The swindler, going by the name of ‘Brenda’ and described as short, in his early 40s and almost supernaturally self-confident is thought to have swindled an elderly Chilean in Manchester.
A police spokesman said: “The victim was told he was buying £49m worth of quality goods but on closer inspection it appeared to be a Shaun Wright-Phillips knock-off with no guarantee.
@garypepworth: The trouble with Burnham & Cooper being so ready to dump on their leader in public is that they can't complain when the same happens to them
@schofieldkevin: Senior Labour source on child tax credit row: "There's no point saying you'll take difficult decisions then not taking difficult decisions."
Actually I think Burnham & Cooper have a point. Irrespective of whether Harriet is right or wrong, surely as an interim leader she shouldn't be taking any positions on Labour's direction and policy positioning? It's only a few before the new leader is in place.
Lol - you're still hoping for a Corbyn win aren't you Mr. Nabavi you little devil.
That Varoufakis transcript is stunning. When the EU says things like this, how can there be any national sovereignty or democracy?
“No, no, no, this has to be a comprehensive review. Nothing will be implemented if you dare introduce any legislation. It will be considered unilateral action inimical to the process of reaching an agreement.”
Of course there is no need whatsoever to doubt the 100% accuracy of the Varoufakis recollections. None at all. Honesty and integrity are his middle names - after all he is a communist.
I have already addressed this point in response to another forum member. However, given that you continue to respond in a rude and patronising way, I shan't be spending my time replying to your posts in future.
Sorry, I am completely unable to conjure up any interest in the LD leadership contest.
I also find the Labour leadership contest totally uninspiring It's hard to see where Labour's next leader (after this lot) is going to come from. The new intake just look like 'commons fodder.'
I thought the BBC's Norman Smith's comment this morning that David Cameron's Clause 4 moment was 'hug a huskie' was a pretty cheap shot. The only leadership contender that gets it, is Liz Kendall but she stills looks a little lightweight. Yvette Cooper had her 'working class' accent on today, I noticed. She just sounds like Mr Balls and still fighting the GE and has learn't absolutely nothing.
Corbyn becomes Labour leader, Kendall defects to the Tories, she then becomes Tory leader when Dave steps down...
I don't think so. She would sit tight for Corbyns defenestration, though if the LDs make a strong recovery and Corbyn intolerable then a breakaway SDP Mk2 is not impossible.
If Corbyn becomes leader, there's no longer any point in anyone vaguely sensible - such as me, of course :-) - bothering with Labour anymore.
JC has a definite lead from those who have expressed a preference with my Facebook contacts.
I knew I had a vast number of lefty air headed friends on facebook, but it is interesting how many intelligent well meaning educated late middle aged prosperous people are expressing support for him.
My Facebook ex-teacher colleagues are much the same - you'd need more than all the salt in the Dead sea to rely on them being representative though. Facebook and twitter are two sides of the same coin in this respect. It's refreshing to note how much the guardianistas believe in them though.
I don't have any gripe with (most of) the intentions and desires that they espouse, just the means of achieving them they visualise are batty.
Less poverty, better health care, improved education, helping the third world (unless we want a few million more migrants), a bit of infrastructure, good affordable transport and much more.
How long before Labour goes for a "one-child" rule?
Will never for immigrants - they vote for Labour - but will do for WVM
You need to remember just who tax credits and local housing allowance suited the most. Neither of them had an upper child limit. That meant a family with ten kids could apply for housing benefit the equivalent of a house with six or even seven bedrooms, depending on the sex and age of the children. Payment was based on the 50th percentile for a 6/7 (or whatever was necessary) bedroom house to rent.
This resulted in one family one year getting £147,000 in housing benefit in Brent. Then you add up the impact of £2k each of child tax credit.
You see why 70% of bangladeshi families get the majority of their income from benefits.
Gold was literally been stuffed into the mouths of immigrant families.
"Our official policy is that we have no official policy until after the leader is elected so we will vote for/against/abstain after 3 rounds of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock..."
And what is the value of an interim leader if they can't actually do any leading?
