Before any Tories gloat. Three letters: I, D and S. All parties have their moments, maybe this is Labour's.
Andy Burnham is the equivalent of IDS. The Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn would be someone like Philip Hollobone.
Disagree.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell. Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
If Corbyn does win he could well share the fate of IDS, I cannot really believe Labour will go into the election with him, unless there is a depression, Labour could well initiate the 'vote of no confidence' discussed earlier in the campaign if he has failed to make an impact
Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I think he is arguing for a special status, or - to be more precise - for the distinction between the Eurozone inner-core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and the latter group's interests protected. Obviously it's much better to present that as an EU-wide reform rather than simply a concession to the UK, but in practice it's the UK which is the key non-Eurozone player.
Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
It doesn't make sense to accept the bad decisions of Brown and Blair in perpetuity, however. We need to truly make up for their poor choices. We need to get some substantial opt-outs of the worse areas, and a double QMV system for non-Euro members. And we need to get it in a legally binding document, given the EU has shown it is not to be trusted on anything less.
Cameron (and I may be wrong on this) is not even arguing for some special status for the UK within the EU. He just seems to be arguing for some "concessions", backed by promises which will have all the permanence of snow in summer.
I think he is arguing for a special status, or - to be more precise - for the distinction between the Eurozone inner-core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and the latter group's interests protected. Obviously it's much better to present that as an EU-wide reform rather than simply a concession to the UK, but in practice it's the UK which is the key non-Eurozone player.
Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
It doesn't make sense to accept the bad decisions of Brown and Blair in perpetuity, however. We need to truly make up for their poor choices. We need to get some substantial opt-outs of the worse areas, and a double QMV system for non-Euro members. And we need to get it in a legally binding document, given the EU has shown it is not to be trusted on anything less.
I wouldn't have said personally that it's been shown to have had a particularly good track record on legally binding documents either. Remember the Single European Act? Or that business about ratifying the Constitution?
Twtter meltdown – We’ll soon be swamped by wrinkly photo-shopped pix by #Corbyfans
Hating the establishment is all very well and good unless you want to become part of It be being pm. ReAlly you just want the establishment to have slightly different priorities.
Before any Tories gloat. Three letters: I, D and S. All parties have their moments, maybe this is Labour's.
Andy Burnham is the equivalent of IDS. The Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn would be someone like Philip Hollobone.
Disagree.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell. Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
If Corbyn does win he could well share the fate of IDS, I cannot really believe Labour will go into the election with him, unless there is a depression, Labour could well initiate the 'vote of no confidence' discussed earlier in the campaign if he has failed to make an impact
Tories should be breakdancing in the street no matter which one of the four goons wins.
Twtter meltdown – We’ll soon be swamped by wrinkly photo-shopped pix by #Corbyfans
Hating the establishment is all very well and good unless you want to become part of It be being pm. ReAlly you just want the establishment to have slightly different priorities.
I've never heard of Tina Savage - yet you know she's got to be metropolitan, probably a luvvie and gets a lot of her p[olitical insight via Twitter/Facebook. How else could she ask such a stupid question?
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009. Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year. "The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand. Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In the 5 years before 2010 spending had increased by £181bn. Under Osborne spending increased by £57bn over 5 years. In the 3 year period in question, 2007 - 10, public spending was projected to increase by £87bn. That was also in Sept 2007 (the article is Sept 3 in fact) when public spending was £587bn and the public were clearly voting at the time for spending on public services - because they thought Gordon Brown walked on water. There was going to be a snap election and Labour were going to walk it. By Aug 2008 the economy cracked and it was clear there was no money for this public spending. In 2010 public spending was £673bn, but no tax base to pay for it.
We should note that about 10 days after this article Northern Rock first went to the BoE for funding. it was nationalised by the govt in Feb 2008. The rest as they say is history.
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Yes there is denying that fact. Outspend means he was promising to spend more - in fact he was promising to match 2% growth in spending (which never happened in fact it was more of course).
A transition is not an unusual thing for an opposition politician to have to pledge to appease a skeptical public. Just the same as Brown promised to match Ken Clarke's spending levels for a couple of years (which he did leading to a surplus) before turning the spending taps on full.
"Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11"
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
Corbyn would also be as big a gift to the LDs as IDS was and Foot was to the SDP, they could swiftly shoot up the polls as a result, whichever of Farron or Lamb wins
What were the opposition saying when Brown was spending that money?
"Tories 'to match Labour spending'
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009.
Mr Osborne said: "The result of adopting these spending totals is that under a Conservative government there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year.
"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
That's democracy for you, the Conservatives had only relatively recently then lost their third election in a row and George Osborne was paying platitudes towards what the electorate had voted for - in the same way as Liz Kendall is doing now. That doesn't mean that Osborne is the same as Brown and by 2010 he was talking of austerity (and has since implemented it) while Brown had his head in the sand.
Trying to win over the public by paying attention to what the public wants is not the same thing as being the same as your opponents.
Before the financial crisis Osborne was promising to outspend Brown. There is no denying that fact
Yes there is denying that fact. Outspend means he was promising to spend more - in fact he was promising to match 2% growth in spending (which never happened in fact it was more of course).
A transition is not an unusual thing for an opposition politician to have to pledge to appease a skeptical public. Just the same as Brown promised to match Ken Clarke's spending levels for a couple of years (which he did leading to a surplus) before turning the spending taps on full.
"Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11"
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
I've never heard of Tina Savage - yet you know she's got to be metropolitan, probably a luvvie and gets a lot of her p[olitical insight via Twitter/Facebook. How else could she ask such a stupid question?
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Before any Tories gloat. Three letters: I, D and S. All parties have their moments, maybe this is Labour's.
Andy Burnham is the equivalent of IDS. The Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn would be someone like Philip Hollobone.
Disagree.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell. Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
If Corbyn does win he could well share the fate of IDS, I cannot really believe Labour will go into the election with him, unless there is a depression, Labour could well initiate the 'vote of no confidence' discussed earlier in the campaign if he has failed to make an impact
Tories should be breakdancing in the street no matter which one of the four goons wins.
Labour are absolutely shot, the cupboard is bare
None of them are as good as Blair and Cameron but then Blair and Cameron will not be around in 2020, Corbyn however would lead Labour to their first defeat since 1983
Before any Tories gloat. Three letters: I, D and S. All parties have their moments, maybe this is Labour's.
Andy Burnham is the equivalent of IDS. The Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn would be someone like Philip Hollobone.
Disagree.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell. Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
If Corbyn does win he could well share the fate of IDS, I cannot really believe Labour will go into the election with him, unless there is a depression, Labour could well initiate the 'vote of no confidence' discussed earlier in the campaign if he has failed to make an impact
Tories should be breakdancing in the street no matter which one of the four goons wins.
