Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[tsubaki]

Well done, not sure where you got your figures from but to me it smacks of the ingenious schemes Gordon Brown had to cover funding and expenditure.

So how did you cost it and from what source.

Are you even reading my posts? The £50 billion is the capital value of PFI deals signed up to 2012, the £300 billion is the cost over the lifetime of the deal. PFI is exactly the sort of ingenious scheme that Gordon Brown had to cover funding and expenditure, indeed its the most infamous one.

Buying them at cost will save money in the medium and long term; we know this because Boris did it with Tube PPP (another thing Brown was responsible for).

 

[Milkman]

Fair enough mate. I felt the same way when I voted for him last summer. It was a long shot then, but I fear it's an impossibility now. I know a few people who are saying the same as you, and are willing to go down with the ship. Which is fine. Rest assured it is sinking though.

I'm not sticking around out of any sense of nobility or moral superiority though, or because I think Corbyn is some kind of deity, I'm sticking with it because I believe it's absolutely vital for the future of our democracy. Keep the faith mate.

 

[Mountfield1985]

Do you think the labour party can have the press telling us who we can and cannot elect as leader?

It's an interesting concept I think but I don't know how balloting just the owners of all the media outlets in a leadership contest would sit with the rank and file members. lol

So you are willing to risk the future of the entire party, and head into the next GE guaranteed of defeat, so to not appear as bowing down to the media? Very honourable, but ultimately devastating for millions of people in this country.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

Do you really think it is acceptable for the electorate to be told what to do by a privately owned press, though? Do you really think they would give a charismatic left wing candidate any more easy of a ride than they have given Corbyn?

Probably not, but a charismatic leader would put up a fight, give it back, not appear as a mumbling Geography teacher dreaming of his retirement.

 

[Mountfield1985]

I'm not sticking around out of any sense of nobility or moral superiority though, or because I think Corbyn is some kind of deity, I'm sticking with it because I believe it's absolutely vital for the future of our democracy. Keep the faith mate.

Haha to be fair there is still a chance i'll end up voting for him again if the only competition is Eagle and Watson.

 

[Toffeelover]

Are you even reading my posts? The £50 billion is the capital value of PFI deals signed up to 2012, the £300 billion is the cost over the lifetime of the deal. PFI is exactly the sort of ingenious scheme that Gordon Brown had to cover funding and expenditure, indeed its the most infamous one.

Buying them at cost will save money in the medium and long term; we know this because Boris did it with Tube PPP (another thing Brown was responsible for).

Okay, but not clear how one would force an acquisition at cost. You are right about brown, it was largely he that created this millstone round the neck of the taxpayers.

 

[Ratkiller]

So you are willing to risk the future of the entire party, and head into the next GE guaranteed of defeat, so to not appear as bowing down to the media? Very honourable, but ultimately devastating for millions of people in this country.

We haven't got a future if the press tell us who we can have. lol

 

[tsubaki]

Okay, but not clear how one would force an acquisition at cost. You are right about brown, it was largely he that created this millstone round the neck of the taxpayers.

Just do what Boris (and Ken, in his last few years) did and raise as many valid issues as one can over the costs of the deal as its running, combine that with an obvious statement of intent (to drive the share price of owning firms down) and reform of the relevant tax law (quite a lot of them are offshored now) and you would get them at cost, or perhaps just above. In any case it would be vastly cheaper than having it for the lifetime of the deal.

 

[Toffeelover]

Just do what Boris (and Ken, in his last few years) did and raise as many valid issues as one can over the costs of the deal as its running, combine that with an obvious statement of intent (to drive the share price of owning firms down) and reform of the relevant tax law (quite a lot of them are offshored now) and you would get them at cost, or perhaps just above. In any case it would be vastly cheaper than having it for the lifetime of the deal.

That looks fine. Perhaps you better stand for leader against JC!

 

[tsubaki]

That looks fine. Perhaps you better stand for leader against JC!

I have better things to do!

I hope you realise though from all this, that the losses that some people stand to be on the end of if he wins are probably a large part of the reason why he is being so vehemently opposed.

 

[Toffeelover]

I have better things to do!

I hope you realise though from all this, that the losses that some people stand to be on the end of if he wins are probably a large part of the reason why he is being so vehemently opposed.

What better things could there be than to stand for Leader of the Labour Party?

As for JC, will never support him because of his IRA comments.

 

[atrottel]

What would you Labour members think of a rule for shortlists that a candidate has to have a) lived in the constituency for a minimum of 5 years and b) worked in an apolitical job for 5 years?

The massive problem with the PLP seems to be a) its disconnect with Labour supporters and b) its disconnect with real people who are not necessarily Labour supporters. Part of that seems, at least to me, to come from the parachuting in of favoured luvvies who have all been to Oxbridge and then worked their way as assistants to MPs.

 

[bizzaro]

I'd string John McDonnell up alongside Corbyn.

He's just his apologist alongside Corbyn's ex-lover Dianne Abbott.

She who tries rent-a-mob to get her own way.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

What would you Labour members think of a rule for shortlists that a candidate has to have a) lived in the constituency for a minimum of 5 years

Not long enough, and I don't think necessarily has to have lived in that particular constituency - If it's within a metropolitan area, the neighbouring constituencies'd be acceptable.

b) worked in an apolitical job for 5 years?

Nope. Not absolutely necessary in order to represent your community. It'd disqualify a lot of very good candidates. Steve Rotherham's a good example. IIRC he was a bricklayer before becoming an MP.

The problem with parties of all persuasions is that they live within their political bubbles and in the vast majority of instances, have never had a real job.

 

[atrottel]

Not long enough, and I don't think necessarily has to have lived in that particular constituency - If it's within a metropolitan area, the neighbouring constituencies'd be acceptable.



Nope. Not absolutely necessary in order to represent your community. It'd disqualify a lot of very good candidates. Steve Rotherham's a good example. IIRC he was a bricklayer before becoming an MP.

The problem with parties of all persuasions is that they live within their political bubbles and in the vast majority of instances, have never had a real job.

That's what I meant ('apolitical' = five years doing work that was not a political job).