Mr. Bunnco, good to see you on. But next for what? Leader? Deputy leader? Defector?
Prime Minister. A real Iron Lady. Osbourne's gone too soon.
Hmm...It is true that Osborne is a high profile and potentially dangerous place. If the UK economy were to turn down over the next couple of years then his star will wane fairly quickly from its current zenith. I personally think there is at least a 40% chance of this.
But there are others like Hunt and Javid who are well ahead of Ms Truss in the pecking order. I think you are letting your fantasies get the better of you. Understandable but unwise.
PB understands the Conservatives very well but sometimes doesn't try to understand Labour people
The Conservatives under Cameron did 3 but more 4. The policy content of Cameroonism was weak, but it is very important to its supporters that Labour are associated with bad people and Conservatives are associated with good (dare I say "virtuous") people. Labour are now doing a mix of 1 and 2. Blair went full 4. The SDP were 2. If Labour want to win an election they probably need to hate the Conservatives more. They spent 5 years mainly hating the Lib Dems and Ukip which didn't win them many seats. They look likely to spend 5 years doing 2.
That's quite astute (I think - I'm not sure I understood it all).
However I reckon you underestimate the way social media is changing politics and upending all these rules. This is the first major leadership election which is being decided on Twitter and Facebook (thanks to Labour opening up the contest to all). On social media the shrillest, craziest voices often get the most attention, at its worse a kind of frenzy kicks in.
Traditional media is left floundering in its wake. See the lumbering way the Guardian tries to harness Corbymania - to little effect.
This is what is happening now. Corbyn is surfing an emotional cyberwave, and being elected by the Twitterati. Given that Twitter probably has a collective IQ of 80 - with occasional glimpses of genius, like an autistic savant - that is a pretty foolish way to choose a leader.
This is Labour's 3rd recent leadership election. In the first their MPs were blackmailed into only nominating 1 candidate who turned out to be quite as insane as he was vicious. In the second one brother stabbed another in the back... Now they have given a green light to a swarm of entryists and gone out of their way to let them vote for a candidate who is as much an idiot as he is a bigot.
None of which is encouraging if we are to judge them on an ability to run the country. And to think that their best alternative is Cooper.... well I ask you!
Another example of why we need the like button back. Well said, Mr. Path.
The Cooper banner flutters high A scarlet flag in pale blue sky It matters not it’s all a sham For ovaries maketh the man So please ignore my flipping homes Behold my two X chromosomes For feminists, it’s all a ruse: I want to stand in Thatcher’s shoes
Now that you've so brilliantly hymned Cooper, could you please do the same for the other three?
Liz Truss is a good tip. However, the membership will always be suspicious of her for her past Lib-Demmery, extra marital hanky-panky and moderniser credentials.
we skipped over the last thread rather quickly, thus no-one appears to have noticed this:
Glasbury on Powys (Con defence) Result: Liberal Democrats 457 (44%, no candidate in 2012), Conservatives 415 (40% -15%), Independent 106 (10% -23%), Green Party 52 (5%, no candidate in 2012) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative with a majority of 42 (4%) on a notional swing of 29.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat
Can you or anyone else suggest why Burhnam for example would improve Labour's chances beyond where they stood when Ed was in charge?
Burnham would be no better, perhaps a bit worse, than Ed. Yvette would be a bit better - dull though she is, she probably wouldn't be quite as daft; I can't imagine her making such a pig's ear of welfare & spending policy, setting up an own-goal photo-op disaster with a bacon buttie, or coming up with anything as cringeworthy as the Edstone. She'd be able to hold the line, and above all keep the party united.
Corbyn won't. Nor (for different reasons) would Liz Kendall.
Can you or anyone else suggest why Burhnam for example would improve Labour's chances beyond where they stood when Ed was in charge?
Burnham would be no better, perhaps a bit worse, than Ed. Yvette would be a bit better - dull though she is, she probably wouldn't be quite as daft; I can't imagine her making such a pig's ear of welfare & spending policy, setting up an own-goal photo-op disaster with a bacon buttie, or coming up with anything as cringeworthy as the Edstone. She'd be able to hold the line, and above all keep the party united.
Corbyn won't. Nor (for different reasons) would Liz Kendall.
I don't think so, Cooper is talking about nothing but ovaries. She has a unique talent repelling men.
