Guest MattP Posted 16 January 2016 Posted 16 January 2016 Labour backers ‘should face wealth tax’ Michael Savage Last updated January 15 2016 12:01AM Huddleston Road, Islington, where 40 people joined Labour in three months Not known Labour members living in homes worth more than £1 million should have to pay the party an annual wealth tax, one of its MPs has said. John Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw, made the suggestion as he warned that Labour’s membership boom under Jeremy Corbyn was making the party more middle class and increasingly distant from its traditional base. He said that MPs living in high-value properties should pay an annual membership fee of £1,000. He will put forward his proposal at this year’s Labour conference in September. It will be seen as a challenge to Mr Corbyn and his supporters. Mr Mann said the plan would raise significant funds and was entirely socialist in its approach. His proposal is also a sign of the frustration felt by some working-class Labour MPs, who believe that the party has had an influx of members who like Mr Corbyn’s socialist message but are from comfortable, middle-class backgrounds. Mr Mann claimed that 40 people from a street of owner-occupiers living in multimillion-pound properties in Mr Corbyn’s Islington North constituency had joined Labour over a 12-week period. It is understood that he was referring to Huddleston Road, a row of mostly three and four-storey Victorian terrace houses. “Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat,” he said. “Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined. “This is a big political problem. Whilst the Labour party has rapidly grown it is now conversely more distant from its traditional base — including in places like Islington.” He disclosed his proposal days after Lord Watts, the former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, called on Mr Corbyn to “take less notice of the London-centric hard left political class who sit around in their £1 million mansions eating their croissants at breakfast and seeking to lay the foundations for a socialist revolution”. Labour members pay an annual fee of £46.50 but Mr Mann said that the money from a wealth tax could be used to plug a looming hole in the party’s finances. A legal change being proposed by the government would lead to the party losing as much as £6 million a year in funding from trade unions. Mr Mann’s proposal comes as it emerged that an unpublished Labour report into its election defeat concluded that the party had failed to connect with the centre of the electorate. The report also says voters did not see Ed Miliband as a credible prime minister and did not trust the party on the economy, immigration and welfare. It also says that some of the party’s most “left-wing” ideas, such as a freeze on energy prices, were among its most popular proposals. As many in Labour suspected, it also concluded that voters feared that the SNP would “prop up” a government led by Mr Miliband. It is expected that the report, compiled by Dame Margaret Beckett and delivered to Mr Corbyn’s office in November, will be published next week. A series of senior figures have called for its release. A Labour spokeswoman said: “The formal process of considering the Learning the Lessons report is in its final stages and will conclude next week when it is presented to the relevant committee. The Labour party will then make the report public.”
Alf Bentley Posted 17 January 2016 Posted 17 January 2016 International sanctions against Iran are lifted: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-president-announces-golden-page-in-tehran-s-history-as-sanctions-lifted-a6817076.html "Iran is set to flood the oil market with an extra half a billion barrels a day after international sanctions were lifted in a move that has been hailed by the country's president as a "golden page" in its history. President Hassan Rouhani said the deal “opened new windows of engagement with the world” and the country should “get ready to seize the opportunity to make an economic leap and development”, Hours after sanctions imposed by US, UN and EU on Tehran were lifted - thereby removing an obstacle to exports - the deputy oil minister announced Iran was ready to increase its crude oil exports by 500,000 barrels a day". This could be an absolutely massive event for global politics and the international economy over the coming years. Particularly in the Middle East, giving a major boost to the main nation for Shia Islam. How will this impact on Syria, Iraq & Sunni extremists like ISIS? Can't imagine that the Saudis are very happy about this, as Iran's main regional rivals, especially given their reliance on revenues from oil....the global price of which may now remain low for a considerable period. I hope the global community knows what it is doing and is able to handle the rehabilitation of Iran without this leading to regional or international mayhem....
bovril Posted 17 January 2016 Posted 17 January 2016 Much of the anti-Iranian position that 'the West' (loathed to use the term) took up was at the behest of Saudi and their interests in the US. Maybe the penny is starting to drop.
Webbo Posted 17 January 2016 Posted 17 January 2016 I don't think is does the west any harm to have these 2 at each other's throats and pumping out oil to pay for it. Also while they're having a go at each other they're leaving us alone.