Labour are absolutely shot, the cupboard is bare
None of them are as good as Blair and Cameron but then Blair and Cameron will not be around in 2020, Corbyn however would lead Labour to their first defeat since 1983
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Your original answer claimed they converged because it was relatively recently that the Tories had lost in 2005... Now you are saying its because it was near election time, when in reality it was almost exactly half way between two elections!!
Note that the NS story only relates to first-round voting. I think Corbyn will do very well in that, but I'm not sure how many transfers he'll get.
Don't forget that not 100% of voters rank all candidates.
In 2010 over a third of Labour members who cast a losing (ie Balls, Burnham or Abbott) first preference did not cast a preference in the final round. If its say Corbyn v Burnham in the final round there may be a proportion of Cooper and Kendall voters who didn't rank a preference for either of them - as happened last time.
Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
So, seriously. What would be your response if they just look at him in the same incomprehension they regarded Varoufakis, because his views don't fit in with their vision on the future Europe, and change the subject. What should the UK do if we get patronized and then ignored, or if we are particularly lucky, just ignored? It what way would that be qualitatively different to Cameron coming home with some meaningless bit of tinsel, except for the virtue of being honest about the EU's lack of regard for the UK. With your best serious hat on, what should we do if we get nothing ?
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
Corbyn winning could be bad for the Nats, and good for SLAB, as he would possibly appeal in Scotland.
It would be good for Lib Dems in the south, and UKIP in the north, and bloody brilliant for the Tories, as they would remain in power for the next 389 years.
Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. Burnham or Cooper will win. Probably Burnham, as the party seems quite lefty at the mo.
Why would Labour under Corbyn help UKIP in the north?
Surely the opposite?
Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.
I think he is arguing for a special status, or - to be more precise - for the distinction between the Eurozone inner-core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and the latter group's interests protected. Don't get me wrong (I'm usually badly misrepresented when I point out inconvenient truths on the EU) - this is by no means an ideal situation. Previous governments, especially Blair and Brown, badly screwed up and threw away many of our bargaining chips. The blame for that falls squarely on them, not on David Cameron who is trying, from the weak position bequeathed him, to reverse at least some of the damage.
If he's serious about reversing the damage then he needs to be prepared to walk away. By saying that he wants to stay in he's weakened his position from the start. If he really wanted the distinction between the Eurozone inner core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and protected, he should have insisted that the promise not to have the EFSF used for bail-outs be made legally binding. He didn't. He uses the cards he does have badly. And he doesn't use our best card - which is that we are the second biggest funder of the EU - at all (at least as far as I can tell).
He spends too much time posturing for the British newspapers ("I've exercised my veto" etc) and not enough spelling out in clear terms to the EU that, for instance, an attack on one of our principal industries - financial services - (as per the FTT and other measures) is a hostile act. He postures about human rights here but fails to understand that agreeing to the EU having jurisdiction over justice and security affairs is a far greater threat to our rights than the occasional ECHR decision we don't like. How can anyone who was properly educated on our history think that it makes sense to have the EU which comes from a tradition where there are no trials by jury, no habeas corpus etc, have a say - on a QMV basis - over UK justice?
A British PM should have more faith in Britain's future. It may be within the EU - if it suits us. Or it may be without - if it doesn't. He seems to come from the same strain within the political class that was so lacking in confidence in Britain that it felt that it had to join the EU - out of weakness and a lack of self-belief - rather than from a hard-headed sense of what is in Britain's self-interest.
I may be wrong. But if I - both of whose parents came from Europe, who was brought up in Continental Europe, whose first language was not English and who shares the EU ideal of creating a co-operative Europe rather than a self-destructive one - feel like that (and I almost certainly represent only myself) then he's not doing a good enough job.
Britain has a lot to offer Europe. We should stop cringing before it.
Note that the NS story only relates to first-round voting. I think Corbyn will do very well in that, but I'm not sure how many transfers he'll get.
Don't forget that not 100% of voters rank all candidates.
In 2010 over a third of Labour members who cast a losing (ie Balls, Burnham or Abbott) first preference did not cast a preference in the final round. If its say Corbyn v Burnham in the final round there may be a proportion of Cooper and Kendall voters who didn't rank a preference for either of them - as happened last time.
From the Staggers
It appears as if the Islington North MP's strength is largely coming from new and younger members. One CLP chair believes that "more than two thirds" of new recruits since the election are supporters of Corbyn, a finding mirrored by the leadership campaigns' experience of phoning new members. It also appears as if many members from the party's right have abandoned the party during the years of Ed Miliband, being replaced by what one staffer describes as "true believers".
Liz Kendall attacks 'Tory attacks on Trade Unions and the Right to Strike'. Coupled with her opposition to the Inheritance Tax Cut this week she has now clearly dropped the 'moderniser' tag and is playing catch-up to Corbyn!
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Your original answer claimed they converged because it was relatively recently that the Tories had lost in 2005... Now you are saying its because it was near election time, when in reality it was almost exactly half way between two elections!!
Give up
No because Brown was planning an early election remember or have you conveniently forgotten that?
So we were both close to an expected election and we'd "relatively" (since its normally 4-5 years) recently lost our third election in a row. Hence why I said that. It befell on Osborne to help ensure we did not lose our fourth election in a row - and we didn't.
Most worryingly for those who want a Labour party that can win elections, Corbyn is dragging the race to the left. One shadow cabinet member laments, ‘It is the Death Star. It is dragging Andy and Yvette in.’ This frontbencher adds, more in anger than sorrow: ‘I feel for them. They’ve got to think about second preferences.’
So a candidate everyone assumed would show the limited appeal of hard-left positions within the Labour party appears to be showing the exact opposite. At the hustings and in televised debates, Corbyn is getting more than his fair share of applause. Meanwhile, Liz Kendall — the soi-disant Blairite candidate — is having to defend herself against the charge that she’s a Tory.
Some could see this coming. When I bumped into one shadow cabinet member on the reformist wing of the Labour party just moments after Corbyn had made the ballot, he was almost speechless with rage. After shaking his head vigorously, he said: ‘We’re in real fuckeroo territory now’, before stalking off still shaking his head.
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
Possibly, but then again everyone could see that Ed was a dud for months if not years before the election, but Labour members walked around with rather forced smiles on their faces telling everyone that it was going to be fine and that we was growing into the job, and was a jolly clever and decent chap if you knew him personally... and then he lost.
