"I shouldn't have responded to Felix this morning - he's completely incapable of criticising the Conservative Party but he enjoys provoking opposition posters by small-minded cheap jibes."
@handandmouse I completely agree everything to left of Blair is marginalised. There also seems to be an expectation that Labour members should worship him in the same way Tories worship Thatcher.
I don't think you should worship him, but objectively he was a winner, not something you can say about many Labour leaders. It comes back to the basic problem Labour has about whether it wants to be a purist debating shop, or a party of government. Blair seemed to understand how to do the later very well, and was comfortable with the compromises it required, most of Labour seem to be leaning more toward the purity of opposition. This is a respectable position to hold, but not one you can hold and then bitch about what the guys running the country are doing!
On the YouGov poll, tbf only 4% have changed their mind in regard to Labour because of recent events. So 64% have had negative views of Labour for quite sometime, not that I can blame them.
@antifrank Very interesting take on Liz Kendall. What do you think she got wrong?
Sandy is the Diane Abbot of this parish on the Labour leadership, the only one voting so far as I can tell with genuine enthusiasm and verve for Corbyn.
Owls and Tyson are too, but hope for a leadership contest between now and 2020 so far as I recall.
Tyson actually doesn't come across as from the Left of Labour, but just frustrated with the farce that this leadership contest is. I know I am. I don't think I'll even pay the £3 to vote in it. Cooper has disappointed me this weekend, Burnham just constantly emotes and talks about Everton, and I can't vote for Corbyn due to his views on a nuclear deterrent, state industries, anti-austerity politics, and links with IRA/Hamas. Kendall just appears to be ceding ground to the Conservatives as opposed to constructing a credible alternative to them.
The problem for the Conservatives is that there were, I suspect, a number (and I can't quantify it) of voters who, although voting Conservative in May, were in fact voting for David Cameron. As we know from the polls, Cameron is more popular than his Party and on that basis alone it's probably fair to argue the "Cameron factor" helped lift the Conservatives across the line from Hung Parliament to majority territory.
While true, there are equally a fair few kippers that voted for Cameron through gritted teeth as the lesser of two evils compared to Ed Miliband, and a fair few Tories (such as myself) who voted Conservative despite Cameron, who they have no time for, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Farage. I either case the vote wasn't for Cameron per se it was a "not for the other idiot" vote, and those people might be better disposed to his successor. If is Osborne, of course I wont see replacing a metro liberal elite with an even more metro, even more liberal elite as an improvement.
Yep, Corbyn and the UKIP vote is an interesting one. What he is offering is Old Labour and much more Euro-scepticism. Obviously, he will never appeal to Tory UKIPers, but an avowedly anti-austerity, anti-big business and anti-globalisation programme may well find a some takers among those whop believe that the metropolitan, Ed-led Labour party had abandoned them. Immigration is obviously the potentially big Achilles heel, but if there is even a degree of pragmatism that can be finessed - especially with much greater Euro-scepticism.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
It was fascinating when @MrJones used to post and I miss his contributions - he'd voted BNP in frustration and spoke of many issues that have since become very large re Rotherham et al.
He eventually gave in and left - he was Old Labour in the main and very eloquent. .
Rewind ten years and there was one person talking about the 'Rotherham' problem. Because that one person was Nick Griffin then what he was (correctly) talking about was dismissed out of hand as being the ramblings of a racist.
There are lessons for us all there, especially those in authority. Lots of people must have known at the time the truth in what Griffin was saying, but nobody dared to speak up for the children.
A major problem was what else Griffin was saying and had said, as well as the friends that he kept (keeps) - Jewish conspiracies, white supremacy, holocaust denial etc. When you spend your time screaming out extreme right wing views you are going to find it very hard to get any kind of hearing from anyone mainstream. He made it very easy for what he said to be ignored. Likewise, those preaching politically correct dogma make it very easy for lazy, stupid people to hide behind that instead of doing what they should have done - which is also what happened in Rotherham (and various other places, including, it seems, Buckingham, most recently).
That's a very good point. It is all too easy to dismiss the message because one doesn't like the messenger or because the messenger has an obvious self-interested or malicious motive. But it's very very important not to do that. It's essential to listen to the message and look at the facts and ignore who it comes from. That's one lesson that I and my team try and follow when we investigate whistleblowing reports because whistleblowers are not often the altruistic reporters that some would like to think. If you dismiss a report on the basis of who makes it you risk missing information that you ought to know about and act on.
The current fashion for shouting "Tory" or "Fascist" or "Hard Left" or "racist" or whatever at someone as a way of refusing to listen to what they have to say, as a way of effectively making their opinions illegitimate and not to be heard rather than saying that what they have said is factually incorrect, incoherent, will lead to the following consequences etc etc reinforces this.
We would have done better to listen to Mr Griffin and investigated what he said rather than assume that because he said it - and probably from the vilest of motives - it was therefore untrue or, what's worse, should not be looked at even if true.
Do you think we've learned that lesson? I don't, sadly.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
@The_Apocalypse Labour cannot win just by chasing Conservative votes. They need to hang onto its existing base and if possible win some back from the Greens and the SNP. That means that they need to expand their base not just to move right.
The Labour party needs to rediscover its moral crusade for the 2010s. It needs to become the party of those who are just making do but who don't have much spare cash at the end of the month. It needs to help harassed parents with childcare and more educational support at a younger age. It needs to be addressing the productivity crisis so that there are more proceeds of wealth to be shared around. It needs to be pushing for a huge housebuilding programme (probably privately-led to avoid questions about funding). It needs to look at how to get much more out of the health system for the same money - in fairness, some of the leadership candidates have been thinking about that. And it needs to fully cost every cut that it opposes with a corresponding choice of cut or tax rise.
Liz Kendall had understood that Labour could not keep replaying their greatest hits or they would end up like a faded rock band, a long way from stadium tours. But she needed to spend much much more time talking about what Labour would be offering for the future. And that was the really important bit.
The problem for the Conservatives is that there were, I suspect, a number (and I can't quantify it) of voters who, although voting Conservative in May, were in fact voting for David Cameron. As we know from the polls, Cameron is more popular than his Party and on that basis alone it's probably fair to argue the "Cameron factor" helped lift the Conservatives across the line from Hung Parliament to majority territory.
While true, there are equally a fair few kippers that voted for Cameron through gritted teeth as the lesser of two evils compared to Ed Miliband, and a fair few Tories (such as myself) who voted Conservative despite Cameron, who they have no time for, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Farage. I either case the vote wasn't for Cameron per se it was a "not for the other idiot" vote, and those people might be better disposed to his successor. If is Osborne, of course I wont see replacing a metro liberal elite with an even more metro, even more liberal elite as an improvement.
Yep, Corbyn and the UKIP vote is an interesting one. What he is offering is Old Labour and much more Euro-scepticism. Obviously, he will never appeal to Tory UKIPers, but an avowedly anti-austerity, anti-big business and anti-globalisation programme may well find a some takers among those whop believe that the metropolitan, Ed-led Labour party had abandoned them. Immigration is obviously the potentially big Achilles heel, but if there is even a degree of pragmatism that can be finessed - especially with much greater Euro-scepticism.
The problem with finessing a position on immigration is that this is what Labour have been doing for so long, sounding like they will reduce it but with clever wording, that the public don't believe it any more because the results on the ground just don't back it up. Much of the white working class UKIP vote simply think Labour represent ethnic minorities over them, and as long as Labour tries to be clever talking about immigration, they won't change their mind. The Conservatives needed to come out with a clear commitment to absolutely reduce the numbers in order to win voters back here, and the voters distrust Labour a lot more on it than they distrust the Tories.
