Labour Party website DDoS'd by ruly democratic mob

I would save that in a few hours if voting for Corbyn keeps Labour out of government...

Well, the pollsters and the media were absolutely convinced that Millibrain and his motley shower of piss were going to win the last election. And they weren't the only ones. My employers did their own forecasting and reached the same conclusion, and even spent the year up to May cultivating relationships with the Labour party. Now they've wasted their lobbying budget smarming up the losers, and have zero engagement with the governing party. I wouldn't ever assume that the public's intentions can be accurately predicted, particularly five years out.

What happens when in four and a half years time, the electorate are getting tired of Cameron and Osbourne, we've had a wearisome, thoroughly botched referendum on the EU whose conduct and outcome please not a single voter, and then that ghastly, smarmy c*nt of a prime minister reneges on his promise not to seek relection?

Voting Corbyn in puts him within shouting distance of number 10.

Re: Can someone answer this question?

I've read that not only is 'trickle down' a myth, but it's also a myth that any Tory ever believed it...

Technological breakthroughs 'trickle down' (rich people get the new toys first), but not wealth.

Re: Can someone answer this question?

But if Corbyn 'goes after' the big corporations surely they will just slap him down and tell him not to be a naughty puppy.

Who has the power? Those who hold all the money of course...and can move it where they please.

Re: Can someone answer this question?

"Anyway, since George Osborne put forward his budget and removed tax benefits for the lower paid people of the UK, on average they will be £2,000 worse off over the year. That's about £166 a month.

Now that family, now £166 a month worse off, won't be able to purchase £166 of goods from local shops, or visit other parts of the country and pump that money in to the local economy."

Actually, "on average" people are better off under the budget. The only people hit for £2,000 are contractors via Limited companies...

However, imagine how much worse the effect you outline would be under Labour, who would massively increase taxes across those that have far more spending power.

The problem with socialism is always the same - eventually you run out of someone else's money to spend...

Re: Can someone answer this question?

"Obviously Big Business will say "Well if you do that we'll leave the country". This wouldn't actually happen though, because like all bad relationships the abuser makes empty threats expecting the abused to cower to the demands."

But this is obviously ridiculous. If you really did successfully clamp down on tax avoidance, and somehow got the international tax treaties changed, then in the intervening years where major corporations are staring down the barrel of multi-billion pound tax bills, and they would need to be to fund Mr Corbyn's massive spending spree (or else he turns on so-called People's QE, i.e., an actual magic money tree from which inflation-proof spending can be plucked), and corporations make the decision as whether London's various pluses are worth the considerable costs. For some companies, they will decide yes, but many will run away quickly, especially those like HSBC, which makes most of its money abroad anyway.

And this is the problem with expecting the most mobile and cunning sector of the population (the ultra-rich and multinationals) to furnish you with all your tax receipts. They often refuse, and can afford to do so. Mr Corbyn and his policies are simply not suitable for the modern world. At no point have I heard him say that he would gather international support to change tax agreements, which he would need in order to do any of the things he promises, however vaguely he does this promising. To go after a multinational company you need a multinational attack.

Re: Can someone answer this question?

"if the prospect scares you, that's because you are part of the problem."

Presumably then, the problem as you see it is a preponderance of sanity?

Re: Can someone answer this question?

"Looking at the parliamentary position, south Norwich (the university end) is a red blob in a sea of blue. "

Kinda sounds like Corbyn in the modern Labour party, tbh.

Re: it may backfire?

I douobt Labour are dead. People were making just the same silly point about the Conservatives, round about 2003. They'd never win an election again etc...

In a two party system, there will be an opposition party eventually, because people will want to "vote the bastards out". And of course, to go for PR, and not have a 2 party system, means some party (or coalition of parties) winning an election and giving us PR.

So it's possible that Labour may irretrievably split, say Corbyn wins and a huge chunk of the Blairites and Brownites bugger off to form another party, or invade the Lib Dems. But then that new party will become the opposition. What's more likely though is that Labour will have some sort of internal strife for a few years, and then come to a conclusion of who they want to be, then campaign and win an election.

There's an argument that they could agree to try and win, get PR and then split up. After all Labour are made up of several distinct groups of people. But then so are the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the SNP and UKIP.

It seems to me that the voters aren't willing to accept socialism. As in strong union power, heavy regulation or state control of business, very high taxes and lots of government spending. That seems to be what Corbyn stands for, and if he's Labour leader they therefore can't win. But maybe enough of his supporters won't believe that until they've actually lost an election on that platform.