She could take a vote in the Shadow Cabinet. Collective responsibility and all that guff. Instead she seems to be trying to lead the party in a new direction, which is fair enough for a new permanent leader but rather odd for an interim leader.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
Corbyn becomes Labour leader, Kendall defects to the Tories, she then becomes Tory leader when Dave steps down...
I don't think so. She would sit tight for Corbyns defenestration, though if the LDs make a strong recovery and Corbyn intolerable then a breakaway SDP Mk2 is not impossible.
If Corbyn becomes leader, there's no longer any point in anyone vaguely sensible - such as me, of course :-) - bothering with Labour anymore.
JC has a definite lead from those who have expressed a preference with my Facebook contacts.
I knew I had a vast number of lefty air headed friends on facebook, but it is interesting how many intelligent well meaning educated late middle aged prosperous people are expressing support for him.
My Facebook ex-teacher colleagues are much the same - you'd need more than all the salt in the Dead sea to rely on them being representative though. Facebook and twitter are two sides of the same coin in this respect. It's refreshing to note how much the guardianistas believe in them though.
I just watched the Derbyshire live show with them all. See how that ukip voter was hounded? Thats why people who dont vote labour generally dont talk about it on social media very much.
How long before Labour goes for a "one-child" rule?
Will never for immigrants - they vote for Labour - but will do for WVM
You need to remember just who tax credits and local housing allowance suited the most. Neither of them had an upper child limit. That meant a family with ten kids could apply for housing benefit the equivalent of a house with six or even seven bedrooms, depending on the sex and age of the children. Payment was based on the 50th percentile for a 6/7 (or whatever was necessary) bedroom house to rent.
This resulted in one family one year getting £147,000 in housing benefit in Brent. Then you add up the impact of £2k each of child tax credit.
You see why 70% of bangladeshi families get the majority of their income from benefits.
Gold was literally been stuffed into the mouths of immigrant families.
Yep. Restrictng child tax credit was way overdue, though I would stop it at 3 rather than 2.
I imagine if a GE was held tommorow the result would be pretty much the same as the GE, probably Con gain 10 seats or so from Labour; Hallam could be a Lab gain though.
If they'd have been prepared to leave, they may have been able to get a better deal... or left.
Does this mean Dave has to be prepared to Walk Away?
Of course !
The person who is prepared to walk away is always ultimately in a stronger negotiating position, has been ever thus...
Actually, it is the negotiator who finds out the other's walk away point soonest who is in the stronger negotiating position. See ZOPA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_possible_agreement. The first side to identify accurately the boundaries of the ZOPA should be able to reel the other party pretty much all the way up to the first side's maximal position. That is the theory, anyway.
Sorry, I am completely unable to conjure up any interest in the LD leadership contest.
I also find the Labour leadership contest totally uninspiring It's hard to see where Labour's next leader (after this lot) is going to come from. The new intake just look like 'commons fodder.'
I thought the BBC's Norman Smith's comment this morning that David Cameron's Clause 4 moment was 'hug a huskie' was a pretty cheap shot. The only leadership contender that gets it, is Liz Kendall but she stills looks a little lightweight. Yvette Cooper had her 'working class' accent on today, I noticed. She just sounds like Mr Balls and still fighting the GE and has learn't absolutely nothing.
Someone better with paint shop than me needs to design and Andy Burnham emoticon, so we can all use "i sincerely believe what i am saying, you can see that by the way my eyebrows go up and I say 'look" when we need
If they'd have been prepared to leave, they may have been able to get a better deal... or left.
Does this mean Dave has to be prepared to Walk Away?
Of course !
The person who is prepared to walk away is always ultimately in a stronger negotiating position, has been ever thus...
Actually, it is the negotiator who finds out the other's walk away point soonest who is in the stronger negotiating position. See ZOPA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_possible_agreement. The first side to identify accurately the boundaries of the ZOPA should be able to reel the other party pretty much all the way up to the first side's maximal position. That is the theory, anyway.
Meaning you should be extremely tough on your walk away point. Thatcher was great at this.
The problem was that the Greek banks were insolvent. He wanted the ECB to continue to fund insolvent banks indefinitely - something that was clearly not possible.