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
He will discover that open borders work both ways when the red meat of socialism (in the guise of attacking big businesses) makes the economy implode. Greece has open borders with the EU, ask them how that worked out recently
I think what this thread diversion has shown is that there's a very broad church on PB. What drives the post volumes is the prevailing narrative.
If the Tories screw up - lots of Labourites jump in to tee-hee and visa versa = lots of Tory tittering right now.
It has shown me that there are far more Labour posters than I thought. @Slackbladder makes a good point about Labour posters in mourning.
I do find the use of 'titter', 'chortle' etc on this site weird though. It's the only place I've been online where people use it frequently.
A lot of regulars have been posting on PB for a decade, some less but not by much. There is very much an in house ‘style’ of language and humour imho. - Are you aware there is now a handy ‘See you in pack’ freely available for all new PBers, containing useful everyday ancient Greek and Latin phrases, the concise list of ‘Yes Minister’ quotes and the official version of the third Punic war outcome? – see TSE for details on how to apply.
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
Liz Kendall had understood that Labour could not keep replaying their greatest hits or they would end up like a faded rock band, a long way from stadium tours. But she needed to spend much much more time talking about what Labour would be offering for the future. And that was the really important bit.
Labour have tried the same attack lines over and over again however. How many times has the 'Save the NHS' line been used?
It's been the same too often, labour throw their 'nasty tories' and 'nasty cuts' line for 5 years or whatever, and then nothing new to say when it comes to election apart fromt he same old lines.
The tired rock band is a good line. 'Save the NHS' is like their big hit which you've heard so many times before everyone sings the words without feeling anything about them.
It's like when 'Bohemian Rhapsody' or 'Angels' gets started at Karoke... here we go again...
You wouldn't vote Labour or the Conservatives under more out there leaders, yet you feel the Greens are one of the main parties you would vote for. This does not make sense: the Greens make Jeremy Corbyn look economically sane.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
He will discover that open borders work both ways when the red meat of socialism (in the guise of attacking big businesses) makes the economy implode. Greece has open borders with the EU, ask them how that worked out recently
People feel safe. In more dangerous times that number will go back up again. The old saw about a conservative being a liberal that has been mugged by reality has some truth in it. The only reason we don't have a death penalty now is because relatively few people have come into contact with terrorism, murder etc, or know anyone that has, and this applies doubly to MPs with their largely sheltered lives. Not to put too finer point on it, get a couple of people brutally murdered on the mainland UK every month linked to say Islamic terror, and watch how fast the population swings to the right on issues like immigration and the death penalty.
@handandmouse I completely agree everything to left of Blair is marginalised. There also seems to be an expectation that Labour members should worship him in the same way Tories worship Thatcher.
I don't think you should worship him, but objectively he was a winner, not something you can say about many Labour leaders. It comes back to the basic problem Labour has about whether it wants to be a purist debating shop, or a party of government. Blair seemed to understand how to do the later very well, and was comfortable with the compromises it required, most of Labour seem to be leaning more toward the purity of opposition. This is a respectable position to hold, but not one you can hold and then bitch about what the guys running the country are doing!
I agree with you Blair was a winner. My views on Tony Blair have become more complicated over time.
Around two years ago, I saw Tony Blair, basically as a war criminal and a fraud. Now, I appreciate his personal traits - such as his communication skills, charisma etc. - which helped get Labour into power. I appreciate New Labour, far more - in terms of how, in some ways it helped the country become more liberal e.g. on Gay Rights. I also appreciate New Labour in regards to how competent they were in running the party - kudos to Campbell and Mandelson on this - was. I guess that comes when you see the likes of those people replaced by Michael Dugher, Tom Watson, Lucy Powell, and Tom Baldwin - all of whom were utter disasters. I also find it quite interesting how Blair appears to have inspired opposition politicians - such as Gove (who apparently wrote in his Times column how much he loved Blair), Cameron, and particularly Osborne. In many ways, his legacy still lives on, like him or loath him. So while I still don't like Tony Blair (mainly because of Iraq), I can appreciate what he did for the Labour movement in terms of getting them to power.
That said, I do sometimes think the Blair = winner analysis, does ignore that there was a groundwork set for him to get rid of things like clause 4 and reform the Labour party. I think Kinnock was especially important in this. I'm not his biggest fan, but without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened.
I think what this thread diversion has shown is that there's a very broad church on PB. What drives the post volumes is the prevailing narrative.
If the Tories screw up - lots of Labourites jump in to tee-hee and visa versa = lots of Tory tittering right now.
It has shown me that there are far more Labour posters than I thought. @Slackbladder makes a good point about Labour posters in mourning.
I do find the use of 'titter', 'chortle' etc on this site weird though. It's the only place I've been online where people use it frequently.
A lot of regulars have been posting on PB for a decade, some less but not by much. There is very much an in house ‘style’ of language and humour imho. - Are you aware there is now a handy ‘See you in pack’ freely available for all new PBers, containing useful everyday ancient Greek and Latin phrases, the concise list of ‘Yes Minister’ quotes and the official version of the third Punic war outcome? – see TSE for details on how to apply.
You wouldn't vote Labour or the Conservatives under more out there leaders, yet you feel the Greens are one of the main parties you would vote for. This does not make sense: the Greens make Jeremy Corbyn look economically sane.
I rationalise voting Green as follows. I regard the environment as the single most important topic facing the planet at present. Everything else pales into insignificance.
I agree with almost no policies that the Green party puts forward. However, there is next to no chance of them being elected. In the meantime, I can send a signal to the main parties through my vote that I regard this subject as important and to keep the pressure on them to continue addressing it.
If the Greens stood an outside chance of power, I would reconsider my vote.
Can anyone point me to a quote saying Corbyn wants to nationalise universities or is it PB Tory hyperbole
The article I read it sounded like he just wanted a free and comprehensive education system, nothing about ownership
What then is the difference between a National Education Service and the free state-run comprehensive system we have now?
I suspect Corbyn would favour abolition of Private schools - and there are plenty in the Labour Party who would support that. I don't know if he said it however.
I wonder how 'legal' that would be. The only way i would think you could do it would be to enforce attendence at a state school, but then you run into all sorts of problems (home schooling, etc etc).
Then of course theres a pratical issue of how you deal with an extra 600,000 plus school places needing to be found.... It would crash the state sector.
I know it's a fantasy/wish of many of the left, but its an fantasy.
The first hurdle is the ECHR. Every country in Europe has some form of private education because to abolish it completely, to make it illegal to pay to educate your child (private tutoring? piano lessons?) would not survive a legal challenge.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
Owen Patterson is the Tories' Jeremy Corbyn.
No he isn't. Owen Patterson has not cosied up to terrorist organizations or Islamist anti-Semites.
People feel safe. In more dangerous times that number will go back up again. The old saw about a conservative being a liberal that has been mugged by reality has some truth in it. The only reason we don't have a death penalty now is because relatively few people have come into contact with terrorism, murder etc, or know anyone that has, and this applies doubly to MPs with their largely sheltered lives. Not to put too finer point on it, get a couple of people brutally murdered on the mainland UK every month linked to say Islamic terror, and watch how fast the population swings to the right on issues like immigration and the death penalty.
