2019 UK election

420 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

'France Calls For EU Empire'

https://twitter.com/AgrippaSPQR/status/1195072369632657408

"The EU definitely longs for Empire, many are quite open about it."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..great little video

The Labour Party‏Verified account @UKLabour

When politicians resort to blaming immigrants, you know they've run out of ideas

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

That's a good ad. I hope the voters are paying attention.

NDPP

Sherelle Jacobs: Labour Is On The Brink Of The Most Seismic Wipeout in British Election History

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/labour-brink-seismic-wip...

"This could actually be it - the end of Labour. Some may scoff, pointing out that it has narrowed the gap with the Tories in some polls. But on the ground, in the heartlands, the party smells of death...As a Brexiteer from a dynasty of 'Labour men,' I can't help but reflect with a hint of melancholy. But to former supporters, the party is like the family Staffordshire bull terrier that has become feral. The kindest thing is to put it down - peacefully but resolutely."

Just deserts.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 @LaboursBlackPLP

Labour will invest in ✅ Public Health ✅ Mental health ✅ New Hospitals ✅ Nursing Bursaries

Paid for by ▶️ Google ▶️ Amazon ▶️ Facebook ▶️ The Top 5%

£110 Bn has been given away during austerity to the richest and wealthiest

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

General election 2019: Labour pledges free broadband for all

Labour has promised to give every home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030, if it wins the general election.

The party would nationalise part of BT to deliver the policy and introduce a tax on tech giants to help pay for it.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC the "visionary" £20bn plan would "ensure that broadband reaches the whole of the country".

But Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it was "a crackpot scheme".

The plan includes nationalising parts of BT - namely its digital network arm Openreach - to create a UK-wide network owned by the government.

Mr McDonnell said the roll-out would begin with communities that have the worst broadband access, followed by towns and smaller centres, and then by areas that are currently well served.....

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

As a British Jew I’m not fearful of a Corbyn government but I’m horrified at how antisemitism is being used against him

https://twitter.com/JVoiceLabour/status/1195329880780611584

 Here's a quote which proves the attacks on Corbyn over "antisemitism" have no merit at all:  

 

Let the numbers speak

The precise scale of reported antisemitism within the Labour Party became clear at the start of this year when Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, released detailed numbers covering accusations of antisemitism made against Labour members between April 2018 and January 2019. This covered the period during which media interest in the story reached fever pitch in the summer and autumn of 2018.

The 673 accusations as a percentage of party members amounted to 0.1% of the total Party membership. However, 220 of the allegations were rejected through the disciplinary process which left 453 (or 0.08% of party membership) accused, found guilty and disciplined. Of these, only 12 were considered serious enough to warrant permanent expulsion.

Further analysis of these figures, and other data, and their comparison to survey data of antisemitism in the UK population as a whole, has been carried out by statistician Alan Maddison. The upshot is, there’s less antisemitism in Labour than you would expect to find in the UK population as a whole (which is already among the lowest in the world). In fact, reputable surveying in 2017 by Jewish Policy Research, showed that antisemitism was more prevalent on the right and far right than on the left in the UK.

“Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population.”

Ken Burch

More from that link:  

 

What about Corbyn himself?

If Jeremy Corbyn is truly antisemitic he must be the most unusual and eccentric example of antisemitism ever displayed by a British political leader and perhaps any political leader.

When you are told that a politician is a diehard antisemite you don’t expect to then discover that over the decades he’s signed dozens of Early Day Parliamentary motions condemning antisemitism; helped organised protests against anti-Jewish marches; visited the Terezin concentration camp to commemorate Holocaust victims; attended numerous Jewish events in his constituency; and read the war poetry of Isaac Rosenberg at his local Remembrance Day service.

The list of antisemitic ‘crimes’ by Corbyn which have been ‘unearthed’ to ‘expose’ his guilt all crumble for anyone who bothers to do some fact checking or examine the context in which they happened.

If I have criticisms of Corbyn over his handling of antisemitism it’s that he did not defend himself or his party more robustly.

