Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank considers what the Blairites could do if Liz Ken

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank considers what the Blairites could do if Liz Kendall comes last

The Labour leadership election hasn’t gone according to the Blairites’ plan, to put it mildly.  Dan Jarvis declined to run and Chuka Umunna launched an in-and-out campaign that prefigured the performance of England’s top order in the last Test, leaving Liz Kendall as the sole standard bearer of the right of the Labour party in the contest.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    Go fourth and multiply. Love it.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346
    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    If the Cameroons left the Conservative Party the Blairites could join together and create their own party and we could see how far they would get without an established party to feed off.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    The Blairites won't leave the party because they believe they own it. They're in a better position to get rid of him, since Corbyn obviously doesn't have much following in the parliamentary party, and Miliband does provide a clear argument against persisting with a failing leader.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    SeanT said:

    I haven't been this happy since the exit poll.

    I haven't been this happy since Mark Reckless lost.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited July 2015
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    It is a slow day in a little Greek Village . The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
    On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
    The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the taverna.
    The publican slips the money along to the local holiday rep drinking at the bar, who has also been introducing clients to the publican for commission on credit. The holiday rep then rushes to the hotel and pays off her introducers bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.
    The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
    No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the Greek bailout package works.
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    "Any defectors will be doing so without the blessing of Tony Blair, who has said that he would not leave the Labour party if Jeremy Corbyn wins, declaring himself Labour through and through."
    Is this the same Tony Blair who promised during the 2005 GE that he would serve a full term, when he was already working on a handover timetable to Gordon?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Genesis Chapter 9 Verse 7.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    dr_spyn said:
    Not for nothing was Drax a Bond villain in Moonraker....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It's not a high bar. If you have connections, can tick boxes, talk the lingo and make "savings" there'll always be a well paid place for you in a British business.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Nigel,

    That's how all capitalist economies work. How much "real" work goes on in Hawaii?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
    Wouldn't in 3 of those 4 places Corbyn do rather well though? (Wales Scotland and London).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited July 2015
    Surely it depends on who becomes leader. The 'Blairites' would be reasonably happy with Yvette leading the party; she's dull but pragmatic enough. They could stomach Andy Burnham, grit their collective teeth and wait for something better to turn up (although I dare say a fair number would take antifrank's option 5).

    However, Jeremy Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability altogether. I posted a comment on his economic fantasies at the end of the previous thread, but even more toxic are his views on national security and the various terrorist organisations which he has been so eager to embrace in his career. No sane politician, who actually wants to be in government, would wish to be associated with him. If Corbyn wins, I think the party would split, or alternatively that they'd find some way of ditching him pronto. Even in the latter case there'd be the most almighty internal ructions, and the party would still have the problem of not being united on the way forward.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Where does this attitude come from that Burnham is not a New Labour man? He was very happy to contract out NHS services. The only reason people think he is more left-wing is because he has a northern accent.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
    Wouldn't in 3 of those 4 places Corbyn do rather well though? (Wales Scotland and London).

    I doubt it. London CLPs have been pretty supportive of Kendall and would have been massively supportive of Chukka.

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    William_H said:

    The Blairites won't leave the party because they believe they own it. They're in a better position to get rid of him, since Corbyn obviously doesn't have much following in the parliamentary party, and Miliband does provide a clear argument against persisting with a failing leader.

    Isn't the parliamentary party sliding leftwards post election with the influence of Unite?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    SeanT said:

    I haven't been this happy since the exit poll.