That is probably why the BBC and others under-report incidents like the Aylesbury grooming case. In other context, I think a gang of 60 rapists with only five being charged would be national news.
@Cyclefree - People are lazy and/or stupid: they like to hide behind stuff to have an easy life or to avoid having to confront the fact that their prejudices may have no basis in reality. PC gives them an excuse not to act, as does data protection and health and safety. But we all do it: see how often on here an inconvenient story in the Mail or Grauniad is dismissed because it is in the Mail or Grauniad. Hell, I have done it. Every now and again, a holocaust denier might say something that is right; but has already provided everyone with a ready made excuse to ignore him. Nope, I can't see it changing.
" ... without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened."
I think that's correct and it's why I thought Kinnock was good for Labour. It's also why I think Jezza will be a disaster.
Honesty comes as a welcome change from politicians; a novelty, in fact. But, as they sing about in 'Cabaret', can Jezza control what he is sowing, and does he want to? Who does tomorrow belong to?
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
It depends on the number of Burnham-Cooper transfers out there. If they vastly outweigh Cooper-Burnham transfers then the above ballot could have been shown to be a better strategy if Cooper beats Corbyn 51-49 in the final round say
Idea for a thread maybe:
"Could AV not satisfying the condorcet criterion help Corbyn and harm Cooper ?"
@SimonStClare I think TSE is a legend. There is literally no one who talks like him:-D
@Slackbladder There should be a PB vocabulary section on this site! It is quite sad to hear a few PBers have died over the years.
@antifrank I think your analysis is excellent. I think Kendall appeared to think that if Labour just ceded ground the Tories on immigration and welfare they would be well-placed to win. She didn't seem to understand that being a copy of the Conservatives wasn't the answer. It was Labour lack of providing a credible alternative to the present government, that led to their demise in May. I also think Kendall appeared to neglect the issue of Scotland quite a bit. I was quite stunned by her rejection of the argument that Labour and the Tories sharing a platform in the Better Together campaign was a big reason as to why the SNP surge happened.
" ... without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened."
I think that's correct and it's why I thought Kinnock was good for Labour. It's also why I think Jezza will be a disaster.
Honesty comes as a welcome change from politicians; a novelty, in fact. But, as they sing about in 'Cabaret', can Jezza control what he is sowing, and does he want to? Who does tomorrow belong to?
Corbyn does not want to lead the Labour party. He does not believe that Labour should have a leader. He sees it as a movement. He lives in a world that is far removed from reality, which is why he is so free to say whatever he thinks. There is a significant part of me that would like to see him as Labour leader just to see what happens and how quickly his supporters come to realise they have been sold a total pup - it's the same bit of me that would like to see an independent Scotland. But, in the end, what's at play is too important for that kind of self-indulgent thinking.
Liz Kendall had understood that Labour could not keep replaying their greatest hits or they would end up like a faded rock band, a long way from stadium tours. But she needed to spend much much more time talking about what Labour would be offering for the future. And that was the really important bit.
Labour have tried the same attack lines over and over again however. How many times has the 'Save the NHS' line been used?
It's been the same too often, labour throw their 'nasty tories' and 'nasty cuts' line for 5 years or whatever, and then nothing new to say when it comes to election apart fromt he same old lines.
The tired rock band is a good line. 'Save the NHS' is like their big hit which you've heard so many times before everyone sings the words without feeling anything about them.
It's like when 'Bohemian Rhapsody' or 'Angels' gets started at Karoke... here we go again...
Spot on - The Guardian stories since the budget are basically recycled versions of the ones they used against the Coalition. Any merit they may have had is diluted as a result.
Can anyone point me to a quote saying Corbyn wants to nationalise universities or is it PB Tory hyperbole
The article I read it sounded like he just wanted a free and comprehensive education system, nothing about ownership
What then is the difference between a National Education Service and the free state-run comprehensive system we have now?
I suspect Corbyn would favour abolition of Private schools - and there are plenty in the Labour Party who would support that. I don't know if he said it however.
I wonder how 'legal' that would be. The only way i would think you could do it would be to enforce attendence at a state school, but then you run into all sorts of problems (home schooling, etc etc).
Then of course theres a pratical issue of how you deal with an extra 600,000 plus school places needing to be found.... It would crash the state sector.
I know it's a fantasy/wish of many of the left, but its an fantasy.
The first hurdle is the ECHR. Every country in Europe has some form of private education because to abolish it completely, to make it illegal to pay to educate your child (private tutoring? piano lessons?) would not survive a legal challenge.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
Owen Patterson is the Tories' Jeremy Corbyn.
No he isn't. Owen Patterson has not cosied up to terrorist organizations or Islamist anti-Semites.
Just look at the simple numbers. There's just over 600,000 children in independent schools, and about 2,500 or so such schools.
At £5,000 per annum per child, thats £3bn per year needed just to incorporate them into the state sector.
In addition, you would probably need say 1,250 new schools to replace the 2,500 old schools.
I've seen a rough estimate of about £40m cost per school to build. So that in a ballpark figure, about £50bn....
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
@SimonStClare I think TSE is a legend. There is literally no one who talks like him:-D
@Slackbladder There should be a PB vocabulary section on this site! It is quite sad to hear a few PBers have died over the years.
@antifrank I think your analysis is excellent. I think Kendall appeared to think that if Labour just ceded ground the Tories on immigration and welfare they would be well-placed to win. She didn't seem to understand that being a copy of the Conservatives wasn't the answer. It was Labour lack of providing a credible alternative to the present government, that led to their demise in May. I also think Kendall appeared to neglect the issue of Scotland quite a bit. I was quite stunned by her rejection of the argument that Labour and the Tories sharing a platform in the Better Together campaign was a big reason as to why the SNP surge happened.
@handandmouse I completely agree everything to left of Blair is marginalised. There also seems to be an expectation that Labour members should worship him in the same way Tories worship Thatcher.
I don't think you should worship him, but objectively he was a winner, not something you can say about many Labour leaders. It comes back to the basic problem Labour has about whether it wants to be a purist debating shop, or a party of government. Blair seemed to understand how to do the later very well, and was comfortable with the compromises it required, most of Labour seem to be leaning more toward the purity of opposition. This is a respectable position to hold, but not one you can hold and then bitch about what the guys running the country are doing!
I agree with you Blair was a winner. My views on Tony Blair have become more complicated over time.
Around two years ago, I saw Tony Blair, basically as a war criminal and a fraud. Now, I appreciate his personal traits - such as his communication skills, charisma etc. - which helped get Labour into power. I appreciate New Labour, far more - in terms of how, in some ways it helped the country become more liberal e.g. on Gay Rights. I also appreciate New Labour in regards to how competent they were in running the party - kudos to Campbell and Mandelson on this - was. I guess that comes when you see the likes of those people replaced by Michael Dugher, Tom Watson, Lucy Powell, and Tom Baldwin - all of whom were utter disasters. I also find it quite interesting how Blair appears to have inspired opposition politicians - such as Gove (who apparently wrote in his Times column how much he loved Blair), Cameron, and particularly Osborne. In many ways, his legacy still lives on, like him or loath him. So while I still don't like Tony Blair (mainly because of Iraq), I can appreciate what he did for the Labour movement in terms of getting them to power.
That said, I do sometimes think the Blair = winner analysis, does ignore that there was a groundwork set for him to get rid of things like clause 4 and reform the Labour party. I think Kinnock was especially important in this. I'm not his biggest fan, but without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened.
