The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[MrGongGong]

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.

Let's hope mr Corbyn ignores his batshit crazy brother then

[Bella Kemp]

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.

Momentum Labour certainly enjoys a massive level of membership support, but have a pitiable lack of support in the country at large. Real Labour, whilst they would doubtless fail to attract comparable members, would nevertheless do well in elections. In many ways Momentum Labour remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses: they can fill large rooms with enthusiastic members, now and again they can organise a massive rally; and, above all, they support each other on a personal level with embraces and promises to abide together forever. They are not going to disappear, but they will never unite the country, as they hope and believe, under their particular belief system because, alas, they are perceived as slightly silly and too dogmatic.

[Conchis]

No: Watson is anything but a wrecker. He is a centrist Labour figure, like Roy Hattersely. He recognises that Labour’s unexpectedly strong result in 2017 was as the result of Remainers burying their reservations and voting for the party in large numbers, despite Corbyn’s perceived Euroscepticism/‘constructive ambiguity’.

The Momentum people represent the reactionary left/entryism, the people who periodically try to take over the Labour Party when it has a ‘left wing’ leader. They tried when Michael Foot was running the show, and they didn’t succeed.

[ardcarp]

Momentum Labour certainly enjoys a massive level of membership support, but have a pitiable lack of support in the country at large. Real Labour, whilst they would doubtless fail to attract comparable members, would nevertheless do well in elections. In many ways Momentum Labour remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses: they can fill large rooms with enthusiastic members, now and again they can organise a massive rally; and, above all, they support each other on a personal level with embraces and promises to abide together forever. They are not going to disappear, but they will never unite the country, as they hope and believe, under their particular belief system because, alas, they are perceived as slightly silly and too dogmatic.

...one worries about 'Dictatorship of Momentum' though. I don't quite get the 'touchy-feely' attitudes you mention, Bella. Would the Tom Watson thing emerge from such loose associations? Totalitarianism comes pretty much equally from hard left and hard right.
I must say the Jehovah's Witness analogy hadn't occurred to me...and still doesn't.

[Richard Barrett]

The Momentum people represent the reactionary left/entryism, the people who periodically try to take over the Labour Party when it has a ‘left wing’ leader.

Who do you think it was that elected him to the leadership?

Of course there are many people with socialist convictions who joined the party after he became leader, because they see this change as one of the few opportunities that might come along to elect a government in the UK that might just move the country in the direction of such radically egalitarian principles. You can call that "entryism" if you like. But such people are actually a small proportion of the membership, which has generally been some distance to the left of the parliamentary party.

[Conchis]

Who do you think it was that elected him to the leadership?

Of course there are many people with socialist convictions who joined the party after he became leader, because they see this change as one of the few opportunities that might come along to elect a government in the UK that might just move the country in the direction of such radically egalitarian principles. You can call that "entryism" if you like. But such people are actually a small proportion of the membership, which has generally been some distance to the left of the parliamentary party.

A rather large number of Toried joined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn. They reasoned that a fiver was a small price to pay to keep Labour out of power forever.

Same thing with Foot. The problem is , Labour’s most radical candidates lack widespread appeal.

[Joseph K]

Momentum Labour certainly enjoys a massive level of membership support, but have a pitiable lack of support in the country at large. Real Labour, whilst they would doubtless fail to attract comparable members, would nevertheless do well in elections. In many ways Momentum Labour remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses: they can fill large rooms with enthusiastic members, now and again they can organise a massive rally; and, above all, they support each other on a personal level with embraces and promises to abide together forever. They are not going to disappear, but they will never unite the country, as they hope and believe, under their particular belief system because, alas, they are perceived as slightly silly and too dogmatic.

I wonder, Bella, where you would place Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband in your scheme - are they Real Labour or Momentum Labour?

And I suppose it was Thatcher's triumph to make anyone who rejects her policies - privatisation, tax cuts for the wealthy - or wants to undo them as being the silly ones, the dogmatic and ideological. Actually, not only is the Labour Party membership to the left of the parliamentary Party, but the population at large is to the left of parliament, Corbyn's policies are actually quite popular, but enough people aren't keen on him because they believe the rubbish and Tory propaganda the BBC etc. spout.

[Richard Barrett]

A rather large number of Toried joined the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn.

How many?

[LHC]

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.

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.

