Jeremy Corbyn.

[Billy the Fish]

Or indeed anybody except people earning astronomical sums.

If you're going to take the view you're taking, can I assume you're against any sort of progressive tax? Because unless you're at the very very top of the pile, there is always going to be a point at which you're not affected and could have that very same accusation levelled at you...

I think 50% should always be the maximum, it just doesn't seem fair that anyone should give up more than half of what they earn, regardless of how much it is.

If it was workable I'd happily support an abolition of NI and introduction of more income tax bands between 30% and 50% (ballpark figures)

 

[beorhthelm]

Compromise in politics should be seen as a strength.

while i agree with that, the problem is Corbyn has largely been supported on the basis of his uncompromising views. we've seen him squirm on the matter of Europe and left his choice of Shadow Defense was late to say the least (one of if not the last appointments of the front bench). the matter of joining the Privacy Council was ventured in an interview and you could see he was uncomfortable about that (and seemed genuinely not to know it was assumed to go with the job). i'm not sure he's going to like being leader rather than rebel.

 

[Simster]

I think 50% should always be the maximum, it just doesn't seem fair that anyone should give up more than half of what they earn, regardless of how much it is.

If it was workable I'd happily support an abolition of NI and introduction of more income tax bands between 30% and 50% (ballpark figures)

In that case I am of much the same opinion as you. Anything over 50% feels immoral. But politicians often make immoral decisions and I just happen to believe that the introduction of a 70% rate for earnings over £1m, whilst immoral, will be of little consequence beyond a bit of bleating of how they are going to run away by the likes of Phil Collins and Chris Tarrant. So already you can probably see the benefit of such a policy.

 

[Simster]

while i agree with that, the problem is Corbyn has largely been supported on the basis of his uncompromising views.

No he hasn't. He's been supported because his views and personality have best suited the people who elected him. Uncompromising? It wasn't Corbyn refusing to talk to terrorists, for example.

 

[Buzzer]

Stop digging, jesus wept, derrr for the second time....Suddenly it's now all sensible debate which is all my first post was, but it somehow prompted your overreaction (again), and now I'm digging... The other day you actually said I was making snide remarks - one of which was accusing you of oneupmanship....who'd have thought!!??

So...that's no sensible answer to my points just picking up on the bits where I'm exasperated by your strawman arguments. It's certainly not oneupmanship on my part, You're moaning about the results of a poll that hasn't even happened. 'Jesus wept' is now a snide comment? And you call me sensitive.

 

[Bold Seagull]

while i agree with that, the problem is Corbyn has largely been supported on the basis of his uncompromising views. we've seen him squirm on the matter of Europe and left his choice of Shadow Defense was late to say the least (one of if not the last appointments of the front bench). the matter of joining the Privacy Council was ventured in an interview and you could see he was uncomfortable about that (and seemed genuinely not to know it was assumed to go with the job). i'm not sure he's going to like being leader rather than rebel.

I agree with all that, but you have to remember that 4-6 weeks ago or so (I don't know how long its been since his hat was thrown in the ring), he probably never even entertained the thought he could lead the party, probably wasn't even an ambition. He hadn't served on any cabinets or shadow cabinets, he had uncompromising views because he's been a back bench activist. We've seen him squirm - unsurprisingly really at some of these questions, because in all honesty he's not had long to think about half these questions.

The Milibands, Burnhams, Coopers etc. have been career politicians coveting the top jobs, been at the front of the party for years, you would expect them to have ready made answers to a lot of this stuff. I think it is quite genuine that he doesn't know he has to kneel before the Queen to join the privy council, but he also knows that making a personal stand on such matters is no longer an option because he is now leader of the whole party. It is going to be difficult for him, but we're seeing someone leading that never expected to lead. That could be a very bad thing or as a lot of people think, or it could turn into something good.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Just in case anyone lumps me in with the 'those like you', I have to take issue with HT on this point. Though it is undoubtedly true that to make progress to end violence you have to engage with some very bad people and involve them to some extent in the political process, his choice of words in this instance were unforgivable and anything less than a full and sincere apology is meaningless.