Why Greece didn't leave the Eurozone in January with solvent banks, and negotiate debt relief from a position of strength is one of those questions that will be asked for decades.
One thing I think harmed Greece from day one was that their negotiator was a game theory expert. I think it led everyone else to question his every move, and assume everything was planned as part of some game theory exercise. When, in fact, it was not.
The second issue was that the Greek government underestimated the effect of their negotiations on the Greek economy. The problem was that the threat of Grexit caused people to withdraw capital from the country, meaning that the Greek negotiating team was - with every day that passed - negotiating from a weaker, and weaker position.
Let's not forget the fundamental Greek miscalculation: they thought that the EU would do a deal at any price, whereas in fact 14 of the 18 other EZ countries were in the 'do a deal, but not at any price' camp, and perhaps most importantly, that was not Germany's starting bid but its maximum price.
I don't think it was precisely that, it was the fact that they lacked/lack a credible threat. They have said they remain comitted to staying in the euro whatever the cost. Under those circumstances, what the eurogroup negotiators most fear cannot come to pass. If anything it highlights the futility of David Cameron's 'negotiations' when it's clear to all and sundry he wishes Britain to remain in the EU. It seems the EU are not swayed by 'We'll stay in but be jolly cross'.
I imagine if a GE was held tommorow the result would be pretty much the same as the GE, probably Con gain 10 seats or so from Labour; Hallam could be a Lab gain though.
This poll has Tories +1, Labour +4, LD -2, UKIP unchanged, Green unchanged, SNP -1 since the election.
So there is little movement really other than a slight shift from LD and SNP to Labour
That Varoufakis transcript is stunning. When the EU says things like this, how can there be any national sovereignty or democracy?
“No, no, no, this has to be a comprehensive review. Nothing will be implemented if you dare introduce any legislation. It will be considered unilateral action inimical to the process of reaching an agreement.”
Of course there is no need whatsoever to doubt the 100% accuracy of the Varoufakis recollections. None at all. Honesty and integrity are his middle names - after all he is a communist.
I have already addressed this point in response to another forum member. However, given that you continue to respond in a rude and patronising way, I shan't be spending my time replying to your posts in future.
Lol - so touchy these lefties - it was not the least bit rude, maybe a bit patronising. I'll try to cope without your responses. Oh and btw your response to Taffys about the honesty of Varoufakis - it was that which prompted my response
Corbyn becomes Labour leader, Kendall defects to the Tories, she then becomes Tory leader when Dave steps down...
I don't think so. She would sit tight for Corbyns defenestration, though if the LDs make a strong recovery and Corbyn intolerable then a breakaway SDP Mk2 is not impossible.
If Corbyn becomes leader, there's no longer any point in anyone vaguely sensible - such as me, of course :-) - bothering with Labour anymore.
JC has a definite lead from those who have expressed a preference with my Facebook contacts.
I knew I had a vast number of lefty air headed friends on facebook, but it is interesting how many intelligent well meaning educated late middle aged prosperous people are expressing support for him.
My Facebook ex-teacher colleagues are much the same - you'd need more than all the salt in the Dead sea to rely on them being representative though. Facebook and twitter are two sides of the same coin in this respect. It's refreshing to note how much the guardianistas believe in them though.
I just watched the Derbyshire live show with them all. See how that ukip voter was hounded? Thats why people who dont vote labour generally dont talk about it on social media very much.
I noticed the 'pincer' movement on the UKIP voter as well. VDerbyshire made sure he hardly got any airtime, whereas others were allowed to speak at length.
I thought the part where VDerbyshire showed photos of the Labour leadership candidates to voters in Battersea (who voted Labour) and not one of them recognised any of them was hilarious. One woman said, "she didn't like Conservatives." I have to despair at the ignorance and some of the electorate.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
This is not even true. They voted for far too much of the Tories' welfare stuff in the last parliament (welfare caps, the sanctions).
If Harriet is not prepared to be neutral then she should stand down now. A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
"Our official policy is that we have no official policy until after the leader is elected so we will vote for/against/abstain after 3 rounds of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock..."
