Don't think it will help though, at this late stage.
EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger.
For all the comparisons to Foot and Benn, and there are plenty on an ideological perspective, both of those men were in cabinet and understood the idea of collective responsibility. Corbyn has never held a cabinet position and therefore has never had to muddy the waters of his ideological purity. That's what is different this time round.
Andy Burnham has said he would serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet.
Given that it's his fault Corbyn's on course to win anyway, that seems the very least he could do to limit the damage!
The strange thing is that he was supposed to be on the ticket to engender this famous internal debate. But instead of debate all the other three have done is to dismiss him out of hand rather than, say, to discuss why Clause IV is or is not a good or bad thing.
There has been no debate, such that I have seen, just further affirmations of positions. Unless by debate they meant to give frustrated CiF-ers the opportunity to vent their inner hard lefty.
Before you can have a debate, you need two sides with ideas to discuss. Unfortunately, putting Corbyn with his oddball ideas forward has merely exposed in tragically clear relief that the others have precisely sod all ideas, oddball or otherwise, between them. Lots of clichés, but no ideas.
Spot on
Labour atm is just hollowed out spin and the electorate can see it.
The strange thing is that there are lots of good ideas coming out of Labour at the moment, mostly from the excellent Jon Cruddas who is not merely a class but a whole education system above the candidates for leader. But nobody is seizing them and running with them, no matter how excellent they are.
Well, not in the Labour party anyway - lots of George Osborne's ideas seem to be emanating from Cruddas. But that in itself may be part of the problem, of course.
Morning all,
This is a split in Labour that rarely gets an airing, but Crudas and his fellow 'Blue Labour' fellows are going to struggle to find any common ground with JC and 1980s left thinking. Blue Lab is partly about respecting working class, conservative (small c) views about things like immigration. JC is an open borders kinda of guy as far as can see.
'Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My thinking exactly. It would be wonderful to have a Labour party that didn't beat up on immigrants and asylum seekers because the Daily Mail tells them to. Or a leader who doesn't stoop to the level of a Tory and say 'English jobs for English workers' because it might garner a few grubby votes.
Since the Lib Dem sell out for power we don't have such a party anymore
If Corbyn could be that leader what a renaissance it would be for Labour. A political Mikveh bath!
There's a holiness or as Chris Mullins said a saintliness about Corbyn that is required to cleanse Labour of the Iraq sin. Pay the three pounds and vote Corbyn.
Sorry, but Dalton was my least favourite Bond out of the lot of them, and I know he tried very hard to be that great act as the real Fleming 'Bond'. Maybe it was the movies he starred in, but both Connery and Craig really got it I think.
Sean Connery was by far the best actor in the role of Bond as penned by Ian Fleming until Daniel Craig came along to give him a run for his money. Those actors who featured in-between gave audiences entertainment in spades, and a lot of action filled laughs. But I doubt that was ever Ian Fleming's intention when he created the original character who played Bond, I suspect that Connery and Craig would have been his favourite actors to fill the role too.
I nagged my parents to be allowed to watch it - my comment afterwards was it was quite exciting but I didn't understand why James Bond always ended up talking to ladies in bed - and was told 'because its more comfortable' - that was the last James Bond film I saw for a few years.....
No he wasn't.
Timothy Dalton would have been his favourite.
To put Dalton behind actors like Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby is nothing short of a travesty.
'Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My thinking exactly. It would be wonderful to have a Labour party that didn't beat up on immigrants and asylum seekers because the Daily Mail tells them to. Or a leader who doesn't stoop to the level of a Tory and say 'English jobs for English workers' because it might garner a few grubby votes.
Since the Lib Dem sell out for power we don't have such a party anymore
If Corbyn could be that leader what a renaissance it would be for Labour. A political Mikveh bath!
Well said, I'm not a labour supporter and think Corbyn unelectable but better to die fighting for your principles than sell out for the sake of power.
The Uncut article is excellent. And this part is so true - what a disaster this £3 thing has been.
"But just a cotton-picking minute you say, isn’t a Corbyn victory nothing more than democracy in action, after all more people will have voted for him than the other candidates on offer? All I can say is that it’s a funny kind of democracy that relegates Labour party members to also-rans as tens of thousands of people pay £3 to vote in an election where they may, or may not, have a passing interest in who wins.
I’ve paid my Labour party subs now for 52 years and that has given me the right to vote in selections, attend meetings, put forward resolutions to determine party policy, attend conferences and, of course, to knock on doors and deliver leaflets. Under the new rules (thank you Ed Miliband) I, and people like me, can be out-voted in the most important election in the Labour party by people with little interest in Labour forming a government in the foreseeable future.
As one of our new ‘friends’ said last week when asked if they would like to help the Labour party, ‘no thanks, I just want to vote for Jeremy’."
I rest my case on my earlier point about there not being much difference between the current Labour and SNP grassroots when it comes to attacking anyone ever wants to see the Labour party ever succeed to Government again. And all the more ironic when you consider that its in the SNP's best interests that the Labour party never manage to revive itself as an election winning party in Scotland again. Just saying, it did start up here first with the SNP calling them the Red Tories..
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
'Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My thinking exactly. It would be wonderful to have a Labour party that didn't beat up on immigrants and asylum seekers because the Daily Mail tells them to. Or a leader who doesn't stoop to the level of a Tory and say 'English jobs for English workers' because it might garner a few grubby votes.
Since the Lib Dem sell out for power we don't have such a party anymore
If Corbyn could be that leader what a renaissance it would be for Labour. A political Mikveh bath!
Well said, I'm not a labour supporter and think Corbyn unelectable but better to die fighting for your principles than sell out for the sake of power.
I'd like to see Corbyn say to Cameron:
This is what I believe - what about you?
"i believe in pragmatic government, delivering liberty, prosperity and economic growth"
Andy Burnham has said he would serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet.
Given that it's his fault Corbyn's on course to win anyway, that seems the very least he could do to limit the damage!
The strange thing is that he was supposed to be on the ticket to engender this famous internal debate. But instead of debate all the other three have done is to dismiss him out of hand rather than, say, to discuss why Clause IV is or is not a good or bad thing.
There has been no debate, such that I have seen, just further affirmations of positions. Unless by debate they meant to give frustrated CiF-ers the opportunity to vent their inner hard lefty.