A very good analysis. What it boils down to is that to be successful you need to be good enough and in the right place at the right time to exploit luck when it falls in your lap. Blair was a very good politician, he was in the right place at the right time re Kinnock's prep work, and he was lucky in that the Conservatives imploded just then.
The problem for the Conservatives is that there were, I suspect, a number (and I can't quantify it) of voters who, although voting Conservative in May, were in fact voting for David Cameron. As we know from the polls, Cameron is more popular than his Party and on that basis alone it's probably fair to argue the "Cameron factor" helped lift the Conservatives across the line from Hung Parliament to majority territory.
While true, there are equally a fair few kippers that voted for Cameron through gritted teeth as the lesser of two evils compared to Ed Miliband, and a fair few Tories (such as myself) who voted Conservative despite Cameron, who they have no time for, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Farage. I either case the vote wasn't for Cameron per se it was a "not for the other idiot" vote, and those people might be better disposed to his successor. If is Osborne, of course I wont see replacing a metro liberal elite with an even more metro, even more liberal elite as an improvement.
Yep, Corbyn and the UKIP vote is an interesting one. What he is offering is Old Labour and much more Euro-scepticism. Obviously, he will never appeal to Tory UKIPers, but an avowedly anti-austerity, anti-big business and anti-globalisation programme may well find a some takers among those whop believe that the metropolitan, Ed-led Labour party had abandoned them. Immigration is obviously the potentially big Achilles heel, but if there is even a degree of pragmatism that can be finessed - especially with much greater Euro-scepticism.
Immigration and Metropolitan identity politics would be the big stumbling blocks, as far as Red Kipper's are concerned.
Can anyone point me to a quote saying Corbyn wants to nationalise universities or is it PB Tory hyperbole
The article I read it sounded like he just wanted a free and comprehensive education system, nothing about ownership
What then is the difference between a National Education Service and the free state-run comprehensive system we have now?
I suspect Corbyn would favour abolition of Private schools - and there are plenty in the Labour Party who would support that. I don't know if he said it however.
I wonder how 'legal' that would be. The only way i would think you could do it would be to enforce attendence at a state school, but then you run into all sorts of problems (home schooling, etc etc).
Then of course theres a pratical issue of how you deal with an extra 600,000 plus school places needing to be found.... It would crash the state sector.
I know it's a fantasy/wish of many of the left, but its an fantasy.
The first hurdle is the ECHR. Every country in Europe has some form of private education because to abolish it completely, to make it illegal to pay to educate your child (private tutoring? piano lessons?) would not survive a legal challenge.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
Owen Patterson is the Tories' Jeremy Corbyn.
No he isn't. Owen Patterson has not cosied up to terrorist organizations or Islamist anti-Semites.
Of course Patterson's policies cannot be compared directly to Corbyn (he is after all in a different party), but he would be as toxic to the Tories as Corbyn would be to Labour.
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
A very good analysis. What it boils down to is that to be successful you need to be good enough and in the right place at the right time to exploit luck when it falls in your lap. Blair was a very good politician, he was in the right place at the right time re Kinnock's prep work, and he was lucky in that the Conservatives imploded just then.
Yep, I also think John Smith (had he lived) would have won 1997.
A very good analysis. What it boils down to is that to be successful you need to be good enough and in the right place at the right time to exploit luck when it falls in your lap. Blair was a very good politician, he was in the right place at the right time re Kinnock's prep work, and he was lucky in that the Conservatives imploded just then.
Yep, I also think John Smith (had he lived) would have won 1997.
The problem for the Conservatives is that there were, I suspect, a number (and I can't quantify it) of voters who, although voting Conservative in May, were in fact voting for David Cameron. As we know from the polls, Cameron is more popular than his Party and on that basis alone it's probably fair to argue the "Cameron factor" helped lift the Conservatives across the line from Hung Parliament to majority territory.
While true, there are equally a fair few kippers that voted for Cameron through gritted teeth as the lesser of two evils compared to Ed Miliband, and a fair few Tories (such as myself) who voted Conservative despite Cameron, who they have no time for, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Farage. I either case the vote wasn't for Cameron per se it was a "not for the other idiot" vote, and those people might be better disposed to his successor. If is Osborne, of course I wont see replacing a metro liberal elite with an even more metro, even more liberal elite as an improvement.
Yep, Corbyn and the UKIP vote is an interesting one. What he is offering is Old Labour and much more Euro-scepticism. Obviously, he will never appeal to Tory UKIPers, but an avowedly anti-austerity, anti-big business and anti-globalisation programme may well find a some takers among those whop believe that the metropolitan, Ed-led Labour party had abandoned them. Immigration is obviously the potentially big Achilles heel, but if there is even a degree of pragmatism that can be finessed - especially with much greater Euro-scepticism.
Immigration and Metropolitan identity politics would be the big stumbling blocks, as far as Red Kipper's are concerned.
Corbyn's politics are distinctly non-metropolitan - they are very focused on class and trade unions, and are profoundly anti-globalisation and anti-big business. Immigration is the Achilles heel - but how far immigration is a direct cause of the abandonment Labour suffered and how far it is a symbol of a wider sense of alienation is not certain. The Scots are almost as anti-immigration as the English, but they voted for an avowedly pro-immigration party because they felt it "spoke" to their identity more generally.
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
Imagine never seeing sunlight again; or a view of anything. I think a lot of people would go mad.
@handandmouse I completely agree everything to left of Blair is marginalised. There also seems to be an expectation that Labour members should worship him in the same way Tories worship Thatcher.
I don't think you should worship him, but objectively he was a winner, not something you can say about many Labour leaders. It comes back to the basic problem Labour has about whether it wants to be a purist debating shop, or a party of government. Blair seemed to understand how to do the later very well, and was comfortable with the compromises it required, most of Labour seem to be leaning more toward the purity of opposition. This is a respectable position to hold, but not one you can hold and then bitch about what the guys running the country are doing!
I agree with you Blair was a winner. My views on Tony Blair have become more complicated over time.
Around two years ago, I saw Tony Blair, basically as a war criminal and a fraud. Now, I appreciate his personal traits - such as his communication skills, charisma etc. - which helped get Labour into power. I appreciate New Labour, far more - in terms of how, in some ways it helped the country become more liberal e.g. on Gay Rights. I also appreciate New Labour in regards to how competent they were in running the party - kudos to Campbell and Mandelson on this - was. I guess that comes when you see the likes of those people replaced by Michael Dugher, Tom Watson, Lucy Powell, and Tom Baldwin - all of whom were utter disasters. I also find it quite interesting how Blair appears to have inspired opposition politicians - such as Gove (who apparently wrote in his Times column how much he loved Blair), Cameron, and particularly Osborne. In many ways, his legacy still lives on, like him or loath him. So while I still don't like Tony Blair (mainly because of Iraq), I can appreciate what he did for the Labour movement in terms of getting them to power.
That said, I do sometimes think the Blair = winner analysis, does ignore that there was a groundwork set for him to get rid of things like clause 4 and reform the Labour party. I think Kinnock was especially important in this. I'm not his biggest fan, but without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened.
None of that alters the fact that in a just world Blair would be presented for trial at The Hague.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
Unless it's National Socialism.
At some point surely it must dawn on Labour that unlimited immigration is inimical to protecting 'the working class' or what's left of it.
... Kendall appeared to neglect the issue of Scotland quite a bit. I was quite stunned by her rejection of the argument that Labour and the Tories sharing a platform in the Better Together campaign was a big reason as to why the SNP surge happened.
