politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile leadership turmoil isn’t confined to LAB. It’s no

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile leadership turmoil isn’t confined to LAB. It’s not all sweetness & light in the blue team

While LAB's leadership turmoil continues CON big beasts are scrapping in battle to replace DC
http://t.co/lFSH95kyIo pic.twitter.com/nt5JzroeFG

Read the full story here

peter_from_putney

First ..... again!

MTimT

PfP - You're up early/late!

Charles

Newspapers being silly in the silly season, egged on by Boris's need for attention.

He is claiming May banning the use of water cannon is a plot to humiliate him. Despite the fact that he bought the cannon at risk against the clearly expressed grave reservations of the Home Office.

He's just trying to make himself appear the principled challenger that Osborne is afraid of.

Sorry, it's bullshit.

Alanbrooke

Spat between blokes who will never be PM.

MarqueeMark

What Charles said.

And probably Alanbrooke too....

Sandpit

Can't see Boris ever getting close to the top job. He's just trying to keep his name in the papers over the summer and the friendly DT are helping out their columnist.

GeoffM

MarqueeMark said:

What Charles said.

And probably Alanbrooke too....

Agree. Charles and Alanbrooke jointly win the thread. Next!

Charles

I think OGH just got bored (haven't we all) by the Labour leadership contest.

And now the forgone conclusion has been elected as the leader of the ?? party, there's not much of interest there until 2020 and the debate on whether they will end up with 5 or 10 seats

DecrepitJohnL

Surely the key here is the alleged Osborne-May nexus?

Andy_Cooke

FPT

justin124 said:

Andy_Cooke said:

justin124 said:

The_Apocalypse said:

@oxfordsimon I don't agree with Cooper on the economy issue, and I think that will be a problem for her leadership - something she will, I think have to change tact in the long-term. However, in the next five years or so, the government will have to defend its own record as opposed to always referencing Labour's record in office. By 2020, it'll have been ten years since Labour were last in government, so I doubt the debate will centre on what Ed Balls'/Yvette Cooper (or indeed Burnham, as he was also in the treasury) did more than ten years ago.

I do agree with Cooper on the economy. Of the contenders she is the only one with an economics background and is well aware that the Budget Deficit in 2007 - on the eve of the worldwide crash- was smaller as a % of GDP than when the Tories left office in 1997. I have been persuaded to sign up as a supporter to vote for her.

Either the state of the economic cycle is relevant - in which case the comparator is not the point at which the Tories left power but the comparable point before the previous recession - or it is not, in which case the comparators are the point at which each respectively left office.

In the former case, Labour were running a 3% deficit versus the Tories running a surplus; in the latter case, you've got the 10%+ deficit that Labour handed over. To compare the handover of one to the immediate pre-recession point of another is either egregiously misleading cherry-picking or stunning incompetence.

Neither of which raise her status in my eyes, to be honest.

But by 1997 we had over 5 years of growth - we were not in recession - yet the Tories still handed over a significant Budget Deficit.

Take a look at it.
There had been a spike after the recession, which was gradually falling. Thus Keynesian spending.
They surged the deficit from a position of surplus (all very correct), which gradually fell thereafter; their spending plans returning them to surplus (that Brown correctly - in his first parliament) followed. So we weren't forced into any austerity.

On the 51-64 Govt - they didn't, which is why they are regarded as handing over a poor inheritance. Then again, the deficit was always sufficiently low that the debt fell hugely during their time (by more than 80% of GDP in those 13 years; had Brown done similarly, we'd not only have had no debt at all, but reserves of more than 40% of GDP)

DecrepitJohnL

Andy_Cooke said:

FPT

justin124 said:

But by 1997 we had over 5 years of growth - we were not in recession - yet the Tories still handed over a significant Budget Deficit.

Take a look at it.
There had been a spike after the recession, which was gradually falling. Thus Keynesian spending.
They surged the deficit from a position of surplus (all very correct), which gradually fell thereafter; their spending plans returning them to surplus (that Brown correctly - in his first parliament) followed. So we weren't forced into any austerity.

On the 51-64 Govt - they didn't, which is why they are regarded as handing over a poor inheritance. Then again, the deficit was always sufficiently low that the debt fell hugely during their time (by more than 80% of GDP in those 13 years; had Brown done similarly, we'd not only have had no debt at all, but reserves of more than 40% of GDP)

Surely the Conservative recessions were at least in part caused by government policy, either deliberately as with the first Thatcher government's monetarism, or as a side-effect of it, as with high interest rates and reserves spending to support the pound in the ERM, or somewhere between the two with the response to the Lawson boom. Tory boom and bust was not an act of God.

Casino_Royale

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

Pauly

If Osborne loses a leadership contest - he should remain as chancellor of the exchequer, he owns the role remarkably well.

Indigo

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

(etc)

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

Indeed. Then after the leadership election there will be the second line of defence which we have already seen practised at the GE for why the government isn't legitimate. Various rent-a-lefties will be all over the TV and social media telling everyone that the result isn't legitimate because on 35% of the party voted for Andy/Yvette where as 65% didn't want them, that the electoral system used was biased/inappropriate/badly implemented (delete as appropriate). This will be followed by a six month sulk with the accompanying whineafon on Twitter.

Meanwhile under cover all all this idiocy the government is quietly trying to gut the Freedom of Information Act
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167657/Freedom-Information-laws-mercy-biased-Whitehall-panel.html

DecrepitJohnL

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

Rawnsley writes of Corbyn's unexpected popularity: "The interesting question is why."

The answer may well lie in the Guardian's photograph of Corbyn addressing the Durham Miners' Gala. Quite simply, Corbyn is used to public speaking in a way that too many politicians are not.

Innocent_Abroad

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

david_kendrick1

O/T. I was asked, as group political nerd, what % of female MPs are childless. Someone will have done the research already, please? As a control, % of male MPs who are childless would be interesting.

Moses_

DecrepitJohnL said:

Andy_Cooke said:

FPT

justin124 said:

But by 1997 we had over 5 years of growth - we were not in recession - yet the Tories still handed over a significant Budget Deficit.