I would say there is ample opportunity for history to repeat itself with the good Mr Corbyn, everyone will see he is a dud, everyone will be too scared of the (particularly social media based) paroxysm of rage that would engulf the left of the party if they tried to show him the door.
So who would gain from releasing details of "private polls" that show Jeremy Corbyn is in front? Not Jeremy Corbyn, that is for sure. And how ion earth do you find a representative cross-sample of Labour members. I would treat with extreme caution, though it is certainly possible that 20% to 25% of Labour members are left wing and stupid enough to give him their first vote. Of course, that leaves 75% to 80% who are not. Hopefully. The other way of looking at it, of course, is that if he is elected we can all forget about Labour and start on building a new party. Maybe it will be the kick up the arse we need.
The kind of people who attend meetings though are usually the biggest barmpots of all. There doesnt seem to be a desire to compromise purity to get power amongts activists. If anything theyve ramped up the "nasty tories", "all cuts are evil" rhetoric since the election. In their minds the election was won by rupurt murdoch spreading lies about the snp, not their proposed platform for government.
Corbyn winning could be bad for the Nats, and good for SLAB, as he would possibly appeal in Scotland.
It would be good for Lib Dems in the south, and UKIP in the north, and bloody brilliant for the Tories, as they would remain in power for the next 389 years.
Sadly, it ain't gonna happen. Burnham or Cooper will win. Probably Burnham, as the party seems quite lefty at the mo.
Why would Labour under Corbyn help UKIP in the north?
Surely the opposite?
Corbyn is pro mass immigration, pro giving money to huge Somalian families, wants MORE welfare, calls UKIP voters racist, blah blah.
If he gets spooked and does a John Sargeant - those who nominated him/want to vote for him will be REALLY pissed and want to find a conspiracy - its a Party nightmare waiting to happen whatever the result.
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Your original answer claimed they converged because it was relatively recently that the Tories had lost in 2005... Now you are saying its because it was near election time, when in reality it was almost exactly half way between two elections!!
Give up
No because Brown was planning an early election remember or have you conveniently forgotten that?
So we were both close to an expected election and we'd "relatively" (since its normally 4-5 years) recently lost our third election in a row. Hence why I said that. It befell on Osborne to help ensure we did not lose our fourth election in a row - and we didn't.
Don't worry yourself Tommo, you claimed I would have to be blind not to see the difference between Brown and Osborne and now you are reduced to arguing over things in "real terms" and hypothetical elections.
You are proving my point for me
The FACT is that Osborne committed to Browns spending plans
The shadow to a man so different you would have to be blind not to see it had exactly the same spending plans
If he's serious about reversing the damage then he needs to be prepared to walk away. By saying that he wants to stay in he's weakened his position from the start. If he really wanted the distinction between the Eurozone inner core and the non-Eurozone members to be formalised and protected, he should have insisted that the promise not to have the EFSF used for bail-outs be made legally binding. He didn't. He uses the cards he does have badly. And he doesn't use our best card - which is that we are the second biggest funder of the EU - at all (at least as far as I can tell).
He spends too much time posturing for the British newspapers ("I've exercised my veto" etc) and not enough spelling out in clear terms to the EU that, for instance, an attack on one of our principal industries - financial services - (as per the FTT and other measures) is a hostile act. He postures about human rights here but fails to understand that agreeing to the EU having jurisdiction over justice and security affairs is a far greater threat to our rights than the occasional ECHR decision we don't like. How can anyone who was properly educated on our history think that it makes sense to have the EU which comes from a tradition where there are no trials by jury, no habeas corpus etc, have a say - on a QMV basis - over UK justice?
A British PM should have more faith in Britain's future. It may be within the EU - if it suits us. Or it may be without - if it doesn't. He seems to come from the same strain within the political class that was so lacking in confidence in Britain that it felt that it had to join the EU - out of weakness and a lack of self-belief - rather than from a hard-headed sense of what is in Britain's self-interest.
I may be wrong. But if I - both of whose parents came from Europe, who was brought up in Continental Europe, whose first language was not English and who shares the EU ideal of creating a co-operative Europe rather than a self-destructive one - feel like that (and I almost certainly represent only myself) then he's not doing a good enough job.
Britain has a lot to offer Europe. We should stop cringing before it.
Before any Tories gloat. Three letters: I, D and S. All parties have their moments, maybe this is Labour's.
Andy Burnham is the equivalent of IDS. The Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn would be someone like Philip Hollobone.
Disagree.
Burnham reminds me more of a mid rank Major minister like Stephen Dorrell. Corbyn is very much in the mould of IDS.
Right now I'm hoping that Cooper turns out to be Labour's equivalent to Howard.
If Corbyn does win he could well share the fate of IDS, I cannot really believe Labour will go into the election with him, unless there is a depression, Labour could well initiate the 'vote of no confidence' discussed earlier in the campaign if he has failed to make an impact
Tories should be breakdancing in the street no matter which one of the four goons wins.
Labour are absolutely shot, the cupboard is bare
None of them are as good as Blair and Cameron but then Blair and Cameron will not be around in 2020, Corbyn however would lead Labour to their first defeat since 1983
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
Cameron can also sometimes do 'arrogant disdain' it does not have to be a vote loser if it can be largely kept hidden. Chuka is certainly better than David Miliband on that front in my view
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Your original answer claimed they converged because it was relatively recently that the Tories had lost in 2005... Now you are saying its because it was near election time, when in reality it was almost exactly half way between two elections!!
Give up
No because Brown was planning an early election remember or have you conveniently forgotten that?
So we were both close to an expected election and we'd "relatively" (since its normally 4-5 years) recently lost our third election in a row. Hence why I said that. It befell on Osborne to help ensure we did not lose our fourth election in a row - and we didn't.
Don't worry yourself Tommo, you claimed I would have to be blind not to see the difference between Brown and Osborne and now you are reduced to arguing over things in "real terms" and hypothetical elections.
You are proving my point for me
The FACT is that Osborne committed to Browns spending plans
Better luck next time
Judge Brown and Osborne on what they've done in office. I'm not reduced to anything, you're reduced to taking a quote about an opposition politician playing politics as the entire basis of your absurd notion that two different politicians from two different parties who've two totally different records are actually the same.
I suppose Thatcher is the same as Wilson in your eyes too.
Brown and Osborne are two completely different politicians with two very different records. If you want politicians not to appeal to the electorate perhaps they'd be as popular as Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage.
@schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.
In different years. You do understand the concepts of time, inflation, growth etc don't you?
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
But would be spending more money.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
No I'm arguing that they're completely different - but we have democracy so they might converge towards the public at election time before tacking in their opposite directions afterwards.