He should have toured the TV studios during the spring and summer of 2018 to refute the allegations made against him. He should have invited his accusers, in particular Campaign Against Antisemitism, and the leaders of the Board of Deputies, Jewish Leadership Council and the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, to debate face to face. He should have given a platform to Palestinian voices to demonstrate the problematic nature of the IHRA “illustrations” of antisemitism. He should have given a major speech setting out his understanding of Jewish history, of antisemitism, of what does and does not count as fair criticism of Israel and Zionism.

The strategy of not giving more oxygen to the allegations through direct engagement turned out to be wrong. It just encouraged more vilification.

josh

It's one of the biggest smear jobs in political history.  And it was made possible because of the number of forces invested in getting rid of Corbyn.  His opponents in the PLP.  The anti-Palestinian faction both in and out of the country.  And of course the Tories and their gutter press.

NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

The strategy of not giving more oxygen to the allegations through direct engagement turned out to be wrong. It just encouraged more vilification.

NDPP wrote:

It wasn't 'a strategy', it was appeasement and prostration and allowing others to be thrown under the bus in hopes they would relent against him.

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

The strategy of not giving more oxygen to the allegations through direct engagement turned out to be wrong. It just encouraged more vilification.

NDPP wrote:

It wasn't 'a strategy', it was appeasement and prostration and allowing others to be thrown under the bus in hopes they would relent against him.

Small point on attribution:  Those weren't my words-they were from the article I was quoting, which originated at Jewish Voice for Labour-and were written by a person who wasn't a paid Labour member or supporter and was essentially just guessing at it being a "strategy".  

NDPP

"...If Corbyn loses a lot of people in the Labour Party are going to blame it on those Jews who fomented the antisemitism witch-hunt hysteria. And the big problem there is it's true! Jews were the spearhead of the campaign to stop Corbyn. That's not antisemitism that's factually based. They played the most aggressive role and the most visible..."

Finkelstein - Labouring Under Anti-Semitism

https://www.rt.com/shows/renegade-inc/459776-labour-antisemitism-racism/

 

JKR

NDPP wrote:

"...If Corbyn loses a lot of people in the Labour Party are going to blame it on those Jews who fomented the antisemitism witch-hunt hysteria. And the big problem there is it's true! Jews were the spearhead of the campaign to stop Corbyn."

Sounds like antisemitic incitement to hatred!

I think Don Cherry just got fired for saying something like this, probably a lot tamer.

josh

It's Zionists, not Jews.  As I've posted, there are plenty of Jews opposing this smear campaign.  

NDPP

Take it up with Prof Finkelstein.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Not communism, but not nothing

Out of nowhere, the Labour Party last night made a game changing move in an otherwise dreary election. It promised to roll out full-fibre broadband to the doors of every household in Britain, for free, by 2030.

It will do so by nationalising the broadband business of former state telecoms provider BT, and funding a £20bn digital infrastructure spend out of long-term borrowing. The press immediately dubbed it “broadband communism”.

Hordes of centrists dads took to Twitter to complain that they should be allowed to spend £20 a month on a crap copper wire internet service instead of getting an industrial strength version for free.

Here I want to explain the political economy of the move. It’s not just a retail giveaway to catch votes - it contains the seeds of a serious rethink by British social democracy about the relationship between wages, information and work. Here’s why:

  1. Public good. Labour just basically reclassified the digital infrastructure as a public good, like the road system. Up to now, during the digital comms revolution, the entire physical infrastructure has been used as a rent-seeking opportunity by private monopolies, whose “competition” always seems to produce the same rip off pricing. Labour’s move is a statement that this can’t go on: better that the public owns the natural monopoly of fibre-optic cables, and entrepreneurs compete on a level playing field to sell you services over it.

  2. Data democracy. Because the big broadband providers could never profitably wire up Britain’s rural and coastal communities, these areas were lagging further behind the already piss-poor British broadband system. This is a social guarantee to treat every household equally, rolling out the fibre backbone to places it does not exist, and then connecting every doorstep with ultra-high speed fibre.

  3. Cost of living. Traditionally union-backed parties like Labour don’t do much to cut the cost of living. The implicit assumption is that you equalise society upwards through wage bargaining - on the assumption that social pressure to cut costs eventually feeds through to pressure for lower wages to the workforce. But this is what I hope will be the first of several eye-catching offers on the cost of living.