It might be slightly more complicated than that, in that the problem was not Labour joining the Tories per se, but that they did so in order to insult Scots. Better Together's campaign was unrelentingly negative -- "too wee, too poor, too stupid".
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
Imagine never seeing sunlight again; or a view of anything. I think a lot of people would go mad.
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
As I always say, we should simply lease space in African prisons for our highest security prisoners. It's one economic activity I would be happy to offshore.
I see I'm being talked about down thread. Comparing me to Diane Abbott is a bit below the belt, however!
I had come to say that I caught up with Corbyn's Marr interview last night, and I thought he was excellent. The way he dealt with the Marx question was superb - the other 3 would tie themselves in knots if Marr had asked them if they were Socialists, never mind Marxists.
Anyway, I am creeping from voting JC to send a message, but expecting my 2nd pref for YC to count, into a position of hoping that Corbyn does actually win. Right at the outset, I said that we needed a fresh face who wasn't tied to the past Blair/Brown givernments. It is just that I expected that candidate to be in their 30s rather than 60s.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
Owen Patterson is the Tories' Jeremy Corbyn.
No he isn't. Owen Patterson has not cosied up to terrorist organizations or Islamist anti-Semites.
Just look at the simple numbers. There's just over 600,000 children in independent schools, and about 2,500 or so such schools.
At £5,000 per annum per child, thats £3bn per year needed just to incorporate them into the state sector.
In addition, you would probably need say 1,250 new schools to replace the 2,500 old schools.
I've seen a rough estimate of about £40m cost per school to build. So that in a ballpark figure, about £50bn....
That, that is why it is fantasy. End Quote.
IIRC under New Labour new schools, often with elaborate individual design, often cost about £40 M. The Coalition decided to take a "cookie-cutter" approach with standard architecture for most new schools, cutting the cost by half.
I voted Green in 2010 and Lib Dem in 2015. I wouldn't see myself as a close supporter of either party. They remain the two parties I would be most likely to vote for at present.
If hypothetically Jeremy Corbyn were to lead the Labour party in 2020 and the Conservatives weren't led by someone completely loopy, I would seriously consider voting Conservative despite all their flaws.
Conversely, if Labour were led by someone moderate in 2020 and the Conservatives were led by Owen Paterson, I would seriously consider voting Labour despite all their flaws.
Owen Patterson is the Tories' Jeremy Corbyn.
No he isn't. Owen Patterson has not cosied up to terrorist organizations or Islamist anti-Semites.
End Quote.
IIRC under New Labour new schools, often with elaborate individual design, often cost about £40 M. The Coalition decided to take a "cookie-cutter" approach with standard architecture for most new schools, cutting the cost by half.
Even if it's 20-25bn it's still fantasy. Not to mention it'll take year/decades to build that number (although you could 'take-over' existing sites, but then that would have the government seizing the assets of charities... good luck with that)
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
Imagine never seeing sunlight again; or a view of anything. I think a lot of people would go mad.
A life sentence without parole in one of those is a death penalty in all but name, but with one key difference - a judicial error can be corrected.
To move on from staring at navels, a thought for discussion:
"If, as a result of Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour Party leadership election, the Labour Party instigated policy changes what were unacceptable to a Labour MP and said MP wished to defect to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, do you think said MP should be compelled to fight a by-election under their new colours in the manner of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless?"
Depends whether you believe that the role of an MP is primarily to represent the Party interest of the plurality of their electorate, or the more Burkean vision of being elected to express his or her Conscience.
Because British FPTP has evolved to a type of party list system, in which parties choose the list of one in each constituency, the former view makes a lot of sense. However, if the role of MPs is first and foremost to represent a party interest, it calls into question other aspects of the system, like the lack of PR, and the use of by-elections to fill vacancies, rather than appointments by the member's party.
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
I'm confused too.
I can see there being a somewhat contrived argument for Corbyn supporters voting for Cooper, on the basis that more Burnham than Cooper 2nd prefs will go to JC, so it's better that Burnham come 3rd. That's a dangerous game if you don't want YC to win, though!
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
As I always say, we should simply lease space in African prisons for our highest security prisoners. It's one economic activity I would be happy to offshore.
Given the bribery rampant in many African countries, that could end with prison not being much of a punishment at all.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
Unless it's National Socialism.
At some point surely it must dawn on Labour that unlimited immigration is inimical to protecting 'the working class' or what's left of it.
Yet it is certainly not inimical to making a more Labour-friendly electorate.
Did you know that @MTimT has been a weapons inspector?
Superb knowledge of all those WMD or not...
I had no idea that he was! I imagine that there may certain kinds of info he won't be allowed to disclose to us though, and I suspect that it relates to WMDs!
It seems to me that the limp and pathetic weather cock Andy U-Turnham can in fact win by swimming in Corbyn's wake ....indeed , fear of Corbyn could spook the voters into unifying behind the favourite as the only one capable of stopping him ; voters who were inclined to vote Cooper or Kendall would not dare take the risk of allowing Corbyn a sneak victory , or so it seems to me
As Cameron apparently has been known to read PB, I wonder if he'd be smiling as he reads about people opining about how he feels ("he'll want to spend more time with Sam")
Or as he reads posts about how he'd react to reading them ...
If he is sensible, he would be wise to stick to thread headers, like with any other place on the internet with comment sections.
I think it unlikely that Cameron does read the comments. I base that view on the fact that when it was first put about that Cameron come here SeanT apologised for the gaylord poncy-boots theme he had been running and said that a peerage would be nice. Mr. T. has not been ennobled and Cameron is surely too much of a gentleman not to have accepted the apology.
As for Osborne, I am constantly amazed that he gets such a good write up on here. The similarities between him and Brown seem to be brushed under the carpet. Granted that Osborne is not,yet, bonkers, but he is a most political chancellor with a penchant for trying to run the whole of government and who is without a doubt maneuvering to ensure his succession to the premiership. Personal ambition before country seems to be his motto as it was with Brown.
Maybe. I'm not sold on him as a PM yet, but to date there have not even, to my knowledge, been any suggestion he and Cameron are not a team working in harmony with each other, which is a step up from the Brown Blair years.
To move on from staring at navels, a thought for discussion:
"If, as a result of Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour Party leadership election, the Labour Party instigated policy changes what were unacceptable to a Labour MP and said MP wished to defect to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, do you think said MP should be compelled to fight a by-election under their new colours in the manner of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless?"
Depends whether you believe that the role of an MP is primarily to represent the Party interest of the plurality of their electorate, or the more Burkean vision of being elected to express his or her Conscience.
Because British FPTP has evolved to a type of party list system, in which parties choose the list of one in each constituency, the former view makes a lot of sense. However, if the role of MPs is first and foremost to represent a party interest, it calls into question other aspects of the system, like the lack of PR, and the use of by-elections to fill vacancies, rather than appointments by the member's party.
Tory to UKIP is a much smaller step than Labour to Tory or vice versa. It's hard to think of circumstances where a Labour MP who defected to the Tories would hold his/her seat in a subsequent by-election. The risk of defeat would be huge - something that would also take away the big draw in getting the defection in the first place for the new host party. There's maybe more of a chance with a switch to UKIP, but not that much.