Take a look at it.
There had been a spike after the recession, which was gradually falling. Thus Keynesian spending.
They surged the deficit from a position of surplus (all very correct), which gradually fell thereafter; their spending plans returning them to surplus (that Brown correctly - in his first parliament) followed. So we weren't forced into any austerity.

On the 51-64 Govt - they didn't, which is why they are regarded as handing over a poor inheritance. Then again, the deficit was always sufficiently low that the debt fell hugely during their time (by more than 80% of GDP in those 13 years; had Brown done similarly, we'd not only have had no debt at all, but reserves of more than 40% of GDP)

Surely the Conservative recessions were at least in part caused by government policy, either deliberately as with the first Thatcher government's monetarism, or as a side-effect of it, as with high interest rates and reserves spending to support the pound in the ERM, or somewhere between the two with the response to the Lawson boom. Tory boom and bust was not an act of God.

I stopped reading when I got to "Fatcher"

DecrepitJohnL

Indigo said:

Meanwhile under cover all all this idiocy the government is quietly trying to gut the Freedom of Information Act
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167657/Freedom-Information-laws-mercy-biased-Whitehall-panel.html

An interesting distinction is drawn at the end of this statement: A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘We fully support FOI but after more than a decade in operation we think it’s time that the process was reviewed, to make sure it’s working effectively for both hardworking taxpayers and citizens."

RobD

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Surely the 2020 election (if not about winning), should be about rebuilding to the point that a win in 2025 is likely? Of course Tories want an opposition, I think we are just still recovering from the fact we actually won a majority.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

Rawnsley writes of Corbyn's unexpected popularity: "The interesting question is why."

The answer may well lie in the Guardian's photograph of Corbyn addressing the Durham Miners' Gala. Quite simply, Corbyn is used to public speaking in a way that too many politicians are not.

As someone who hadn't heard of Corbyn until a month ago, he comes across as eloquent, passionate and well spoken in a way none of the other candidates do. I may disagree with pretty much everything he says, but at least he is making a positive case why he should lead the party and what direction Labour would take under his control.

In contrast, Burnham and Cooper are trying their best to go through the whole campaign saying nothing at all; whereas Kendall started off speaking her mind but now seems to be rowing back, as it dawns on her that the party isn't ready to elect someone with her views - even though those views are popular with the public as a whole.

DecrepitJohnL

Moses_ said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Andy_Cooke said:

FPT

justin124 said:

But by 1997 we had over 5 years of growth - we were not in recession - yet the Tories still handed over a significant Budget Deficit.

Take a look at it.
There had been a spike after the recession, which was gradually falling. Thus Keynesian spending.
They surged the deficit from a position of surplus (all very correct), which gradually fell thereafter; their spending plans returning them to surplus (that Brown correctly - in his first parliament) followed. So we weren't forced into any austerity.

On the 51-64 Govt - they didn't, which is why they are regarded as handing over a poor inheritance. Then again, the deficit was always sufficiently low that the debt fell hugely during their time (by more than 80% of GDP in those 13 years; had Brown done similarly, we'd not only have had no debt at all, but reserves of more than 40% of GDP)

Surely the Conservative recessions were at least in part caused by government policy, either deliberately as with the first Thatcher government's monetarism, or as a side-effect of it, as with high interest rates and reserves spending to support the pound in the ERM, or somewhere between the two with the response to the Lawson boom. Tory boom and bust was not an act of God.

I stopped reading when I got to "Fatcher"

Then you won't have read the discussion leading up to this. It concerned the deficits run by the Thatcher and Major governments.

Moses_

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

(etc)

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

Indeed. Then after the leadership election there will be the second line of defence which we have already seen practised at the GE for why the government isn't legitimate. Various rent-a-lefties will be all over the TV and social media telling everyone that the result isn't legitimate because on 35% of the party voted for Andy/Yvette where as 65% didn't want them, that the electoral system used was biased/inappropriate/badly implemented (delete as appropriate). This will be followed by a six month sulk with the accompanying whineafon on Twitter.

Meanwhile under cover all all this idiocy the government is quietly trying to gut the Freedom of Information Act
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167657/Freedom-Information-laws-mercy-biased-Whitehall-panel.html

10th comment down on CIF in that article raises that very point.....

Innocent_Abroad

O/T What is "hard" work? Is it just working long hours? Or does it also involve wealth creation in some way?

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

The other question is which side does the opposition arise from. Cameron and Osborne appear determined to move the Tory party not just onto the centre ground, but right into Blair territory, which might make electoral sense given Blair's majorities, but its not going to go on forever without a substantial lose of interest from the right, especially if he persists in the sort of identity politics crap that really annoys the centre right.

The EuRef might be the catalyst for this especially if there is perceived to be an unacceptable amount of double dealing in how it is handled. I don't see the kippers taking those people so much as economically dry, euro sceptic, socially conservative splinter group of the Conservative Party which might then start tearing chunks out of the kipper vote.

Casino_Royale

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.

It seems to me that this is Labour trying to send a message to the electorate: if you won't elect us on the platform we want, and we already made compromises to you in it, then screw you. We'll elect someone that we truly believe in, exercise a real full-throated opposition and show you all the terrible mistake you've made. You'll be sorry etc.

It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

Indigo

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T What is "hard" work? Is it just working long hours? Or does it also involve wealth creation in some way?

As opposed to a 9ish-4.30ish with a leisurely lunch and half the day spent standing around the coffee machine, like a lot of local government jobs for example

Plato

Well quite, and frankly it's far too far off for me to even think about.

We are only two months from the last GE FFS.

Charles said:

Newspapers being silly in the silly season, egged on by Boris's need for attention.

He is claiming May banning the use of water cannon is a plot to humiliate him. Despite the fact that he bought the cannon at risk against the clearly expressed grave reservations of the Home Office.

He's just trying to make himself appear the principled challenger that Osborne is afraid of.

Sorry, it's bullshit.

Financier

FPT

Moses_ said:

Greek banks to reopen on Monday morning.

Meanwhile the optimist of the year award goes to Louka Katseli For this hopeful statement on live TV urging Greeks to put money into the banks, not take it out.