  4. Cheapness. According to the British government’s own study, though a state monopoly roll out might take longer, it is the only format that delivers 100% coverage and costs £20bn compared to £33bn through the “enhanced competition” model the Tories preferred (kind of giving away the weird outcome of “competition” in a rigged neoliberal market).

And though it is not communism, this is no longer business as usual for Labour. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..finally on broadband

quote:

This move ticks all those boxes.

It provides a universal basic service for free. It reduces the cost of reproducing labour power. It abolishes several rent-seeking business models. And it equalises access to fibre to all citizens, benefiting the poor and isolated rural and coastal communities.

The elite have derided the move, saying it will cost too much money, expropriate investors etc etc. But it is massively popular - whatever tonight’s oligarch-owned Evening Standard says….

NDPP

This 'Brexit Election' Exposes Britain's Political Malaise

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/brexit-election

"...To shore up the pre-Brexit ancien regime, Remainers have constantly belittled the rationality and capacity of ordinary voters while also depicting lurid scenarios of a post-Brexit future, featuring economic collapse, racist authoritarianism, imperial nostaligia, permanent austerity and rapacious American corporations.

Ironically, for all that pro-Remain campaigners have fulminated against Brexiteer 'fascism' and demagogy, it is the campaign for a 'People's Vote' - another referendum - that has ensnared British politics in a raucous plebiscitory populism, awash with menacing visions of dystopia, xenophobic rumours of foreign subversion and conspiracy theories of 'dark money' and 'Russian bots'. While they ludicrously accuse their rivals of seeking to restore the vanished glories of the British Empire, their no less fantastical aim is to restore the lost status-quo of 23 June, 2016.

The major factor weighing down the Labour Party's comparative political ambition is its inability to translate the democratic mandate embodied in the Brexit vote into national political renewal, as it seeks instead to reverse Brexit through another referendum after negotiating a new deal with Brussels. At best this means deferring the enactment of the Brexit referendum, prolonging the democratic purgatory we have been in since 2016. At worse, it will result in the squelching of a democratic revolt that Labour's radicals ought instead to have harnessed to their transformative agenda.

Instead, the leadership has caved to the Europhilic, professional middle-class membership, which chafes against the democratic demands of Labour's working class voters. Labour's spending splurge is intended to compensate for the negation of Brexit. Ironically, however, Labour's economic vision is subject to precisely the same opportunistic scare-mongering from empoyers and the business press that Labour Party supporters themselves happily indulge when attacking Brexit..."

JKR

josh wrote:

It's Zionists, not Jews. 

The words used in the quote were "blame it on those Jews."

JKR

NDPP wrote:

Take it up with Prof Finkelstein.

He's posting on Babble? Maybe we should also blame that on "those Jews?"

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

NDPP wrote:

"...If Corbyn loses a lot of people in the Labour Party are going to blame it on those Jews who fomented the antisemitism witch-hunt hysteria. And the big problem there is it's true! Jews were the spearhead of the campaign to stop Corbyn."

Sounds like antisemitic incitement to hatred!

I think Don Cherry just got fired for saying something like this, probably a lot tamer.

Uh no.  And here is why.  For one thing, Dr. Finklestein is Jewish himself, and is descended from Holocaust survivors, so virtually nothing he can say could actually be antisemitic.  What he said there he said in a confrontational way, as is his want.  But Finklestein is the one who said it, not Corbyn and not anyone within Labour.  Finklestein alone is responsible for what he said, not Corbyn.   And as I read it, his meaning was that the anti-Corbyn smear campaign might cause Jewish people in the UK to be blamed if Labour did badly in the election-but there's a massive difference between saying that and saying, as some have implied, that there would be persecution.  There's not going to be persecution of the Jewish community in the UK and that isn't happening now.  Also, in terms of Luciana Berger, are we really going to argue that it's antisemitic simply to protest or confront a public figure who happens to be Jewish?  Even if the subject of the protest or confrontation has nothing whatsoever to do with that public figures identity as such?  Are we going to argue that if a people who simply happen to BE Jewish go on the unprovoked attack against someone who has done nothing to deserve it-and clearly, Corbyn has done nothing, at any point in his public career, to deserve to be accused of even abetting antisemitism-that it's now to be called antisemitism simply to challenge the unprovoked public attacks?  I ask that because it is truly looking as though that's what the Margaret Hodge types want- to be able to say and do anything to vilify Corbyn and try to force him to resign as leader without anyone having any right at all to fight back against what they are trying to do?  Are we now going to argue that it's antisemitic simply for Labour to have a leader who doesn't exempt the Israeli government from any and all public criticism or doesn't automatically take its side against the Palestinians?  If so, then why?  