Your original answer claimed they converged because it was relatively recently that the Tories had lost in 2005... Now you are saying its because it was near election time, when in reality it was almost exactly half way between two elections!!
Give up
No because Brown was planning an early election remember or have you conveniently forgotten that?
So we were both close to an expected election and we'd "relatively" (since its normally 4-5 years) recently lost our third election in a row. Hence why I said that. It befell on Osborne to help ensure we did not lose our fourth election in a row - and we didn't.
Don't worry yourself Tommo, you claimed I would have to be blind not to see the difference between Brown and Osborne and now you are reduced to arguing over things in "real terms" and hypothetical elections.
You are proving my point for me
The FACT is that Osborne committed to Browns spending plans
Better luck next time
Judge Brown and Osborne on what they've done in office. I'm not reduced to anything, you're reduced to taking a quote about an opposition politician playing politics as the entire basis of your absurd notion that two different politicians from two different parties who've two totally different records are actually the same.
I suppose Thatcher is the same as Wilson in your eyes too.
Brown and Osborne are two completely different politicians with two very different records. If you want politicians not to appeal to the electorate perhaps they'd be as popular as Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage.
You can only judge people by what they would do at the same time in the same situation
When Osborne was Browns shadow he promised to do exactly the same as Brown... sorry but that shoots a hole in your argument
It was a bad example for you to choose that's all. Too easy to refute
@schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.
Obviously not as she is clearly shifting left and is in last place
@schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.
In her dreams, perhaps.
Has to be Cooper I think. Burnham does not seem instinctively objectionable as a leader, but Cooper seems like she has more substance to me, even though at present she is bland as hell - it seemed in the first Leadership hustings she was told to smile a lot to compensate, and it came off as odd to me.
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
Cameron can also sometimes do 'arrogant disdain' it does not have to be a vote loser if it can be largely kept hidden.
Indeed. Cameron largely is inoffensive and, crucially, not frightening to most people (so scare tactics don't work as well), and keeping the disdain only flaring up occasionally may be a part of that (as well as just not being very threatening.
OT, with one piece the other day describing Tspras as deciding he was merely a charlatan rather than a madman (or words to that effect), now a whole piece on the BBC apparently making the point that Greece's tactics were not mad, merely hugely incompetent. That's better then.
Liz Kendall attacks 'Tory attacks on Trade Unions and the Right to Strike'. Coupled with her opposition to the Inheritance Tax Cut this week she has now clearly dropped the 'moderniser' tag and is playing catch-up to Corbyn!
@schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.
In her dreams, perhaps.
Has to be Cooper I think. Burnham does not seem instinctively objectionable as a leader, but Cooper seems like she has more substance to me, even though at present she is bland as hell - it seemed in the first Leadership hustings she was told to smile a lot to compensate, and it came off as odd to me.
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
Cameron can also sometimes do 'arrogant disdain' it does not have to be a vote loser if it can be largely kept hidden.
Indeed. Cameron largely is inoffensive and, crucially, not frightening to most people (so scare tactics don't work as well), and keeping the disdain only flaring up occasionally may be a part of that (as well as just not being very threatening.
OT, with one piece the other day describing Tspras as deciding he was merely a charlatan rather than a madman (or words to that effect), now a whole piece on the BBC apparently making the point that Greece's tactics were not mad, merely hugely incompetent. That's better then.
You can only judge people by what they would do at the same time in the same situation
When Osborne was Browns shadow he promised to do exactly the same as Brown... sorry but that shoots a hole in your argument
It was a bad example for you to choose that's all. Too easy to refute
Look forward to our next run in
He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution).
But why stick just with that one quote? Is it because it loosely fits your absurd notion? Why not look at what Brown and Osborne both said in 2009 or 2010 if you think they're the same? Could it be because you know yourself they're not remotely the same but would rather play silly buggers point scoring with absurdly out of context quotes?
Bizarre use of statistics on the BBC "news" website about BBC funding.
A survey carried out for the Annual Report found that 48% of the public supported funding the BBC through the licence fee, compared with 29% for advertising and 20% for subscription.
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
The Burnham campaign has been in touch. They say that they are unaware of any such polling and that the findings don't stack with their phonebank data. They believe they have a chance of winning in the first round and will soon have amassed the support of 50 CLPs.
You can only judge people by what they would do at the same time in the same situation
When Osborne was Browns shadow he promised to do exactly the same as Brown... sorry but that shoots a hole in your argument
It was a bad example for you to choose that's all. Too easy to refute
Look forward to our next run in
He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution).
But why stick just with that one quote? Is it because it loosely fits your absurd notion? Why not look at what Brown and Osborne both said in 2009 or 2010 if you think they're the same? Could it be because you know yourself they're not remotely the same but would rather play silly buggers point scoring with absurdly out of context quotes?
"They imitate each other then exaggerate the minute differences" I said
"He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution)." You said
Dont beat yourself up Phillip, you cant win them all
Off to Cricket nets now, talk to yourself if you like for a couple of hours. But endless petty arguments dont look good on here, it puts people off
Bizarre use of statistics on the BBC "news" website about BBC funding.
A survey carried out for the Annual Report found that 48% of the public supported funding the BBC through the licence fee, compared with 29% for advertising and 20% for subscription.
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
Not at all bizarre. Just lies, damn lies and statistics. It seeks misleadingly to imply, without the Beeb saying it themselves, that more people favour the license than any other proposed form of funding. Self-serving, but not bizarre.
Bizarre use of statistics on the BBC "news" website about BBC funding.
A survey carried out for the Annual Report found that 48% of the public supported funding the BBC through the licence fee, compared with 29% for advertising and 20% for subscription.
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
Reminds me of the proposals to put devo-max on the indyref question.
You can only judge people by what they would do at the same time in the same situation
When Osborne was Browns shadow he promised to do exactly the same as Brown... sorry but that shoots a hole in your argument
It was a bad example for you to choose that's all. Too easy to refute
Look forward to our next run in
He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution).
But why stick just with that one quote? Is it because it loosely fits your absurd notion? Why not look at what Brown and Osborne both said in 2009 or 2010 if you think they're the same? Could it be because you know yourself they're not remotely the same but would rather play silly buggers point scoring with absurdly out of context quotes?
"They imitate each other then exaggerate the minute differences" I said
"He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution)." You said
Dont beat yourself up Phillip, you cant win them all
Off to Cricket nets now, talk to yourself if you like for a couple of hours. But endless petty arguments dont look good on here, it puts people off
Enjoy the cricket. I'm looking forward to the Ashes tomorrow, should be good! Just remember even if you bowl a spin delivery once, it doesn't make you Shane Warne ;-)
Liz Kendall attacks 'Tory attacks on Trade Unions and the Right to Strike'. Coupled with her opposition to the Inheritance Tax Cut this week she has now clearly dropped the 'moderniser' tag and is playing catch-up to Corbyn!