“If we take our money out of chests and from our homes - where they are not safe in any case - and we deposit them in the banks, we will strengthen the liquidity of the economy,” Louka Katseli, the head of Greece’s banking association, said in a television interview on Sunday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11749712/Greece-crisis-long-queues-expected-as-banks-reopen-on-Monday.html

Money it kept at home for two reasons:

1. It has been drawn out of the bank before that bank runs out of cash.
2. None of this money has been declared for tax reasons and so why pay it into the bank and make it liable for back tax? Also how much of the Greek economy is on the cash-in-hand basis which of course may escape VAT>

Casino_Royale

On topic, I've been surprised at how obvious Osborne's jibes at Boris have been. Perhaps George is trying to show he has a sense of humour too, whilst recognising he's a threat and undermining him.

He should be careful not to be too clever.

Plato

More from Rawsley... No wonder so many are worried - and it's not the Tories.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, serious people are investigating the true reasons why Labour came 98 seats behind the Conservatives in England and Wales, and secured 2 million fewer votes than the Tories. Today, we report on the findings of a study into an illuminating segment of the electorate: lifelong Labour voters in key marginals who stuck with the party even in the dismal context of 2010, only to finally desert it in 2015. A few of these lost Labour voters scattered to Ukip, the Lib Dems and the Greens. Most of them switched to the Tories. They told the researchers that they abandoned Labour because they didn’t trust the party with the economy, tax and spending, couldn’t see Ed Miliband as prime minister and regarded Labour as a party for welfare, not a party for the average family that wanted to get on in life. Not one of these ex-Labour voters said they rejected the party because it was not promising to establish a revolutionary socialist republic.

Financier

Boris attends Cabinet - while he is Mayor of London. So as he will lose that privilege in May, he seems to want to make his mark known before he is relegated to the bank benches.

Really he should be putting all his effort into helping the Conservative candidate, for the mayoralit,y to have a successful and perhaps winning campaign.

DaemonBarber

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Labour may be a busted flush (I don't really buy that), but the left of centre is hardly "an idea whose time has gone". In Englandshire, it's really only Labour who represent that ideology in any meaningful capacity.

As a Tory, I for one would like a functioning/functional opposition. Our parliamentary democracy demands it.

As a Tory living in Scotland, I shudder at the prospect of a Scottish Parliament almost totally "owned" by a single party.

Sandpit

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, I've been surprised at how obvious Osborne's jibes at Boris have been. Perhaps George is trying to show he has a sense of humour too, whilst recognising he's a threat and undermining him.

He should be careful not to be too clever.

Any rows up until now with be small fry compared to the Heathrow expansion decision, which Boris opposes in favour of his fantasy island approach.

That is a decision which has been kicked by governments of all colours for 20 years already and still has all the planning stages to go through before any work can start - which needs to be yesterday! I'm in the JFDI rather than the NIMBY camp here, make sure everyone who needs relocating isn't out of pocket and then get on with it.

SquareRoot

Before anyone is fooled by the suggestion how "reasonable" Corbyn comes across, they would do well to watch his C4 interview when he lost the plot and got very angry when asked some basic questions in a civil manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofHy8JsgBA

@7.15 mins

The man is a dangerous loon, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.. The last loon (brown) did untold damage.

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T What is "hard" work? Is it just working long hours? Or does it also involve wealth creation in some way?

As opposed to a 9ish-4.30ish with a leisurely lunch and half the day spent standing around the coffee machine, like a lot of local government jobs for example

There are (or were) a lot of such jobs in local government because managers got paid more the more staff they had under them, whether they were needed or not. It would have been cheaper to put the people concerned on Incapacity Benefit! (And even cheaper to have shot them out of hand, of course...)

DaemonBarber

Indigo said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T What is "hard" work? Is it just working long hours? Or does it also involve wealth creation in some way?

As opposed to a 9ish-4.30ish with a leisurely lunch and half the day spent standing around the coffee machine, like a lot of local government jobs for example

https://xkcd.com/303/

Innocent_Abroad

Casino_Royale said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.

It seems to me that this is Labour trying to send a message to the electorate: if you won't elect us on the platform we want, and we already made compromises to you in it, then screw you. We'll elect someone that we truly believe in, exercise a real full-throated opposition and show you all the terrible mistake you've made. You'll be sorry etc.

It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

Quite. The average left activist is an oppositionist - why should she compromise her principles just so a hundred or so of her colleagues can ride around in ministerial limousines?

Plato

What struck me about that compared to his first LLeadership appearance, was that he was challenged on his views rather than just setting out his stall.

I've only met him once at a seminar, and he came across as someone who's very used to being Professor Yaffle and surrounded by a willing audience. And would get very testy when disagreed with.

Let's see how he does when he's on the receiving end of another journalist. I expect fireworks.

SquareRoot said:

Before anyone is fooled by the suggestion how "reasonable" Corbyn comes across, they would do well to watch his C4 interview when he lost the plot and got very angry when asked some basic questions in a civil manner.

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofHy8JsgBA

The man is a dangerous loon, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.. The last loon (brown) did untold damage.

SouthamObserver

Boris's attraction was that he was a Tory who could win. That is no longer an issue as the Tories can win. His lack of application, his unwillingness to play for the team, his opportunism, his complicated past and his aversion to detail mean that he is no longer a credible leadership proposition. He does, though, have a lot of friends in the Tory press, hence the Torygraph story and the lead in yesterday's Mail on Sunday. Journalists like hanging out with journalists shock.

If Boris wants to be taken seriously he has to become a serious proposition. But that may well be a bit too much like hard work for him.

edmundintokyo

Financier said:

2. None of this money has been declared for tax reasons and so why pay it into the bank and make it liable for back tax? Also how much of the Greek economy is on the cash-in-hand basis which of course may escape VAT>

Maybe they should have a great big massive tax amnesty. Pay some kind of lump sum right now and all your past sins are forgiven. Normally you wouldn't want to do this because the possibility of another amnesty encourages more tax evasion, but they can credibly say that the Germans wouldn't let them go easy on tax collection from now on even if they want to.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.