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
As the saying goes: you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens not to have someone who behaves like Paul Dacres lapdog
Sorry, but Dalton was my least favourite Bond out of the lot of them, and I know he tried very hard to be that great act as the real Fleming 'Bond'. Maybe it was the movies he starred in, but both Connery and Craig really got it I think.
Sean Connery was by far the best actor in the role of Bond as penned by Ian Fleming until Daniel Craig came along to give him a run for his money. Those actors who featured in-between gave audiences entertainment in spades, and a lot of action filled laughs. But I doubt that was ever Ian Fleming's intention when he created the original character who played Bond, I suspect that Connery and Craig would have been his favourite actors to fill the role too.
I nagged my parents to be allowed to watch it - my comment afterwards was it was quite exciting but I didn't understand why James Bond always ended up talking to ladies in bed - and was told 'because its more comfortable' - that was the last James Bond film I saw for a few years.....
No he wasn't.
Timothy Dalton would have been his favourite.
That is easily the wrongest comment you've ever posted here.
Dalton perfectly captured the resentful brooding intensity and conflicted emotion behind Fleming's Bond, who does his job of assassination (effectively as a off-limits civil servant) reluctantly and sceptically, but maintains a ruthless menace where necessary. His only relief being alcohol, fine living, and beautiful women to feel alive - tempered by the fact that one of his relationships ended tragically.
To put Dalton behind actors like Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby is nothing short of a travesty.
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
The 2015 election was very much winnable for Labour. Labour did such an appalling job of presenting itself as a future government that it went backwards.
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
Surprising? No. From a man who has flip flopped from 'Ed is Great' to 'Ed was Crap' in the blink of an eye. And Palmer was more than happy to serve under Blair, but now that once lauded leader is also rubbished too. With such loose principles once hopes that he'll never be an MP again.
Andy Burnham has said he would serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet.
Given that it's his fault Corbyn's on course to win anyway, that seems the very least he could do to limit the damage!
The strange thing is that he was supposed to be on the ticket to engender this famous internal debate. But instead of debate all the other three have done is to dismiss him out of hand rather than, say, to discuss why Clause IV is or is not a good or bad thing.
There has been no debate, such that I have seen, just further affirmations of positions. Unless by debate they meant to give frustrated CiF-ers the opportunity to vent their inner hard lefty.
That whole idea got quietly overturned by the choice of electoral system, everyone is killing themselves not to piss off the supporters of any other member with a large following in case their second preference votes are up for grabs. Kendall appears to be a safe target, she has too fewer voters to matter (which might be a strategic error since she will be the first to be eliminated and redistributed)
If Burnham & Cooper assume that the Labour Party will come to its senses and select one of them over Corbyn, they want to be the one that gets the lions share of Corbyn's second preference votes, and if it doesn't, he is going to be their boss, either way there is no percentage is attacking him.
Jezza will get a significant number of votes because what you see is mostly what you get.
It makes a change from the bland duo, and they are the most arrogant of all. Their message to the electorate is "I know best, but to get elected, I have to pander to your inadequacies. So I will do so, and you, being stupid compared to me, will lap it up."
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
Thank you for the reply Roger.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
Mr Holness died peacefully in his sleep early this morning aged 83.
A message posted from Ed Miliband's Twitter account read: "Sad to hear that Bob Holness has died. A generation will remember him fondly from Blackbusters."
The message was hastily deleted, and re-written to correctly refer to the 1980s trivia quiz as "Blockbusters".
The slip-up suggests yesterday's 'race row', in which Miliband was compelled to rebuke Diane Abbott, is still weighing on the Labour leader's mind.
The Uncut article is excellent. And this part is so true - what a disaster this £3 thing has been.
"But just a cotton-picking minute you say, isn’t a Corbyn victory nothing more than democracy in action, after all more people will have voted for him than the other candidates on offer? All I can say is that it’s a funny kind of democracy that relegates Labour party members to also-rans as tens of thousands of people pay £3 to vote in an election where they may, or may not, have a passing interest in who wins.
I’ve paid my Labour party subs now for 52 years and that has given me the right to vote in selections, attend meetings, put forward resolutions to determine party policy, attend conferences and, of course, to knock on doors and deliver leaflets. Under the new rules (thank you Ed Miliband) I, and people like me, can be out-voted in the most important election in the Labour party by people with little interest in Labour forming a government in the foreseeable future.
As one of our new ‘friends’ said last week when asked if they would like to help the Labour party, ‘no thanks, I just want to vote for Jeremy’."
Financially, the cost to process each application, sifting out the 'wrong ins', must be more than the £3 charged. Labour economics, don't you love it?
I would consider voting for a party led by Cruddas. He's bright, realistic and a good Catholic boy - although that last point might disqualify him in the modern Labour party.
Mr. 30, then there's the time/numbers factor. Will all voters be vetted in time?
If many are refused a vote, they'll cry foul. If few are, then it either makes no difference (so is wasted time/money) or denies Corbyn the victory, creating ongoing resentment and bitterness.
Interesting to read that Nick P's correspondents are split between JC and Cooper - AB seems down and out. Yet she has drifted out to 8.
A question though, why would a man who stopped being an MP over five years ago still get regular correspondence?
My email list of 10,000 former constituents remains largely intact and I send them comments from time to time and get feedback, just as a private individual. People subscribed over the years because they thought it was interesting to discuss national issues rather than because they wanted to chew over the state of local buses etc. (That said, I get dozens of emails a day rather than the hundreds I got as an MP, so it's wearing off over time.)
AB's support is quite strongly localised, I think. Broxtowe may not be typical.
Fitalass: it's naughty to take a quote from someone who wrote to me and attribute it to me. I expect you did it by accident, yes?
Sorry, but Dalton was my least favourite Bond out of the lot of them, and I know he tried very hard to be that great act as the real Fleming 'Bond'. Maybe it was the movies he starred in, but both Connery and Craig really got it I think.
Sean Connery was by far the best actor in the role of Bond as penned by Ian Fleming until Daniel Craig came along to give him a run for his money. Those actors who featured in-between gave audiences entertainment in spades, and a lot of action filled laughs. But I doubt that was ever Ian Fleming's intention when he created the original character who played Bond, I suspect that Connery and Craig would have been his favourite actors to fill the role too.