bovril Posted 17 January 2016 Posted 17 January 2016 Iranians are cool and the majority of them want an open and modern country. Despite the death to the west stuff from their leaders, the people are way more secular and pro western than in any Arab nation or turkey.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 January 2016 Posted 17 January 2016 I don't think is does the west any harm to have these 2 at each other's throats and pumping out oil to pay for it. Also while they're having a go at each other they're leaving us alone. A couple of problems with that: - Major Saudi v Iran or Sunni v Shia hostility fuels conflicts like Syria & Iraq and the consequent flow of migrants to Europe. - If they're pumping out oil at low prices, as they are currently, they are actually LOSING money, which could cause all sorts of instability if it carries on long-term: e.g. IMF saying Saudi is on track to be bankrupt within 5 years: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/25/investing/oil-prices-saudi-arabia-cash-opec-middle-east/?iid=EL A tilting of the balance of power and wealth between Saudi and Iran could cause all sorts of regional and global mayhem. That seems quite likely if oil prices remain low (damaging Saudi a lot more than Iran) while Iran starts to benefit from international trade/investment after the ending of sanctions. Iran has a fairly diverse economy and a ridiculously young and quite well-educated population of almost 80m, so it really could develop quickly. Fortunately, Iran's current leadership seem a bit more sane than some of their predecessors, but the tilting of the balance of power alone could ratchet up power struggles with the Saudis - and both countries are highly militarised. Hopefully the diplomats know what they're doing! Another interesting article here from the FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be5cad4e-bd30-11e5-846f-79b0e3d20eaf.html#axzz3xWMu5ghO
ozleicester Posted 18 January 2016 Posted 18 January 2016 What group does politics serve? http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475 Wealth of richest 1% 'equal to other 99%' "Left or Right" its a total joke and none of us are seeing the punchline
Guest MattP Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 Embarrassing to see British MP'S trying to censor and ban other politicians because of their beliefs. I don't think this would have happened in any other era, the people we elect should relish the opportunity to disprove the thoughts of those they oppose. Although the 500,000 who signed the petition should take a look at themselves as well. The SNP are unified in supporting this as well, given they would be in control of an independent Scotland I find it deeply shocking our neighbour would be resorting to such totalitarian attitudes towards freedom of speech.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 Seems ironic that they want to ban a chancer who wants to ban a foreigner from entering a country yet put on a fanfare for an actual dictator who actually opresses and criminalizes minorities in their own country only a few months ago.
leicsmac Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 Embarrassing to see British MP'S trying to censor and ban other politicians because of their beliefs. I don't think this would have happened in any other era, the people we elect should relish the opportunity to disprove the thoughts of those they oppose. Although the 500,000 who signed the petition should take a look at themselves as well. The SNP are unified in supporting this as well, given they would be in control of an independent Scotland I find it deeply shocking our neighbour would be resorting to such totalitarian attitudes towards freedom of speech. I agree. By far the most effective way of countering the hideous ideology he spouts would be by challenging it directly. So, in the spirit of free speech, I want to see him come over here. I want to see him laughed off the plane he comes on, and laughed back on when he leaves. I want him to be able to speak and then get challenged and heckled in response at every public showing he holds. That would be a far far better way of showing that most of the UK do not buy his poisonous snake oil, rather than just banning him from entering arbitrarily. So, don't ban him. Let him come.
Thracian Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 Iranians are cool and the majority of them want an open and modern country. Despite the death to the west stuff from their leaders, the people are way more secular and pro western than in any Arab nation or turkey. My impression too.
Guest MattP Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 I agree. By far the most effective way of countering the hideous ideology he spouts would be by challenging it directly. So, in the spirit of free speech, I want to see him come over here. I want to see him laughed off the plane he comes on, and laughed back on when he leaves. I want him to be able to speak and then get challenged and heckled in response at every public showing he holds. That would be a far far better way of showing that most of the UK do not buy his poisonous snake oil, rather than just banning him from entering arbitrarily. So, don't ban him. Let him come. The whole thing is a complete joke. I still don't know what the full motives of the SNP are but some Labour MP's are behaving disgracefully, are they THAT desperate for the Muslim vote they are prepared to erode free speech to get it? Jack Dromey just made my skin crawl on ITV, demanding to see Donald Trump banned but refusing to consider a ban on anyone else. How he had the gall to come out with the last line I'll never know. GMB presenter Piers Morgan this morning offered Dromey a sort-of top trumps of despots to take or leave. On Russian president Vladimir Putin, coined a "ruthless dictator" by former foreign secretary David Miliband, Dromey said: “No I wouldn’t [ban him]… His views on homosexuals stink. They stink.” On chief head-chopper, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Dromey said: “Utterly grotesque… No, I wouldn’t ban him.” On freedom-of-speech-hating President Xi Jinping of China, Dromey said: “The president of China has also got an appalling record on human rights.” But he was upset last October when Xi failed to visit Birmingham. And asked whether he would ban corruption magnate and President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, Dromey simply said: “No.” The Birmingham Erdington MP added: “I’m a great believer in freedom of speech.”
Buce Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 The whole thing is a complete joke. I still don't know what the full motives of the SNP are but some Labour MP's are behaving disgracefully, are they THAT desperate for the Muslim vote they are prepared to erode free speech to get it? Jack Dromey just made my skin crawl on ITV, demanding to see Donald Trump banned but refusing to consider a ban on anyone else. How he had the gall to come out with the last line I'll never know. Maybe because they are all heads of state?