It seems to me that this is Labour trying to send a message to the electorate: if you won't elect us on the platform we want, and we already made compromises to you in it, then screw you. We'll elect someone that we truly believe in, exercise a real full-throated opposition and show you all the terrible mistake you've made. You'll be sorry etc.

It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

That element exists in all parties, as the Tories showed. Coming to any conclusions about the direction Labour is heading before the leadership vote takes place is not very sensible in my view. Obviously, if Corbyn wins then the party will have excluded itself from power for the foreseeable future and will lose a lot of its support, including mine. However, it has a chance of at least denying the Tories a majority with any of the other three. And with Tory hubris now at full throttle could do a lot better than that.

Plato

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

AlastairMeeks

SouthamObserver said:

Boris's attraction was that he was a Tory who could win. That is no longer an issue as the Tories can win. His lack of application, his unwillingness to play for the team, his opportunism, his complicated past and his aversion to detail mean that he is no longer a credible leadership proposition. He does, though, have a lot of friends in the Tory press, hence the Torygraph story and the lead in yesterday's Mail on Sunday. Journalists like hanging out with journalists shock.

If Boris wants to be taken seriously he has to become a serious proposition. But that may well be a bit too much like hard work for him.

You have hit the nail on the head. Boris Johnson's USP has been seriously damaged by the Conservative overall majority, which was a personal disaster for him. The next leader of the Conservative party is very likely to be Prime Minister on day one. The Conservative voting public are going to want to have someone whose credentials as Prime Minister (rather than for gathering votes) are unquestionable.

Boris Johnson may get those credentials in the next few years but he hasn't got them now and he has no particular track record of showing the application required to get them. His odds for next Conservative leader are far too short. Right now I'd make him something like a 10/1 shot.

Disclosure: I have laid him at shorter odds than he's currently trading at.

RobD

edmundintokyo said:

Financier said:

2. None of this money has been declared for tax reasons and so why pay it into the bank and make it liable for back tax? Also how much of the Greek economy is on the cash-in-hand basis which of course may escape VAT>

Maybe they should have a great big massive tax amnesty. Pay some kind of lump sum right now and all your past sins are forgiven. Normally you wouldn't want to do this because the possibility of another amnesty encourages more tax evasion, but they can credibly say that the Germans wouldn't let them go easy on tax collection from now on even if they want to.

How much tax evasion is actually taking place in Greece? I'm not sure how much of it is based in reality, as opposed to just a meme.

Sandpit

RobD said:

edmundintokyo said:

Financier said:

2. None of this money has been declared for tax reasons and so why pay it into the bank and make it liable for back tax? Also how much of the Greek economy is on the cash-in-hand basis which of course may escape VAT>

Maybe they should have a great big massive tax amnesty. Pay some kind of lump sum right now and all your past sins are forgiven. Normally you wouldn't want to do this because the possibility of another amnesty encourages more tax evasion, but they can credibly say that the Germans wouldn't let them go easy on tax collection from now on even if they want to.

How much tax evasion is actually taking place in Greece? I'm not sure how much of it is based in reality, as opposed to just a meme.

Appears to be more than just anecdotal. This article estimates the black economy as between 25% and 33% of GDP

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/world/europe/02evasion.html?_r=0

The cheating is often quite bold. When tax authorities recently surveyed the returns of 150 doctors with offices in the trendy Athens neighborhood of Kolonaki, where Prada and Chanel stores can be found, more than half had claimed an income of less than $40,000. Thirty-four of them claimed less than $13,300, a figure that exempted them from paying any taxes at all.

Such incomes defy belief, said Ilias Plaskovitis, the general secretary of the Finance Ministry, who has been in charge of revamping the country’s tax laws. “You need more than that to pay your rent in that neighborhood,” he said.

He said there were only a few thousand citizens in this country of 11 million who last year declared an income of more than $132,000. Yet signs of wealth abound.

“There are many people with a house, with a cottage in the country, with two cars and maybe a small boat who claim they are earning 12,000 euros a year,” Mr. Plaskovitis said, which is about $15,900. “You cannot heat this house or buy the gas for the car with that kind of income.”

Financier

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

JohnO

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.



It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

That element exists in all parties, as the Tories showed. Coming to any conclusions about the direction Labour is heading before the leadership vote takes place is not very sensible in my view. Obviously, if Corbyn wins then the party will have excluded itself from power for the foreseeable future and will lose a lot of its support, including mine. However, it has a chance of at least denying the Tories a majority with any of the other three. And with Tory hubris now at full throttle could do a lot better than that.

A couple of examples of this "Tory hubris now at full throttle" would be helpful.

Sandpit

On topic. Guido's cartoon from this morning.
http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/wpid-wp-1437377078234.jpeg?w=900

Innocent_Abroad

JohnO said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?

"Rawnsley, will you please transfer to the Tory party in which you clearly belong..."

"Perhaps the left have had enough of being vilified for the abject failures of right wing stupid ideology"

"It's not all about winning the vote of people who don't give a toss about their contemporaries Andrew. It just maybe about representing my left-of-centre values. That would be nice and f**k the centre ground. If voters are impressed by old Etonians there's little or nothing I want to do with it."

"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.



It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

That element exists in all parties, as the Tories showed. Coming to any conclusions about the direction Labour is heading before the leadership vote takes place is not very sensible in my view. Obviously, if Corbyn wins then the party will have excluded itself from power for the foreseeable future and will lose a lot of its support, including mine. However, it has a chance of at least denying the Tories a majority with any of the other three. And with Tory hubris now at full throttle could do a lot better than that.

A couple of examples of this "Tory hubris now at full throttle" would be helpful.

I agree. SO's implication that the Tories can't ramp up the hubris is unsustainable!

Plato

This sounds fun.

The SNP is to spend nearly £600,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a backroom team to boost the profile of its new MPs. Each MP is to hand over a proportion of their staffing budget to pay for the initiative, which will include PR opportunities designed to woo voters.

The move will protect any underperforming MPs and will raise concerns among constituents over ‘identikit’ politicians. Policy briefings will be provided for the 56 MPs to ensure they appear knowledgeable during Commons debates.