And what is the value of an interim leader if they can't actually do any leading?
She could take a vote in the Shadow Cabinet. Collective responsibility and all that guff. Instead she seems to be trying to lead the party in a new direction, which is fair enough for a new permanent leader but rather odd for an interim leader.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
Maybe it's time for the Ronald Reagan / 1981 / Air traffic controllers option re. striking tube workers.
You don't think the management side could be at fault?
Do you think that any group of workers should have the right to cause this much disruption to millions of ordinary people, who are just wanting to go about their business?
If the drivers want to dispute with the management then fine, but it should be proportional.
Holding the rest of the country to ransom will win them no friends in the long run.
That's basically what I was saying on here. Labour did not lose because the manifesto was too left wing because no voters knew what on earth Labour wanted to do about anything. The corollary of this is the Conservatives should remember that winning on a better campaign does not mean voters are four-square behind the party.
I imagine if a GE was held tommorow the result would be pretty much the same as the GE, probably Con gain 10 seats or so from Labour; Hallam could be a Lab gain though.
I will be interested to see the Labour odds on Hallam for the 2020 GE. I am sure someone would have crunched the numbers already but was it Tory tactical voters who saved Clegg?
This poll has Tories +1, Labour +4, LD -2, UKIP unchanged, Green unchanged, SNP -1 since the election.
So there is little movement really other than a slight shift from LD and SNP to Labour
It's MoE stuff really (and that's contingent upon poll figures being believable at all).
"Public opinion polls are rather like children in a garden, digging things up all the time to see how they're growing." J. B. Priestley
Of course it is a snapshot, but that does not mean it is without use. Once the new LD and Labour leaders are in place I expect them to get more frequent again
Everytime I see a photo of them, my blood runs cold - the only light relief is the one in the bottom right corner with the specs, who simply looks comical.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
Fair point, but shouldn't the interim leader act more like a chairman ensuring that all voices are heard, rather than as an advocate for one particular view, and most especially not for one particular view which is not held by one or more of the main contenders for the permanent leadership? That risks putting the new leader in a difficult position.
@jonwalker121: Labour points out that new leader will be in place by time of report stage, allowing new leader then to oppose 2-child rule if they want
I imagine if a GE was held tommorow the result would be pretty much the same as the GE, probably Con gain 10 seats or so from Labour; Hallam could be a Lab gain though.
I will be interested to see the Labour odds on Hallam for the 2020 GE. I am sure someone would have crunched the numbers already but was it Tory tactical voters who saved Clegg?
Fair point, but shouldn't the interim leader act more like a chairman ensuring that all voices are heard, rather than as an advocate for one particular view
If that's how the party constitution is written, then yes. But in this case, it's not
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
Fair point, but shouldn't the interim leader act more like a chairman ensuring that all voices are heard, rather than as an advocate for one particular view, and most especially not for one particular view which is not held by one of more of the main contenders for the permanent leadership? That risks putting the new leader in a difficult position.
Indeed, from memory Michael Howard did that for the Tories in 2005, Ancram in 2001, despite being a leadership candidate and Major in 1997. I believe Margaret Beckett in 1994 did the same for Labour despite also running for leader and Kinnock in 1992 before Smith took over
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
Sorry, I am completely unable to conjure up any interest in the LD leadership contest.
I also find the Labour leadership contest totally uninspiring It's hard to see where Labour's next leader (after this lot) is going to come from. The new intake just look like 'commons fodder.'
I thought the BBC's Norman Smith's comment this morning that David Cameron's Clause 4 moment was 'hug a huskie' was a pretty cheap shot. The only leadership contender that gets it, is Liz Kendall but she stills looks a little lightweight. Yvette Cooper had her 'working class' accent on today, I noticed. She just sounds like Mr Balls and still fighting the GE and has learn't absolutely nothing.
Someone better with paint shop than me needs to design and Andy Burnham emoticon, so we can all use "i sincerely believe what i am saying, you can see that by the way my eyebrows go up and I say 'look" when we need
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
Fair point, but shouldn't the interim leader act more like a chairman ensuring that all voices are heard, rather than as an advocate for one particular view, and most especially not for one particular view which is not held by one or more of the main contenders for the permanent leadership? That risks putting the new leader in a difficult position.