BTW, as someone pointed out, Luciana Berger had been complaining that Labour was antisemitic when Blair was still leader, so why should Corbyn ever have been singled out in association with her complaints at all?

To anyone who doesn't like me posting in response to nicky-I try not to now, but as long as the man keeps smearing and lying and carrying on an all-out campaign to vilify a person who has done nothing to deserve vilification, it is very difficult to leave his relentless toxic dishonesty unchallenged.  And it is also crazymaking that virtually everything nicky posts is simply a rehash of all the BBC/Guardian/Murdoch talking points-there's no original phraseology or thinking in any of it.  

 

Ken Burch

(self-delete. dupe post).

JKR

I agree that Corbyn is definitely not anti-Semitic. Moreover, many Jews are associated with Labour and many Jews support Labour. Many anti-Semites have even said that socialism and social democracy are a Jewish conspiracy to weaken other groups such as whites, Christians, Muslims, etc.... I think that because there are many people who blame Jewish people for being a cause or even the cause of the worlds problems, it is very important to be very sensitive to the words one uses to avoid the impression that Jews are behind  conspiracies against Christians, Muslims, and others groups.

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

I agree that Corbyn is definitely not anti-Semitic. Moreover, many Jews are associated with Labour and many Jews support Labour. Many anti-Semites have even said that socialism and social democracy are a Jewish conspiracy to weaken other groups such as whites, Christians, Muslims, etc.... I think that because there are many people who blame Jewish people for being a cause or even the cause of the world's problems, it is very important to be very sensitive to the words one uses to avoid the impression that Jews are behind conspiracies against Christians, Muslims, and others groups.

And I'm with you on that.  My point is that the words of Dr. Finklestein, who is American and who has nothing to do with Corbyn or the Labour Party, should not be an issue in this election.  

josh

CON-ECR: 41% (+1) LAB-S&D: 33% (+3) LDEM-RE: 14% (-2) BREXIT-NI: 5% (-2) GREENS-G/EFA: 2% (-1)

https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1195796069826924550

Unsurprisingly, it’s become the usual two-party race.

 

josh

JKR wrote:
josh wrote:

It's Zionists, not Jews. 

The words used in the quote were "blame it on those Jews."

Not disputing that.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour manifesto to promise dramatic shift in workers' rights

Labour’s manifesto will reaffirm plans for the most dramatic shift in conditions for employees in Britain since the 1980s – including changing the way wages are set for 20 million workers.

The “clause V” document, which will be agreed by senior party figures at a meeting on Saturday, is expected to be launched by Jeremy Corbyn next week.

It will reiterate a radical but little-discussed commitment made in 2017, to introduce “sector-wide collective bargaining” across the economy.

Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, said the change would represent “a seismic shift in the world of work”.

“Fully rolling out collective bargaining coverage would mean that in the region of 20 million more employees would have their pay set by negotiations between bosses and unions,” he said.

Laura Pidcock, the shadow employment rights minister, told the TUC congress in September that “sector-wide collective bargaining will set minimum and legally binding pay, terms and conditions for every employer and every worker in the sector”.

She added: “In practice, it means that rather than the employer having all the power to determine what your conditions and pay are at work, they will be legally obliged to enter into negotiation with your trade union – a giant step forward in rebalancing the unequal power relations that exist between worker and employer.”.....

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

And I'm with you on that.  My point is that the words of Dr. Finklestein, who is American and who has nothing to do with Corbyn or the Labour Party, should not be an issue in this election.  

