The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[John Locke]

A 1% increase in income tax for everyone would generate significant sums because it would involve everyone paying more, rather than just a very small percentage of the population. However, that would also make it a very hard sell to the electorate.

I wondered about that. The story was that when the top rate was reduced it didn't matter because it raised little revenue. That does not seem to me to be a strong reason for reducing it. I'm not sure how, all things being equal it would raise more revenue but I do not understand the intricacies.

It’s much easier to sell tax increases for the ‘rich’ (or at least those richer than the general population) than ask everyone to make a larger contribution.

I am always amazed at how much people can earn and still think of themselves as not well off.

In short, I think non domiciled/tax haven beneficiaries should be taxed very heavily, also the extremely wealthy, on the grounds of at least nodding towards a move towards greater equality. But this needs to be carefully balanced, if for no other reason than that the Labour party does not rely on the 'working class' alone to propel it into power, and the middle class will be less enthusiastic - as with environmental measures - when they feel their personal lifestyles are adversely affected.

[Richard Barrett]

I am very worried as to the apparent shortsightedness of Momentum's decision to raise this apparently at short notice, in which it seems even Corbyn let alone the executive was not informed

I think there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. The media line on it feeds too conveniently into their preestablished narrative about Watson/Momentum/Corbyn etc. What evidence is there, for example, that this was "Momentum's decision"?

[ahinton]

The media line on it feeds too conveniently into their preestablished narrative about Watson/Momentum/Corbyn etc. What evidence is there, for example, that this was "Momentum's decision"?

I am not aware that there is any; at least I have not encountered any. That said, it must have been someone's decision, FWIW...

[John Locke]

What evidence is there, for example, that this was "Momentum's decision"?

Jon Lansman tabled the motion. He could, of course, have been doing so without consulting his colleagues.

[Padraig]

Jon Lansman tabled the motion. He could, of course, have been doing so without consulting his colleagues.

...Or, could he.....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot6IwL6-63A

[Richard Barrett]

Jon Lansman tabled the motion. He could, of course, have been doing so without consulting his colleagues.

The point is that Lansman did so as a member of the NEC (to which he was elected by party members, not by Momentum, and in any case Momentum isn't affiliated to the party); and that as far as I've been able to tell the NEC would have passed the motion comfortably.

[John Locke]

The point is that Lansman did so as a member of the NEC (to which he was elected by party members, not by Momentum, and in any case Momentum isn't affiliated to the party); and that as far as I've been able to tell the NEC passed the motion comfortably.

I think you might be splitting hairs: a motion tabled by the chair of Momentum, in his capacity as an NEC member, and with the clear approval of the non-affiliated Momentum. This isn't just an invention of the right-wing media.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/momentum-launches-bid-oust-tom-watson

https://labourlist.org/2019/09/exclusive-lansman-tries-to-scrap-deputy-leader-post/

[Richard Barrett]

I think you might be splitting hairs: a motion tabled by the chair of Momentum, in his capacity as an NEC member, and with the clear approval of the non-affiliated Momentum.

Indeed. Maybe I should have put more stress on the fact that NEC members are elected by the entire party - and that Watson is regarded by a majority of members as displaying a long-term commitment to wrecking the party, so as to inherit whatever is left after the current leadership is deposed, even if this means losing a general election.

[John Locke]

Indeed. Maybe I should have put more stress on the fact that NEC members are elected by the entire party - and that Watson is regarded by a majority of members as displaying a long-term commitment to wrecking the party, so as to inherit whatever is left after the current leadership is deposed, even if this means losing a general election.

What we can say from a distance is that a majority of the NEC backed Lansman's motion. We can also say that this created dismay among Labour MPs and rank and file party members who regarded this as appalling timing, just as conference was about to begin - probably the last one before a general election is called. And so much dismay that Jeremy Corbyn stepped in to quash the motion (albeit not the issue).

You may regard Watson as a 'wrecker', Momentum certainly does, your own constituency party may - but I'm not sure this is where the heart of the party is. In any case, talk of wreckers, enemies and saboteurs simply tears the party apart.

"The apathy amongst some of our members is caused by the softness of the Corbyn project on dealing with our enemies within the movement. The knives are already out once again, the olive branch hasn’t worked yet again. We need to expel saboteurs. Alastair Campbell’s departure is brilliant start — now we must clear out the other liberals so we can get on with building socialism."

https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/momentum-heeds-morning-star-call-for-clear-out-of-the-labour-party/

What I don't understand is that Momentum unequivocally backed Remain in the referendum but I suppose Brexit must give way to higher ambitions.

[Richard Barrett]

What we can say from a distance is that a majority of the NEC backed Lansman's motion. We can also say that this created dismay among Labour MPs and rank and file party members who regarded this as appalling timing, just as conference was about to begin - probably the last one before a general election is called. And so much dismay that Jeremy Corbyn stepped in to quash the motion (albeit not the issue).

Yes, if that indeed is all there is to it, the timing seems very inappropriate. (But is it appropriate to go into a general election with people like Watson exacerbating what's already going to be portrayed in the media as a party at war with itself? Soemtimes you just can't win!) On the other hand, talk of wreckers might be divisive but I think it could be said that doing the wrecking is even more so.

[Bella Kemp]

What the above posts demonstrate is that sooner or later the Labour party will split into two parties - Real Labour (for want of a better term) and Momentum Labour. The Tories will also split and Britain will in time become accustomed to centre-left coalition governments (as is the lot for most Western democracies these days). No bad thing.

[ahinton]

What the above posts demonstrate is that sooner or later the Labour party will split into two parties - Real Labour (for want of a better term) and Momentum Labour. The Tories will also split and Britain will in time become accustomed to centre-left coalition governments (as is the lot for most Western democracies these days). No bad thing.

Yes and no.

Yes, the divisiveness is prevalent, within the political parties and the country as a whole; that much seems clear. No, the problem is such that it seems likely to preclude any realistic possibility of the formation of a credible and viable government, since no one party or coalition of parties (even if one could be agreed, which itself seems less than likely) looks to be capable of securing a mandate to govern. Just imagine an ungovernable UK; it might not happen, but I will be unsurprised if it does.

[cloughie]

What the above posts demonstrate is that sooner or later the Labour party will split into two parties - Real Labour (for want of a better term) and Momentum Labour. The Tories will also split and Britain will in time become accustomed to centre-left coalition governments (as is the lot for most Western democracies these days). No bad thing.

Of course this may lead to a stonkingly good middle ground party which rules sensibly and happily for many years!

[ahinton]

Of course this may lead to a stonkingly good middle ground party which rules sensibly and happily for many years!

And of what colour cheese is the moon made?...

[Richard Barrett]

What the above posts demonstrate is that sooner or later the Labour party will split into two parties - Real Labour (for want of a better term) and Momentum Labour.

That's one possibility. it would be a shame though. My feeling is that, with the changing times, what you call Real Labour will eventually fall away because it won't be able to attract sufficient membership to be viable. One of the things that yesterday's "climate strike" shows is that young people are (at last) beginning once more to become more radical than their elders. The coming times are going to require more rather than less radicalism when it comes to tackling climate change. I don't think any kind of return to consensus politics is going to happen for some time.