Oh I quite agree. I can only assume that Harriet Harman feels that she needs to provoke the discussion.
Harman should do whatever she sees fit to advance the interests of her party. If anyone doesn't like it they should blame Miliband for dumping the job of picking up the pieces in her lap.
"Our official policy is that we have no official policy until after the leader is elected so we will vote for/against/abstain after 3 rounds of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock..."
And what is the value of an interim leader if they can't actually do any leading?
She could take a vote in the Shadow Cabinet. Collective responsibility and all that guff. Instead she seems to be trying to lead the party in a new direction, which is fair enough for a new permanent leader but rather odd for an interim leader.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
I agree. The electoral system flattered them in 2010. The reality was with the voters they did as appallingly bad as the Cons did in 1997. The fact this wasnt represented in the rut of seats as it did with the Cons led Labour to think they could bounce back with the Cons having to do the unthinkable, reduce spending.
They thought they could get back in. Now they are further away from power than 2010, and I think the party bigwigs know this. There must be some real fear that the membership might end up choosing JC.
As a Tory watching this, I find it hard to see in any of the leadership candidates the real vision and skills necessary to bring back scotland and the middle earners.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
I think there's some confusion here over exactly what Harriet Harman is doing. She is deciding immediate strategy, i.e. how to respond to specific policies of the government in parliamentary votes, not deciding on policy (which is in any case totally irrelevant until a new leader is in place - after all, Labour cannot implement any 'policies' in opposition and won't be able to define any until they've come up with some kind of idea of the pitch they want to make to the country).
Now, it is of course true that this is sending a message about what Labour stand for and turns off their core vote. But it also highlights the key problem - if she screams and stamps and rants with all the efficacy of an angry budgerigar, that also looks stupid and turns off the voters Labour needs to appeal to.
It is open to the candidates to disagree, and indeed several have. That means that it is also open to them to say that, if they win, a pledge to abolish such things will be in their next manifesto. Then, if Labour vote them in, they will have a fair idea of what they stand for and why and how badly they will lose the next election.
I think at this stage - speaking as somebody who has never liked or rated Harman - that she is perfectly correct to be adamantly for/against, even if she is wrong, rather than just aimlessly drift. That was the mistake she made last time and as Labour elected a ditherer to replace her, they never quite recovered from it.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
There is no such post as 'interim party leader.' Harriet Harman is, according to the rules, the leader of the Labour party until the next conference is held. The fact that she will not be leader after that is technically irrelevant.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
Fair point, but shouldn't the interim leader act more like a chairman ensuring that all voices are heard, rather than as an advocate for one particular view, and most especially not for one particular view which is not held by one or more of the main contenders for the permanent leadership? That risks putting the new leader in a difficult position.
Oh I quite agree. I can only assume that Harriet Harman feels that she needs to provoke the discussion.
She absolutely does. Say what you like about Harriet Harman, and I'm not a fan, she clearly wants Labour to win.
That cannot be said for all of the leadership candidates, one of whom is a leading contender, who seem to not yet have accepted that Labour lost the election fair and square. Rather than it being a Tory money/press stitch up.
They need to work through those seven stages of grief. Fast.
Harriet is the bereavement counsellor trying to move the family on.
Oh I quite agree. I can only assume that Harriet Harman feels that she needs to provoke the discussion.
At the moment she seems to be provoking the leadership contenders (other than no-hoper Liz) and other senior Labour figures into saying they oppose the capping of benefits and the limit on the number of children eligible for benefits. Since those are two popular policies, I'm not unhappy with this. I particularly liked Diane Abbott's formulation: "With her comments on the benefits cap, Harriet Harman is voicing a Tory agenda". George Osborne will be delighted with the suggestion that you have to vote Tory to get some sanity on benefits.
"Our official policy is that we have no official policy until after the leader is elected so we will vote for/against/abstain after 3 rounds of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock..."
And what is the value of an interim leader if they can't actually do any leading?