I hear from a couple of disillusioned Labour Party friends that Ms Black's speech has shamed / inspired them into considering voting with their hearts, rather than their heads. Another gift from the SNP to the Tories?
He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution).
But why stick just with that one quote? Is it because it loosely fits your absurd notion? Why not look at what Brown and Osborne both said in 2009 or 2010 if you think they're the same? Could it be because you know yourself they're not remotely the same but would rather play silly buggers point scoring with absurdly out of context quotes?
There is in fact much force in what @isam says. For example, it was the policy of the Labour Party at the 2010 general election to reduce the fiscal deficit by one half as a percentage of GDP between 2009-2010 and 2013-2014, and that public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP should fall in 2015-2016 (see the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, ss. 1(2)-(3)).
The deficit was 11.1% of GDP in 2009-2010. It fell to 5.6% GDP in 2013-2014. This was a fall of 50% exactly. The target in section 1(2) of the 2010 Act was just met by Osborne.
According to the recent budget, public sector net debt will fall from 80.8% of GDP to 80.3% GDP between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The target in section 1(3) of the 2010 Act will seemingly also be met by Osborne.
It is therefore fair to say that Osborne has followed Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's spending plans to the letter.
Classical history folks, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn't need to do so in ships did he? I ask because in this piece from a former Greek Finance Minister I thought he was mixing two metaphors (a practice I am frequently guilty of, and so approve of) - I know Cortes is suppose to have burned his ships, not who else may have done so.
Classical history folks, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn't need to do so in ships did he? I ask because in this piece from a former Greek Finance Minister I thought he was mixing two metaphors (a practice I am frequently guilty of, and so approve of) - I know Cortes is suppose to have burned his ships, not who else may have done so.
I believe he marched his soldiers over a bridge over the Rubicon. The Rubicon is variously described as a small stream. From Google Maps satellite pictures, it looks to be the width of a two lane road.
I hear from a couple of disillusioned Labour Party friends that Ms Black's speech has shamed / inspired them into considering voting with their hearts, rather than their heads. Another gift from the SNP to the Tories?
Both they and Ms Black also ignore the fact even most Scots polled back the Benefits cap
What should the UK do if we get patronized and then ignored, or if we are particularly lucky, just ignored? It what way would that be qualitatively different to Cameron coming home with some meaningless bit of tinsel, except for the virtue of being honest about the EU's lack of regard for the UK. With your best serious hat on, what should we do if we get nothing ?
It won't be nothing - the EU is bored with Cameron but not actively hostile to him, and they don't positively want us to vote no. He'll get some things that they're not much bothered about - protection for the City, for instance. But he's not really demanding radical change, and he wouldn't get it if he did.
What should the UK do if we get patronized and then ignored, or if we are particularly lucky, just ignored? It what way would that be qualitatively different to Cameron coming home with some meaningless bit of tinsel, except for the virtue of being honest about the EU's lack of regard for the UK. With your best serious hat on, what should we do if we get nothing ?
It won't be nothing - the EU is bored with Cameron but not actively hostile to him, and they don't positively want us to vote no. He'll get some things that they're not much bothered about - protection for the City, for instance. But he's not really demanding radical change, and he wouldn't get it if he did.
If you think the EU is not bothered about protection for the City, you have it very wrong. Very wrong.
To this day the EU is planning an FTT which would harm the City very badly. The EU sought to localise trading in the euro within the EZ and were defeated at the ECJ but I certainly expect them to try again.
There is no point getting a few minor concessions. That's the status quo. And that won't last long. France is already talking about moving to a more centralised Europe as a result of the Greek brouhaha.
There has to be something radical - a new settlement which in effect allows all parties to move on without incessant bitching on either side. If that isn't on offer or not feasible then "Out" - even with all the uncertainties and difficulties involved - may be the least worst option.
Classical history folks, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn't need to do so in ships did he? I ask because in this piece from a former Greek Finance Minister I thought he was mixing two metaphors (a practice I am frequently guilty of, and so approve of) - I know Cortes is suppose to have burned his ships, not who else may have done so.
I believe he marched his soldiers over a bridge over the Rubicon. The Rubicon is variously described as a small stream. From Google Maps satellite pictures, it looks to be the width of a two lane road.
Wasn't it symbolic? Was not the Roman Army not supposed to get any closer to Rome? Thus he was clearly threatening the Senate. Or was that another river? ''Hence the expression,'' as Corporal Jones might say, ''don't burn your bridges until you get to them'.
Still better to cross the Rubicon than be stuck up a river in Egypt, like the Labour Party.
Classical history folks, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn't need to do so in ships did he? I ask because in this piece from a former Greek Finance Minister I thought he was mixing two metaphors (a practice I am frequently guilty of, and so approve of) - I know Cortes is suppose to have burned his ships, not who else may have done so.
I believe he marched his soldiers over a bridge over the Rubicon. The Rubicon is variously described as a small stream. From Google Maps satellite pictures, it looks to be the width of a two lane road.
Wasn't it symbolic? Was not the Roman Army not supposed to get any closer to Rome? Thus he was clearly threatening the Senate. Or was that another river? ''Hence the expression,'' as Corporal Jones might say, ''don't burn your bridges until you get to them'.
Still better to cross the Rubicon than be stuck up a river in Egypt, like the Labour Party.
It's not that big but it had symbolic and tokenistic importance, just like the Ural Mountains or the Watford Gap.
@schofieldkevin: Liz Kendall campaign boss Toby Perkins says leadership race now a "straight choice" between her and a "1980s-style wilderness" with Corbyn.
In her dreams, perhaps.
Has to be Cooper I think. Burnham does not seem instinctively objectionable as a leader, but Cooper seems like she has more substance to me, even though at present she is bland as hell - it seemed in the first Leadership hustings she was told to smile a lot to compensate, and it came off as odd to me.
I just find the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader so ridiculous, it is not even funny. If he does, what is he going to do? He can refuse, then Labour will become a complete laughing stock and will take years to regain any credibility. He could accept but it would be fairly obvious he wouldn't last five minutes but then Labour are into ANOTHER leadership contest.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
Cameron can also sometimes do 'arrogant disdain' it does not have to be a vote loser if it can be largely kept hidden.
Indeed. Cameron largely is inoffensive and, crucially, not frightening to most people (so scare tactics don't work as well), and keeping the disdain only flaring up occasionally may be a part of that (as well as just not being very threatening.