They will be given draft articles to publish in their name in local newspapers and offered support if they appear on TV. There will be standard responses to emails written for them, which they will be able to send out to campaign groups. In an example of the SNP’s fierce discipline, MPs will receive advice on whether they can sign parliamentary motions after it is checked if they are in line with party policy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167702/SNP-s-600k-PR-polish-MPs-Public-money-create-identikit-politicians.html#ixzz3gPpCKd00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

DaemonBarber

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andrew Rawnsley writes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/19/corbyn-communist-labour-leader

And what are the top CiF comments in response?



"seems like the guardian along with everyone else in the media is determined to rubbish Corbyn all the way, are they actually scared he may do much better as a leader than people are thinking??"

Deluded. Utterly deluded.

If Labour have lost the next election no matter who they choose, why not go with the heart? JC will hardly serve more than one term as LotO (he's 67), after which Labour can elect someone who is actually papabile - as the others, in all honesty, are not, and anyway none of us know what papabile will mean in 2020. If Labour is, as I believe, an idea whose time has gone, it hardly matters.

Tories here (and elsewhere) need to consider whether or not they want a functioning Opposition - it is far from clear to me that they do. Perhaps they don't mind one-party states when that Party is their own

Five years is a very long time in politics. Throwing in the towel now is nonsensical. With the right leader and approach, Labour could strip the Tories of 50-60 seats in England, and regain power.

It seems to me that this is Labour trying to send a message to the electorate: if you won't elect us on the platform we want, and we already made compromises to you in it, then screw you. We'll elect someone that we truly believe in, exercise a real full-throated opposition and show you all the terrible mistake you've made. You'll be sorry etc.

It's quite clear that for many Labour supporters the purity of ideology in opposition is something they're more comfortable with than the compromises needed for the gaining of power.

That element exists in all parties, as the Tories showed. Coming to any conclusions about the direction Labour is heading before the leadership vote takes place is not very sensible in my view. Obviously, if Corbyn wins then the party will have excluded itself from power for the foreseeable future and will lose a lot of its support, including mine. However, it has a chance of at least denying the Tories a majority with any of the other three. And with Tory hubris now at full throttle could do a lot better than that.

"Tory hubris now at full throttle"
Any examples? Or is this more conformation bias?

There has been a fair bit of mockery of the lack of opposition currently, and of the possibility of Labour deciding to voluntarily become unelectable, but hubris?!

Plato

I wish he would, expect it'd be seen as too near the knuckle to do so.

The leadership candidate reaction will be fascinating.

Financier said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

edmundintokyo

RobD said:

edmundintokyo said:

Financier said:

2. None of this money has been declared for tax reasons and so why pay it into the bank and make it liable for back tax? Also how much of the Greek economy is on the cash-in-hand basis which of course may escape VAT>

Maybe they should have a great big massive tax amnesty. Pay some kind of lump sum right now and all your past sins are forgiven. Normally you wouldn't want to do this because the possibility of another amnesty encourages more tax evasion, but they can credibly say that the Germans wouldn't let them go easy on tax collection from now on even if they want to.

How much tax evasion is actually taking place in Greece? I'm not sure how much of it is based in reality, as opposed to just a meme.

That's a question worth asking but reading around the meme seems pretty well substantiated - for example, follow the links from here:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-is-the-real-reason-greece-has-a-massive-tax-evasion-problem-2015-2

DaemonBarber

Plato said:

This sounds fun.

The SNP is to spend nearly £600,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a backroom team to boost the profile of its new MPs. Each MP is to hand over a proportion of their staffing budget to pay for the initiative, which will include PR opportunities designed to woo voters.

The move will protect any underperforming MPs and will raise concerns among constituents over ‘identikit’ politicians. Policy briefings will be provided for the 56 MPs to ensure they appear knowledgeable during Commons debates.

They will be given draft articles to publish in their name in local newspapers and offered support if they appear on TV. There will be standard responses to emails written for them, which they will be able to send out to campaign groups. In an example of the SNP’s fierce discipline, MPs will receive advice on whether they can sign parliamentary motions after it is checked if they are in line with party policy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167702/SNP-s-600k-PR-polish-MPs-Public-money-create-identikit-politicians.html#ixzz3gPpCKd00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Queue lots of ad-hom attacks on the mail...

Plato

Speaking of Boris - Isabel Hardman gives him a *must try harder* review based on feedback from fellow new MPs and a SoS. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4502553.ece

daodao

DC is hardly a suitable arbiter of right and wrong. The excellent Mail on Sunday blog by Peter Hitchens outlines his many deficiencies.
It is perfectly reasonable (and moral) to take exception to many current "so called" British values, such as the sanctification of the abomination (from a Muslim and Jewish perspective) of gay marriage. Does that make such folk "extremists" subject to harassment by state authorities?

Plato

For £4 for the month, you can read how little Hugo Rifkind likes the SNP... "About time SNP prigs got off their high horse" http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4501431.ece

Not many other readers like them either. Including most of the Scottish ones. It also has Alex Massie and Kenny Farquarson adding their 2p.

DaemonBarber said:

Plato said:

This sounds fun.

The SNP is to spend nearly £600,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a backroom team to boost the profile of its new MPs. Each MP is to hand over a proportion of their staffing budget to pay for the initiative, which will include PR opportunities designed to woo voters.

The move will protect any underperforming MPs and will raise concerns among constituents over ‘identikit’ politicians. Policy briefings will be provided for the 56 MPs to ensure they appear knowledgeable during Commons debates.

They will be given draft articles to publish in their name in local newspapers and offered support if they appear on TV. There will be standard responses to emails written for them, which they will be able to send out to campaign groups. In an example of the SNP’s fierce discipline, MPs will receive advice on whether they can sign parliamentary motions after it is checked if they are in line with party policy.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3167702/SNP-s-600k-PR-polish-MPs-Public-money-create-identikit-politicians.html#ixzz3gPpCKd00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Queue lots of ad-hom attacks on the mail...

FalseFlag

Various Labour types rubbishing Bojo, let's see who buys it.

Osborne showing his lack of political nous again, Bojo will lead the out campaign if his attacks continue.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Sounds like Boris is bleating because he realises his hopes of leadership are small.