She could take a vote in the Shadow Cabinet. Collective responsibility and all that guff. Instead she seems to be trying to lead the party in a new direction, which is fair enough for a new permanent leader but rather odd for an interim leader.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
I agree. The electoral system flattered them in 2010. The reality was with the voters they did as appallingly bad as the Cons did in 1997. The fact this wasnt represented in the rut of seats as it did with the Cons led Labour to think they could bounce back with the Cons having to do the unthinkable, reduce spending.
They thought they could get back in. Now they are further away from power than 2010, and I think the party bigwigs know this. There must be some real fear that the membership might end up choosing JC.
As a Tory watching this, I find it hard to see in any of the leadership candidates the real vision and skills necessary to bring back scotland and the middle earners.
As long as Labour don't pick Corbyn I think the other 3 have a chance against Osborne in 2020, and they don't need to win back all of Scotland but 10-20 seats or so would certainly help
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
There is no such post as 'interim party leader.' Harriet Harman is, according to the rules, the leader of the Labour party until the next conference is held. The fact that she will not be leader after that is technically irrelevant.
Maybe, but she cannot set a policy which could be reversed in a few months, any policy announcements she does make should therefore be cleared with all 4 candidates. I think she was better at doing that in 2010
"Our official policy is that we have no official policy until after the leader is elected so we will vote for/against/abstain after 3 rounds of rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock..."
And what is the value of an interim leader if they can't actually do any leading?
She could take a vote in the Shadow Cabinet. Collective responsibility and all that guff. Instead she seems to be trying to lead the party in a new direction, which is fair enough for a new permanent leader but rather odd for an interim leader.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
Labour are having the internal rows now that they should have had in 2010. The last Parliament really was five wasted years for the Labour party. Meanwhile, the world is moving on again and Labour need to make sure that they don't keep fighting yesterday's battles.
I agree. The electoral system flattered them in 2010. The reality was with the voters they did as appallingly bad as the Cons did in 1997. The fact this wasnt represented in the rut of seats as it did with the Cons led Labour to think they could bounce back with the Cons having to do the unthinkable, reduce spending.
They thought they could get back in. Now they are further away from power than 2010, and I think the party bigwigs know this. There must be some real fear that the membership might end up choosing JC.
As a Tory watching this, I find it hard to see in any of the leadership candidates the real vision and skills necessary to bring back scotland and the middle earners.
They don't. Worse 2 of them are lining them selves up as the continuity candidates leaving only the untested and unknown LK and the very known JC....
Given that I paid my £3 and as AB and YC seem to still be in denial I'm starting to think JC will win at a canter...
Everytime I see a photo of them, my blood runs cold - the only light relief is the one in the bottom right corner with the specs, who simply looks comical.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
There is no such post as 'interim party leader.' Harriet Harman is, according to the rules, the leader of the Labour party until the next conference is held. The fact that she will not be leader after that is technically irrelevant.
Maybe, but she cannot set a policy which could be reversed in a few months, any policy announcements she does make should therefore be cleared with all 4 candidates. I think she was better at doing that in 2010
But she's not setting policy. See above. In any case, any leader can put forward any policy that can be reversed at conference, and many of them do (Tony Blair springs to mind...)
I don't like Hattie's politics one iota - but she's Labour to her fingertips and will always man* the barricades/go out to fight when everyone else is hiding.
A very doughty campaigner. For that I have to give her a big Ma Beckett was another one who could be relied on no matter what. That they've both been bridesmaids and never the bride is a curious thing.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
I think there's some confusion here over exactly what Harriet Harman is doing. She is deciding immediate strategy, i.e. how to respond to specific policies of the government in parliamentary votes, not deciding on policy (which is in any case totally irrelevant until a new leader is in place - after all, Labour cannot implement any 'policies' in opposition and won't be able to define any until they've come up with some kind of idea of the pitch they want to make to the country).
snip
I think at this stage - speaking as somebody who has never liked or rated Harman - that she is perfectly correct to be adamantly for/against, even if she is wrong, rather than just aimlessly drift. That was the mistake she made last time and as Labour elected a ditherer to replace her, they never quite recovered from it.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
There is no such post as 'interim party leader.' Harriet Harman is, according to the rules, the leader of the Labour party until the next conference is held. The fact that she will not be leader after that is technically irrelevant.