Guest MattP Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 Maybe because they are all heads of state? In the debate most MP's seemed quite clear their viewpoint did not change even if he were to be appointed President of the USA.
IrememberBobHazell Posted 19 January 2016 Posted 19 January 2016 For what little it is worth I think the best contribution came from the Tory MP who said we should let him in so her constituents can call him names.
Guest MattP Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Margaret Beckett is on radio 4 talking about the report into why Labour lost the election, she's just claimed Ed Miliband was a good leader and they were trusted on immigration. The delusion in this party knows no bounds anymore, I respect Beckett as well, can't believe she's allowed her name to be put to this.
Countryfox Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Noticed this in today's press ( for all you JC fans) .... Jezza to KIm Jong Un "When I shout bang you fall over". Wasn't sure whether to put this in the politics or joke thread .... But then again when it comes to Jezza does it matter ... ??
Rincewind Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Noticed this in today's press ( for all you JC fans) .... Jezza to KIm Jong Un "When I shout bang you fall over". Wasn't sure whether to put this in the politics or joke thread .... But then again when it comes to Jezza does it matter ... ?? Well this is the have a go at Corbyn thread now so it doesn't matter. Enjoy. I do like reading the comments though.They brighten up my day.
Guest MattP Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Noticed this in today's press ( for all you JC fans) .... Jezza to KIm Jong Un "When I shout bang you fall over". Wasn't sure whether to put this in the politics or joke thread .... But then again when it comes to Jezza does it matter ... ?? That sounds like a Private Eye cover It's getting worse for Jeremy, not only have his daft Falkland Islands comments been seized upon very harshly but opinion polls now have them at their worst position for over 60 years. When you think the same methods are being used that generally seems to over estimate Labour by 3-4%, the actual position of the party is pretty critical already. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14214168.Labour_opinion_poll_ratings__worst_since_World_War_II_/ Weirdest political story of the day ws just hearing Crispin Blunt stand up in the House of Commons and just openly decalre himself a "user of poppers".
Guest MattP Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Well this is the have a go at Corbyn thread now so it doesn't matter. Enjoy. I do like reading the comments though.They brighten up my day. It's a thread for anyone to talk about anything related to politics, you can post anything you want in support or defence of anyone just as you can attack anyone. Do you think Corbyn has brought any of this mockery on himself? What do you think of his idea of making an "accommodation" for Argentina over the Falklands? I don't understand what he means.
Countryfox Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 That sounds like a Private Eye cover It's getting worse for Jeremy, not only have his daft Falkland Islands comments been seized upon very harshly but opinion polls now have them at their worst position for over 60 years. When you think the same methods are being used that generally seems to over estimate Labour by 3-4%, the actual position of the party is pretty critical already. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14214168.Labour_opinion_poll_ratings__worst_since_World_War_II_/ Weirdest political story of the day ws just hearing Crispin Blunt stand up in the House of Commons and just openly decalre himself a "user of poppers". Was sat down there once in the public gallery watching the H of C and was mesmerised by the young woman in the short skirt chatting with all those round her, tidying her hair, checking what looked like a phone and typing away, waving to someone else, passing polos around and in between looking slightly bored. Well I suppose it's one way to pass your day.
Rincewind Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 I like some and dislike some of what he says. That is about as far as it goes. I have not studied what he says about the Falklands so cannot have a balance opinion. I have only seen what is posted on here about him from people that disagree with his views which are taken from other media sources. The balance of opinion seems to be weighed against him. I do not have enough interest in politics or politicians to have an informed opinion one way or another. Therefore I am out.
Rincewind Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Was sat down there once in the public gallery watching the H of C and was mesmerised by the young woman in the short skirt chatting with all those round her, tidying her hair, checking what looked like a phone and typing away, waving to someone else, passing polos around and in between looking slightly bored. Well I suppose it's one way to pass your day. The older ones do have the occasional nap too. It is very tiring work.
Guest MattP Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 Was sat down there once in the public gallery watching the H of C and was mesmerised by the young woman in the short skirt chatting with all those round her, tidying her hair, checking what looked like a phone and typing away, waving to someone else, passing polos around and in between looking slightly bored. Well I suppose it's one way to pass your day. One of the worst things John Bercow ever did was allow phones and tablets into the House, they are supposed to be there to listen to debate and speak, half of them are tweeting through PMQ's these days. The older ones do have the occasional nap too. It is very tiring work. In the House of Lords maybe, but I've never seen some asleep in the HoC, even in the debates that have rumbled on until 3am in the morning.
Rincewind Posted 20 January 2016 Posted 20 January 2016 One of the worst things John Bercow ever did was allow phones and tablets into the House, they are supposed to be there to listen to debate and speak, half of them are tweeting through PMQ's these days. In the House of Lords maybe, but I've never seen some asleep in the HoC, even in the debates that have rumbled on until 3am in the morning. Posting on FoxesTalk I bet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.