Labour leadership

[brogdale]

...and a cracking headline from the increasingly hysterical Barclay brothers Bugle.

Labour won’t admit it, but most people don't really care about tax avoidance

Important to remember that when asked if he was a tax exile, Sir Frederick stated that he lived in the Channel Islands for health reasons.

 

[teqniq]

If there's one thing I get really annoyed about it's corporate tax avoidance.

 

[billy_bob]

...and a cracking headline from the increasingly hysterical Barclay brothers Bugle.

Labour won’t admit it, but most people don't really care about tax avoidance

Important to remember that when asked if he was a tax exile, Sir Frederick stated that he lived in the Channel Islands for health reasons.

I'm looking forward to the T's next revelation: that we all secretly admire people with two or more homes as our obvious social betters, maybe?

 

[DotCommunist]

'no you cannot build a helipad on sark'

'we've built this pavillion that in no way resembles a helipad'

'its a helipad, don't try to mug us off'

etc etc

basically both of them should be drowned ina bath of piss

 

[Favelado]

I suppose they have a point to the extent that after years of the longest-lasting, widespread, and most pernicious propaganda campaigns in British history, people are unduly worried about the relative pittance of state benefit fraud in comparison to the Mariana Trench filling amounts of cash that cunts like the Barclays manage to nefariously trouser.

 

[teuchter]

So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.

Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.

Or is it not as simple as that?

 

[laptop]

Or is it not as simple as that?

In conference season, everything is a symbol.

 

[gosub]

So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.

Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.

Or is it not as simple as that?

iirc the contracts are for retender, SNP said they wanted publicly owned bodies to be able to bid, which currently isn't allowed, and last UK government wouldn't change the rules, Millband (messy eater, looked a bit like Wallace from Wallace and Gromit) said he was going to change the rules, but he didn't win the election, partially coz Labour is an endangered species in Scotland

 

[Zabo]

Oops!

 

[SpookyFrank]

'no you cannot build a helipad on sark'

'we've built this pavillion that in no way resembles a helipad'

'its a helipad, don't try to mug us off'

etc etc

basically both of them should be drowned ina bath of piss

But Sark News said the people of the island are crying out for helicopter facillities. Sark News in no way affiliated of course, with the Barclay brothers who own it.

 

[belboid]

So Corbyn seems to have upset the SNP by saying they are privatising Calmac and Scotrail.

Which does seem to be nonsense given that the railways were privatised before the Scottish Government even came into existence, and as far as Calmac is concerned, this is due to EU legislation and outwith the powers of the Scottish Government to stop.

Or is it not as simple as that?

It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition, but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.

 

[danny la rouge]

It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition, but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.

And vice versa: Labour, when they were in power in Holyrood, said what the SNP are saying now.

So, it's amusing to see social media awash with people arguing the opposite of what their parties were arguing last time the tender went out.

 

[teuchter]

It is privatisation, and the SNP called it that when they were in opposition, but now they pretend it isn't. And they did sod all to bias the tender process in favour of the existing providers.

I don't understand the full story/details of the Calmac situation.

But as far as the railways are concerned - it was not the SNP that privatised Scotrail. That happened years prior to them having any power. And the existing provider, before Scotrail passed to Abellio, was a private company.

It would be true to say that they have not renationalised the railways. But it seems pretty clear that they have not privatised them.

 

[belboid]

I don't understand the full story/details of the Calmac situation.

But as far as the railways are concerned - it was not the SNP that privatised Scotrail. That happened years prior to them having any power. And the existing provider, before Scotrail passed to Abellio, was a private company.

It would be true to say that they have not renationalised the railways. But it seems pretty clear that they have not privatised them.

They were already in private hands, that is true, far point. But the SNP had the opportunity both to delay the tender, and to bias it. They didn't, they went along with placing the railway in the hands of a foreign nationalised company. As left wing as as a hamsters fart.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Jeremy Corbyn loses the battle on Trident after trade unionists side with Labour MPs to block the move

Trade unionism at its worst.

 

[belboid]

Trade unionism at its worst.

Trade union bureaucracy happy to behave in its traditional manner once again.

 

[danny la rouge]

They were already in private hands, that is true, far point. But the SNP had the opportunity both to delay the tender, and to bias it. They didn't, they went along with placing the railway in the hands of a foreign nationalised company. As left wing as as a hamsters fart.