It seems to me that the limp and pathetic weather cock Andy U-Turnham can in fact win by swimming in Corbyn's wake ....indeed , fear of Corbyn could spook the voters into unifying behind the favourite as the only one capable of stopping him ; voters who were inclined to vote Cooper or Kendall would not dare take the risk of allowing Corbyn a sneak victory , or so it seems to me
That shouldn't matter either way under the AV system, as long as the transfers don't go to Corybn they'll go to the person in the run off.
I watched Corbyn on Andrew Marr today and when he was asked by the host if he would step down , he hesitated slightly before a rather unconvincing denial ; compare that to Liz kendall's emphatic NEVER ! It is my suspicion that Corbyn will allow himself to be talked into stepping down ''for the good of the Party '' ...after all , he never in his wildest dreams expected to become leader ; I bet the mere thought of it gives him nightmares ..he couldn't even fill a shadow cabinet and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him And exactly what are Mr Corbyn's qualifications to become leader of Her Majesties Opposition ?... A Union official and 30 years as an unambitious back bencher in a safe seat And please don't talk to me about authenticity ; I well remember the nightmarish 1970s and folks like Corbyn were just typical see more
It goes in waves - depending on how long you stick around - it'll be full of Kippers around the EU ref, Nats when Holyrood is on etc.
There was a time when @Sean_Fear was the only Tory when Labour were riding high.
That must have been around 2005. I do recall during the GE though Conservative contributors did outnumber Labour/LD ones quite signifcantly, with one or two neutrals in the mix.
The number of neutrals (and I include those who may lean in a certain direction but be open and unafraid of either main option) can be hard to judge, and many will see Tories or Labourites where none exist, and be accused of hiding allegiance.
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
I'm confused too.
I can see there being a somewhat contrived argument for Corbyn supporters voting for Cooper, on the basis that more Burnham than Cooper 2nd prefs will go to JC, so it's better that Burnham come 3rd. That's a dangerous game if you don't want YC to win, though!
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
1) Corbyn is probably the best way to ensure Corbyn wins, but there is a finite probability that
Over the years, it's amazing what areas of expertise PBers have. It's probably too long ago for you to remember but there was a summer scandal about Killer Cucumbers in Germany that spread into several other countries.
Our own @Sunil_Prasannan and another offered their PhD expertise on E. coli to explain what may have caused it.
Did you know that @MTimT has been a weapons inspector?
Superb knowledge of all those WMD or not...
I had no idea that he was! I imagine that there may certain kinds of info he won't be allowed to disclose to us though, and I suspect that it relates to WMDs!
I've watched a few US docs on supermax prisons and golly - most prisoners here would faint at the prospect. Most supermax seem to follow the regime you mention. No socialising, up to 1hr a day walking in a circle in a concrete lined bunker with no views of anything, no entertainment, not even plastic cutlery to eat your food, no chit-chat with guards, no window.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
''Support for the death penalty has fallen to below 50% for the first time according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey:''
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
Belgium now gives them the option of committing suicide.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
Imagine never seeing sunlight again; or a view of anything. I think a lot of people would go mad.
I would choose Gitmo over the normal US prison system in a heatbeat.
I watched Corbyn on Andrew Marr today and when he was asked by the host if he would step down , he hesitated slightly before a rather unconvincing denial ; compare that to Liz kendall's emphatic NEVER ! It is my suspicion that Corbyn will allow himself to be talked into stepping down ''for the good of the Party '' ...after all , he never in his wildest dreams expected to become leader ; I bet the mere thought of it gives him nightmares ..he couldn't even fill a shadow cabinet and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him And exactly what are Mr Corbyn's qualifications to become leader of Her Majesties Opposition ?... A Union official and 30 years as an unambitious back bencher in a safe seat And please don't talk to me about authenticity ; I well remember the nightmarish 1970s and folks like Corbyn were just typical see more
So if Corbyn wins, are you suggesting that he will voluntarily plunge the Labour Party back into another 4 month long navel gazing festival leadership election "for the good of the party"?
It goes in waves - depending on how long you stick around - it'll be full of Kippers around the EU ref, Nats when Holyrood is on etc.
There was a time when @Sean_Fear was the only Tory when Labour were riding high.
That must have been around 2005. I do recall during the GE though Conservative contributors did outnumber Labour/LD ones quite signifcantly, with one or two neutrals in the mix.
The number of neutrals (and I include those who may lean in a certain direction but be open and unafraid of either main option) can be hard to judge, and many will see Tories or Labourites where none exist, and be accused of hiding allegiance.
To move on from staring at navels, a thought for discussion:
"If, as a result of Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour Party leadership election, the Labour Party instigated policy changes what were unacceptable to a Labour MP and said MP wished to defect to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, do you think said MP should be compelled to fight a by-election under their new colours in the manner of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless?"
Depends whether you believe that the role of an MP is primarily to represent the Party interest of the plurality of their electorate, or the more Burkean vision of being elected to express his or her Conscience.
Because British FPTP has evolved to a type of party list system, in which parties choose the list of one in each constituency, the former view makes a lot of sense. However, if the role of MPs is first and foremost to represent a party interest, it calls into question other aspects of the system, like the lack of PR, and the use of by-elections to fill vacancies, rather than appointments by the member's party.
Currently we maintain the fiction that people primarily vote for candidates, not parties (though the individual candidate can make the difference in crucial seats and the wrong one, given enough time, turn a safe seat into a non-safe one), so strictly speaking as we know there'd be no obligation to fight a by-election, but for all his pompousness, I do appreciate that Carswell made that a sort of unofficial rule for UKIP defectors, possibly putting off several others, but it was principled.
I think what this thread diversion has shown is that there's a very broad church on PB. What drives the post volumes is the prevailing narrative.
If the Tories screw up - lots of Labourites jump in to tee-hee and visa versa = lots of Tory tittering right now.
It has shown me that there are far more Labour posters than I thought. @Slackbladder makes a good point about Labour posters in mourning.
I do find the use of 'titter', 'chortle' etc on this site weird though. It's the only place I've been online where people use it frequently.
A lot of regulars have been posting on PB for a decade, some less but not by much. There is very much an in house ‘style’ of language and humour imho. - Are you aware there is now a handy ‘See you in pack’ freely available for all new PBers, containing useful everyday ancient Greek and Latin phrases, the concise list of ‘Yes Minister’ quotes and the official version of the third Punic war outcome? – see TSE for details on how to apply.
Oh yes how could we ever forget Ash's toothpaste. That one post had to have gone down in the annals of PB history
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
I'm confused too.
I can see there being a somewhat contrived argument for Corbyn supporters voting for Cooper, on the basis that more Burnham than Cooper 2nd prefs will go to JC, so it's better that Burnham come 3rd. That's a dangerous game if you don't want YC to win, though!
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
1) Corbyn is probably the best way to ensure Corbyn wins, but there is a finite probability that
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
could work better
But presumably you don't think all Corbyn supporters should do that! The problem is, they can't all get together and vote tactically to affect the order of elimination to what they think might be to their advantage.
Greetings from foreign parts....I swiftly surmised that Lord Selwyn is a Labour Peer from the BBC report which included the fact in the penultimate paragraph and not the headline
It goes in waves - depending on how long you stick around - it'll be full of Kippers around the EU ref, Nats when Holyrood is on etc.
There was a time when @Sean_Fear was the only Tory when Labour were riding high.
That must have been around 2005. I do recall during the GE though Conservative contributors did outnumber Labour/LD ones quite signifcantly, with one or two neutrals in the mix.