I didn't introduce him to this thread. Why's he here?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour will exclude the NHS and medicines from trade deals with the US

Jeremy Corbyn

There is a plot against our NHS. Boris Johnson is engaged in a cover-up of secret talks for a sell-out American trade deal that would drive up the cost of medicines and lead to runaway privatisation of our health service.

US corporations want to force up the price we pay for drugs, which could drain £500m a week from the NHS. And they demand the green light for full access to Britain’s public health system for private profit.

Our public services are not bargaining chips to be traded in secret deals. I pledge a Labour government will exclude the NHS, medicines and public services from any trade deals – and make that binding in law.....

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And I'm with you on that.  My point is that the words of Dr. Finklestein, who is American and who has nothing to do with Corbyn or the Labour Party, should not be an issue in this election.  

I didn't introduce him to this thread. Why's he here?

I know you didn't.  And you're right, what Finklestein said there should not be a part of this thread.  

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

I agree that Corbyn is definitely not anti-Semitic. Moreover, many Jews are associated with Labour and many Jews support Labour. Many anti-Semites have even said that socialism and social democracy are a Jewish conspiracy to weaken other groups such as whites, Christians, Muslims, etc.... I think that because there are many people who blame Jewish people for being a cause or even the cause of the worlds problems, it is very important to be very sensitive to the words one uses to avoid the impression that Jews are behind  conspiracies against Christians, Muslims, and others groups.

And while that is a noxious and indefensible thing, these days there are far more people speaking of Muslim conspiracies.   

Ken Burch

josh wrote:

CON-ECR: 41% (+1) LAB-S&D: 33% (+3) LDEM-RE: 14% (-2) BREXIT-NI: 5% (-2) GREENS-G/EFA: 2% (-1)

https://mobile.twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1195796069826924550

Unsurprisingly, it’s become the usual two-party race.

 

In other words, all of those constituency polls which supposedly demonstrated a massive swing from Labour to the LibDems which could only be remedied if Corbyn stood down as leader and the party went all-out Remain are meaningless.  

In truth, the LibDems, who are hardline Remain, are falling in the polls; The Brexit Party, who are single-issue hardline "no deal Brexit", are collapsing in the polls, having revealed themselves to be nothing but the Tory fronters they always were.  The Tories are up very, very slightly, almost irrelevantly so given the massive gift the Brexit Party gave them in agreeing to stand down in all Tory constituencies.  Labour has gained more in that poll that  any other party in the election in that poll.  Corbyn is not, therefore, a disaster after all and there is no justification for anyone who identifies as Labour to still be trying to get him to stand down as leader.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

Sherelle Jacobs: Labour Is On The Brink Of The Most Seismic Wipeout in British Election History

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/labour-brink-seismic-wip...

"This could actually be it - the end of Labour. Some may scoff, pointing out that it has narrowed the gap with the Tories in some polls. But on the ground, in the heartlands, the party smells of death...As a Brexiteer from a dynasty of 'Labour men,' I can't help but reflect with a hint of melancholy. But to former supporters, the party is like the family Staffordshire bull terrier that has become feral. The kindest thing is to put it down - peacefully but resolutely."

Just deserts.

In 1983, when the Alliance had popular vote parity with Lablour, Labour won 9x the number of seats. Current polling has Labour at twice the support of the Lib Dems.

Ken Burch

bekayne wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Sherelle Jacobs: Labour Is On The Brink Of The Most Seismic Wipeout in British Election History

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/14/labour-brink-seismic-wip...

"This could actually be it - the end of Labour. Some may scoff, pointing out that it has narrowed the gap with the Tories in some polls. But on the ground, in the heartlands, the party smells of death...As a Brexiteer from a dynasty of 'Labour men,' I can't help but reflect with a hint of melancholy. But to former supporters, the party is like the family Staffordshire bull terrier that has become feral. The kindest thing is to put it down - peacefully but resolutely."

Just deserts.

In 1983, when the Alliance had popular vote parity with Lablour, Labour won 9x the number of seats. Current polling has Labour at twice the support of the Lib Dems.

And the Brexit Party is down to 5% overall support, while the LibDems are down to 15%.  