I strongly suspect that Labour could win on Miliband's platform of being to the left of Blair, but still believing in a market economy. But with higher taxes and a bit more regulation. However Miliband himself was rated in all the polls when he was leader as being a rubbish leader (and being less popular than his party - so actively losing them votes).

Also they had no answer on the economy. Whatever the truth of it, the public came to believe that Labour over-spent but wouldn't admit it. And that cuts were necessary, which Labour in opposition opposed almost all of. In my opinion this was because Miliband had no coherent economic policy, and so couldn't convince the electorate to trust him, but even if he was the greatest leader ever, recovering from a heavy defeat like 2010 is very hard, especially after so long in office, and so it was going to be very hard to win in 2015 as the economy was growing.

But I'd say Miliband is the furthest left the Corbyn supporters can get (similar to John Smith say), and win an election. If they're happy to put up with that eventually, Labour will be back in power in a few years.

P.S. I don't think the Scottish electorate are that much to the left of the rest of us. The SNP seem to be more nationalist than they are socialist. But even if I'm wrong, Labour had a small majority in 2005, even without any Scottish seats - which won't be going to the Conservatives after all. And they won that election on a smaller percentage of the vote, and a much smaller lead, than Cameron got an absolute majority with in 2015. So a victory in England and Wales alone is perfectly possible. They just need the marginals in the Midlands and North, which are Tory/Labour ones.

Re: it may backfire?

"But in England, their votes were leaking away to UKIP, from those Labour voters who feel (rightly or wrongly) threatened by immigration"

The amusing thing being that Labour under Blair deliberately let in a million non EU immigrants into the UK, assuming that they would mostly vote Labour. Unfortunately for Labour they have mostly turned out not to be benefit scrounging layabouts though...

Re: it may backfire?

@Chris Miller

In a word, they're stuffed. Labour is dead, but they haven't quite realised it yet.

Pretty much, yes. They still haven't realised the fastest way to get the Tories out of power is to disband labour. They can never be trusted with the economy: It's what, three times in a row now they've left the economy utterly destroyed. There's always an excuse, but its transparantly inevitable - all labour governments end in economic depression and fiscal ruin. Disbanding Labour would allow new opposition to form in Scotland seperate from a new opposition in England.

If labour must continue, then instead of labour supporters making excuses for wrecking the economy (It wuz the bankaaaahs), tell me where labour went wrong, what they have learned from it, and how they can ensure the next time they leave power the country is not on its knees. No? I didn't think so, and that is why they'll never win back trust.

2020 is already over. 2025 would be very ambitious. 2030... well, depending on EVEL, the referendum, and Scottish Independence, it could all be over for Labour by then. The labour party doesn't know what it stands for, doesn't know where it wants to go, and doesn't even know why it still exists.

As the only way to maintain a well functioning government is to have a well functioning opposition, this farce is a detriment to us all. We need a credible opposition, with credible plans, and a clear reason to be.... It'll be decades before anyone can seriously claim that the labour party are credible. Decades. And that will be good for nobody.

Re: it may backfire?

Like you, I have some respect for Corbyn but the main reason I would support him is because he seems to actually believe in something;

What, like The Austrian? He had very clear beliefs. Sadly that episode of electing a charismatic ideologist didn't work out so well, did it?

Godwin defence:

1) It's an appropriate point

2) I didn't name He Who Must Not Be Named

Re: it may backfire?

I must, having just listened to Corbyn trying to avoid giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, rescind any support for him that I previously asserted. He's just another fscking politician.

Re: As for the other candidates 'clubbing together'

He's only winning because the Unions want him. The vast majority of general election voters won't.

And that, ultimately, is the root of Corbyns problem. He simply isn't electable to the public. He may say all the things lefties love to hear - big state, high taxes, lavish welfare, but the wider electorate know that socialism doesn't work and they won't vote for it.

Labour, if it is to ever win power again, must elect a leader who appeals to people like me (Floating voters who have previously ticked red boxes and now tick blue). To do that, it will have to give up socialism, trade unionism, and high taxes. Blair knew that, so he lied. He lied while labour quietly returned to form (around '99) and carried on lying until the money started to run out, at which point he left Gordon holding the baby.

Labour need to back things like the reforms to strike laws, the welfare bill etc, and start taking ownership of their weakest areas (the economy, immigration, etc) instead of blaming everyone else for them. Ultimately, the poor suffer more than the rich for a broken economy, so its in labours own interest to start learning from their mistakes instead of repeating them adfinitum.