Sandpit

Plato said:

I wish he would, expect it'd be seen as too near the knuckle to do so.

The leadership candidate reaction will be fascinating.

Financier said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

Really really hope that DC says what needs to be said, and can take the moderates with him.

The current system of allowing 'community leaders' to speak out of both sides of their mouth is what has led to teenagers going to fight for our enemy.

Sajid Javid made a good start on this last weekend:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11734415/Sajid-Javid-British-Muslims-who-dont-condemn-terrorists-are-taking-children-to-their-door.html

Financier

It is interesting that the move to promote Corbyn, so that all sides of the Labour movement/party could be aired/debated in their Leadership election, has raised so much panic in the party.

Corbyn has shown himself to be the most relaxed and confident speaker of the gang of 4 and perhaps the only one to have shown leadership potential and have defined policies.

However, a bit like the Grand Old Duke of York's troops, Corbyn wants to march them back to the time and circumstances of the last century, Kendall wants them to march towards the 2030s and Burnham and Cooper are so totally unprepared for command, they do not know what to do with them.

However, some of the regiments are more prepared in knowing their objectives (the unions) whilst the rest are still chasing round after losing their colours and commanders looking for leadership and direction and so more represent a disorganised rabble. The old general has come out of retirement again and tried to bring a semblance of order and discipline but is facing rebellion from many quarters.

So is a leader really necessary at this stage - why not have a free-for-all conference to formulate/decide policy and then a leader may emerge.

Looking at the Labour PBers, it is quite remarkable how many fit the current 3 Labour Leadership camps.

Sandpit

Plato said:

This sounds fun.

The SNP is to spend nearly £600,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a backroom team to boost the profile of its new MPs. Each MP is to hand over a proportion of their staffing budget to pay for the initiative, which will include PR opportunities designed to woo voters.

It would be interesting to compare this to what other parties do - cf the UKIP row about Short Money after the election. Does everyone else pool staffing budgets for researchers, caseworkers etc? What restrictions are placed on staff employed with public as opposed to Party money in terms of PR and campaigns etc? It could be a big issue. equally a big fuss about nothing.

Sandpit

Offtopic, but on yesterday's subject of the BBC. It appears they have ruffled feathers this morning among golf fans.

The Open Championship (Britain's only Major, Golf's version of Wimbledon Tennis) was delayed by weather over the weekend and will unexpectedly finish today rather than yesterday. Although it started at 8am, the BBC have decided not to bother showing it until 1:45 this afternoon, in favour of a bunch of pre-recorded daytime programmes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/theopen/11750268/The-Open-2015-final-round-live.html

CD13

I see the Badger has endorsed Liz for leader.

I had a lot of time for Darling but the forces of Hell will be after him again.

If Labour do elect Corbyn, how are they going to keep him away firm interviewers. It could be a hoot!

JEO

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

One obvious thing to do here is to require all faiths school to take something like 20% of its students from outside the faith. If you can't get that many, then you get a chance to correct it before being closed down. I'm sure moderate CoE schools wouldn't have a problem getting there. The Saudi-funded Islamist ones are more doubtful.

MikeSmithson

I'm off to the hospital for a minor operation. I've not eaten thing for 24 hours.

AlastairMeeks

I hope all goes well and that you recover quickly.

Sandpit

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to the hospital for a minor operation. I've not eaten thing for 24 hours.

Good luck Mike!

JEO

The freedom of information act is one of the few good things Labour did in office. As on encryption, the Conservatives really are not doing their liberal credentials any favours at all.

FalseFlag

Financier said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

I expect it will be his usual waffle that avoids mention of the two key issues of immigration and our foreign policy as like every good neo con he is committed to open borders and an activist foreign policy.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/high-life/9583872/lets-read-the-riot-act-to-the-kleptocrats-who-are-buying-us-out/

Still knife crime remains a far greater threat to life than terrorism does, but our elite doesn't want to have a conversation about gangs running wild in our cities. Better to kick the Muslims.

MikeSmithson

CD13 said:

I see the Badger has endorsed Liz for leader.

I had a lot of time for Darling but the forces of Hell will be after him again.

If Labour do elect Corbyn, how are they going to keep him away firm interviewers. It could be a hoot!

Darling will also have views on scouser Andy who was his Treasury Sec for six months.

Plato

I'm very glad that such a contest isn't happening to the Tories right now - and hopefully won't next time.

I think your analogy is a good one. What I expect to happen is that whatever the result, the harder left will be unhappy because purity is never pure enough. If Corbyn gets it - well I'll be drunk with laughter for a fortnight. If he comes anything other than a poor third or worse, his footsoldiers will be very angry/claim conspiracy stitch-up blah blah, and Cooper/Burnham will have already supped with a short spoon from his supporter base.

I expect the fate of Kendall to confirm to the electable Blairites that the battle is lost for another GE cycle.

Unless we have a serious gamechanger over the next month - its looking grim for the modernisers.

Financier said:

It is interesting that the move to promote Corbyn, so that all sides of the Labour movement/party could be aired/debated in their Leadership election, has raised so much panic in the party.

Corbyn has shown himself to be the most relaxed and confident speaker of the gang of 4 and perhaps the only one to have shown leadership potential and have defined policies.

However, a bit like the Grand Old Duke of York's troops, Corbyn wants to march them back to the time and circumstances of the last century, Kendall wants them to march towards the 2030s and Burnham and Cooper are so totally unprepared for command, they do not know what to do with them.

However, some of the regiments are more prepared in knowing their objectives (the unions) whilst the rest are still chasing round after losing their colours and commanders looking for leadership and direction and so more represent a disorganised rabble. The old general has come out of retirement again and tried to bring a semblance of order and discipline but is facing rebellion from many quarters.

So is a leader really necessary at this stage - why not have a free-for-all conference to formulate/decide policy and then a leader may emerge.

Looking at the Labour PBers, it is quite remarkable how many fit the current 3 Labour Leadership camps.

JEO

Is France such a terrible country to live in that people are prepared to risk their lives swimming 26 miles across the Channel to get to England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584706

Plato

It'd be a very useful safety valve to know from those who aren't *true believers* what's going on in the classroom/staff rooms too.