The problem with trying to impose punitive taxes on the very wealthy is that this often only serves to incentivise them not only to avoid the punitive taxes, but also the more general level of taxes that the rest of us pay. This is how you end up with multi-billionaire Warren Buffett paying less tax than his secretary. Furthermore, the more complex your tax system ( and the UK has one of the most complicated tax systems in the world), the more likely it is that tax accountants will find loopholes for their clients to exploit.

There is an argument that a relatively simple tax system without specific punitive measures targeted at the very wealthy would result in them actually paying more tax, because there would be fewer loopholes, and less incentive to avoid tax.

As someone else observed, while there are other low tax jurisdictions that they can move their money to, punitive tax measures against the very wealthy won’t succeed. Labour’s 98% tax rate in the 1970s (and at times 136%), wasn’t successful then, and would be unlikely to succeed now.

[ahinton]

The problem with trying to impose punitive taxes on the very wealthy is that this often only serves to incentivise them not only to avoid the punitive taxes, but also the more general level of taxes that the rest of us pay. This is how you end up with multi-billionaire Warren Buffett paying less tax than his secretary. Furthermore, the more complex your tax system ( and the UK has one of the most complicated tax systems in the world), the more likely it is that tax accountants will find loopholes for their clients to exploit.

There is an argument that a relatively simple tax system without specific punitive measures targeted at the very wealthy would result in them actually paying more tax, because there would be fewer loopholes, and less incentive to avoid tax.

As someone else observed, while there are other low tax jurisdictions that they can move their money to, punitive tax measures against the very wealthy won’t succeed. Labour’s 98% tax rate in the 1970s (and at times 136%), wasn’t successful then, and would be unlikely to succeed now.

Agreed. Another costly casualty of the UK tax system is the manofild errors generated by its complexities of which even HMRC itself reveals itself from time to time to have insufficient grasp. Maintaining NI as a largely separate tax régime rather than absorbing it into the other one is just one glaring example of the inequities and confusions within UK's tax system.

[John Locke]

But such people are actually a small proportion of the membership, which has generally been some distance to the left of the parliamentary party.

The position of the comma indicates that you are saying that Labour party members are some distance to the left of the parliamentary party. Might this impression reflect the fact that the members you are accustomed to mix with are 'some distance to the left of the parliamentary party'? Might you be (dire word!) 'biased' in your view? Does your perspective affect the way you pass judgement on other politics-related matters? That seems to be the case with most people, of left and right.

However to ease back into the original topic, word is that the Supreme Court will …

[Richard Barrett]

The position of the comma indicates that you are saying that Labour party members are some distance to the left of the parliamentary party. Might this impression reflect the fact that the members you are accustomed to mix with are 'some distance to the left of the parliamentary party'? Might you be (dire word!) 'biased' in your view?

No. I don't actually "mix with" members at all since I live abroad. I think it's pretty well known that most of the membership holds views to the left of most of the members of parliament.

[John Locke]

No. I don't actually "mix with" members at all since I live abroad. I think it's pretty well known that most of the membership holds views to the left of most of the members of parliament.

Ah, well, if it's 'pretty well known', I must bow to your ultramarine knowledge.

[Joseph K]

The problem with trying to impose punitive taxes on the very wealthy is that this often only serves to incentivise them not only to avoid the punitive taxes, but also the more general level of taxes that the rest of us pay. This is how you end up with multi-billionaire Warren Buffett paying less tax than his secretary. Furthermore, the more complex your tax system ( and the UK has one of the most complicated tax systems in the world), the more likely it is that tax accountants will find loopholes for their clients to exploit.

There is an argument that a relatively simple tax system without specific punitive measures targeted at the very wealthy would result in them actually paying more tax, because there would be fewer loopholes, and less incentive to avoid tax.

As someone else observed, while there are other low tax jurisdictions that they can move their money to, punitive tax measures against the very wealthy won’t succeed. Labour’s 98% tax rate in the 1970s (and at times 136%), wasn’t successful then, and would be unlikely to succeed now.

… all of which just goes to show the extent that our democracy is in fact more like a plutocracy. You have to vote for the people who are happy to transfer wealth from the most vulnerable in society to the wealthy, otherwise the latter will find alternative ways of punishing the former.

[Richard Barrett]

Ah, well, if it's 'pretty well known', I must bow to your ultramarine knowledge.

I don't have any "ultramarine" knowledge. I thought it was an established fact. Is it not the reason so many MPs on the right of the party are against reselection? If you have evidence to the contrary, let's hear it.