OT, with one piece the other day describing Tspras as deciding he was merely a charlatan rather than a madman (or words to that effect), now a whole piece on the BBC apparently making the point that Greece's tactics were not mad, merely hugely incompetent. That's better then.
Agree, in public at least Cameron is good at keeping things under control
Now, then, now then. I've come in late to all this about a Lab leadership poll. But, I seem to remember we had all sworn ourselves off polls! Certainly my bank manager has told me to stay away from them for the foreseeable.
I think your previous criticism of Cameron for expecting a political agreement to be sufficient is unfair. In the nature of international agreements, leaders have to be able to rely on the word of their counterparties.
If not, then there is a fundamental breach of trust: Juncker's behaviour is pretty firmly tipping to scales towards Out for me (having previously probably been a marginal In).
Cameron had a veto over the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism. He waived that veto for a political commitment that the EFSM would not be used again, when he could have obtained a legal guarantee to that effect. It is the difference between giving someone £100,000 on the faith of their word that they will return it with interest, and lending them the sum secured on their house. The EU is not merely an arrangement in international law. It has a law of its own, albeit one followed by some states more than others. It is hardly surprising that when push comes to shove, other member states will rely on their strict legal rights.
International law is meaningless.
Agreements between countries are always a political agreement.
Cameron relied on good faith on the part of his partners. Juncker is demonstrating that the EU is as reliable at keeping its promises as Tsirpas.
(And I think that our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point - they were in a hurry and couldn't afford to be distracted.
Classical history folks, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn't need to do so in ships did he? I ask because in this piece from a former Greek Finance Minister I thought he was mixing two metaphors (a practice I am frequently guilty of, and so approve of) - I know Cortes is suppose to have burned his ships, not who else may have done so.
I believe he marched his soldiers over a bridge over the Rubicon. The Rubicon is variously described as a small stream. From Google Maps satellite pictures, it looks to be the width of a two lane road.
Wasn't it symbolic? Was not the Roman Army not supposed to get any closer to Rome? Thus he was clearly threatening the Senate
So I had understood it - so even if he did cross in ships, for some reason, I don't think he'd have needed the additional symbolism of burning them.
I think your previous criticism of Cameron for expecting a political agreement to be sufficient is unfair. In the nature of international agreements, leaders have to be able to rely on the word of their counterparties.
If not, then there is a fundamental breach of trust: Juncker's behaviour is pretty firmly tipping to scales towards Out for me (having previously probably been a marginal In).
Cameron had a veto over the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism. He waived that veto for a political commitment that the EFSM would not be used again, when he could have obtained a legal guarantee to that effect. It is the difference between giving someone £100,000 on the faith of their word that they will return it with interest, and lending them the sum secured on their house. The EU is not merely an arrangement in international law. It has a law of its own, albeit one followed by some states more than others. It is hardly surprising that when push comes to shove, other member states will rely on their strict legal rights.
International law is meaningless.
Truer words rarely written. Everyone always claims they are in compliance with it and their opponents in violation of it, but ultimately nations and organisations will act in their own best interests, figure out a political situation, and ignore or change the international law as they like or are prepared to accept the consequences or.
I don't want Corbyn to win because I don't see him as some cuddly but essentially harmless old Lefty. I think that some of his views on current issues are pretty poisonous and would allow the continued spread of even more poisonous views within our society, to the detriment of all.
And I think it necessary to have a credible opposition. Our democracy won't work effectively for long without one. I don't want to have a government which becomes hubristic, is not held to account and passes stupid or ill-thought out laws because Labour decides to emulate Syriza and elect as leader someone whose intellectual development was frozen in a student union cira 1976.
Sure it'd be fun to see the current inept Labour party destroy itself. But like SO I would like there to be the option of a sensible social democratic left of centre party. And the sooner the better, frankly. For the best part of a decade the Labour party has gone berserk: first with late Blair, then Brown, then Milliband. How long will it take for some grown-ups to take charge?
TBH, I don't think most in Labour want to win, they're arguing who's Prolier Than Thou - that's why we have LizTheTory stuff, massive support for Corbyn and fillers like Burnham and Yvette.
When a Party doesn't really want to win - it's never an effective Opposition as HMG knows they can run rings round them.
When the Tories were obsessing over ideological purity and the EU 20yrs ago, Labour didn't have to worry about them either. It's no good for democracy, but they seem to be mutually exclusive.
I don't want Corbyn to win because I don't see him as some cuddly but essentially harmless old Lefty. I think that some of his views on current issues are pretty poisonous and would allow the continued spread of even more poisonous views within our society, to the detriment of all.
And I think it necessary to have a credible opposition. Our democracy won't work effectively for long without one. I don't want to have a government which becomes hubristic, is not held to account and passes stupid or ill-thought out laws because Labour decides to emulate Syriza and elect as leader someone whose intellectual development was frozen in a student union cira 1976.
Sure it'd be fun to see the current inept Labour party destroy itself. But like SO I would like there to be the option of a sensible social democratic left of centre party. And the sooner the better, frankly. For the best part of a decade the Labour party has gone berserk: first with late Blair, then Brown, then Milliband. How long will it take for some grown-ups to take charge?
It's wrong to think Kendall would win whereas others would lose. It is seeing the problem Labour faces through an ideological lens of the leader's distance to "the centre" (a fiction), when the real problem is people don't trust them with cash or the Union.
Agreements between countries are always a political agreement.
Cameron relied on good faith on the part of his partners. Juncker is demonstrating that the EU is as reliable at keeping its promises as Tsirpas.
(And I think that our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point - they were in a hurry and couldn't afford to be distracted.
EU law is not international law. You cannot enforce international law in the High Court. The High Court has disapplied Acts of Parliament to give effect to EU law. Trying to compare the two is absurd. Juncker, notwithstanding his blinding ambition and avarice, was not a party to the decision of the Council in 2011. He made no promises. He is simply doing his job: finding a legal basis for bridging finance to Greece. If anyone has reneged, it is the other member states, but they are within their legal rights, and are merely taking advantage of Cameron's crass stupidity.
As for the claim that "our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point", perhaps not. They were, however, demanding a short amendment to article 136 TFEU. We could and should have insisted on an amendment to article 122 TFEU at the same time. They would have had to have agreed if they wanted to establish the European Stability Mechanism, which they did. It would not have been a high price, and Cameron would have got it had he insisted. But he didn't, and the British taxpayer is liable to an insolvent Eurozone state as a result.