JEO said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

One obvious thing to do here is to require all faiths school to take something like 20% of its students from outside the faith. If you can't get that many, then you get a chance to correct it before being closed down. I'm sure moderate CoE schools wouldn't have a problem getting there. The Saudi-funded Islamist ones are more doubtful.

JPJ2

Good to see the professionalism (not an insult) of the SNP in recognising the bitterness and dishonesty of their opponents requires the SNP to make absolutely sure that their MPs are (not merely appear to be, which they already do) much better than the average UK MP.

Plato

He comes across as a bit of a Trevor Phillips type who's prepared to speak the truth.

I don't know much about him bar his CV, if he carries on like this - I hope he's a bright future ahead of him.

AFAIC, Boris was never PM material and I'd never ever vote for him to be Party Leader. He's perfect as a Mayor and no more.

Sandpit said:

Plato said:

I wish he would, expect it'd be seen as too near the knuckle to do so.

The leadership candidate reaction will be fascinating.

Financier said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

Really really hope that DC says what needs to be said, and can take the moderates with him.

The current system of allowing 'community leaders' to speak out of both sides of their mouth is what has led to teenagers going to fight for our enemy.

Sajid Javid made a good start on this last weekend:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11734415/Sajid-Javid-British-Muslims-who-dont-condemn-terrorists-are-taking-children-to-their-door.html

Financier

FalseFlag said:

Financier said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

It will be interesting to see the reaction to DC's speech today in Birmingham (home of the Trojan schools) especially from the 4 LAB candidates and Mr Farron. Will DC follow this up by similar speeches in Nottingham, Bradford, Rochdale and Tower Hamlets?

I expect it will be his usual waffle that avoids mention of the two key issues of immigration and our foreign policy as like every good neo con he is committed to open borders and an activist foreign policy.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/high-life/9583872/lets-read-the-riot-act-to-the-kleptocrats-who-are-buying-us-out/

Still knife crime remains a far greater threat to life than terrorism does, but our elite doesn't want to have a conversation about gangs running wild in our cities. Better to kick the Muslims.

Many of those gangs are in fact Muslim

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JEO, isn't there already a similar sort of requirement?

Hope it goes smoothly, Mr. Smithson.

Financier

JEO said:

Is France such a terrible country to live in that people are prepared to risk their lives swimming 26 miles across the Channel to get to England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584706

The benefits are not so good by far and they do not speak English.

AllyPally_Rob

JEO said:

Is France such a terrible country to live in that people are prepared to risk their lives swimming 26 miles across the Channel to get to England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584706

As I understand the issue is France won't give any kind of benefit or financial assistance until you have been processed and a judgement has been made on if you can stay.

We give financial assistance straight away, which in terms of humane treatment seems reasonable.

Britain and France need to harmonise their asylum policies in this area to get rid of the discrepancy.

Plato

Enjoy your dinner when you're back home.

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to the hospital for a minor operation. I've not eaten thing for 24 hours.

notme

Financier said:

JEO said:

Is France such a terrible country to live in that people are prepared to risk their lives swimming 26 miles across the Channel to get to England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584706

The benefits are not so good by far and they do not speak English.

And they dont have an army of people who will fawn over you and advocate on your behalf. Some of it is perception rather than reality. But word gets around. And the word is you can sit and do nothing and live in a big house and get thousands of pounds for free. Or you can work really hard, even in a menial job and the government will give you tens of thousands of tax credits and pay your rent. A land in which poverty is defined by how fat you are, rather than how thin you are.

Either way its usually better than the mud hut, civil unrest and grinding misery they currently endure.

JPJ2

Plato

"For £4 for the month, you can read how little Hugo Rifkind likes the SNP... "About time SNP prigs got off their high horse" "

I won't be paying to read his anti-SNP nonsense.

No doubt he is still bitter that his father Malcolm was thrown out of his Edinburgh seat in 1997 and failed in his attempt to regain it in 2001. After that he belatedly appeared in London replacing Portillo before being in effect forced out after newspaper revelations.

Malcom Rifkind, like Murphy in SLAB, was the best the "Scottish" Tories had, but he fell woefully short of being good enough. That encapsulates the unionist tragedy.

MarqueeMark

Labour really needs to elect Corbyn as leader, for its own sake.

It needs to let the Left take the reins for a couple of years. Major on all that totemic stuff that makes their heart beat faster, the things that represent the real reason they joined Labour.

Then, when they are down at 19% in the polls, they can finally ditch all that crap, clear the decks and start looking at what it will take to gain power. At which point there might be a better hearing for Liz Kendall - and the electoral realism she represents. Because they are currently deaf to it.

The brutal truth for Labour is that they need to win over three million people who didn't vote for them in 2015. Because in taking the road back to power, they are going to lose at least a million who will have lost faith with a party that has turned its back on its heritage. What is awkward is that their activist base includes many who will be in that million lost voters...

TCPoliticalBetting

MikeSmithson said:

CD13 said:

I see the Badger has endorsed Liz for leader.

I had a lot of time for Darling but the forces of Hell will be after him again.

If Labour do elect Corbyn, how are they going to keep him away firm interviewers. It could be a hoot!

Darling will also have views on scouser Andy who was his Treasury Sec for six months.

good point and good luck with the op.

JEO

MarqueeMark said:

Labour really needs to elect Corbyn as leader, for its own sake.

It needs to let the Left take the reins for a couple of years. Major on all that totemic stuff that makes their heart beat faster, the things that represent the real reason they joined Labour.

Then, when they are down at 19% in the polls, they can finally ditch all that crap, clear the decks and start looking at what it will take to gain power. At which point there might be a better hearing for Liz Kendall - and the electoral realism she represents. Because they are currently deaf to it.

The brutal truth for Labour is that they need to win over three million people who didn't vote for them in 2015. Because in taking the road back to power, they are going to lose at least a million who will have lost faith with a party that has turned its back on its heritage. What is awkward is that their activist base includes many who will be in that million lost voters...

Even Liz Kendall's "electoral realism" seems stronger than it actually is, by comparison to the other candidates. She still defends the union link, and accuses the Conservative immigration policies of "demonising immigrants".