NDPP

"...Yes, the very same applies to my area. We are the disenfranchised, the betrayed, held in contempt. People here talk of 'being done with Labour'...'Done with voting'...This the former seat of one Tony Benn."

https://twitter.com/IronFelix17/status/1195763788760387585

 

Tony Benn - 'Britain Must Leave the EU to Restore Democracy'

https://youtu.be/dQY2CHx4d3U

"Leaving the EU is a democratic and not a nationalist argument."

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

"...Yes, the very same applies to my area. We are the disenfranchised, the betrayed, held in contempt. People here talk of 'being done with Labour'...'Done with voting'...This the former seat of one Tony Benn."

https://twitter.com/IronFelix17/status/1195763788760387585

 

Tony Benn - 'Britain Must Leave the EU to Restore Democracy'

https://youtu.be/dQY2CHx4d3U

"Leaving the EU is a democratic and not a nationalist argument."

Soft Brexit is the most sensible way of doing that.  It's not necessary to abandon the human rights, labour rights, or environmental protection agreements to get out of the economic and spending constraints.  And now that they aren't running in any Tory constituencies anymore, there can no longer be a left case or a working-class case for voting Brexit Party,

NDPP

Pull the other one, it's got bells on. That's as untrue now as the last time you said it. You're hustling for Labour UK's 'Remain and Reform', BRINO (Brexit-in-name-only) propaganda, designed to obscure their betrayal of the biggest democratic vote in British history: 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European  Union?'  A decisive majority of seventeen and a half million voted to leave. Labour solemnly swore to implement it.  Leave means leave. Your 'partly pregnant' bs effectively means remain no matter how much Labour lipstick you apply to this pig of a lie.

"...The democratic deficit of the EU is well known since its institutions, including the European Parliament, the Commission and the ECJ, not to mention the ECB, are designed to be impervious to popular will. The entrenchment of neoliberalism with the interests of big business is inextricably linked to the antidemocratic form of the EU.

It is astounding that much of the British and the European left believes that EU membership would pose no fundamental obstacles to a truly socialist program. It is equally astounding that when the subject of the entrenched neoliberalism of the EU is raised, the answer often is to Remain and Reform. This is no more than a catchy slogan devoid of content. There is not the slightest chance that a Socialist government, even in a powerful country such as Britain would be able to implement radical institutional and democratic changes within the rigid machinery of the EU..."

Learning From Brexit: A Socialist Stance Toward the European Union

https://monthlyreview.org/2019/10/01/learning-from-brexit/

 

"Fully implement the result of the 2016 referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union."

https://twitter.com/EddieDempsey/status/1195740632993718273

Ken Burch

Why is it necessary to leave the non-economic parts though?  Isn't what matters getting out of the economic and spending constraints within the EU?  Why is it necessary to get out of the human rights, labour rights, and environmental protection statutes?  What's the point of risking never getting anything like those put in on a UK-only basis?  And what good comes of giving xenophobes in the UK to impose something like a White Britain policy?

I'm with you on getting rid of the economic and spending constraints.  Why isn't that enough for you?

And how could Corbyn or any other Labour leader get away with imposing a "no-Deal Brexit" policy on that party when 80% of Labour voters voted Remain-almost entirely on anti-xenophobia grounds?

The last thing I'd like to ask- and I ask this since you know Labour can't switch to a "no-Deal Brexit" policy at this stage in the election anyway and that, if you lived there, you'd probably vote Brexit Party in a Labour constituency just to punish Corbyn's party for not doing what you want- you can't really imagine that, if Boris gets a majority in this election and then does Brexit on HIS terms, that anything socialist could possibly happen after that?  Or that the left could ever even make any sort of a comeback if Boris did get a majority as a result of this issue?  

It's not going to prevent socialism for the UK to stay in the European Court of Human Rights.  It will prevent socialism to give Boris a majority with which to end the National Health Service and wipe out the rest of the welfare state.

I'm not pro-Remain.  I'm pro-Brexit with a human face. I'm pro-making sure it is done in such a way that it forces mass repatriation of innocent people out of the UK whose only crime is not being UK citizens.  And I'm pro-making sure that the only things good in an otherwise bad arrangement- the rights guarantees-are not simply discarded with no guarantee that they would be simply lost, or, if passed in a UK-only version, simply repealed or ignored by the next government with found them to be inconvenient.  That problem has cropped up a lot in UK history, due to the fact that the place has no written constitution.