I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but if Labour accidentally elects another numpty as leader because of hardcore leftie fantasies and others voting for him as the "none of the above" candidate, is there not a danger a number of voters in 2020 might think "stuff it, I like the argumentative guy with a beard who shouts his mouth off at Cameron all the time, let's make him PM for shits and giggles", and he might actually win the ultimate prize?
More seriously, I mused the other day that Corbyn could have a unifying effect amongst the disaffected and amongst the disparate voices across the broad Left. He could deny the Tory leader a majority and usher in the Lab/SNP pact we all feared in 2015 couldn't he?
Corbyn might be able to unite the left wing vote, but he'd also unite the (larger) right wing vote. It's no good Labour winning 35% if the Tories win 40%, or if Tory and UKIP supporters vote tactically to keep out a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
But is Cameron stupid, or just not serious? I would suggest the latter. For all his visits to farmers' markets and the like he is very much a 'court' Tory not a 'country' one. He wants and likes to be at the 'top table' with the big cheeses. He thinks the EU is the way to do that, and that is why he will do more or less whatever it demands in the end, with the occasional cosmetic spat. He is 100% the wrong person to be pursuing Britain's interests in this area, little better than Blair really.
What I mean is I think she would be the best choice for Labour in terms of winning the next election.
Ah, I see. She's got courage, and talks middle-England, but I think she's taken it slightly too far, albeit with some limited backtracking over the past week.
I think she's misunderstood the lessons of New Labour. She's slaughtering far too many sacred cows at once, and isn't offering a compelling "New" New Labour vision for the party that sceptics of that can buy into. Blair had things like the social chapter, minimum wage, abolition of assisted places, the foxhunting vote, and 'investment' in public services to offer. She also lacks Blair's smooth presentationalism, articulateness and experience.
The closest analogy I can think of is she's the Labour equivalent of the uber-moderniser candidate Portillo ran as for Tory leader in 2001.
But is Cameron stupid, or just not serious? I would suggest the latter. For all his visits to farmers' markets and the like he is very much a 'court' Tory not a 'country' one. He wants and likes to be at the 'top table' with the big cheeses. He thinks the EU is the way to do that, and that is why he will do more or less whatever it demands in the end, with the occasional cosmetic spat. He is 100% the wrong person to be pursuing Britain's interests in this area, little better than Blair really.
Quoted for truth. And in governing on behalf of powerful interests and not the people, he and his Government are little short of dangerous.
@BBCJLandale: House of Lords has just voted to allow 16 & 17 year-olds to vote in local elections, forcing govt to try to overturn in Commons.
I agree with the government's position on this one, but I think it's a losing battle, given the IndyRef position for one thing, there seems a trend toward it. Odd given it feels like we infantilize young people.
Comments
Labour are absolutely shot, the cupboard is bare
That was also in Sept 2007 (the article is Sept 3 in fact) when public spending was £587bn and the public were clearly voting at the time for spending on public services - because they thought Gordon Brown walked on water. There was going to be a snap election and Labour were going to walk it. By Aug 2008 the economy cracked and it was clear there was no money for this public spending. In 2010 public spending was £673bn, but no tax base to pay for it.
We should note that about 10 days after this article Northern Rock first went to the BoE for funding. it was nationalised by the govt in Feb 2008. The rest as they say is history.
"A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years" - match, not outspend.
Anyway the charge was that I must be blind not to see a difference in Brown and Osborne, and you are now arguing that they are exactly the same, so I will take that, cheers x
https://twitter.com/savage_tina/status/606454473838481408
Is he still an MP?
WTF happened in 87, 92, 10 and 15 then?
Give up
In 2010 over a third of Labour members who cast a losing (ie Balls, Burnham or Abbott) first preference did not cast a preference in the final round. If its say Corbyn v Burnham in the final round there may be a proportion of Cooper and Kendall voters who didn't rank a preference for either of them - as happened last time.
"Umm...Errr....Now what's the policy for July on Fox Hunting? umm..err.."
I feel it's like toothpaste - one of those things that get lost unless you were there to see the car crash in action.
When the next contest comes, two of the contenders will be Chuka Umunna and Kinnock, the Younger (who is already on manoeuvres). The problem for both these two, is they suffer from that arrogant distain that so afflicted David Miliband.
He spends too much time posturing for the British newspapers ("I've exercised my veto" etc) and not enough spelling out in clear terms to the EU that, for instance, an attack on one of our principal industries - financial services - (as per the FTT and other measures) is a hostile act. He postures about human rights here but fails to understand that agreeing to the EU having jurisdiction over justice and security affairs is a far greater threat to our rights than the occasional ECHR decision we don't like. How can anyone who was properly educated on our history think that it makes sense to have the EU which comes from a tradition where there are no trials by jury, no habeas corpus etc, have a say - on a QMV basis - over UK justice?
A British PM should have more faith in Britain's future. It may be within the EU - if it suits us. Or it may be without - if it doesn't. He seems to come from the same strain within the political class that was so lacking in confidence in Britain that it felt that it had to join the EU - out of weakness and a lack of self-belief - rather than from a hard-headed sense of what is in Britain's self-interest.
I may be wrong. But if I - both of whose parents came from Europe, who was brought up in Continental Europe, whose first language was not English and who shares the EU ideal of creating a co-operative Europe rather than a self-destructive one - feel like that (and I almost certainly represent only myself) then he's not doing a good enough job.
Britain has a lot to offer Europe. We should stop cringing before it.
https://twitter.com/LizforLeader?lang=en-gb
So we were both close to an expected election and we'd "relatively" (since its normally 4-5 years) recently lost our third election in a row. Hence why I said that. It befell on Osborne to help ensure we did not lose our fourth election in a row - and we didn't.
I would say there is ample opportunity for history to repeat itself with the good Mr Corbyn, everyone will see he is a dud, everyone will be too scared of the (particularly social media based) paroxysm of rage that would engulf the left of the party if they tried to show him the door.
You are proving my point for me
The FACT is that Osborne committed to Browns spending plans
The shadow to a man so different you would have to be blind not to see it had exactly the same spending plans
Better luck next time, you cant win them all
I suppose Thatcher is the same as Wilson in your eyes too.
Brown and Osborne are two completely different politicians with two very different records. If you want politicians not to appeal to the electorate perhaps they'd be as popular as Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage.
When Osborne was Browns shadow he promised to do exactly the same as Brown... sorry but that shoots a hole in your argument
It was a bad example for you to choose that's all. Too easy to refute
Look forward to our next run in
Has to be Cooper I think. Burnham does not seem instinctively objectionable as a leader, but Cooper seems like she has more substance to me, even though at present she is bland as hell - it seemed in the first Leadership hustings she was told to smile a lot to compensate, and it came off as odd to me. Indeed. Cameron largely is inoffensive and, crucially, not frightening to most people (so scare tactics don't work as well), and keeping the disdain only flaring up occasionally may be a part of that (as well as just not being very threatening.
