Corbyn understands what Snippa Bramboury doesn’t

Ummuna, on this occasion, got it right. If the single market and customs union are in the best interests of the UK (and they are) then Labour has to say so. It has to say it is doing so because that is what a policy for the young people, the working people, and the vulnerable in this country demands. They have to take a stand. Asking for the impossible is not taking a stand. And it simply demeans the important other demands Labour made to then also demand what is clearly not deliverable. If Labour wants to be taken seriously it cannot undermine the seriousness of its agenda in this way.

I have very little time for the right wing of Labour. But if Jeremy Corbyn is serious about delivering change he has to make up his mind, make deliverable demands that prove he is a PM in waiting, and say what he really wants on Brexit. Further ridiculous fudges on this issue can only harm Labiur, and that’s not in the country’s best interests, let alone Corbyn’s.

For Corby understands that he can’t do his nationalisation magic money tree trick while inside the single market or customs union. Spud doesn’t, as yet at least.

19 comments on “Corbyn understands what Snippa Bramboury doesn’t

  1. “…For Corby understands that he can’t do his nationalisation magic money tree trick while inside the single market or customs union.” That’s the first good reason I’ve seen for Remain.

  2. But snippa is sick of the nationalisation industrial strategy thingy.

    He wants grants and influence & to be invited to speak at conferences. He knows he has burnt his bridges here & Brussels is where he belongs.

    He used to be mildly eurosceptic a while back, now anyone criticising EU is a heartless fool.

  3. I take it Ritchie’s had notification (or a realisation) that his sucking up to Corbyn before the election wasn’t working and there still wasn’t a job/peerage coming, hence the switch back to Corbyn bashing and back onto the SNP lovefest.

  4. That’s the first good reason I’ve seen for Remain.

    But not a very good reason. If the country sees fit to elect a Corbyn government*, then they should be allowed to govern in their perceived interests and judged on the results. (And then subject to an Ecksian retribution.)

    * For all the glee at the Grauniad, I’m very dubious this would ever happen. Protest votes would melt away if a Corbyn regime looked a real possibility, and a few thousand drunken trustafarian hippies at Glasto won’t swing it for him.

  5. “hence the switch back to Corbyn bashing and back onto the SNP lovefest.”

    And the odd hint to the Lib Dems with nudges about proportional representation.

  6. How long (and variable) is the list of things “I have very little time for…” ?

    Rather like “candidly”, this seems to be another of his linguistic quirks.

  7. There’s a lot more Corbyn can’t do while we’re still in the EU. The death penalty for ‘wreckers’ and ‘Joooz’ won’t be legal until we leave. His plans to remove NHS care from disabled people are illegal under EU law as well. And he certainly wouldn’t want us being able to challenge martial law in the ECHR/ECJ.

  8. Surely this little exchange on that Spud blog deserves a wider audience…….

    Andy says: June 30 2017 at 4:48 pm

    “…If only you managed your disappointment of losing out on a peerage a bit better, perhaps McDonnell might have forgiven you…”

    Richard Murphy says: June 30 2017 at 5:00 pm

    …As for the peerage – it was Labour who wanted to use it as a tax dodge. I turned it down…”

    ***********************

    Spud is accusing Labour of offering him a peerage as a ‘tax dodge’ which he turned down.

    Really rather astonishing. What tax dodge was being planned? Who in Labour was offering it? Has Murphy reported the attempt to HMRC?

    Is Labour’s recollection of this the same? Is Murphy’s allegation potentially libelous?

    I wish I could give this more publicity……

  9. “What tax dodge was being planned?”

    Are the attendance allowances for the Lords tax free? Ie could Labour offer a potential adviser a peerage as a tax free bung, thus reducing what they’d have to pay in taxable salary?

  10. I agree with Chris. And I’m also pleased to see Corbyn’s lot taking full control of the Labour Party. It’s good for Brexit, and good for Britain to spew out the lukewarm managerialist elite.

    Ice pick for Comrade Blair, please.

  11. “Ice pick for Comrade Blair, please.” No: arrest, charge, try, convict, sentence, and hang. Public execution so that the ticket sales clear half the national debt. Public holiday thenceforward.

  12. Andrew C quoted:
    “…As for the peerage – it was Labour who wanted to use it as a tax dodge. I turned it down…”

    I think HoL allowances are tax free, so yes it would have been a tax dodge to give him a peerage instead of a Party job, if that was being considered.

    It also of course puts the salary cost onto Parliament rather than the Party.

    Not sure I believe this though; since it’s specifically tax-free by statute, it’s the sort of thing that Murphy accepts when he or his chums do it.

    Possibly his objection was that they wanted him to work in return for the peerage, but he was expecting the peerage money for nothing so that he’d be able to get paid work as well? But I’m not sure I believe it was even on offer.

  13. HoL allowance is supposed to be in lieu of expenses. If Murphy thinks it’s a tax dodge he could simply not take it.

    Sounds like more BS from Murphy trying to say he was offered it.

    But libellous to accuse Labour of a tax dodge I would have thought…

  14. Andrew C,

    I see its a bit more than that, he’s also just about accused Corbyn of stealing his ides:

    “What is more I wrote nothing for Corbyn – he borrowed it all without asking”

    PS Thanks for that – Spud and Corbyn have a lot of followers on the sailing forum I use and I fancied a bit of fun.

  15. BiND: Spud and Corbyn have a lot of followers on the sailing forum I use

    You surprise me – when the most modest shackle seems to cost £50 I’d have thought that aficionados of a leisure pursuit for the reasonably-to-extremely well-heeled would be more connected with reality.

  16. TMB,

    Add to that we are all opposed to any form of regulation of our pursuit an it did surprise me how many are due hard lefties there were when I joined the forum.

  17. Andrew C: I wish I could give this more publicity…

    I’ve sent it to Guido.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.