JKR

I don't even see how a no-deal Brexit can happen since Boris Johnson and Corbyn both are opposed to a no-deal Brexit. Like it or not, few UKers support a no-deal Brexit.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Nationalising water, energy and Royal Mail would pay for itself within seven years, research says

The nationalisation of waterenergy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8bn a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7bn – around a quarter of the widely quoted £196bn price tag calculated by the CBI last month, which also covered rail.

Labour’s manifesto for the 12 December general election is expected to include commitments to take the rail network, National Grid, water and mail delivery back into public hands.

PSIRU director David Hall said his estimates were based on compensating shareholders for the amount they have invested in utilities being taken into public hands, rather than paying out a “market value” price as the CBI suggested.....

Ken Burch

Excellent.  Far better than the LibDem manifesto, which can be summarized as "Stay in the EU-that's ALL that matters".

 

josh

Survation's latest poll has the Conservative lead growing from 6 to 14.  However, the sample size is half of the previous poll.  Which means a bigger margin of error.  The Conservative gain is largely because the Brexit party has gone from 10 to 5.  Labour's insistence on another referendum to approve its Brexit plan may end up being its undoing.

NDPP

Fully-Automated Luxury Sell-Outs

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/04/fully-automated-luxury-sell-outs/

"...In truth, beneath all the populist banker-bashing, Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell have been assiduously building bridges with financial power-brokers in the City, for many months. McDonnell also made clear his party's fundamental conservatism on financial matters when he committed Labour to a fiscal credibility rule in 2016. In the same year, he defended the independence of the Bank of England - one of the central pillars of modern technocratic rule - as 'sacrosanct.'

'Fully-Automated-Luxury-Communism' will be the ideological froth for the Corbynista vision for the state-led technocratic modernisation of the British economy. Capitalists will increasingly see the advantages - and state subsidies - in Corbynomics. Meanwhile, millennial socialists will promise the world to the workers - nationalised utilities, a 'green new deal'...Everything except the thing they actually voted for - Brexit."

NDPP

Join Us To Help Overturn Chris Williamson's Suspension and For A Democratic International Labour Party

https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1196366391793897475

"If I win on 12 December Derby North will continue to have a strong socialist voice in Parliament fighting for local people, demanding social justice at home - and an ethical foreign policy abroad"

NDPP

Saving Europe's Bankers Not Its Workers

https://twitter.com/JokubasSalyga/status/1196359142023282688

"Good piece by Thomas Fazi in Jacobinmag chronicling Draghi's eight years in office that have been concurrent with Eurozone's evolution from 'post-democratic managerialism' to an 'an authoritarian iron cage..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour Can Make a Radically Fairer Britain

quote:

Doubts have come from predictable quarters. Today’s headlines have centered on the expense of this — but as even Tory Chancellor Sajid Javid points out, with government borrowing costs so low as to be below zero in real terms, now is the ideal time to borrow to invest. Paul Johnson of the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has raised a different objection to the plans, expressing his disbelief in the Times that this scale of spending contemplated by Labour could be attempted. Yet a sober assessment of the economic mess the next Labour government will inherit suggests it will have little choice but to commit to major investments — and that’s even before we think about creating an economy for the future.

Report after report have made clear how big the problem of underinvestment now is. The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) has estimated that the NHS needs another £5.6 billion a year in investment, every year, to keep up with demand. The IPPR researchers found that while the NHS today has some of the lowest numbers of CT and MRI machines in Europe, it has one of the highest numbers of fax machines — a glaring example of why continuous investment is needed to keep up with technology. There is now a backlog of £6 billion of critical maintenance issues on NHS sites — from cracks in ceilings to sewage leaks — that funding is not currently available to fix.

An alliance of charities, including CAFOD and WWF, have called for £42 billion a year to address what they rightly describe as the “climate emergency.” This would include £11.6 billion on transport improvements, £2.6 billion on rewilding and land management schemes, and billions more on improvements for housing. Labour itself has already committed to a £60 billion, multi-year program to insulate every home in the country to the highest standards of energy efficiency. This would not only reduce carbon emissions, but save households on their heating bill — and create, on Labour’s estimates, 440,000 jobs, right along the supply chain from insulation manufacture to installation.