According to this more than twice the number of men say they are less likely to vote Labour than women if Cooper is the leader, a gap of -9 compared with -2 with women:
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
we skipped over the last thread rather quickly, thus no-one appears to have noticed this:
Glasbury on Powys (Con defence) Result: Liberal Democrats 457 (44%, no candidate in 2012), Conservatives 415 (40% -15%), Independent 106 (10% -23%), Green Party 52 (5%, no candidate in 2012) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative with a majority of 42 (4%) on a notional swing of 29.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat
Lib Dems not quite dead yet.
Not even Nick Clegg could destroy a centuries old political tradition.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
Actually what I don't like from his 10 point plan is the fact that's plainly obvious that he ran out of ideas to fill his 10 point plan. He could only manage to fill 7, so the other 3 are things like fair taxes and equality to all.
It looks like it was written on the back of an envelope (and it probably was) this morning.
The Nat bully boys seem to have steered clear of the Corbyn rallies. They generally like to disrupt and break up events involving English politicians but the numbers and enthusiasm have scared them off this time.
"I was just accused of 'running scared' as a tory suggesting that voting for Corbyn might not be the smartest thing for Labour to do."
Can you or anyone else suggest why Burhnam for example would improve Labour's chances beyond where they stood when Ed was in charge?
More presentable. Better speaker. Most Prime Ministerial out of the four and also over Osborne and Johnson. Seems more in touch with people. Has shown signs he'd be willing to broaden Labour's appeal. Wouldn't be tarred by the union brush. (as he wasn't nominated by them) Backed by the majority of MPs unlike Ed. More popular amongst members. (before the Corgasm)
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
Their manifesto was great, with all these little 'imagine a world' sequences, along with not caring about economic growth. They did include tables of figures, iirc, which made me feel better though.
The only poll so far that was conducted 3 weeks ago points to Corbyn improving Labour's position by 7% in Scotland, but Labour need 6% swings or more to get a serious number of SNP seats, it could work if he gets that 7% all from the SNP, but it won't be more than 4-5 seats.
If you use the same poll's other regional breakdowns, he might gain the 2 marginals in London and another 2-3 in the North, but he will lose 7 marginals in the midlands and the south.
What's frustrating for a Corbyn leadership is that there are no marginals in Scotland and not many marginals in the north or London for Labour to gain, but equally what aids him is that there are not many marginals left in the midlands or the south for Labour to lose either. It's a very neutral position.
"According to PoliticsHome, the Burnham camp also do not accept that Corbyn has a massive lead over his rivals. According to their figures, Corbyn is on 35%, Burnham 31%, Cooper 23% and Kendall 11%. Based on those figures, the Burnham team think Burnham would beat Corbyn by 52% to 48% in the final run-off."
If those are Burnham's own figures he's completely and utterly finished. 4% lead in his own canvass?!
"I was just accused of 'running scared' as a tory suggesting that voting for Corbyn might not be the smartest thing for Labour to do."
Can you or anyone else suggest why Burhnam for example would improve Labour's chances beyond where they stood when Ed was in charge?
More presentable. Better speaker. Most Prime Ministerial out of the four and also over Osborne and Johnson. Seems more in touch with people. Has shown signs he'd be willing to broaden Labour's appeal. Wouldn't be tarred by the union brush. (as he wasn't nominated by them) Backed by the majority of MPs unlike Ed. More popular amongst members. (before the Corgasm)
Which of these would you disagree with?
I disagree with no.1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. The campaign has clearly shown that Burnham was a myth.
I think Gloria Del Piero had a point regarding her tweet - Labour's sheer unelectability in the 1980s meant that to floating voters the Tories were the only option. It's still true now; the public isn't enamoured by this government in the slightest - if we believe the recent YG internals, it could even be said that the government is unpopular. But Labour, by electing Corbyn, and by not having viable candidates with ideas, has no chance of taking advantage of that, and even addressing their own issues. Cruddas, probably the most brightest thinker in Labour today, will most likely be marginalised under a Corbyn leadership - my gut tells me Corbyn isn't as open and tolerant to all ideas as he says he is. However I also think Labour needs this - it needs Corbyn as their leader.
Why? Firstly, Cooper, Burnham and Kendall wouldn't do anything for Labour anyway, even if they were elected. They are dull, middle of the road characters who make being a moderate sound unprincipled and without any strong political beliefs. When Blair - someone who once upon a time, was a genuine moderate - managed to inspire, and excite many people with his vision. Their completely and utterly poor leadership campaigns, tells me that if they cannot inspire Labour members, or activists then there's not a hope in hell they can do the same in the wider electorate. Yes, Labour members and the wider public are two different groups - but Labour members were still the people who, in the leadership contests in the last twenty years - three overall - two out of those three times voted for those on the Right of the party (D Miliband and Blair).