I nagged my parents to be allowed to watch it - my comment afterwards was it was quite exciting but I didn't understand why James Bond always ended up talking to ladies in bed - and was told 'because its more comfortable' - that was the last James Bond film I saw for a few years.....
No he wasn't.
Timothy Dalton would have been his favourite.
That is easily the wrongest comment you've ever posted here.
Dalton perfectly captured the resentful brooding intensity and conflicted emotion behind Fleming's Bond, who does his job of assassination (effectively as a off-limits civil servant) reluctantly and sceptically, but maintains a ruthless menace where necessary. His only relief being alcohol, fine living, and beautiful women to feel alive - tempered by the fact that one of his relationships ended tragically.
To put Dalton behind actors like Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby is nothing short of a travesty.
Go back, and rewatch his films. Try again.
Nah, you're wrong. But hey-ho: we all are from time to time.
(Incidentally, Dalton is also my wife's type and she simply loves him in the role. Perhaps you were knocked on the head when you were younger!)
Interesting to read that Nick P's correspondents are split between JC and Cooper - AB seems down and out. Yet she has drifted out to 8.
I've just backed her again at 13/2. My feeling is exactly the same one I had pre-GE re people voting Cons rather than Lab: that on the way to the ballot box people will see sense.
Then again, we are talking about an initial degree of sanity. I don't suppose that can be counted upon for the various entryists in this case.
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
As the saying goes: you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
But Hamas and Hezbollah are Corbyn's friends. He said so himself.
I would consider voting for a party led by Cruddas. He's bright, realistic and a good Catholic boy - although that last point might disqualify him in the modern Labour party.
It might of course be one reason why he's never put himself forward as leader. Tim Farron hasn't exactly had an easy ride over being a Catholic, and it's hard to imagine with aggressive secular humanism the dominant theme within Labour now, along with gay rights and abortion rights being touchstone issues, that he wouldn't have a difficult time reconciling the two.
(Added - I seem to remember Ruth Kelly being given a bad time over being a Catholic, although that was partly due to her links with Opus Dei and bad timing given the Da Vinci Code had just come out.)
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
Sorry, but Dalton was my least favourite Bond out of the lot of them, and I know he tried very hard to be that great act as the real Fleming 'Bond'. Maybe it was the movies he starred in, but both Connery and Craig really got it I think.
Sean Connery was by far the best actor in the role of Bond as penned by Ian Fleming until Daniel Craig came along to give him a run for his money. Those actors who featured in-between gave audiences entertainment in spades, and a lot of action filled laughs. But I doubt that was ever Ian Fleming's intention when he created the original character who played Bond, I suspect that Connery and Craig would have been his favourite actors to fill the role too.
I nagged my parents to be allowed to watch it - my comment afterwards was it was quite exciting but I didn't understand why James Bond always ended up talking to ladies in bed - and was told 'because its more comfortable' - that was the last James Bond film I saw for a few years.....
No he wasn't.
Timothy Dalton would have been his favourite.
That is easily the wrongest comment you've ever posted here.
Dalton perfectly captured the resentful brooding intensity and conflicted emotion behind Fleming's Bond, who does his job of assassination (effectively as a off-limits civil servant) reluctantly and sceptically, but maintains a ruthless menace where necessary. His only relief being alcohol, fine living, and beautiful women to feel alive - tempered by the fact that one of his relationships ended tragically.
To put Dalton behind actors like Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby is nothing short of a travesty.
Go back, and rewatch his films. Try again.
Nah, you're wrong. But hey-ho: we all are from time to time.
(Incidentally, Dalton is also my wife's type and she simply loves him in the role. Perhaps you were knocked on the head when you were younger!)
Perhaps she just doesn't want to upset you by saying she doesn't like him in the role?
Don't think it will help though, at this late stage.
The comments as usual are a hoot. Here is a man (the author) with 37 years as a Labour Party supporter, an election organiser and head office staffer for over a decade, and apparently he's a Tory, who would have guessed it.
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
Thank you for the reply Roger.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
I'm trying to stay and calm and positive. Cooper still looks value to me, at least when I am feeling calm and positive. And, also, if JC wins then us PBers can have another massive round of betting in around 2017 on another Labour leadership election.
Indeed, Ladbrokes already has a book on Labour leader at next GE. Jarvis looking a bit sickly, from a value point of view, at 7.
Jezza will get a significant number of votes because what you see is mostly what you get.
It makes a change from the bland duo, and they are the most arrogant of all. Their message to the electorate is "I know best, but to get elected, I have to pander to your inadequacies. So I will do so, and you, being stupid compared to me, will lap it up."
A vote for Jezza is a NOTA vote.
It's a pity he's barmy.
I agree which is why I want him to win the leadership, but winning that and gaining votes across the country in a general election are 2 different things.
As you say, he's barmy, and at general elections people don't vote barmy.
Sorry, but Dalton was my least favourite Bond out of the lot of them, and I know he tried very hard to be that great act as the real Fleming 'Bond'. Maybe it was the movies he starred in, but both Connery and Craig really got it I think.
Sean Connery was by far the best actor in the role of Bond as penned by Ian Fleming until Daniel Craig came along to give him a run for his money. Those actors who featured in-between gave audiences entertainment in spades, and a lot of action filled laughs. But I doubt that was ever Ian Fleming's intention when he created the original character who played Bond, I suspect that Connery and Craig would have been his favourite actors to fill the role too.
I nagged my parents to be allowed to watch it - my comment afterwards was it was quite exciting but I didn't understand why James Bond always ended up talking to ladies in bed - and was told 'because its more comfortable' - that was the last James Bond film I saw for a few years.....
No he wasn't.
Timothy Dalton would have been his favourite.
That is easily the wrongest comment you've ever posted here.
Dalton perfectly captured the resentful brooding intensity and conflicted emotion behind Fleming's Bond, who does his job of assassination (effectively as a off-limits civil servant) reluctantly and sceptically, but maintains a ruthless menace where necessary. His only relief being alcohol, fine living, and beautiful women to feel alive - tempered by the fact that one of his relationships ended tragically.
To put Dalton behind actors like Brosnan, Moore and Lazenby is nothing short of a travesty.