    I haven't been this happy since Mark Reckless lost.
    I think that in the last 48 hrs I have laughed out loud at more comments than in the whole of the previous 12 months,.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    Another good piece from Antifrank - although he appears to be focusing on the MP's. One of the things that I think will be even more interesting in some ways is what happens to the ambitous 'Progress' types that are currently local councillors searching for winnable seats etc. If the party is more 'left' than they are, then they might find it hard to secure a seat - do they drift off into the wilderness or to another party, consolidate the power bases that they have and wait 'for the party to come back to them' - or do something of the more 'noisy' opposition at the risk of losing some of the power bases that they have.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,099
    Many thanks, Antifrank - a very good analysis, apparently produced in double-quick time!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    This is rather like the race to get the Republican or Democratic nomination. You have to pitch yourself left or right and then you swing back once in power. That will happen with both Burnham and Cooper. Corbyn is Trump. Hopefully his fate will be the same.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    A Corbyn led Labour might well expel Blair from the party.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,099
    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    Do you foresee a situation arising where the SNP are genuinely the Opposition, so to speak?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    This is rather like the race to get the Republican or Democratic nomination. You have to pitch yourself left or right and then you swing back once in power. That will happen with both Burnham and Cooper. Corbyn is Trump. Hopefully his fate will be the same.

    Maybe, but then if Corbyn just falls short and then Cooper or Burnham swing to be Blair Mk II or whatever, then theres going to be a lot of disgrunted people on the left of the party.

    What was supposed to be a 'wide debate' by letting Corbyn on the ballot is now really hugely damaging for them.

    It's like UKIP being on the right of the tories, but UKIP are outside the party, rather than being within it and tearing it apart in whatever grouping is around Corbyn.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Young cardinals voting for old popes or in this case the old dope.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It takes something to be so wrong, condescending and arrogant at the same time. Private sector firms are full of people who spend their entire careers playing politics. The Blairites, and most other groups would fit in just fine.


  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It's not a high bar. If you have connections, can tick boxes, talk the lingo and make "savings" there'll always be a well paid place for you in a British business.

    In a quango, a charity or the public sector yes, but these people have no knowledge of or interest in the private sector.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Surely it has to be factored in that Corbyn's position should significantly improve from where it is today.

    The reason is that UNITE is still signing up people to vote. And this poll is going to give them a heck of a lot of encouragement to sign up as many more as they can. And these new sign-ups are going to be disproportionately for Corbyn.

    In contrast Burnham and Cooper are not going to be able to get late sign-ups to anything like the same degree.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966

    A Corbyn led Labour might well expel Blair from the party.

    Prime Minister Corbyn might ship him off to The Hague.

    That has got to be worth £3.....
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082

    Reading the comments section in Labour list is an enlightening experience. Absolutely bonkers and yet they are absolutely convinced people will vote for a) higher taxes and b) more borrowing.

    Well they just did at the last election.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,099
    William_H said:

    The Blairites won't leave the party because they believe they own it. They're in a better position to get rid of him, since Corbyn obviously doesn't have much following in the parliamentary party, and Miliband does provide a clear argument against persisting with a failing leader.

    It's a bit harsh to label anyone 'a failing leader' before they've even been elected, though, isn't it?

    (Some) Labour MPs wanted the full range of party voices to be heard during the leadership contest and they've got their wish. Apparently the party membership is much more left-wing than those MPs realised or bargained for.

    But if that's where the membership is coming from, that's where any leader needs to start from. That may mean a huge 'political remedial education' programme (for want of a better term), but otherwise it's Elect-a-new-membership, isn't it?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK.
    (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area.
    Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting.
    Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP.
    So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election.
    Then they need to deliver it when in power.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited July 2015
    Corbyn accuses Blair of making a personal attack
    Jeremy Corbyn has accused Tony Blair of making a personal attack on him and distracting the election from the issues.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-22/corbyn-accuses-blair-of-making-a-personal-attack/
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
    A believable scenario but I think it puts a huge wight upon Dan Jarvis - does his star not seem bright in a very dim sky? At best he's an unknown quantity whose family may remain a priority for a good few years yet.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    I don't like the term "Blairite" either, but words like "moderate" and "right-winger" are too loaded with implicit value judgements that I decided that it was the least worst option.

    My preferred definition, Labour supporters who prioritise the pursuit of power to implement social justice by pragmatic means and by building broader public confidence in the means of implementation, I hope captures the part of the party that I'm talking about.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!

    He also deserves praises for not charging Mike his hourly rate for these pieces.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It takes something to be so wrong, condescending and arrogant at the same time. Private sector firms are full of people who spend their entire careers playing politics. The Blairites, and most other groups would fit in just fine.