I'd agree that the "leftwingedness" of the SNP is merely relative, but it's not the case that they could do much about the railway tender. First, as you rightly say, it was privatised by a 1993 Act (which Labour did not repeal while in power under Blair or Brown), but secondly, Holyrood doesn't have any power to do anything other than administer the process - the actions you suggest are reserved powers: Holyrood is prohibited by the remit of the Scotland Act (1998), which established devolution, from doing anything of the sort. (Anything not specifically reserved in that Act were devolved. These powers were reserved. Only Westminster has the power to vary the terms of the '93 Act).

It was suggested at the time of the tender that the SNP government should lobby Westminster to delay the tendering process until after the new powers of the forthcoming Scotland Bill (2015-16) were known. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. I don't know. But it would have been to no avail anyway: the new Bill doesn't devolve those powers either. (Though it does give power over road signs).

This is why those of us who voted Yes did so: so that Holyrood *would* have those powers.

 

[danny la rouge]

The question should be asked of Corbyn, who was this “flags don’t build houses” line aimed at?

Was it at Yes voters who had deserted Labour in Scotland? Well, if it was, it was a bad aim. First of all, if it’s aimed at people to whom flags matter, then they won’t be won back by such phrases. Flags matter to them.

But actually, all the evidence suggests that for most of us who voted Yes, it wasn’t about flags. It was about practicalities. Exactly about things like building houses and nationalising rail. It was about doing things: getting rid of Trident, for example. No, flags don’t build houses. But Labour doesn’t build houses either. When in power in Holyrood, Labour built (and the estimates vary) either 6 or 7 council houses. Either way, it was less than 8. And don’t forget, Labour were in power in Westminster at that time, too. They could have repealed the 1985 Housing Act, they could have ended Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (which actually stalled under the Tories), but instead they intensified it, they could have repealed or amended the 1989 Housing Finance Act (which ring fenced the Housing Revenue Account, ensuring most of the profits on housing sales could not be used by local authorities on housing), but they didn’t.

Labour sold off more council houses than the Tories, transferred more estates than the Tories, and took more from tenants’ rents than the Tories. Indeed, Labour actually built fewer ‘social homes’ on average than Thatcher and Major.

So, not only did they not get rid of the Tories’ policies when they had the chance, in the only parliament that has the power to – Westminster - they intensified them.

The SNP hasn’t so much won over Labour’s voters, as Labour has lost them with a record like the above, in Westminster, in Holyrood and in local government.

Corbyn will not win back Scottish Labour’s lost voters if he really thinks they have been won over by the SNP with “talk of flags”. Labour has lost the Scottish vote by being complacent, by being remote from its former support, and by being displaying an arrogant entitlement. (Watch John Harris’ films from the General Election). And by never doing the things it promises in its rhetoric: Labour didn’t build houses.

So for Corbyn to oppose the Yes vote, as he did, then to say “flags don’t build houses” is more than a little irritating. What are we supposed to do, Jez? Scotland voted No, but will Labour deliver? Why should we think so? The evidence doesn’t support any such hope.

Corbyn may have said the right things in his leadership campaign, but when it comes down to it, he is giving his New Labour PLP free votes left, right and centre. Mainly, it has to be said, right.

So who was soundbite about flags not building houses for? Probably just a demoralized PLP.

 

[J Ed]

But actually, all the evidence suggests that for most of us who voted Yes, it wasn’t about flags. It was about practicalities.

Yep, and this has been demonstrated in at least one study. What's interesting is that the opposite idea, that there has just been a dramatic increase in Scottish Nationalism, has been parroted very many times by the right of Labour but I suppose they would have to say and think that, if they came to the opposite conclusion then they might conclude that there is no point to them and that they should cease to exist.

 

[belboid]

I'd agree that the "leftwingedness" of the SNP is merely relative, but it's not the case that they could do much about the railway tender. First, as you rightly say, it was privatised by a 1993 Act (which Labour did not repeal while in power under Blair or Brown), but secondly, Holyrood doesn't have any power to do anything other than administer the process - the actions you suggest are reserved powers: Holyrood is prohibited by the remit of the Scotland Act (1998), which established devolution, from doing anything of the sort. (Anything not specifically reserved in that Act were devolved. These powers were reserved. Only Westminster has the power to vary the terms of the '93 Act).

It was suggested at the time of the tender that the SNP government should lobby Westminster to delay the tendering process until after the new powers of the forthcoming Scotland Bill (2015-16) were known. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. I don't know. But it would have been to no avail anyway: the new Bill doesn't devolve those powers either. (Though it does give power over road signs).

This is why those of us who voted Yes did so: so that Holyrood *would* have those powers.

you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I). But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?

The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.

 

[Pickman's model]

you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I). But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?

The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.

yeh. but prior to the snp rhetoric was in short supply in scotland.