If we want to install fiber optic broadband across the whole country, the bill could be £28 billion. Transport for the North have proposed a costed and hugely ambitious plan to create high-speed rail links across the North of England, linking the Northern cities from Liverpool to Hull and Newcastle. This would be transformational, generating (on their forecasts) an additional 850,000 jobs across the North, as the knock-on effects of a functioning, properly funded transport system filter out into the economy. But the cost would be £70 billion.

Set against the wreckage of our economy and public services, from the crumbling hospitals to the clapped-out trains, and then looking ahead at the challenges bearing down on us — climate change being the most obvious — the gap between where we are now, and where we ought to be is painfully apparent. The sad and simple truth is that a large part of Britain’s failure as an economy is not just a near-decade of austerity under Conservative-led governments, brutal and appalling as this has been. It is also the decades and decades of neoliberal governments that failed to invest, saddling us with a legacy of failing infrastructure and regions left far behind.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Lib Dems and SNP lose high court bid over TV election debate

The Liberal Democrats and Scottish National party have failed in their attempt to prevent ITV broadcasting an election debate on Tuesday evening featuring only Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn.

Lawyers for the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party went to the high court on Monday to argue that it was illegal and unfair to restrict the mass audience programme to only the Conservative and Labour leaders while excluding any political voice for anti-Brexit remain supporters....

Ken Burch

NDPP wrote:

Fully-Automated Luxury Sell-Outs

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/04/fully-automated-luxury-sell-outs/

"...In truth, beneath all the populist banker-bashing, Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell have been assiduously building bridges with financial power-brokers in the City, for many months. McDonnell also made clear his party's fundamental conservatism on financial matters when he committed Labour to a fiscal credibility rule in 2016. In the same year, he defended the independence of the Bank of England - one of the central pillars of modern technocratic rule - as 'sacrosanct.'

'Fully-Automated-Luxury-Communism' will be the ideological froth for the Corbynista vision for the state-led technocratic modernisation of the British economy. Capitalists will increasingly see the advantages - and state subsidies - in Corbynomics. Meanwhile, millennial socialists will promise the world to the workers - nationalised utilities, a 'green new deal'...Everything except the thing they actually voted for - Brexit."

It's not possible to take an all-out Brexit position when your party is split as Labour is on the issue.

What good would it do for Corbyn to go all-out Brexit when that could lose him the vast majority of the Labour vote?

What's wrong with Brexit with a human face?

Why does it have to be the loss of the human and labour rights agreements and the end of the environmental protection agreements?

Why should it have to mean leaving the European Court of Human Rights, when the UK legal tradition by itself has never guaranteed human rights in any recognizable form?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the uk isn't ready to take on capital today. it is fractured. and labour politicians can't do this alone. you have to give people a reason to fight. a reason to unite. something to defend. the manifesto is exactly that.

..there is no doubt in my mind that if labour pulls this election off all of this will come to a head. global capital will be coming after the uk government. the eu will be coming after the government. this is what the multiple global crisis is building towards. uk labour will be at the center of this fight. the peoples of the uk will be at the center of the fight. providing leadership amongst other things. with the manifesto at it's core. 

eta:..to reduce this as a struggle with the eu via brexit is short sighted.

Ken Burch

epaulo13 wrote:

..the uk isn't ready to take on capital today. it is fractured. and labour politicians can't do this alone. you have to give people a reason to fight. a reason to unite. something to defend. the manifesto is exactly that.

..there is no doubt in my mind that if labour pulls this election off all of this will come to a head. global capital will be coming after the uk government. the eu will be coming after the government. this is what the multiple global crisis is building towards. uk labour will be at the center of this fight. the peoples of the uk will be at the center of the fight. providing leadership amongst other things. with the manifesto at it's core. 

eta:..to reduce this as a struggle with the eu via brexit is short sighted.

Indeed.  The fight will just have begun when the votes are counted.

Pages

Topic locked