Go back, and rewatch his films. Try again.
Nah, you're wrong. But hey-ho: we all are from time to time.
(Incidentally, Dalton is also my wife's type and she simply loves him in the role. Perhaps you were knocked on the head when you were younger!)
Perhaps she just doesn't want to upset you by saying she doesn't like him in the role?
Though I liked him in it too.
Ha. Given the way she fawns and drools over him whenever we have it on, I sincerely doubt it!
Don't think it will help though, at this late stage.
The comments as usual are a hoot. Here is a man (the author) with 37 years as a Labour Party supporter, an election organiser and head office staffer for over a decade, and apparently he's a Tory, who would have guessed it.
The first one, in support of Corbyn was the most amusing: 'Foot was a doddering old so and so.'
He was, of course, the same age Jeremy Corbyn is now (to within a few months)...
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
Thank you for the reply Roger.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
I know your commitment to the facts is somewhat shaky at best, but you do realise that the Tories had a big majority back then, rather than a threadbare one, as now, right?
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
As the saying goes: you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
But Hamas and Hezbollah are Corbyn's friends. He said so himself.
That is the difference. Back channel communication between antagonists has been the norm for ever. It can safely be assumed now and historically that most people have been talking to most people.
The difference between that and The Jezzster is that you get the impression he wants to talk to them not because he opposes them while accepting that talking is a necessary evil, but because he actually sympathises with their aims.
I would consider voting for a party led by Cruddas. He's bright, realistic and a good Catholic boy - although that last point might disqualify him in the modern Labour party.
It might of course be one reason why he's never put himself forward as leader. Tim Farron hasn't exactly had an easy ride over being a Catholic, )
It's not compulsory to be anti homosexual and follow the cult of Rome - some are more prejudiced than others..
Any British politician who wanted to sit down and chat to Gerry Adams weeks after the Brighton bombing very nearly wiped out the democratically elected British Government is not fit to be a party leader, never mind a future PM of this country!!
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
My postbag still splitting between Corbyn and Cooper, nobody else mentioned lately. Some real head and heart agonising going on.
Typical email from a member who still likes Tony Blair:
"A grandson asked what I thought of Corbyn and as I answered I realised that was where I will cast my vote. He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
and from a member who is further left than the first one but will go for Yvette:
"When faced with a political dilemma, I often have 2 responses: first comes the “kneejerk” response and the socialist in me emerges (Corbynesque), however, a longer consideration brings me back to what can be achieved through persuading others at which point my response becomes “Mandlesonesque”.
"Honest and wholesome"? A man who befriends and defends vicious anti-Semites (Raed Salah and Stephen Sizer)? Poor Labour if that is what its supporters think of as honest and wholesome.
Surprising? No. From a man who has flip flopped from 'Ed is Great' to 'Ed was Crap' in the blink of an eye. And Palmer was more than happy to serve under Blair, but now that once lauded leader is also rubbished too. With such loose principles once hopes that he'll never be an MP again.
This is ridiculous. It's like an American taking the story of a British school teaching Muslim kids not to speak to outsiders and saying they represent British cultural values. The vast majority of Americans would be appalled by this.
There is a deep anti-Americanism on the part of the left. It is the same drive thar causes the BBC to go to hard leftists like Bonnie Greer, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to discuss any race issue in America, with no balance from the American right or even a moderate Democrat. I guess it suits their purposes to try to try to make a false equivalency with the Russians. A former British MP using Russian state propaganda channels as a source shows how far out there the Labour party has gone.
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
Thank you for the reply Roger.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
I know your commitment to the facts is somewhat shaky at best, but you do realise that the Tories had a big majority back then, rather than a threadbare one, as now, right?
Happily Labour is just about to elect just the man the Tories need to get that big majority back again
I would consider voting for a party led by Cruddas. He's bright, realistic and a good Catholic boy - although that last point might disqualify him in the modern Labour party.
It might of course be one reason why he's never put himself forward as leader. Tim Farron hasn't exactly had an easy ride over being a Catholic, and it's hard to imagine with aggressive secular humanism the dominant theme within Labour now, along with gay rights and abortion rights being touchstone issues, that he wouldn't have a difficult time reconciling the two.
(Added - I seem to remember Ruth Kelly being given a bad time over being a Catholic, although that was partly due to her links with Opus Dei and bad timing given the Da Vinci Code had just come out.)
Do Sadiq Khan and Diane Abbott support abortion rights out of interest?
Jezza will get a significant number of votes because what you see is mostly what you get.
It makes a change from the bland duo, and they are the most arrogant of all. Their message to the electorate is "I know best, but to get elected, I have to pander to your inadequacies. So I will do so, and you, being stupid compared to me, will lap it up."
A vote for Jezza is a NOTA vote.
It's a pity he's barmy.
I agree which is why I want him to win the leadership, but winning that and gaining votes across the country in a general election are 2 different things.
As you say, he's barmy, and at general elections people don't vote barmy.
I blame Darce and Murdoch for holding back the vat of manure they have on Jezza until after the election result.
Jezza will get a significant number of votes because what you see is mostly what you get.
It makes a change from the bland duo, and they are the most arrogant of all. Their message to the electorate is "I know best, but to get elected, I have to pander to your inadequacies. So I will do so, and you, being stupid compared to me, will lap it up."
A vote for Jezza is a NOTA vote.
It's a pity he's barmy.
I agree which is why I want him to win the leadership, but winning that and gaining votes across the country in a general election are 2 different things.
As you say, he's barmy, and at general elections people don't vote barmy.
I blame Darce and Murdoch for holding back the vat of manure they have on Jezza until after the election result.
This is going to be fun once he wins.
They need to hold back for another three years, in case Labour get rid of him early.
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
David might actually have produced a coherent platform of policies. Ed didn't, preferring instead to go for populist but incoherent and ill-thought policies.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
The employment data is not seasonally adjusted, and therefore tends to be weak in the early summer. So, in June/July 2014, it was practically zero, and was actually negative in 2013.
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
David might actually have produced a coherent platform of policies. Ed didn't, preferring instead to go for populist but incoherent and ill-thought policies.
He was the man without a plan.
Perhaps. But when you look at Miliband's career, can you name one idea he came up with? I can't.