The number of neutrals (and I include those who may lean in a certain direction but be open and unafraid of either main option) can be hard to judge, and many will see Tories or Labourites where none exist, and be accused of hiding allegiance.
Do you see yourself as a neutral?
Yes of course - I cannot deny that push come to shove I probably lean more Tory than Labour, at least economically, and I put that down to growing up in the Blair years and living in the true blue Tory shires, making me a little more instinctually wary of them, but I dislike the hard right, I defended Ed M and predicted his victory and that he would not be that bad for five years, I have never actually voted for either Tory or Labour (I think I'm the only person who the LD 'look left, then right, then cross' tactic appealed to), and I absolutely cannot stand partisan political posturing, from any side.
The problem with Labours education policies is they seek to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator rather than take them to the highest standards achievable. It's always been that way with labour governments. Meanwhile no one was allowed to fail another even when they did. The annual GCSE and a level results days now replicate the turn out reports for a North Korean election.
The tory print media are going to do a hatchet job on Corbyn and the LP are likely to bring out former leaders to renounce him as completely unelectable ; it just seems to me that Corbyn , never in his wildest dreams ever thought about winning, ; well I mean , even if he doesn't drop out , surely he has peaked too early and given his enemies fair warning of the dangers , giving them time to organise an anti Corbyn front against him The LP are on the edge of the abyss contemplating political suicide ; will they jump ? I doubt it !
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
Tactically I think they're right, although obviously there's a risk that everyone's got the whole contest wrong and it'll blow up in your face.
Basically the goal is to be up against someone transfer-unfriendly into the final round.
If Corbyn is the most transfer-unfriendly of the four, he won't win in any case unless he gets into the final round by a large margin, so his tactically-minded supporters should optimize for getting the most beatable person in the final round, rather than optimizing to make sure he gets in the final round.
It is my suspicion that Corbyn will allow himself to be talked into stepping down ''for the good of the Party ''
That seems fair all round, so long as, if he wins, he has a genuine crack a leading things his way to see if it works, rather than being decapitated or defenestrating himself almost immediately.
The correct tactical vote for Corbyn might actually be
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
Why would Corbyn backers want to do that? If they do then if they get their wish then in the final round they've voted against Corbyn and for Burnham in the final round (thus voting against their wish).
I'm confused too.
I can see there being a somewhat contrived argument for Corbyn supporters voting for Cooper, on the basis that more Burnham than Cooper 2nd prefs will go to JC, so it's better that Burnham come 3rd. That's a dangerous game if you don't want YC to win, though!
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
1) Corbyn is probably the best way to ensure Corbyn wins, but there is a finite probability that
1) Burnham 2) Corbyn 3) Kendall 4) Cooper.
could work better
Is this based on the idea that more Burnham second prefs will go to Cooper than vice versa, therefore it's better for the final 2 to be AB and JC?
My best guesses (mostly based on the polling) are:
• JC will come top on 1st preferences, followed by AB, YC and LK • LK 2nd prefs will mostly redistribute to YC, who may then leapfrog AB • YC 2nd/3rd prefs will mostly go to AB (LK prefs will be disregarded because she's already out), whereas AB 2nd prefs will be more evenly distributed between YC and JC.
Therefore, it's better for YC to be in the top 2 along with JC after the 1st round.
Comments
"I shouldn't have responded to Felix this morning - he's completely incapable of criticising the Conservative Party but he enjoys provoking opposition posters by small-minded cheap jibes."
Aaww bless. The self-awareness jumps out at you.
@antifrank Very interesting take on Liz Kendall. What do you think she got wrong? Tyson actually doesn't come across as from the Left of Labour, but just frustrated with the farce that this leadership contest is. I know I am. I don't think I'll even pay the £3 to vote in it. Cooper has disappointed me this weekend, Burnham just constantly emotes and talks about Everton, and I can't vote for Corbyn due to his views on a nuclear deterrent, state industries, anti-austerity politics, and links with IRA/Hamas. Kendall just appears to be ceding ground to the Conservatives as opposed to constructing a credible alternative to them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
I do find the use of 'titter', 'chortle' etc on this site weird though. It's the only place I've been online where people use it frequently.
You pinpoint the reason why Jezza won't take too many Kipper votes. The red meat of socialism means open borders, but the anti-establishment attitude sits well with them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11519453/best-british-political-insults.html?frame=3260984
The current fashion for shouting "Tory" or "Fascist" or "Hard Left" or "racist" or whatever at someone as a way of refusing to listen to what they have to say, as a way of effectively making their opinions illegitimate and not to be heard rather than saying that what they have said is factually incorrect, incoherent, will lead to the following consequences etc etc reinforces this.
We would have done better to listen to Mr Griffin and investigated what he said rather than assume that because he said it - and probably from the vilest of motives - it was therefore untrue or, what's worse, should not be looked at even if true.
Do you think we've learned that lesson? I don't, sadly.
I sometimes wonder if really bad lifers should be offered the choice of a death sentence. Reading accounts of a lifetime in a maximum security prison with no chance of remission, it almost seems like a worse punishment. And it must be a huge strain on the prison officers.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-27/ken-clarke-denies-preposterous-molestation-claims/
"Burnham just constantly emotes and talks about Everton,"
That's a pretty frightening but unfortunately accurate summary of the likely winner if the bookies are to be believed.
I think some oddities have crept up overtime. 'titter' and 'chortle' were often used by the late (not so lamented) Mick Pork for example.
The Labour party needs to rediscover its moral crusade for the 2010s. It needs to become the party of those who are just making do but who don't have much spare cash at the end of the month. It needs to help harassed parents with childcare and more educational support at a younger age. It needs to be addressing the productivity crisis so that there are more proceeds of wealth to be shared around. It needs to be pushing for a huge housebuilding programme (probably privately-led to avoid questions about funding). It needs to look at how to get much more out of the health system for the same money - in fairness, some of the leadership candidates have been thinking about that. And it needs to fully cost every cut that it opposes with a corresponding choice of cut or tax rise.
Liz Kendall had understood that Labour could not keep replaying their greatest hits or they would end up like a faded rock band, a long way from stadium tours. But she needed to spend much much more time talking about what Labour would be offering for the future. And that was the really important bit.
1) Burnham
2) Corbyn
3) Kendall
4) Cooper.
Obviously it's a game with imperfect information, but Cooper beating Burnham to 2nd place might be a trickier ask than gaining enough transfers to push past Corbyn in the final round.
Hmm...
It's been the same too often, labour throw their 'nasty tories' and 'nasty cuts' line for 5 years or whatever, and then nothing new to say when it comes to election apart fromt he same old lines.
The tired rock band is a good line. 'Save the NHS' is like their big hit which you've heard so many times before everyone sings the words without feeling anything about them.
It's like when 'Bohemian Rhapsody' or 'Angels' gets started at Karoke... here we go again...
You wouldn't vote Labour or the Conservatives under more out there leaders, yet you feel the Greens are one of the main parties you would vote for. This does not make sense: the Greens make Jeremy Corbyn look economically sane.
Around two years ago, I saw Tony Blair, basically as a war criminal and a fraud. Now, I appreciate his personal traits - such as his communication skills, charisma etc. - which helped get Labour into power. I appreciate New Labour, far more - in terms of how, in some ways it helped the country become more liberal e.g. on Gay Rights. I also appreciate New Labour in regards to how competent they were in running the party - kudos to Campbell and Mandelson on this - was. I guess that comes when you see the likes of those people replaced by Michael Dugher, Tom Watson, Lucy Powell, and Tom Baldwin - all of whom were utter disasters. I also find it quite interesting how Blair appears to have inspired opposition politicians - such as Gove (who apparently wrote in his Times column how much he loved Blair), Cameron, and particularly Osborne. In many ways, his legacy still lives on, like him or loath him. So while I still don't like Tony Blair (mainly because of Iraq), I can appreciate what he did for the Labour movement in terms of getting them to power.