Thank you.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So...that's no sensible answer to my points just picking up on the bits where I'm exasperated by your strawman arguments. It's certainly not oneupmanship on my part, You're moaning about the results of a poll that hasn't even happened. 'Jesus wept' is now a snide comment? And you call me sensitive.

I've not said any of your comments are snide, personal or otherwise... You said that to me, remember?

I'm not moaning about a set of poll results, I gave an opinion about how useful they could be at this stage - an opinion you're exasperated by apparently, one which is supposedly a straw man argument...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In that case I am of much the same opinion as you. Anything over 50% feels immoral. But politicians often make immoral decisions and I just happen to believe that the introduction of a 70% rate for earnings over £1m, whilst immoral, will be of little consequence beyond a bit of bleating of how they are going to run away by the likes of Phil Collins and Chris Tarrant. So already you can probably see the benefit of such a policy.

I'm nominally a labour supporter but I have never understood the justification of 'progressive' taxation, regardless of where the top rate kicks in or its % value. Before I explain, I would separate, completely, tax from benefits. Consider, ten percent of a hundred quid is a tenner; ten percent of ten grand is one grand. Ten percent of 100 grand is 10 grand. So the person earning ten times as much money pays ten times as much tax, and this holds regardless of whatever level you set the %.

If income tax is set as a % of income, not only is it unarguably 'fair' it can also be collected more easily, without the need for tax accountants, complicated tax returns, or any scope for tax avoidance (other than by 'not putting income through the books'), thus generating income for the treasury more efficiently, meaning the set % could soon be reduced, or increased in times of very need.

I know there is an argument for setting an income level below which no tax should be levied (namely that it is a bit harsh to tax people wo earn bugger all), but it isn't a good argument. On the downside, it means that folk doing part time low paid work are disincentivised from going full time (or perhaps getting a better paid job) because the idea of suddenly becoming an income tax payer is a disincentive. Moreover, if everyone had to pay income tax then everyone would feel a bit more engaged, and indeed interested in what the government does with the tax they take.

Benefits is a separate topic as far as I'm concerned. Brown showed that mixing tax and benefits using multiple variables to achieve 'fairness' just generates a nighmare soup that leaves nobody happy. I have no idea what Jezza plans, but I would imagine it will include squeezing the rich till their pips squeek, to quote Denis Healey, and will certainly not involve anything truly radical like a fair flat % rate of income tax.

 

[Castello]

The Socialist Party had a policy of not registering as supporters - that's not to say that some ignored the instruction but it wouldn't have been a mass amount.

Indeed they did, and knowing a fair few of their members not one of them did. The SWP were the same. The core membership of both parties are more concerned with building their own tiny parties, than working constructively with the majority of the left, who tend to keep away from dogmatic centralised politics of the blairite or trotskyite persuasion. Whenever anyone quotes these parties as being representative of the left they reveal their ignorance of what the majority of the left thinks.

 

[Buzzer]

I've not said any of your comments are snide, personal or otherwise... You said that to me, remember?

I'm not moaning about a set of poll results, I gave an opinion about how useful they could be at this stage - an opinion you're exasperated by apparently, one which is supposedly a straw man argument...

Shall we start again. No 'Jesus wepts', no claims of 'oneupmanship'?

I believe your first reply was a straw man argument because you complained that the poll was asking for opinions before anyone could make an informed decision. I maintain that it's not the poll's remit to ask people for anything more than their opinion right now. You say it renders the poll irrelevant but I disagree and most certainly Corbyn's strategy team won't think so either. It's extremely useful, invaluable even, because this is the base data and in the coming months they can see what impact Corbyn's policies will have and what progress is being made.