    Really? Considering that most Blairites haven't worked outside of politics I'd suggest that's nonsense. What antifrank is talking about is career politicians considering alternatives, think Dave Milliband running to NY to run a charity.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!

    He also deserves praises for not charging Mike his hourly rate for these pieces.
    Sometimes law firms can be very slow getting their bills out.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    If Corbyn wins how much of the 1983 manifesto would he seek to input as policy for 2020? Renationalise all the privatised industries? Withdraw from the EU? Abolish the House of Lords? Can we be certain that such a programme would repel the electorate in quite the same way as in Michael Foot's day - particularly as leaving the EU is favoured by so many on the Right?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Plato said:
    Possibly more to do with the Prince than the Chancellor?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited July 2015
    Remember when we were told Falkirk was a story hyped up by PB Tories...

    @georgeeaton: If Corbyn wins it will be thanks to the Falkirk affair. One-member-one-vote would not have been introduced without it.

    #PBToriesAlwaysRightNothingMoreToLearn
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It takes something to be so wrong, condescending and arrogant at the same time. Private sector firms are full of people who spend their entire careers playing politics. The Blairites, and most other groups would fit in just fine.


    Really? Considering that most Blairites haven't worked outside of politics I'd suggest that's nonsense. What antifrank is talking about is career politicians considering alternatives, think Dave Milliband running to NY to run a charity.

    Here's a very recent example of a Labour politician with no previous private sector experience making the move (in this case prompted by losing his seat):

    http://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-adviser/news/2417688/gregg-mcclymont-joins-aberdeen-asset-management

    There would be opportunities.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,509
    SeanT said:

    Interesting debate as to whether rightwingers should vote Corbyn to screw Labour

    The eminently sensible Dan Hannan and Dan Finkelstein both say No. Juvenile, silly and dangerous, is their verdict.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4504545.ece (££)

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/07/daniel-hannan-mep-a-corbyn-victory-would-be-bad-for-the-conservatives.html

    I'm not entirely convinced. What if you're a rightwinger who genuinely wishes to see the electoral death of Labour, as a party that is a menace to the UK? The last Labour government was arguably the worst in 100 years. There's plenty of reasons to want Labour gone forever, or a generation, and if it takes a bit of registration chicanery, the end still justifies the means.

    I'm conflicted. I can see both points of view.

    The day after the election, I was left with a slightly depressing thought that politics was going to be boring for a year or so. I was wring. First Farage's unresignation, then the SNP, and now Labour's leadership race, have all provided plenty of excitement and humour.

    It's a shame the Lib Dem leadership race was so relatively boring. Perhaps they should have changed the rules so Hancock should have stood for leader ... :)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Just to add, history has I think vindicated those who chose to stay and fight in the 1980s rather than those who defected to the SDP.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    AnneJGP said:

    William_H said:

    The Blairites won't leave the party because they believe they own it. They're in a better position to get rid of him, since Corbyn obviously doesn't have much following in the parliamentary party, and Miliband does provide a clear argument against persisting with a failing leader.

    It's a bit harsh to label anyone 'a failing leader' before they've even been elected, though, isn't it?

    (Some) Labour MPs wanted the full range of party voices to be heard during the leadership contest and they've got their wish. Apparently the party membership is much more left-wing than those MPs realised or bargained for.

    But if that's where the membership is coming from, that's where any leader needs to start from. That may mean a huge 'political remedial education' programme (for want of a better term), but otherwise it's Elect-a-new-membership, isn't it?
    He's not failing yet, but the Blairites will take his failure as read, just as the people here do. And they're well placed to spark a leadership contest as soon as they've got an excuse.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346


    So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election.
    Then they need to deliver it when in power.