He always struck me as a dull, safe, capable administrator, but no imagination and no drive or daring. He did a brilliant job at salvaging DEFRA after the egregious MArgaret Beckett had run it into the ground before being promoted, but at the Foreign Office he looked out of his depth. In fact, I think he would have been an outstanding Cabinet Secretary, but he wasn't really a great politician.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
The employment data is not seasonally adjusted, and therefore tends to be weak in the early summer. So, in June/July 2014, it was practically zero, and was actually negative in 2013.
Maybe - but I believe the figures are up a bit over 4 months too.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
The employment data is not seasonally adjusted, and therefore tends to be weak in the early summer. So, in June/July 2014, it was practically zero, and was actually negative in 2013.
Maybe - but I believe the figures are up a bit over 4 months too.
Remember we had a record university intake three years ago, who are now leaving and entering the job market. That may have some bearing on the figures although I don't know whether they've been adjusted to compensate.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
The employment data is not seasonally adjusted, and therefore tends to be weak in the early summer. So, in June/July 2014, it was practically zero, and was actually negative in 2013.
Maybe - but I believe the figures are up a bit over 4 months too.
Remember we had a record university intake three years ago, who are now leaving and entering the job market. That may have some bearing on the figures although I don't know whether they've been adjusted to compensate.
The figures have been boosted by outgoing LibDem MP's and staff.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
The employment data is not seasonally adjusted, and therefore tends to be weak in the early summer. So, in June/July 2014, it was practically zero, and was actually negative in 2013.
Maybe - but I believe the figures are up a bit over 4 months too.
Remember we had a record university intake three years ago, who are now leaving and entering the job market. That may have some bearing on the figures although I don't know whether they've been adjusted to compensate.
Surely the unemployment figures shouldn't be adjusted for University cohorts, in fact if you want to compare like for like you should probably stick some nominal unemployed into the figures when Uni numbers go up as some of those in Uni would otherwise have been unemployed.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
There were 5.37 million people employed in the public sector for March 2015. This was: • down 22,000 from December 2014 • down 59,000 from a year earlier • the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000 compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
David might actually have produced a coherent platform of policies. Ed didn't, preferring instead to go for populist but incoherent and ill-thought policies.
He was the man without a plan.
Perhaps. But when you look at Miliband's career, can you name one idea he came up with? I can't.
He always struck me as a dull, safe, capable administrator, but no imagination and no drive or daring. He did a brilliant job at salvaging DEFRA after the egregious MArgaret Beckett had run it into the ground before being promoted, but at the Foreign Office he looked out of his depth. In fact, I think he would have been an outstanding Cabinet Secretary, but he wasn't really a great politician.
I'd argue that a dull, safe and capable administrator is exactly the sort of guy we need at the top.
I find it hard to argue that David would have been worse than Ed, and better in one important way: I think an important factor in Labour's near-wipeout in Scotland was the Falkirk scandal, and the resultant mess. It might have been that David, less in hock to the unions, might have dealt with that better than dithering Ed.
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
David might actually have produced a coherent platform of policies. Ed didn't, preferring instead to go for populist but incoherent and ill-thought policies.
He was the man without a plan.
David lacked guts and the killer instinct though. I've never quite understood why people felt he would have been a game changer; I can't see him as having been a strong leader.
Personally, I don't think you can put a fig's leaf between the Miliband brothers. One lacked steel and the other lacked self-awareness.
I'd argue that a dull, safe and capable administrator is exactly the sort of guy we need at the top.
I find it hard to argue that David would have been worse than Ed, and better in one important way: I think an important factor in Labour's near-wipeout in Scotland was the Falkirk scandal, and the resultant mess. It might have been that David, less in hock to the unions, might have dealt with that better than dithering Ed.
The second point has force. The first point would for a PM - but not perhaps for a Leader of the Opposition, whose job is to come up with ideas to put into practice later rather than solving problems as they arise.
The problem with adverserial democracy is that you need somebody who can do both for it to work effectively, and they're very rare.
A few months of rising unemployment may change the general narrative on the economy with people less inclined to believe that things are improving - or that Osborne's 'Plan' is working.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
There were 5.37 million people employed in the public sector for March 2015. This was: • down 22,000 from December 2014 • down 59,000 from a year earlier • the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000 compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
I can't get too excited about the numbers in public v private employment due to the amount of outsourcing that is still going on. There are still an awful lot of people doing the same job, still being paid by the state, but because they are now directly employed by Serco or some such they count as private sector. I am sure that if it were possible to correct for the outsourcing effect the numbers would look a lot different.
What ever the answer to Labour's current problems are, its not a Gordon Brown intervention. But speaking equally tongue in cheek, I do find it ironic from a Scottish perspective that both the current Labour and SNP party grass roots share a loathing for any key personal involved in the Labour party when they were winning elections.
Labour look as though they are sleep walking to disaster in this leadership election.
Where is the man who saved the world, saved the banks?
General Gordon. Your Party Needs You!
LOL , unlike the disappearing Tories who don't have any leaders to worry about.
"A leader is best when the people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did this ourselves." Lao Tse.
Tory one has to scuttle over to Edinburgh for consolation list to save oblivion, poor Tories over there get shouldered out.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
There were 5.37 million people employed in the public sector for March 2015. This was: • down 22,000 from December 2014 • down 59,000 from a year earlier • the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000 compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
I can't get too excited about the numbers in public v private employment due to the amount of outsourcing that is still going on. There are still an awful lot of people doing the same job, still being paid by the state, but because they are now directly employed by Serco or some such they count as private sector. I am sure that if it were possible to correct for the outsourcing effect the numbers would look a lot different.
You should get very excited as they are no longer racking up future pension liabilities for the state. Our future finances are improving by this outsourcing.
What ever the answer to Labour's current problems are, its not a Gordon Brown intervention. But speaking equally tongue in cheek, I do find it ironic from a Scottish perspective that both the current Labour and SNP party grass roots share a loathing for any key personal involved in the Labour party when they were winning elections.
Labour look as though they are sleep walking to disaster in this leadership election.
Where is the man who saved the world, saved the banks?
General Gordon. Your Party Needs You!
LOL , unlike the disappearing Tories who don't have any leaders to worry about.
"A leader is best when the people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did this ourselves." Lao Tse.
