Corbyn

[Kaz]

Well I like him! His first speech had heart and conviction - I think we finally have some quality opposition to the terrible, divisive policies of this government!

Cometh the hour, cometh the man!

[Workingman]

It wasn't a rebuke, Suff, merely an observation that plenty of people share your view re Labour.

I have never supported it and never will, but I do see it, or something like it, as necessary. I would prefer a more conservative socialist type party, but that will never happen. The LibDems are screwed, but that was entirely down to them and I do not see many centrist Labour supporters or politicians rushing to their open arms.

I get the impression Corbyn is a pragmatist and he might well pull off what was unthinkable a few months ago and that is bring the Labour party together.

[pederito1]

I say good for Mr Corblimey. May he lead the labour party to extinction.

[Kaz]

You wish..................

[Workingman]

Reading comments on the BBC, Sky and DM I get the impression that Tory supporters are putting on a show of bravado in the hope that JC will do the Labour party in, but.

There are quite a few major elections in 2016:

London Assembly
Mayor of London
English local government
Mayoral elections
Police and Crime Commissioner (England and Wales)

Let us see how they go, eh? And do not forget the referendum. JC is for "Out" and the tide appears to be swinging that way...

[Aggers]

Well, I shall start voting for Labour again now, after my long abstinence following
Blair's fateful term of office.

[Workingman]

And you are not the only one.....

From what I am reading this landslide has spooked the Tories and the media. Hidden and non-voters are coming out of their hidey-holes in support of Corbyn. I do not agree with them all, but I do understand.

He probably will not make Labour electable, and he might even destroy it as a leading political party, but he sure as Hell will stir things up.

[Suff]

Well I've read Corbyn's wiki page and whilst I agree with 2 or 3 things that he agrees with (couldn't be helped could it), I think there is enough to sink him.

What most of the pundits forget to think about is that the UK is now post Thatcher. Even less do they think about what that really means.

What Post Thatcher really means is that there are more well off people than there are poorer people. You might want to argue that with me but bear with me and see where I'm going. Because the governments of the last 30 years have not factored in what that really means. The Tories haven't had a chance with the Lib Dems a millstone around their neck and Labour are, as usual, clueless in the wilderness.

I express it as one simple formula.

In 1979 the married man's tax allowance was roughly £1,800 and the upper rate tax bracket was around £9,000.
Today the tax allowance is £10,000 (5.5 times what it was in 1979) and the upper rate tax bracket is..... Not 5.5 times what it was. In fact it is only 4.7 times what it was in 1979.

Instead of being nearly £50k until you hit the upper tax bracket, it's barely £43k. Instead of the difference between base and upper rate taxes being 7% (21% higher) as they were in 1979, the upper rate tax is 20% more (100% higher), than the base rate.

At the same time, the highest rate tax in 1979 was 83% at £24,000 roughly equivalent to £180,000 today. Today it is 45%.

Simply put, the taxes Corbyn will have to reap will be levied on the core of the newly wealthy who also are on again off again Labour voters.

To put things into more perspective, in 1979 you could have bought a fairly respectable 3 bedroom semi detached house in Lincolnshire for £9,000. Today that would put the higher level tax, taking that measure, around £150,000.

Blair understood this absolutely. Clegg was clueless. Corbyn in clueless. He talks about all these things he's going to spend money on without talking about who, exactly, is going to pay the taxes. Base rate tax, in 1979 was 33%. Why 33%? Because if you want to spend that much money then Everyone has to pay into it. You simply can't extract that much money out of 10% of the population who have 40% of the wealth. You have to go after the other 90% who have 60% of the wealth.

When that little reality slips out, Corbyn is going to find a harder job of winning the next election than Foot did...

[Suff]

Meltdown? Massacre? Ripped down the Middle?

Time will tell.

[Workingman]

Yes, but not everything can be measured in monetary values and who, personally, pays what.

If government spend is X then tax take has to by X+ or Y to allow a bit of breathing room. It makes no difference who is in power. If it is X+ and Y to pay off debt it could be Z.

If you are on minimum wage, or NLW, your ability to pay off Y or Z is negligible, no matter how many of you there are. But if you are the few on NLW times millions you do have an obligation to chip in your fair share. You do, after all, benefit from living in a safe country where those min wagers and NLWers empty your bins, clean your streets, serve your meals and coffees, police the streets, fight fires, do your laundry, drive you round town and generally keep you apart from the plebs.

Without them you would be up 5h1t street without a paddle.