    Yes, that's why I'm attending the Great gathering for Voting Reform outside parliament on Saturday (https://www.facebook.com/events/1407096636284737/)
    I will also be campaigning for support for PR from within the Labour Party at every opportunity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    SeanT said:

    Interesting debate as to whether rightwingers should vote Corbyn to screw Labour

    The eminently sensible Dan Hannan and Dan Finkelstein both say No. Juvenile, silly and dangerous, is their verdict.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/07/daniel-hannan-mep-a-corbyn-victory-would-be-bad-for-the-conservatives.html

    'A Corbyn-led Labour party would probably split. Even if it didn’t, it would sink to a 1983-style defeat. Against such a party, the Conservatives might be mediocre, pedestrian, self-serving and still stroll to victory.

    Which is, of course, precisely the problem. Politics depends on credible opposition. Take away the fear of losing office and governing parties become flabby and often corrupt. '

    ^ I agree with Dan.
  • MontyMonty Posts: 346
    AnneJGP said:

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    Do you foresee a situation arising where the SNP are genuinely the Opposition, so to speak?
    If the Labour Party is in dissarray then it's possible.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited July 2015

    Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!

    He also deserves praises for not charging Mike his hourly rate for these pieces.
    Sometimes law firms can be very slow getting their bills out.
    As someone who has published some of these pieces by Antifrank, that fills me with dread.
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    The unfortunate truth is the Blairites have already started to colonise other parties, and no doubt this will continue.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    SeanT said:

    Interesting debate as to whether rightwingers should vote Corbyn to screw Labour

    The eminently sensible Dan Hannan and Dan Finkelstein both say No. Juvenile, silly and dangerous, is their verdict.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4504545.ece (££)

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/07/daniel-hannan-mep-a-corbyn-victory-would-be-bad-for-the-conservatives.html

    I'm not entirely convinced. What if you're a rightwinger who genuinely wishes to see the electoral death of Labour, as a party that is a menace to the UK? The last Labour government was arguably the worst in 100 years. There's plenty of reasons to want Labour gone forever, or a generation, and if it takes a bit of registration chicanery, the end still justifies the means.

    I'm conflicted. I can see both points of view.

    Unintended consequences?
    A left wing Labour leader helped to power by Tories with their £3 memberships, who then avoids scaring the horses and becomes PM after the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!

    He also deserves praises for not charging Mike his hourly rate for these pieces.
    Sometimes law firms can be very slow getting their bills out.
    As someone who has published some of these pieces by Antifrank, that fills me with dread.
    It's part of my commitment to pro bono. Michael Gove, are you reading?
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Plato said:
    Isn't that more likely down to Prince George, than George Osborne though?

    And maybe we should add some caution to this poll because [from the previous thread]:
    Speedy said:

    Attention all Bettors.

    Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll.
    Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters.
    All those corrections will have to be done now manually.

    My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited July 2015

    Just to add, history has I think vindicated those who chose to stay and fight in the 1980s rather than those who defected to the SDP.

    By the 1990s it was pretty clear that the arguments advanced by SDP defectors had largely been won in terms of party policy. For that reason I have never quite understood why the people concerned did not return to Labour . Admittedly quite a few did but there is no evidence that the likes of Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, Bill Rodgers, Tom McNally tried to do that. Labour under Milliband was well to the Right of where it stood when such people were prepared to be in the party and ,therefore, should have been a more comfortable political home for them.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, this looks worth keeping an eye on:

    http://redshiftlabour.co.uk/winning-our-new-England
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Clearly my joke failed here!

    Plato said:
    Isn't that more likely down to Prince George, than George Osborne though?

    And maybe we should add some caution to this poll because [from the previous thread]:
    Speedy said:

    Attention all Bettors.

    Yougov is WRONG, they used the WRONG demographic weightings on their Labour leadership poll.
    Normally the Labour members skew about 70/30 towards Men, but Yougov weighted it 50/50, if corrected that alone reduces Corbyn's total by 2% and makes the 2nd place too close to call, also they haven't used any turnout filters.
    All those corrections will have to be done now manually.

    My first impression now is that Corby is ahead by far less than thought, and Burnham and Cooper are tied for second place.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited July 2015
    FYI any honourable patriotic lions wanting to defect to the Tory party will be welcomed with open arms.

    Except Mark Reckless and Quentin Davies.

    You two can [moderate] right off.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    6. Perish.