That said, I do sometimes think the Blair = winner analysis, does ignore that there was a groundwork set for him to get rid of things like clause 4 and reform the Labour party. I think Kinnock was especially important in this. I'm not his biggest fan, but without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened.
I agree with almost no policies that the Green party puts forward. However, there is next to no chance of them being elected. In the meantime, I can send a signal to the main parties through my vote that I regard this subject as important and to keep the pressure on them to continue addressing it.
If the Greens stood an outside chance of power, I would reconsider my vote.
" ... without Kinnock getting rid of the militants, New Labour could have never have happened."
I think that's correct and it's why I thought Kinnock was good for Labour. It's also why I think Jezza will be a disaster.
Honesty comes as a welcome change from politicians; a novelty, in fact. But, as they sing about in 'Cabaret', can Jezza control what he is sowing, and does he want to? Who does tomorrow belong to?
Idea for a thread maybe:
"Could AV not satisfying the condorcet criterion help Corbyn and harm Cooper ?"
@Slackbladder There should be a PB vocabulary section on this site! It is quite sad to hear a few PBers have died over the years.
@antifrank I think your analysis is excellent. I think Kendall appeared to think that if Labour just ceded ground the Tories on immigration and welfare they would be well-placed to win. She didn't seem to understand that being a copy of the Conservatives wasn't the answer. It was Labour lack of providing a credible alternative to the present government, that led to their demise in May. I also think Kendall appeared to neglect the issue of Scotland quite a bit. I was quite stunned by her rejection of the argument that Labour and the Tories sharing a platform in the Better Together campaign was a big reason as to why the SNP surge happened.
I wonder if one day, people who have never heard of malcolmg will still be calling each other with the affectionate punch to the face of "turnip"?
Despite my monniker, I'd class myself as a "Whig".
At £5,000 per annum per child, thats £3bn per year needed just to incorporate them into the state sector.
In addition, you would probably need say 1,250 new schools to replace the 2,500 old schools.
I've seen a rough estimate of about £40m cost per school to build. So that in a ballpark figure, about £50bn....
That, that is why it is fantasy.
Most whole-lifers don't have bad conditions in this country. If I were a whole-lifer in a US maximum security prison, I would regard being executed as the more humane alternative. There's a new prison in Colorado for the most dangerous prisoners, where you're confined to a concrete cell, 23 and a half hours a day, without any form of recreation at all. If you behave really well, you might get a black and white TV, giving access to religious programmes and the Disney Channel.
Next time @Patrick posts ask him about his avatar.
If you're on suicide watch - no clothes, lights on with CCTV 24/7 and no bedding to strangle yourself with.
Superb knowledge of all those WMD or not...
At some point surely it must dawn on Labour that unlimited immigration is inimical to protecting 'the working class' or what's left of it.
Perhaps that's the intention. To destroy the prisoner mentally. Ugh.
George Carlin - You have no rights (warning - contains language which some may feel is offensive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4
I had come to say that I caught up with Corbyn's Marr interview last night, and I thought he was excellent. The way he dealt with the Marx question was superb - the other 3 would tie themselves in knots if Marr had asked them if they were Socialists, never mind Marxists.
Anyway, I am creeping from voting JC to send a message, but expecting my 2nd pref for YC to count, into a position of hoping that Corbyn does actually win. Right at the outset, I said that we needed a fresh face who wasn't tied to the past Blair/Brown givernments. It is just that I expected that candidate to be in their 30s rather than 60s.
Just look at the simple numbers. There's just over 600,000 children in independent schools, and about 2,500 or so such schools.
At £5,000 per annum per child, thats £3bn per year needed just to incorporate them into the state sector.
In addition, you would probably need say 1,250 new schools to replace the 2,500 old schools.
I've seen a rough estimate of about £40m cost per school to build. So that in a ballpark figure, about £50bn....
That, that is why it is fantasy. End Quote.
IIRC under New Labour new schools, often with elaborate individual design, often cost about £40 M. The Coalition decided to take a "cookie-cutter" approach with standard architecture for most new schools, cutting the cost by half.
IIRC under New Labour new schools, often with elaborate individual design, often cost about £40 M. The Coalition decided to take a "cookie-cutter" approach with standard architecture for most new schools, cutting the cost by half.
Even if it's 20-25bn it's still fantasy. Not to mention it'll take year/decades to build that number (although you could 'take-over' existing sites, but then that would have the government seizing the assets of charities... good luck with that)
Because British FPTP has evolved to a type of party list system, in which parties choose the list of one in each constituency, the former view makes a lot of sense. However, if the role of MPs is first and foremost to represent a party interest, it calls into question other aspects of the system, like the lack of PR, and the use of by-elections to fill vacancies, rather than appointments by the member's party.
I can see there being a somewhat contrived argument for Corbyn supporters voting for Cooper, on the basis that more Burnham than Cooper 2nd prefs will go to JC, so it's better that Burnham come 3rd. That's a dangerous game if you don't want YC to win, though!
I know it's a running joke, but if someone could explain the AV system in a visual way that cuts through some of the misunderstandings theyd be doing us all a service. There was someone on FB earlier suggesting that JC supporters should vote Liz as 1st preference - goodness knows why they thought that would help?!
I watched Corbyn on Andrew Marr today and when he was asked by the host if he would step down , he hesitated slightly before a rather unconvincing denial ; compare that to Liz kendall's emphatic NEVER !
It is my suspicion that Corbyn will allow himself to be talked into stepping down ''for the good of the Party '' ...after all , he never in his wildest dreams expected to become leader ; I bet the mere thought of it gives him nightmares ..he couldn't even fill a shadow cabinet and the Tory print media will do a hatchet job on him
And exactly what are Mr Corbyn's qualifications to become leader of Her Majesties Opposition ?... A Union official and 30 years as an unambitious back bencher in a safe seat
And please don't talk to me about authenticity ; I well remember the nightmarish 1970s and folks like Corbyn were just typical see more
1) Burnham
2) Corbyn
3) Kendall
4) Cooper.
could work better
Our own @Sunil_Prasannan and another offered their PhD expertise on E. coli to explain what may have caused it.
Plus it gives me a smug sense of superiority.
The LP are on the edge of the abyss contemplating political suicide ; will they jump ? I doubt it !
Basically the goal is to be up against someone transfer-unfriendly into the final round.
If Corbyn is the most transfer-unfriendly of the four, he won't win in any case unless he gets into the final round by a large margin, so his tactically-minded supporters should optimize for getting the most beatable person in the final round, rather than optimizing to make sure he gets in the final round.
My best guesses (mostly based on the polling) are:
• JC will come top on 1st preferences, followed by AB, YC and LK
• LK 2nd prefs will mostly redistribute to YC, who may then leapfrog AB
• YC 2nd/3rd prefs will mostly go to AB (LK prefs will be disregarded because she's already out), whereas AB 2nd prefs will be more evenly distributed between YC and JC.
Therefore, it's better for YC to be in the top 2 along with JC after the 1st round.
There's nothing weird about differential front end grip.