Tory one has to scuttle over to Edinburgh for consolation list to save oblivion, poor Tories over there get shouldered out.
Malcolm I have tried to rearrange the words in this post in several different ways but I can't get it to mean anything. Is it a special code for Nats?
What ever the answer to Labour's current problems are, its not a Gordon Brown intervention. But speaking equally tongue in cheek, I do find it ironic from a Scottish perspective that both the current Labour and SNP party grass roots share a loathing for any key personal involved in the Labour party when they were winning elections.
Labour look as though they are sleep walking to disaster in this leadership election.
Where is the man who saved the world, saved the banks?
General Gordon. Your Party Needs You!
LOL , unlike the disappearing Tories who don't have any leaders to worry about.
"A leader is best when the people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did this ourselves." Lao Tse.
Tory one has to scuttle over to Edinburgh for consolation list to save oblivion, poor Tories over there get shouldered out.
She'd be better off hitting the private sector - I hear PR for music festivals is a very lucrative business malc - if you have the right contacts...
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
There were 5.37 million people employed in the public sector for March 2015. This was: • down 22,000 from December 2014 • down 59,000 from a year earlier • the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000 compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
No word on the Scottish figs? They must be awful, what with all these golf club barkeeps pushed on the dole.
Every time you consider the detail of that story you realise that David is never going to forgive Ed. And nor should he.
What would have been different if David had been leader?
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
David might actually have produced a coherent platform of policies. Ed didn't, preferring instead to go for populist but incoherent and ill-thought policies.
He was the man without a plan.
Perhaps. But when you look at Miliband's career, can you name one idea he came up with? I can't.
He always struck me as a dull, safe, capable administrator, but no imagination and no drive or daring. He did a brilliant job at salvaging DEFRA after the egregious MArgaret Beckett had run it into the ground before being promoted, but at the Foreign Office he looked out of his depth. In fact, I think he would have been an outstanding Cabinet Secretary, but he wasn't really a great politician.
Unemployment up for the second consecutive month - having increased by 25,000 over last three months.
There were 5.37 million people employed in the public sector for March 2015. This was: • down 22,000 from December 2014 • down 59,000 from a year earlier • the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000 compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
No word on the Scottish figs? They must be awful, what with all these golf club barkeeps pushed on the dole.
I hear unemployment is down as nationalised music festivals take on more staff.
A few months of rising unemployment may change the general narrative on the economy with people less inclined to believe that things are improving - or that Osborne's 'Plan' is working.
With vast numbers of people fleeing the Continent to the Sceptred Isle, there are bound to be upticks in the unemployment numbers if not percentages. It's a shame to see you buying the UKIP narrative.
The claimant count has fallen marginally while overall vacancy numbers remain close to a record high.
There's nothing in the unemployment figures to suggest any significant change, while July's claimant count would have out-of-work university finishers applying some upwards pressure.
DavidM was SoS at Defra during one of my stints. The staff thought he was great/friendly/approachable - after Ma Beckett - it'd be hard to be worse.
I experienced her and Brian Bender PermSec under RPA - that was eye-wateringly bad.
So did my father, who was working in the Animal Health lot at the time. He would have agreed with you - his opinion of Beckett was absolutely unrepeatable. That being said, he preserved his particular hatred for Alun Michael, of whom he said, in great annoyance, that after a few minutes with him you could understand why Prince Charles felt he got more sense out of his trees.
Surprising? No. From a man who has flip flopped from 'Ed is Great' to 'Ed was Crap' in the blink of an eye. And Palmer was more than happy to serve under Blair, but now that once lauded leader is also rubbished too. With such loose principles once hopes that he'll never be an MP again.
Like fitalass, you're making stuff up. I don't think I've ever said that Ed was great or that Ed was crap, and I certainly haven't rubbished Blair. But I also don't plan to stand for Parliament again - life has moved on.
What ever the answer to Labour's current problems are, its not a Gordon Brown intervention. But speaking equally tongue in cheek, I do find it ironic from a Scottish perspective that both the current Labour and SNP party grass roots share a loathing for any key personal involved in the Labour party when they were winning elections.
Labour look as though they are sleep walking to disaster in this leadership election.
Where is the man who saved the world, saved the banks?
General Gordon. Your Party Needs You!
LOL , unlike the disappearing Tories who don't have any leaders to worry about.
"A leader is best when the people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did this ourselves." Lao Tse.
Tory one has to scuttle over to Edinburgh for consolation list to save oblivion, poor Tories over there get shouldered out.
Malcolm I have tried to rearrange the words in this post in several different ways but I can't get it to mean anything. Is it a special code for Nats?
You have to be drunk, or 'Scotched' to understand.
DavidM strikes me as a good committee chairman type. All very consensual and nice at keeping a range of views onboard. He isn't a leader - he showed an unwillingness to stand up and be counted again and again.
If you aren't prepared to stand up, you're the wrong man for the job of LotO. Leaders can be chairman [not terribly good ones], but committee chairman can't be leaders IME. They simply don't have the required cojones for it.
I'd argue that a dull, safe and capable administrator is exactly the sort of guy we need at the top.
I find it hard to argue that David would have been worse than Ed, and better in one important way: I think an important factor in Labour's near-wipeout in Scotland was the Falkirk scandal, and the resultant mess. It might have been that David, less in hock to the unions, might have dealt with that better than dithering Ed.
The second point has force. The first point would for a PM - but not perhaps for a Leader of the Opposition, whose job is to come up with ideas to put into practice later rather than solving problems as they arise.
The problem with adverserial democracy is that you need somebody who can do both for it to work effectively, and they're very rare.
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens to have someone who doesn't behave like Paul Dacres lapdog
Thank you for the reply Roger.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
I'm trying to stay and calm and positive. Cooper still looks value to me, at least when I am feeling calm and positive. And, also, if JC wins then us PBers can have another massive round of betting in around 2017 on another Labour leadership election.
Indeed, Ladbrokes already has a book on Labour leader at next GE. Jarvis looking a bit sickly, from a value point of view, at 7.