Maybe, but she cannot set a policy which could be reversed in a few months, any policy announcements she does make should therefore be cleared with all 4 candidates. I think she was better at doing that in 2010
But she's not setting policy. See above. In any case, any leader can put forward any policy that can be reversed at conference, and many of them do (Tony Blair springs to mind...)
By the time we get to 3rd reading of Welfare Bill the new leader will be in place and the conference will have met.
@BBCNormanS: "If we oppose everything we will achieve nothing" - says @HarrietHarman re support for curbs to child tax credits
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
There is no such post as 'interim party leader.' Harriet Harman is, according to the rules, the leader of the Labour party until the next conference is held. The fact that she will not be leader after that is technically irrelevant.
Maybe, but she cannot set a policy which could be reversed in a few months, any policy announcements she does make should therefore be cleared with all 4 candidates. I think she was better at doing that in 2010
But she's not setting policy. See above. In any case, any leader can put forward any policy that can be reversed at conference, and many of them do (Tony Blair springs to mind...)
Blair was elected Party elected at that point, I certainly do not remember Beckett or Ancram or Michael Howard or, indeed, Harman in 2010 setting policy when they were acting leader (Ancram did set out policy ideas in his leadership campaign, but Harman is not running for leader). Even a statement saying 'if we oppose everything we achieve nothing' would be opposed by Corbyn, for example
Kendall is running for the leadership of, and in, the wrong party IMO
If you elect Corbyn she might be the right one to lead the New SDP away from the sinking ship.
The problem with this theory of a "new SDP" is the original SDP only got anywhere because David Owen, Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins already had a following in the country. I'm not convinced Liz Kendall and John Woodcock would have the required following to make a new party a success.
So now Burnham says Labour DID horribly overspend.
Maybe all those PB lefties who denied this for the last 5 years would like to comment.
Indeed, despite the view of some PBTories that Burnham is the next Che Guevara as far as I am aware only he and Kendall have actually said Labour overspent and shifted from Ed's position in the election. Cooper has said it was all the global crisis and Corbyn, if anything, has said they underspent!
@tnewtondunn: Harman about to go on TV to wobble on her backing for child tax credits limit. Her 24 hours shows what a grim job next Labour leader has.
I think I read that the PLP although reduced in number may have a higher proportion of left-wingers and union hacks - thanks again Ed and Len.
These myths are too generalised. My experience is that Len didn't try to get left-wingers in. In Broxtowe, UNITE ignored both the Corbynite left-wing contender (a UNISON member) and me (a UNITE member) and no fewer than 3 other UNITE applicants, in favour of a Blairite GMB member, because he gave a better interview. It seemed a fair process to me, with well-designed interviews including simulated crises to handle - much the best of the various processes.
The membership only gave the GMB guy a handful of votes, though - we all thought he was a nice guy and very fluent, but he was competing with me for the moderate vote and I had an edge as the previous candidate.
Comments
Manchester police hunt Northern Irish con artist
Does this mean Dave has to be prepared to Walk Away?
The person who is prepared to walk away is always ultimately in a stronger negotiating position, has been ever thus...
CON 38%
LAB 34%
LD 6%
UKIP 13%
GRN 4%
SNP 4%
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB?lang=en-gb
I also find the Labour leadership contest totally uninspiring It's hard to see where Labour's next leader (after this lot) is going to come from. The new intake just look like 'commons fodder.'
I thought the BBC's Norman Smith's comment this morning that David Cameron's Clause 4 moment was 'hug a huskie' was a pretty cheap shot. The only leadership contender that gets it, is Liz Kendall but she stills looks a little lightweight. Yvette Cooper had her 'working class' accent on today, I noticed. She just sounds like Mr Balls and still fighting the GE and has learn't absolutely nothing.
Hope Lamb wins. But I'm sure the polls can't be wrong.
Less poverty, better health care, improved education, helping the third world (unless we want a few million more migrants), a bit of infrastructure, good affordable transport and much more.