    Gordon Brown’s pogrom against them and Ed’s side-lining of those that did not conform have already made Blairites within Labour an endangered species – A Corbyn victory would see them polished off for sure.
  • Now is one of those times when Betfair's exchange odds for Corbyn at 4.7 (or just over 7/2 in old money net of their 5% commission) look outstanding value compared with the bookies' offerings of between 2/1 and 5/2 at best.
    One could even be greedy and ask for a tad more.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    edited July 2015
    Excellent piece. So far, Blairites have mainly done (2) or (1) followed by (5) followed by some (2) again.

    They may be right, but they not fighters. They are frit whingers.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Now is one of those times when Betfair's exchange odds for Corbyn at 4.7 (or just over 7/2 in old money net of their 5% commission) look outstanding value compared with the bookies' offerings of between 2/1 and 5/2 at best.
    One could even be greedy and ask for a tad more.

    Someone just took the £40 I was looking to back with at 4.7; and the rest to 4.9.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,099
    antifrank said:

    On topic, this looks worth keeping an eye on:

    http://redshiftlabour.co.uk/winning-our-new-England

    That does look hopeful. Thanks for posting the link.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    FalseFlag said:

    If the Cameroons left the Conservative Party the Blairites could join together and create their own party and we could see how far they would get without an established party to feed off.

    An interesting idea, certainly. The left-right spectrum is largely nonsense, and maybe there is actually a space for a flexible, 'whatever works' party, if it had enough major figures from the start. I suspect not though, people like to pretend ideology is more important than it is, it allows political tribes to feel more superior to each other.

    I think the Blairites will sulk, personally. Someone pointed out the other day how even under Foot how many MPs Labour had, and that's regarded, currently, as a floor they surely cannot go past. Until that happens, if it ever does, I don't see the new breed doing more than quiet defiance or anything extreme like leaving the party to form another or join another.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    This whole thing about the Blairites is nonsense. If Chukka was still in the election he would be coasting to victory by now. It is because Liz Kendell is a very poor communicator and candidate that she invokes these attacks. She is not likeable, credible, plausible or anything elseable.

    Labour was a more leftwing party when it elected Blair. It overwhelmingly voted D Miliband last time.

    The reason why we are struggling so much at this moment is because the candidates are insipid- thus the fascination for Corbyn. If we had a candidate or who could light up the field- Chukka, maybe Ed Jarvis (still unproven mind), or the return of the prodigal David Miliband. We want someone who can win.

    So, I'm joining the Corbyn bandwagon for the hope of someut better round corner.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844

    Just to add, history has I think vindicated those who chose to stay and fight in the 1980s rather than those who defected to the SDP.

    I don't think Labour could have advanced beyond the 1980s mess if the split hadn't happened. It took time - but they accepted that the Left did not provide the answer and the rise of the SDP/Alliance helped force that acceptance of a new reality.

    If the Gang of Four had stayed, their voices would have been lost.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Wonder if its the same person that was laying Yvette at 8s, or Corbyn way back at 550s.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    The irony is that Burnham really could've walked this contest. He was adored by activists just months ago. He made a bad mistake starting his campaign by parroting all the Blairite mantras.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    In all seriousness, and recognising that, sigh, there is a long way to go in the Labour race, why have the other three been so dull? Even for politicians I mean. I liked Kendall's frankness about running at the very start, but she's clearly a no hoper at this point and hasn't exactly set the world on fire, Burnham seems to be the man to beat but mostly comes across as vaguely silly to me (despite preferring him in 2010 to the others), and Cooper has been pretty invisible, as she was in the shadow cabinet, so perhaps slightly more 'safe' by virtue of being too cautious to do anything stupid, which is not as helpful when you need to do something bold (I thought Ed M should, but didn't need to, and was wrong).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    "No, the country comes first!"

    :lol:
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    tyson said:

    This whole thing about the Blairites is nonsense. If Chukka was still in the election he would be coasting to victory by now. It is because Liz Kendell is a very poor communicator and candidate that she invokes these attacks. She is not likeable, credible, plausible or anything elseable.