I agree that Cooper is the sensible choice and that's why I bet heavily on her , unfortunately , Corbynmania is not about being ''sensible '', it's about mindless hope and change similar to a religious revival ,its about abandoning critical thinking skills and diving head first into the oh so soothing balm of BELIEF !....i'm trying to dig myself out of a hole and limit the damage done by betting on corbyn , but it's almost futile now
Next to something catastrophic happening , like say Corbyn having a heart attack or getting caught corpus dilecti by the Sun , then it's a certainty that this loony is going to be the next LP leader ....this is not the first time that I have overrated the collective IQ of the electorate , unfortunately ...hopefully , I can learn a painful lesson from this debacle , that is , never underestimate the stupidity of voters !
What ever the answer to Labour's current problems are, its not a Gordon Brown intervention. But speaking equally tongue in cheek, I do find it ironic from a Scottish perspective that both the current Labour and SNP party grass roots share a loathing for any key personal involved in the Labour party when they were winning elections.
Labour look as though they are sleep walking to disaster in this leadership election.
Where is the man who saved the world, saved the banks?
General Gordon. Your Party Needs You!
LOL , unlike the disappearing Tories who don't have any leaders to worry about.
"A leader is best when the people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did this ourselves." Lao Tse.
Tory one has to scuttle over to Edinburgh for consolation list to save oblivion, poor Tories over there get shouldered out.
Malcolm I have tried to rearrange the words in this post in several different ways but I can't get it to mean anything. Is it a special code for Nats?
I can't get too excited about the numbers in public v private employment due to the amount of outsourcing that is still going on. There are still an awful lot of people doing the same job, still being paid by the state, but because they are now directly employed by Serco or some such they count as private sector. I am sure that if it were possible to correct for the outsourcing effect the numbers would look a lot different.
It is of course far more complex and inter-connected than that. There are any number of private sector firms and individuals who rely on the public sector for work and without which said firms wouldn't exist and said individuals would be unemployed.
There is currently a huge amount of work going on at schools - new classrooms being built, existing ones being extended, new demountable and modular classrooms being installed - in order to deal with the rise in demand for school places (immigration ?). That means work for Consultants, Contractors, Sub-Contractors from architects down to chippies. All of that work is paid for by the public sector.
I was told by a friend in the construction industry that in the depths of the recession it was the public sector, the only part of the economy still doing building work, that kept hundreds of firms in business and thousands of people in work while other private sector projects were stopped or mothballed.
As you say, the definition of "public sector" is blurring all the time. There are any number of LATCs (Local Authority Trading Companies) being established while various partnership and collaborative schemes involve the new entity seeking work for profit from within the public sector and outside.
Part of that is because the concept of TUPE isn't that attractive for many private companies who don't want to take on the pension liabilities while for many Councils the private sector experience hasn't always been a good one. One County Council, which outsourced its building maintenance services to a Consultant, found itself having to pay £120 to get a light bulb changed while at the same time it was unable to hire good local contractors because of the deal it had made with the Consultant.
I don't think that personal attacks on Nick Palmer for showing past loyalty to party leaders are either fair or justified. Given the confines of his much more public political position than most of us, he has over the years shown more independence of thought about his party's leadership than some of those now criticising him.
I don't think that personal attacks on Nick Palmer for showing past loyalty to party leaders are either fair or justified. Given the confines of his much more public political position than most of us, he has over the years shown more independence of thought about his party's leadership than some of those now criticising him.
Might not be fair but it is informative. He also was posting how wonderful Gordon Brown was at the time.
Comments
This is a split in Labour that rarely gets an airing, but Crudas and his fellow 'Blue Labour' fellows are going to struggle to find any common ground with JC and 1980s left thinking. Blue Lab is partly about respecting working class, conservative (small c) views about things like immigration. JC is an open borders kinda of guy as far as can see.
Pay the three pounds and vote Corbyn.
I'd like to see Corbyn say to Cameron:
This is what I believe - what about you?
"But just a cotton-picking minute you say, isn’t a Corbyn victory nothing more than democracy in action, after all more people will have voted for him than the other candidates on offer? All I can say is that it’s a funny kind of democracy that relegates Labour party members to also-rans as tens of thousands of people pay £3 to vote in an election where they may, or may not, have a passing interest in who wins.
I’ve paid my Labour party subs now for 52 years and that has given me the right to vote in selections, attend meetings, put forward resolutions to determine party policy, attend conferences and, of course, to knock on doors and deliver leaflets. Under the new rules (thank you Ed Miliband) I, and people like me, can be out-voted in the most important election in the Labour party by people with little interest in Labour forming a government in the foreseeable future.
As one of our new ‘friends’ said last week when asked if they would like to help the Labour party, ‘no thanks, I just want to vote for Jeremy’."
"Even if we remain in the wilderness."
You will be familiar with the 'nutter on the bus' sketch by another JC. No doubt, those poor souls also feel the same.
Nick Palmer states that "He has inspired something good at grass roots. Even if we remain in the wilderness, there would be something clearly honest and wholesome at the centre."
Words just fail me right now!
"EDIT: I would particularly recommend that article to @NickPalmer and @Roger."
My feeling is that there comes a point with Tory governments when the public becomes so repulsed by their governance that whatever the economy might be doing they want to get rid of them by whatever means. That point hadn't been reached in 1983 nor in 2015.
It had in 1997 and it's my belief that a Corbyn or indeed anyone 'not Tory' would have won a landslide The way this government is going there's a very good chance that'll be the case in 2020.
How much better when that happens not to have someone who behaves like Paul Dacres lapdog
Take your man-crush and get a room!
If Burnham & Cooper assume that the Labour Party will come to its senses and select one of them over Corbyn, they want to be the one that gets the lions share of Corbyn's second preference votes, and if it doesn't, he is going to be their boss, either way there is no percentage is attacking him.
Mr blackburn,
Jezza will get a significant number of votes because what you see is mostly what you get.
It makes a change from the bland duo, and they are the most arrogant of all. Their message to the electorate is "I know best, but to get elected, I have to pander to your inadequacies. So I will do so, and you, being stupid compared to me, will lap it up."
A vote for Jezza is a NOTA vote.
It's a pity he's barmy.
I should warn you many Labour members said the same in 1984-5 over the miners' strike, as chronicled in John O'Farell's Things Can Only Get Better.