Just JC isn't the way to get there.
This resulted in one family one year getting £147,000 in housing benefit in Brent. Then you add up the impact of £2k each of child tax credit.
You see why 70% of bangladeshi families get the majority of their income from benefits.
Gold was literally been stuffed into the mouths of immigrant families.
Not that I mind, of course. As far as I'm concerned the more chaos, dissent and confusion at the top of Labour the better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33512655
The issue seems to be 24 hour trains and in this case I have some sympathy with the workers involved.
They didn't sign up for dealing with people off their faces at 3am in lonely tube stations with deadly electric rails.
There isn't supposed to be. That's the point. It's incredible that so many people still don't get this.
So there is little movement really other than a slight shift from LD and SNP to Labour
Well everyone has be moaning how flat and dull the Lab leader election has been. Looks like it is coming alive today!
I noticed the 'pincer' movement on the UKIP voter as well. VDerbyshire made sure he hardly got any airtime, whereas others were allowed to speak at length.
I thought the part where VDerbyshire showed photos of the Labour leadership candidates to voters in Battersea (who voted Labour) and not one of them recognised any of them was hilarious. One woman said, "she didn't like Conservatives." I have to despair at the ignorance and some of the electorate.
@BBCNormanS: We opposed all the welfare bills in the last Parliament and achieved nothing - @HarrietHarman
If Harriet is not prepared to be neutral then she should stand down now. A wafer-thin margin of victory in a DEPUTY contest from 8 years ago does not give her the right to make these kinds of decisions.
Labour will do much better once they get the men back in charge. A Burnham / Watson double act will put the ladies in their place!
"Public opinion polls are rather like children in a garden, digging things up all the time to see how they're growing."
J. B. Priestley
Do you think that any group of workers should have the right to cause this much disruption to millions of ordinary people, who are just wanting to go about their business?
If the drivers want to dispute with the management then fine, but it should be proportional.
Holding the rest of the country to ransom will win them no friends in the long run.
But the point is it's for the party to decide, not for someone with no mandate or legitimacy to make unilateral decisions.
I assume the Labour party rulebook outlines this as being the limit of the Interim Party leader rather than it just being something people have come up with and that no previous party leaders have ever voted in the HoC without first having a general party vote?
They thought they could get back in. Now they are further away from power than 2010, and I think the party bigwigs know this. There must be some real fear that the membership might end up choosing JC.
As a Tory watching this, I find it hard to see in any of the leadership candidates the real vision and skills necessary to bring back scotland and the middle earners.
Now, it is of course true that this is sending a message about what Labour stand for and turns off their core vote. But it also highlights the key problem - if she screams and stamps and rants with all the efficacy of an angry budgerigar, that also looks stupid and turns off the voters Labour needs to appeal to.
It is open to the candidates to disagree, and indeed several have. That means that it is also open to them to say that, if they win, a pledge to abolish such things will be in their next manifesto. Then, if Labour vote them in, they will have a fair idea of what they stand for and why and how badly they will lose the next election.
I think at this stage - speaking as somebody who has never liked or rated Harman - that she is perfectly correct to be adamantly for/against, even if she is wrong, rather than just aimlessly drift. That was the mistake she made last time and as Labour elected a ditherer to replace her, they never quite recovered from it.
That cannot be said for all of the leadership candidates, one of whom is a leading contender, who seem to not yet have accepted that Labour lost the election fair and square. Rather than it being a Tory money/press stitch up.
They need to work through those seven stages of grief. Fast.
Harriet is the bereavement counsellor trying to move the family on.
#anyonebutkendall
Given that I paid my £3 and as AB and YC seem to still be in denial I'm starting to think JC will win at a canter...
Or Kendall
Maybe all those PB lefties who denied this for the last 5 years would like to comment.
A very doughty campaigner. For that I have to give her a big
* see what I did there
Kendall is running for the leadership of, and in, the wrong party IMO
aving a laff.
The membership only gave the GMB guy a handful of votes, though - we all thought he was a nice guy and very fluent, but he was competing with me for the moderate vote and I had an edge as the previous candidate.