Yes, I concede that the comments I made about the polls without the bit about the TUC data could look like I was being extremely partisan but if you do take on board the TUC data then iI hope you can see that I'm not trying to be controversial when I say that it's a very difficult job for Corbyn to overcome. As I stated, he starts from a much weaker position than Miliband and given the perception of Corbyn as far more progressive on the key issues (let's face it, it's not just a perception, Corbyn is more progressive) then I can't see how he can win. Not unless public attitudes change dramatically regarding the economy, immigration and public spending.

 

[Castello]

Whilst I can understand Corbyns appeal to anyone promised a better deal under Corbyn.(Promises are easy to make from the opposition bench) .....Surely no one can honestly believe that Corbyn would make a good Prime Minister..can they ??

I think the short answer to this is dependent upon what type of prime minister you want to see. If you wish to see a presidential type prime minister like thatcher or blair then no I dont believe that would suit his style. If you wish to see a prime minister that tries to lead by consensus like Major then I think thats exactly his style and what hes trying to achieve.

It is hard to see what will happen in 5 years one way or another, but I would make one point. If the parliament goes its full term Corbyn will be a few days short of his 71st birthday. Its not hard to see that he is a shy, quiet and deeply principled man, who likes to stick to his principles will a minimum of fuss. I find it hard to see that someone like that would want the aggravation of being prime minister with the spotlight on you 24 hours a day, at 71. He's not a glory seeker nor seeking to make history. I dont know how that will resolve itsself.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Shall we start again. No 'Jesus wepts', no claims of 'oneupmanship'?

I believe your first reply was a straw man argument because you complained that the poll was asking for opinions before anyone could make an informed decision. I maintain that it's not the poll's remit to ask people for anything more than their opinion right now. You say it renders the poll irrelevant but I disagree and most certainly Corbyn's strategy team won't think so either. It's extremely useful, invaluable even, because this is the base data and in the coming months they can see what impact Corbyn's policies will have and what progress is being made.

Yes, I concede that the comments I made about the polls without the bit about the TUC data could look like I was being extremely partisan but if you do take on board the TUC data then iI hope you can see that I'm not trying to be controversial when I say that it's a very difficult job for Corbyn to overcome. As I stated, he starts from a much weaker position than Miliband and given the perception of Corbyn as far more progressive on the key issues (let's face it, it's not just a perception, Corbyn is more progressive) then I can't see how he can win. Not unless public attitudes change dramatically regarding the economy, immigration and public spending.

I can't disagree with that. He does start from a huge way back, as I replied to someone else above, this is a man who doesn't seem to have ever coveted a top job in the party, he has literally been thrust into it, and in so many ways it shows. He isn't a polished performer in interviews, he is seemingly confused about where his own politics need to end and the politics of the party start. But, I think that is something quite new, perhaps self destructive, or perhaps something that will grow positively and engage those disengaged from politics.

I don't think normal polls can apply to him right now. He is too different, too unknown, we don't know how he'll lead, how he'll form policy, how he'll galvanise or split his party, could it be a disaster, or could inspirational to a lot of people.

I'm genuinely excited by the appointment because whatever happens it's cleared the Labour decks of the Brown / Blair axis of influence through the party. The other contenders still had 'Blairite' or 'Brownite' clinging to them, and this seems like a fresh start. Am I genuinely excited he could lead the party to seriously challenge in 2020? I honestly have no idea.

 

[carlzeiss]

Diane Abbott

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...relationship-with-jeremy-corbyn-10505244.html

 

[Bry Nylon]

Diane Abbott

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...relationship-with-jeremy-corbyn-10505244.html

Shagging Diane Abbot! Christ.

If you didn't question is judgement before, you really have to now.

 

[cunning fergus]

Compromise in politics should be seen as a strength. While a fictional drama, the whole of The West Wing's success as a political drama was that the compromising of individual principles is what democracy is all about. It will be very interesting to see, but so far it could be a strength if he listens to his cabinet, his party and forms policy based on that and not just his own ideology, then he could be perceived as progressive and as a positive.