OT, with one piece the other day describing Tspras as deciding he was merely a charlatan rather than a madman (or words to that effect), now a whole piece on the BBC apparently making the point that Greece's tactics were not mad, merely hugely incompetent. That's better then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/33507250
Too late now though, she's already allowed herself to be typecast as the kamikaze ultra-Blairite candidate and people have stopped listening to her.
But why stick just with that one quote? Is it because it loosely fits your absurd notion? Why not look at what Brown and Osborne both said in 2009 or 2010 if you think they're the same? Could it be because you know yourself they're not remotely the same but would rather play silly buggers point scoring with absurdly out of context quotes?
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
"He didn't pledge to do exactly the same, he pledged to raise spending by 2% (the same) but to do so with different taxes (eg less taxes on income, more on pollution)." You said
Dont beat yourself up Phillip, you cant win them all
Off to Cricket nets now, talk to yourself if you like for a couple of hours. But endless petty arguments dont look good on here, it puts people off
https://twitter.com/SpiegelPeter/status/621355926084304896
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
Not at all bizarre. Just lies, damn lies and statistics. It seeks misleadingly to imply, without the Beeb saying it themselves, that more people favour the license than any other proposed form of funding. Self-serving, but not bizarre.
Another way of phrasing that is that 48% of the public support continuing the (compulsory) licence fee while 49% want the BBC to raise funds privately (through advertising or subscription).
Reminds me of the proposals to put devo-max on the indyref question.
The deficit was 11.1% of GDP in 2009-2010. It fell to 5.6% GDP in 2013-2014. This was a fall of 50% exactly. The target in section 1(2) of the 2010 Act was just met by Osborne.
According to the recent budget, public sector net debt will fall from 80.8% of GDP to 80.3% GDP between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The target in section 1(3) of the 2010 Act will seemingly also be met by Osborne.
It is therefore fair to say that Osborne has followed Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's spending plans to the letter.
Having crossed the Rubicon, Mr Tsipras now faces two stark choices. The better one for both him and the country is to realize that there is no way back - his ships are now burned.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11740686/Alexis-Tsipras-gambled-away-Greeces-future.-Now-he-must-make-amends.html
It won't be nothing - the EU is bored with Cameron but not actively hostile to him, and they don't positively want us to vote no. He'll get some things that they're not much bothered about - protection for the City, for instance. But he's not really demanding radical change, and he wouldn't get it if he did.
Sure she's on Channel 4 now... !
To this day the EU is planning an FTT which would harm the City very badly. The EU sought to localise trading in the euro within the EZ and were defeated at the ECJ but I certainly expect them to try again.
There is no point getting a few minor concessions. That's the status quo. And that won't last long. France is already talking about moving to a more centralised Europe as a result of the Greek brouhaha.
There has to be something radical - a new settlement which in effect allows all parties to move on without incessant bitching on either side. If that isn't on offer or not feasible then "Out" - even with all the uncertainties and difficulties involved - may be the least worst option.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html
''Hence the expression,'' as Corporal Jones might say, ''don't burn your bridges until you get to them'.
Still better to cross the Rubicon than be stuck up a river in Egypt, like the Labour Party.
@KasiaMadera: Teargas & molotov cocktails being let off in Syntagma Square #Athens #Greece @BBCWorld
Looks like limited tickets are available for Lords, which is a bit surprising:
https://www.lords.org/fixtures/fixtures-and-tickets/
Agreements between countries are always a political agreement.
Cameron relied on good faith on the part of his partners. Juncker is demonstrating that the EU is as reliable at keeping its promises as Tsirpas.
(And I think that our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point - they were in a hurry and couldn't afford to be distracted.
I think a voter might still vote Corbyn to encourage Labour to adopt Labour policies.
Whatever Harriet Harman's policy intervention was about, it wasn't to help Kendall, that's for sure.
And I think it necessary to have a credible opposition. Our democracy won't work effectively for long without one. I don't want to have a government which becomes hubristic, is not held to account and passes stupid or ill-thought out laws because Labour decides to emulate Syriza and elect as leader someone whose intellectual development was frozen in a student union cira 1976.
Sure it'd be fun to see the current inept Labour party destroy itself. But like SO I would like there to be the option of a sensible social democratic left of centre party. And the sooner the better, frankly. For the best part of a decade the Labour party has gone berserk: first with late Blair, then Brown, then Milliband. How long will it take for some grown-ups to take charge?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.103946886
A lot of people throwing away their hard-earned cash by backing Corbyn on the back of this one poll which is of course just re. first preferences.
Can you imagine the personal vitriol she'd have faced if she were making the statements on women's pay that Cameron and Osborne have made this week?
When a Party doesn't really want to win - it's never an effective Opposition as HMG knows they can run rings round them.
When the Tories were obsessing over ideological purity and the EU 20yrs ago, Labour didn't have to worry about them either. It's no good for democracy, but they seem to be mutually exclusive.
Burnham backer: "Yeah he's right. There is a race between Liz and Jeremy. It's for 4th bloody place."
As for the claim that "our partners would not have welcomed additional treaty changes at that point", perhaps not. They were, however, demanding a short amendment to article 136 TFEU. We could and should have insisted on an amendment to article 122 TFEU at the same time. They would have had to have agreed if they wanted to establish the European Stability Mechanism, which they did. It would not have been a high price, and Cameron would have got it had he insisted. But he didn't, and the British taxpayer is liable to an insolvent Eurozone state as a result.
But is Cameron stupid, or just not serious? I would suggest the latter. For all his visits to farmers' markets and the like he is very much a 'court' Tory not a 'country' one. He wants and likes to be at the 'top table' with the big cheeses. He thinks the EU is the way to do that, and that is why he will do more or less whatever it demands in the end, with the occasional cosmetic spat. He is 100% the wrong person to be pursuing Britain's interests in this area, little better than Blair really.
I think she's misunderstood the lessons of New Labour. She's slaughtering far too many sacred cows at once, and isn't offering a compelling "New" New Labour vision for the party that sceptics of that can buy into. Blair had things like the social chapter, minimum wage, abolition of assisted places, the foxhunting vote, and 'investment' in public services to offer. She also lacks Blair's smooth presentationalism, articulateness and experience.
The closest analogy I can think of is she's the Labour equivalent of the uber-moderniser candidate Portillo ran as for Tory leader in 2001.
He lost too.