shame really because I think a united Labour Party would stand a decent chance of doing well at this election, alas, my head tells me they almost certainly won't win this election. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[tspaul26]

Everyone earning up to £123,000 gets the income tax personal allowance which is now £11,500 while those earning over £150,000 benefit from the 50p tax rate being reduced.

Taxpayers with net income over £100,000 per annum do not receive the £11,500 personal allowance.

There is also an argument to be made that allowing people to retain a greater proportion of their disposable income may deliver greater economic advantages (such as increased consumer spending), thus generating higher tax receipts overall.

In addition, the lower the tax rate is, the lower the incentive to avoid it too. The potential gain does not justify the hassle and risk necessary to achieve it. I remember reading an interview with Jeremy Paxman a few years ago when it was revealed that the BBC had been caught up in various tax minimisation schemes for some of its more high profile personalities. Paxman made the point that the accountants' fees were higher than the amount that was actually saved in tax!

 

[bramling]

I doubt she'd have much trouble with Corbyn, though Sturgeon, who is an excellent orator, might run rings around her...

No she's not. Like Corbyn, she's another one who is good at delivering their own core message - the core message she's had plenty of years to rehearse as independence has been her dream since her formative years. As soon as she is deviated away from her independence/anti-Tory comfort zone, she starts to lose it quite quickly.

A large number of Scots may be sufficiently gullible to be (at least partially) taken in by her core message, however I don't think anyone else in the UK is taken in by her. Without exception everyone I know sees her as a divisive, cynical, hateful, hypocritical nasty piece of work who is prepared to manipulate anything and anyone to achieve her ideological dream.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Interesting debate on the Nigel Farage show this evening about the General Election, well worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-KKcf8iNx8