 

[danny la rouge]

you dont need to vary the terms of the 93 act. It is still perfectly possible to insert clauses into the tender, and even to delay it (at least according to the Scottish Greens, who have followed the whole saga closer than I). But then, they do still rely on money from train operating homophobe Brian Souter, don't they?

The SNP have done nothing for the vast majority of Scots, no redistribution measures, nothing. Nothing but rhetoric.

I have no intention of excusing the SNP, especially where they are at fault. But the Scottish Greens know that only legally competent clauses may be inserted. Their proposal, as I understood it, was to delay the tender (which as I understand it the Scottish government can't do of its own volition, but needs Westminster's OK to do, and which anyway was to await what? The Scotland Bill? No new relevant powers there), and for Westminster to pass legislation to allow the Scottish government to establish its own body to run Scotrail. This again needs Westminster approval, and Westminster (then Coalition run) said (through the mouthpiece of Lib Dem Scottish Minister Carmichael) that it would be against EU legislation for them to do so.

So I supported the Scottish Greens' idea, but knew it wouldn't happen because both of the steps required Westminster approval. I believe Carolyn Lucas launched a Private Members Bill on the matter in Westminster, but it fell.

The bidders for the franchise were Abellio, Arriva, FirstGroup, MTR and National Express. Abellio (a Dutch government-owned company) won. As far as I know Souter has no holdings in any of these companies.

 

[J Ed]

The Labour party will now "automatically" support all strikes taken by trade unions, the new shadow chancellor said last night.

Wow

 

[J Ed]

John McDonnell told a conference fringe meeting that Labour would have "absolute solidarity" with all actions taken by the trade union movement.

He said the party needed to become a "resistance movement".

"And that means absolute solidarity. The view now is straightforward and I tell you this: If there is industrial action taking place then we should automatically now, automatically come alongside our brothers and sisters in the trade unions and support them."

 

[killer b]

This utterly deranged piece in the Financial Times has just been quoted by the graun. I dunno where to start.

Mr Corbyn’s rise to eminence is not a verdict against Britain’s social failures. His movement is not, as it claims, a howl at inequality and questing militarism that has been gathering wind under complacent elites for years. Corbynism is not an expression of how bad things have become but how comfortable they are. Whatever our era ends up being called — late capitalism, high modernity — it has thrown up a class of people who can afford to treat politics as a source of gaiety and affirmation.

The electors who were decisive in giving him the run of the Labour party tend not to be working class or doctrinally socialist or even very political, though all three types exist in his ranks. They are public-sector professionals or students on their way to becoming the same. They are comfortable, more likely to live in London than the post-industrial north, more likely to read the broadsheet Guardian than the tabloid Mirror. And they are candid about the psychology of their movement.

When a Corbynite says there is more to politics than winning elections, they tacitly concede that Britain is tolerable as it is, at least for them. If it were not, the acquisition of power would be the alpha and omega of their cause.

 

[belboid]

The Labour party will now "automatically" support all strikes taken by trade unions, the new shadow chancellor said last night.

Wow

oddly, the link I saw to that (which I now cant find, natch) had it as The Labour Party will NOT automatically support all strikes

 

[Wilf]

Corbyn's campaign presented social democracy as a benign process, a chance to use the state and taxation for good. Now he's made it, MCDonnell's budgeting stance is a reminder that social democracy is a means of managing capitalism. I'm glad he won, but there's no real mould breaking going on, no sense that it's a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.

 

[Pickman's model]

Corbyn's campaign presented social democracy as a benign process, a chance to use the state and taxation for good. Now he's made it, MCDonnell's budgeting stance is a reminder that social democracy is a means of managing capitalism. I'm glad he won, but there's no real mould breaking going on, no sense that it's a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.

that's because it's not a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.

 

[mk12]

that's because it's not a political project designed to break or even bend the logic of capital.

Exactly. I doubt there were many amongst those who voted for Corbyn who thought that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would seek to overthrow capitalism. It seems odd to criticise a party for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first place.

 

[Wilf]

Exactly. I doubt there were many amongst those who voted for Corbyn who thought that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would seek to overthrow capitalism. It seems odd to criticise a party for not doing something that it never intended to do in the first place.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the issue. No one would or should have had any illusions that Corby was going to seek real change at the system level - absolutely, that's not disputed. However amid the 'optimism' of the campaign there was a, not surprising, focus on what could be done, the positive stuff. However this is all a reminder that social democracy isn't an alternative to capital, to the logic of the market, to the 'imperatives' of the deficit. It's not that he's betraying social democracy - he's doing it.