    Labour was a more leftwing party when it elected Blair. It overwhelmingly voted D Miliband last time.

    The reason why we are struggling so much at this moment is because the candidates are insipid- thus the fascination for Corbyn. If we had a candidate or who could light up the field- Chukka, maybe Ed Jarvis (still unproven mind), or the return of the prodigal David Miliband. We want someone who can win.

    So, I'm joining the Corbyn bandwagon for the hope of someut better round corner.

    I think Chuka would've done better than Liz, certainly, but I doubt he could've won on an unashamed ultra-Blairite platform of "balancing the books", cracking down on "scroungers", sucking up to big businesses, etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK.
    (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area.
    Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting.
    Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP.
    So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election.
    Then they need to deliver it when in power.
    The SNP are 81 years old. To get where they are now has been a long slog.

    I think Labour were the last "new party" to reach power before long after being established.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    antifrank said:

    On topic, this looks worth keeping an eye on:

    http://redshiftlabour.co.uk/winning-our-new-England

    Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Comrades!

    Jezza is the only leadership candidate who can provide a genuine alternative to the puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,354
    I wonder who will be prompted to act by this turn of events? Small numbers of Tories for Corbyn who are prepared to contract a bit of sillyitis for the cause or a smaller proportion but bigger number of Labour voters concerned at what is happening. Does a UNITE recruitment drive beyond the core activists necessarily help Corbyn when many of that membership aren't involved in the kinds of occupations that lend themselves to heroic Soviet-style statues? A quick Google has not yielded a breakdown by sector, but I'm not so sure that UNITE members are as atypical of the wider public as you might think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    justin124 said:

    antifrank said:

    On topic, this looks worth keeping an eye on:

    http://redshiftlabour.co.uk/winning-our-new-England

    Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
    Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    tyson said:

    This whole thing about the Blairites is nonsense. If Chukka was still in the election he would be coasting to victory by now. It is because Liz Kendell is a very poor communicator and candidate that she invokes these attacks. She is not likeable, credible, plausible or anything elseable.

    Labour was a more leftwing party when it elected Blair. It overwhelmingly voted D Miliband last time.

    The reason why we are struggling so much at this moment is because the candidates are insipid- thus the fascination for Corbyn. If we had a candidate or who could light up the field- Chukka, maybe Ed Jarvis (still unproven mind), or the return of the prodigal David Miliband. We want someone who can win.

    So, I'm joining the Corbyn bandwagon for the hope of someut better round corner.

    Chukka would not be running away with it. He managed to keep a lid on the stuff being circulated about him - but only by pulling out of the race. He knows what could have come out - and stepped aside.

    The media would not let that happen a second time.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117
    Danny565 said:

    The irony is that Burnham really could've walked this contest. He was adored by activists just months ago. He made a bad mistake starting his campaign by parroting all the Blairite mantras.

    Irony? Burnham came fourth last time, barely scraping past Diane Abbot. He's a plodder- the party knows that. The more the leadership contest goes on, the more plodding he becomes.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    FYI any honourable patriotic lions wanting to defect to the Tory party will be welcomed with open arms.

    Except Mark Reckless and Quentin Davies.

    You two can [moderate] right off.

    Why do you dislike Reckless more than Carswell? Did they not commit the same sin?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    Comrades!

    Jezza is the only leadership candidate who can provide a genuine alternative to the puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!

    As I said last night, a Tory majority government makes Labour know their place.

    They would prefer purist and principled opposition to it, and everything it does, rather than compete with it for power. An old Etonian Prime Minister presses even more buttons.

    It's like a political Stockholm syndrome. This subservient and symbiotic role is one they recognise and fall in love with because it's what they feel the most comfortable and natural in doing.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    JEO said:

    FYI any honourable patriotic lions wanting to defect to the Tory party will be welcomed with open arms.

    Except Mark Reckless and Quentin Davies.

    You two can [moderate] right off.