Plato

I honestly never thought that Labour would be seriously flirting with Foot MkII. At least in 1983, there was a bloc of Old Commies/Fellow Travellers left over from the 60/70s.

Then we had Militant in the 80s who used entry-ism - and now 20yrs later, after taking over the Greenies - they're back in Labour via Unite badges.

Time has moved on so far - the revolution is over, comrade - and failed everywhere. Unless you think having no bog rolls in Venezuela is desirable.

MarqueeMark said:

Labour really needs to elect Corbyn as leader, for its own sake.

It needs to let the Left take the reins for a couple of years. Major on all that totemic stuff that makes their heart beat faster, the things that represent the real reason they joined Labour.

Then, when they are down at 19% in the polls, they can finally ditch all that crap, clear the decks and start looking at what it will take to gain power. At which point there might be a better hearing for Liz Kendall - and the electoral realism she represents. Because they are currently deaf to it.

The brutal truth for Labour is that they need to win over three million people who didn't vote for them in 2015. Because in taking the road back to power, they are going to lose at least a million who will have lost faith with a party that has turned its back on its heritage. What is awkward is that their activist base includes many who will be in that million lost voters...

notme

Plato said:

I'm very glad that such a contest isn't happening to the Tories right now - and hopefully won't next time.

I think your analogy is a good one. What I expect to happen is that whatever the result, the harder left will be unhappy because purity is never pure enough. If Corbyn gets it - well I'll be drunk with laughter for a fortnight. If he comes anything other than a poor third or worse, his footsoldiers will be very angry/claim conspiracy stitch-up blah blah, and Cooper/Burnham will have already supped with a short spoon from his supporter base.

I expect the fate of Kendall to confirm to the electable Blairites that the battle is lost for another GE cycle.

Unless we have a serious gamechanger over the next month - its looking grim for the modernisers.

I went to see the last conservative leadership election hustings with David Cameron and David Davis. You could not have seen a process more comradery. The pair of them came across as friends who respected each other professionally and personally. Both were very good, but Cameron was the person who stood out as Prime Minister material.

Of course, there was subsequently a falling out, but at the time, it came across as genuine.

The respect for the party and for both candidates grew during that process. Can the same be said for this contest?

Morris_Dancer

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but The Times appears to have a video proving that Tim Hunt (professor hounded out of a UCL honorary position based on controversy over remarks on female scientists) was clearly telling jokes, and that the audience (far from the 'deathly silence' claimed by his accuser) understood this full well.

JEO

AllyPally_Rob said:

JEO said:

Is France such a terrible country to live in that people are prepared to risk their lives swimming 26 miles across the Channel to get to England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33584706

As I understand the issue is France won't give any kind of benefit or financial assistance until you have been processed and a judgement has been made on if you can stay.

We give financial assistance straight away, which in terms of humane treatment seems reasonable.

Britain and France need to harmonise their asylum policies in this area to get rid of the discrepancy.

It will be a cold day in hell before France adjusts its domestic policy at the insistence of the British. So it seems like we will have to adjust our policies to meet theirs. I understand the humane treatment concerns, but there is nothing more inhumane than encouraging a system where people get crushed under trains or drown at sea.

dr_spyn

Ambitious politicians in disagreement shock.

Is the infighting really unexpected? Past governments have always had politicians jockeying for position, and the same goes for most large organisations.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Notme, not seen much untoward, Cooper's 'I've got kids, you haven't' nonsense aside. It seems to be shadowy chatter about axing Corbyn if he gets the gig.

It's intriguing. Would Labour actually manage to get rid of a leader?

MarqueeMark

Plato said:

AFAIC, Boris was never PM material and I'd never ever vote for him to be Party Leader. He's perfect as a Mayor and no more.

Boris should quietly do some polling that shows he is head and shoulders above the contenders for his job. Then do some more that shows, as an MP with a place in the Cabinet, Boris as Mayor is the best thing for arguing London's interests at the heart of Government.

Then give up on his forlorn hope of being PM - and carry on doing London Mayor for the next umpteen years.

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

CD13 said:

I see the Badger has endorsed Liz for leader.

I had a lot of time for Darling but the forces of Hell will be after him again.

If Labour do elect Corbyn, how are they going to keep him away firm interviewers. It could be a hoot!

Darling will also have views on scouser Andy who was his Treasury Sec for six months.

The question is why isn't Darling running himself.

dr_spyn

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to the hospital for a minor operation. I've not eaten thing for 24 hours.

Hope all goes well today.

madasafish

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Notme, not seen much untoward, Cooper's 'I've got kids, you haven't' nonsense aside. It seems to be shadowy chatter about axing Corbyn if he gets the gig.

It's intriguing. Would Labour actually manage to get rid of a leader?

Labour would get rid of a Leader in the same efficient way they run economic and welfare policy.

notme

JEO said:

Plato said:

OT I see Mr Cameron has named Louise Casey as the head of integration for isolated families [code for Muslim ghettos].

She takes no prisoners so that's good news to my ears.

One obvious thing to do here is to require all faiths school to take something like 20% of its students from outside the faith. If you can't get that many, then you get a chance to correct it before being closed down. I'm sure moderate CoE schools wouldn't have a problem getting there. The Saudi-funded Islamist ones are more doubtful.

Pity the poor parents who, due to the local authority school place selection policy ends up with their kids going into a school in which it is culturally acceptable to rape them.

Indigo

Morris_Dancer said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but The Times appears to have a video proving that Tim Hunt (professor hounded out of a UCL honorary position based on controversy over remarks on female scientists) was clearly telling jokes, and that the audience (far from the 'deathly silence' claimed by his accuser) understood this full well.

UCL appear to be doing 'well' out of it, some wealthy donor just wrote them out of his will as a result of his disgust at this fiasco, so they are 100k light as a result - such a shame.

PClipp

JEO said:

The freedom of information act is one of the few good things Labour did in office. As on encryption, the Conservatives really are not doing their liberal credentials any favours at all.

The Conservatives do not have any Liberal credentials, Mr JEO. They believe in control and conformity.