I honestly haven't formed an opinion either way as a leader. I've said it's exciting for politics that someone out of the left field, someone not groomed for the top job or supported by the media should make such an impact. I'm prepared to give him a chance though.

You are wrong; if you think Corbyn was elected because of his ability to"compromise"on his views then I think you have missed a few meetings.

Corbyn is a conviction politician, that is why he is different, and that's why he got an overwhelming mandate from Labour Party grass roots. They see his political conviction as his strength.

Unfortunately it would appear that Corbyn's convictions are not as bomb proof as we initially believed.......for example his recent murmurings on not ever leading Labour out of the EU is a case in point.

Before his crowning as Labour leader his uncompromising views on the free market, pro austerity, and undemocratic EU were a key factor in how he was going to win back Labour voters who had backed UKIP.

His subsequent "compromise" on this matter will not win those people back because they think he has made a strong decision.

It is the opposite..........he will be another Nick Clegg, we know where compromise on his views on Uni fees got him.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You are wrong; if you think Corbyn was elected because of his ability to"compromise"on his views then I think you have missed a few meetings.

Corbyn is a conviction politician, that is why he is different, and that's why he got an overwhelming mandate from Labour Party grass roots. They see his political conviction as his strength.

Unfortunately it would appear that Corbyn's convictions are not as bomb proof as we initially believed.......for example his recent murmurings on not ever leading Labour out of the EU is a case in point.

Before his crowning as Labour leader his uncompromising views on the free market, pro austerity, and undemocratic EU were a key factor in how he was going to win back Labour voters who had backed UKIP.

His subsequent "compromise" on this matter will not win those people back because they think he has made a strong decision.

It is the opposite..........he will be another Nick Clegg, we know where compromise on his views on Uni fees got him.

It took just the third paragraph, good work.

 

[Hungry Joe]

I'm genuinely excited by the appointment because whatever happens it's cleared the Labour decks of the Brown / Blair axis of influence through the party. The other contenders still had 'Blairite' or 'Brownite' clinging to them, and this seems like a fresh start. Am I genuinely excited he could lead the party to seriously challenge in 2020? I honestly have no idea.

Absolutely 'this' to this bit.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You are wrong; if you think Corbyn was elected because of his ability to"compromise"on his views then I think you have missed a few meetings.

Corbyn is a conviction politician, that is why he is different, and that's why he got an overwhelming mandate from Labour Party grass roots. They see his political conviction as his strength.

Unfortunately it would appear that Corbyn's convictions are not as bomb proof as we initially believed.......for example his recent murmurings on not ever leading Labour out of the EU is a case in point.

Before his crowning as Labour leader his uncompromising views on the free market, pro austerity, and undemocratic EU were a key factor in how he was going to win back Labour voters who had backed UKIP.

His subsequent "compromise" on this matter will not win those people back because they think he has made a strong decision.

It is the opposite..........he will be another Nick Clegg, we know where compromise on his views on Uni fees got him.

I didn't think Corbyn was elected for his ability to compromise - I have know idea if he will or won't. My point is on the assumption he might do or even need to. Whether he does or not is another question and one we'll find out in time.

 

[cunning fergus]

I didn't think Corbyn was elected for his ability to compromise - I have know idea if he will or won't. My point is on the assumption he might do or even need to. Whether he does or not is another question and one we'll find out in time.

I will help you out then, he wasn't elected because people thought he would compromise, on the contrary they trusted the purity of his long held political beliefs as a socialist. That's why he is different.

If he starts to dilute these beliefs he will be another fraud, and his EU stance is a perfect example of how this may happen.

Let's make no mistake he is anti free market, anti austerity, and anti private sector.........by appearing to close the option that Labour will not advocate an exit, he will have compromised.

Only this week's the TUC were debating that a UK "exit" would be their preferred stance, so how will Corbyn square that circle as an avowed trade unionist?