    Why do you dislike Reckless more than Carswell? Did they not commit the same sin?
    Comrade JEO,

    I think it's because TSE was peed off with Reckless defecting right after saying he would stay in the Tory party. Or something...
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    kle4 said:

    justin124 said:

    antifrank said:

    On topic, this looks worth keeping an eye on:

    http://redshiftlabour.co.uk/winning-our-new-England

    Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
    Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
    Still, the fact that David Laws' career as a minister lasted for just six days might have been some consolation.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK.
    (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area.
    Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting.
    Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP.
    So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election.
    Then they need to deliver it when in power.
    The SNP are 81 years old. To get where they are now has been a long slog.

    I think Labour were the last "new party" to reach power before long after being established.
    Didn't realise they were that old (or older if you take the two parties that merged to form them). However they only got their first MP in 1967.
    It makes my point even stronger.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,117

    tyson said:

    This whole thing about the Blairites is nonsense. If Chukka was still in the election he would be coasting to victory by now. It is because Liz Kendell is a very poor communicator and candidate that she invokes these attacks. She is not likeable, credible, plausible or anything elseable.

    Labour was a more leftwing party when it elected Blair. It overwhelmingly voted D Miliband last time.

    The reason why we are struggling so much at this moment is because the candidates are insipid- thus the fascination for Corbyn. If we had a candidate or who could light up the field- Chukka, maybe Ed Jarvis (still unproven mind), or the return of the prodigal David Miliband. We want someone who can win.

    So, I'm joining the Corbyn bandwagon for the hope of someut better round corner.

    Chukka would not be running away with it. He managed to keep a lid on the stuff being circulated about him - but only by pulling out of the race. He knows what could have come out - and stepped aside.

    The media would not let that happen a second time.
    OK- I'll re-phrase that, Chukka would have been running away with it, but for the fact that he got scared off.
    I really do not know what his skeletons are. Sex- who cares (unless of course it is illegal)? Drugs- who cares, even though they are illegal. Financial- more plausible I guess. Shame anyway. He's still a cool dude who would have electrified the race.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Piece on the BBC on Greece says Tsipras remains very popular (outside parts of his own internal coalition) because he appeared to defend Greece's national pride. Is that not really bizarre, given what seems to have happened is he talked a tough game about not letting things happen as they were humilating for Greece, and then let them happen anyway even worse?

    Maybe more politicians should try it - just promise impossible things, fail not even heroically, then win another election (probably).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    JEO said:

    FYI any honourable patriotic lions wanting to defect to the Tory party will be welcomed with open arms.

    Except Mark Reckless and Quentin Davies.

    You two can [moderate] right off.

    Why do you dislike Reckless more than Carswell? Did they not commit the same sin?
    Reckless timed his defection to destabilise/cause maximum damage to the Tory party.

    Carswell went out of his way to time his defection to cause least damage to the Tory party.

    Defections happen, I don't consider that a sin. Acting like a copper bottomed shit is the sin.

    Plus the Saturday afternoon he defected I was editing PB and wanted a quiet Saturday.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Piece on the BBC on Greece says Tsipras remains very popular (outside parts of his own internal coalition) because he appeared to defend Greece's national pride. Is that not really bizarre, given what seems to have happened is he talked a tough game about not letting things happen as they were humilating for Greece, and then let them happen anyway even worse?

    Maybe more politicians should try it - just promise impossible things, fail not even heroically, then win another election (probably).

    Umm, have you seen the SNP recently?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,844
    JEO said:

    FYI any honourable patriotic lions wanting to defect to the Tory party will be welcomed with open arms.

    Except Mark Reckless and Quentin Davies.

    You two can [moderate] right off.

    Why do you dislike Reckless more than Carswell? Did they not commit the same sin?
    With Carswell, you always knew he was a serious thinker with some views that were far from in line with official Tory policy. His move felt almost inevitable.

    Reckless, on the other hand, appeared far more opportunistic.

    His underhand decision to sign off on considerable expense for election literature a matter of hours before defecting shows the quality of the man.

    He thought he could get more by defecting - rather than moving for strong policy reasons.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    edited July 2015

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
    Nationalising the railways, scrapping trident, scrapping tuition fees, raising NI on the top 10% or so of earners and raising corporation tax? I reckon those policies are pretty popular among Labour types.