In 1997 Labour would almost certainly have won under any plausible candidate. It would still not have won under Jeremy Corbyn - the vague, not very intelligent, slightly lazy backbencher who has not merely never done a job but never held any sort of administrative post in his life proposing policies that nobody wants to vote for. That is how much of a drag he will be on you. I would vote for a party led by Cruddas. There are no circumstances and I mean no circumstances, under which I will vote for one led by Corbyn.
If that's what you want, go for it. But please understand, you are handing the Tories the next election and probably the one after that as well.
I would consider voting for a party led by Cruddas. He's bright, realistic and a good Catholic boy - although that last point might disqualify him in the modern Labour party.
If many are refused a vote, they'll cry foul. If few are, then it either makes no difference (so is wasted time/money) or denies Corbyn the victory, creating ongoing resentment and bitterness.
AB's support is quite strongly localised, I think. Broxtowe may not be typical.
Fitalass: it's naughty to take a quote from someone who wrote to me and attribute it to me. I expect you did it by accident, yes?
(Incidentally, Dalton is also my wife's type and she simply loves him in the role. Perhaps you were knocked on the head when you were younger!)
Then again, we are talking about an initial degree of sanity. I don't suppose that can be counted upon for the various entryists in this case.
(Added - I seem to remember Ruth Kelly being given a bad time over being a Catholic, although that was partly due to her links with Opus Dei and bad timing given the Da Vinci Code had just come out.)
Though I liked him in it too.
Indeed, Ladbrokes already has a book on Labour leader at next GE. Jarvis looking a bit sickly, from a value point of view, at 7.
As you say, he's barmy, and at general elections people don't vote barmy.
He was, of course, the same age Jeremy Corbyn is now (to within a few months)...
The difference between that and The Jezzster is that you get the impression he wants to talk to them not because he opposes them while accepting that talking is a necessary evil, but because he actually sympathises with their aims.
There is a deep anti-Americanism on the part of the left. It is the same drive thar causes the BBC to go to hard leftists like Bonnie Greer, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to discuss any race issue in America, with no balance from the American right or even a moderate Democrat. I guess it suits their purposes to try to try to make a false equivalency with the Russians. A former British MP using Russian state propaganda channels as a source shows how far out there the Labour party has gone.
Surely only that the bacon sandwiches would have been replaced by bananas. The attacks on Miliband's father would have been the same and like his brother, David also looks a bit odd and talks in pseudo-academic jargon. The SNP would still have beaten Labour in Scotland; the Tories would still have beaten the LibDems in England. David Miliband was not some great political colossus. It is not even clear he was a Blairite.
This is going to be fun once he wins.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/26/diane-abbott-resigns-abortion-counselling-group
Never heard Khan say anything on it one way or another. Might be something on theyworkforyou.
He was the man without a plan.
He always struck me as a dull, safe, capable administrator, but no imagination and no drive or daring. He did a brilliant job at salvaging DEFRA after the egregious MArgaret Beckett had run it into the ground before being promoted, but at the Foreign Office he looked out of his depth. In fact, I think he would have been an outstanding Cabinet Secretary, but he wasn't really a great politician.
• down 22,000 from December 2014
• down 59,000 from a year earlier
• the lowest figure since comparable records began in 1999
There were 25.68 million people employed in the private sector for March 2015. This was 136,000 more than for December 2014 and 483,000 more than for a year earlier.
• public sector employment fell by 10,000 compared with December 2014 and by 42,000
compared with a year earlier
• private sector employment increased by 124,000 compared with December 2014 and by 466,000 compared with a year earlier
I find it hard to argue that David would have been worse than Ed, and better in one important way: I think an important factor in Labour's near-wipeout in Scotland was the Falkirk scandal, and the resultant mess. It might have been that David, less in hock to the unions, might have dealt with that better than dithering Ed.
Don't chase monthly statistics.
That way madness lies.
Personally, I don't think you can put a fig's leaf between the Miliband brothers. One lacked steel and the other lacked self-awareness.
Arguably they both lacked decisiveness.
The problem with adverserial democracy is that you need somebody who can do both for it to work effectively, and they're very rare.
FTSE down a hundred. Whether we'll hit 6000 or 7000 next, who knows ?!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33850710
They reckon around 11pm is the optimal time.
I experienced her and Brian Bender PermSec under RPA - that was eye-wateringly bad.
There's nothing in the unemployment figures to suggest any significant change, while July's claimant count would have out-of-work university finishers applying some upwards pressure.
Caught a couple last night.
If you aren't prepared to stand up, you're the wrong man for the job of LotO. Leaders can be chairman [not terribly good ones], but committee chairman can't be leaders IME. They simply don't have the required cojones for it.
Next to something catastrophic happening , like say Corbyn having a heart attack or getting caught corpus dilecti by the Sun , then it's a certainty that this loony is going to be the next LP leader ....this is not the first time that I have overrated the collective IQ of the electorate , unfortunately ...hopefully , I can learn a painful lesson from this debacle , that is , never underestimate the stupidity of voters !
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/martin-hannan-send-ruth-homeward-tae-think-again-1-3855064
"Ruth Davidson is not welcome here. She is not welcome anywhere in civilised Scottish society."
There is currently a huge amount of work going on at schools - new classrooms being built, existing ones being extended, new demountable and modular classrooms being installed - in order to deal with the rise in demand for school places (immigration ?). That means work for Consultants, Contractors, Sub-Contractors from architects down to chippies. All of that work is paid for by the public sector.
I was told by a friend in the construction industry that in the depths of the recession it was the public sector, the only part of the economy still doing building work, that kept hundreds of firms in business and thousands of people in work while other private sector projects were stopped or mothballed.
As you say, the definition of "public sector" is blurring all the time. There are any number of LATCs (Local Authority Trading Companies) being established while various partnership and collaborative schemes involve the new entity seeking work for profit from within the public sector and outside.
Part of that is because the concept of TUPE isn't that attractive for many private companies who don't want to take on the pension liabilities while for many Councils the private sector experience hasn't always been a good one. One County Council, which outsourced its building maintenance services to a Consultant, found itself having to pay £120 to get a light bulb changed while at the same time it was unable to hire good local contractors because of the deal it had made with the Consultant.
The current MP for Gordon was never representing Banff and Buchan...
Please stay online, I might be needing you again..
Have a good day everyone!
Stormin corbyn