    Nationalising the railways is rather popular outside Labour
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Highlights (if that is the correct word) of Corbyn's speech today.

    “Labour will close the deficit through building a strong, growing economy that works for all, not by increasing poverty.

    “Austerity is a political choice not an economic necessity. There is money available – after all, the government has just given tax breaks to the richest 4% of households.

    “Where there are tough choices, we will always protect public services and support for the most vulnerable.

    “But in an economy that works for all, we will be able to ask those with income and wealth to spare to contribute a little more.

    “You just cannot cut your way to prosperity so Britain needs a publicly-led expansion and reconstruction of the economy, with a big rise in investment levels.

    “Under these plans Labour 2020 will make large reductions in the £93 billion of corporate tax relief and subsidies.

    “These funds can be used to establish a National Investment Bank to head a multi-billion pound programme of infrastructure upgrades and support for high-tech and innovative industries.

    “Talk of the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ is largely southern hot air. The pain of the cuts has been devolved, but power and prosperity remain tightly centralised.

    “We must ensure that our national housing, transport, digital and energy networks are among the best in the world.”

    “The UK has shifted from taxing income and wealth to taxing consumption; and from taxing corporations to taxing individuals.
    “We must ensure that those with the most, pay the most, not just in monetary terms but proportionally too.”

    http://labourlist.org/2015/07/you-just-cannot-cut-your-way-to-prosperity-jeremy-corbyn-outlines-plans-to-make-large-reductions-in-93bn-of-corporate-subsidies/
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Does Blair still have any influence in the Labour Party? Just asking.

    I am still looking forward to the publication of Chilcot. But somehow Christmas never seems to come.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    tyson said:

    Burnham came fourth last time, barely scraping past Diane Abbot

    Something to bear in mind for anyone whose cash is solely on Burnham this race...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    kle4 said:

    Piece on the BBC on Greece says Tsipras remains very popular (outside parts of his own internal coalition) because he appeared to defend Greece's national pride. Is that not really bizarre, given what seems to have happened is he talked a tough game about not letting things happen as they were humilating for Greece, and then let them happen anyway even worse?

    Maybe more politicians should try it - just promise impossible things, fail not even heroically, then win another election (probably).

    Comrade kle4,

    Tsipras = Leonidas
    EU = Xerxes
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966

    Comrades!

    Jezza is the only leadership candidate who can provide a genuine alternative to the puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!

    Plus he knows LOTS about trains.....
  • William_H said:

    Monty said:

    I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.

    It is depressing, but I am not sure that Corbyn is winning because the policies he espouses are hugely popular among members. It's more that the other three candidates have proved so insipid. Give Corbyn a year and a series of disastrous electoral results in Scotland, Wales, London and the English councils, and things may change pretty dramatically. The good thing about a Corbyn victory is that it may not last long but will drive out the remaining flotsam from the last Labour government. If Cooper and Burnham cannot beat him, they are finished forever. Ideally someone like Dan Jarvis will lead Labour into the next election.
    Nationalising the railways, scrapping trident, scrapping tuition fees, raising NI on the top 10% or so of earners and raising corporation tax? I reckon those policies are pretty popular among Labour types.

    Nationalising the railways is rather popular outside Labour
    Rail Nationalisation is supported across the board as I recall.

    Actually the railways are a good example of where Labour should be positioning themselves.

    The Tory position is to privatise in all cases regardless of any evidence. The far-left/Corbyn position is to Nationalise in all cases regardless of any evidence.

    Labour's position should be to allow the public and private sector to compete in the bidding of rail franchises, and cast itself as non-ideological and results orientated.

    Labour should embrace results/evidence based policy as its coherent message. The Tories pretend to take this position, but they are as ideologically driven as ever.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.

    It's not a high bar. If you have connections, can tick boxes, talk the lingo and make "savings" there'll always be a well paid place for you in a British business.

    In a quango, a charity or the public sector yes, but these people have no knowledge of or interest in the private sector.

    Not sure you understand what a Blairite is.

Sign In or Register to comment.