Labour look like they have no solutions to the issues of immigration, or indeed an alternative programme of welfare reform, and ideas on the role of the state in the 21st century. If they have no solutions to immigration and welfare, then they haven't a hope of regaining voters trust back and making inroads into the currently negative way they are seen my large swathes of the electorate. Ed Miliband, already tried 'tough' rhetoric on immigration and welfare, as Burnham, Kendall and Cooper to a lesser extent have rolled out in this leadership campaign, and it didn't work. The sheer lack of authenticity on the issue, combined with no coherent policy to match it, and unelectability meant that such rhetoric was uneffective. These problems will still exist with Cooper, Burnham, and Kendall as leaders.
Really, Labour needs the sheer disaster of a Corbyn leadership to hit them. To perhaps kill off the hard-left like never before, but also to let a new generation of MPs, and others involved within Labour rise who can genuinely give Labour a purpose for existing. Because right now, many don't know the purpose of the Labour party. In fact, it's a problem for the Left in general - the only centre-Left party who doesn't face this issue is the SNP, and their purpose is less ideological and more about nationality.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
He inherited a massive deficit and record debt. The only way not to increase debt would be to have eliminated the deficit completely and run a small surplus (to offset interest on the debt) in year one.
Even the New Statesman (or 'Blue Statesman', as the witty comments have it) is being accused of being a Tory rag! See the rabid responses to this unexceptional article:
Even the New Statesman (or 'Blue Statesman', as the witty comments have it) is being accused of being a Tory rag! See the rabid responses to this unexceptional article:
Even the New Statesman (or 'Blue Statesman', as the witty comments have it) is being accused of being a Tory rag! See the rabid responses to this unexceptional article:
I totally understand the idea that a new generation of young and disaffected could be engaged with a direct, lefty appeal - I don't think it would work, but I understand it - but I do have trouble understanding the opinion that anyone who does not meet a narrow ideological criteria must be condemned as a Tory - translation, the devil - rather than perhaps a fellow traveller not yet fully convinced. It seems designed to convince people who don't consider themselves Tories, who may not even be considering voting Tory right now, to presume they have no choice, as they have doubts about such people who will insist they are Tories!
OT. Lord Janner wrote me the rudest letter I've ever received.
Nonetheless making a man with advanced Alzheimers face a court when it's clear he has no idea what's going on is barbaric and those newspapers which demanded it and the court authorities who agreed to it should be ashamed.
Also Corbyn vs Osborne? This country hasn't a hope in hell if that's the choice in GE 2020.
Well we know what some of the main issues of 2020 will be:
Immigration (because the chaos and war on europe's borders will continue) EU (because the eurozone crisis will continue) Economy (because it always usually is)
Labour is currently on the wrong side of all 3, and every Labour faction is equally on the wrong side for different reasons (the left is pro-immigration because we are all humans, the blairites are pro-immigration to lower wages and marginalize local voices)
The Tories are equally on the wrong side on those 3, but perceived as less wrong than Labour. By definition Labour is seen as extreme pro-immigration, pro-EU, and against economic reform (especially blairites), compared with the Tories.
I do have trouble understanding the opinion that anyone who does not meet a narrow ideological criteria must be condemned as a Tory - translation, the devil - rather than perhaps a fellow traveller not yet fully convinced.
It is curious. I wonder if that will have any unintended consequences.
If everyone is a Tory, where's the insult?
Of course, in Scotland, Tory is code for English, but any dilution of the term would be interesting.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
Labour survived 18 years in the wilderness and emerged to win a massive majority. Sure, if they can avoid spending near as long in the wilderness again that would be best for them and they should do what they can to avoid it, but even if they lose 2020 that'll add up to 15 years, not the worse they've ever done. They'll survive, is the point, even if it will feel like hell.
Labour survived 18 years in the wilderness and emerged to win a massive majority. Sure, if they can avoid spending near as long in the wilderness again that would be best for them and they should do what they can to avoid it, but even if they lose 2020 that'll add up to 15 years, not the worse they've ever done. They'll survive, is the point, even if it will feel like hell.
"Labour survived 18 years in the wilderness and emerged to win a massive majority. "
I do have trouble understanding the opinion that anyone who does not meet a narrow ideological criteria must be condemned as a Tory - translation, the devil - rather than perhaps a fellow traveller not yet fully convinced.
It is curious. I wonder if that will have any unintended consequences.
If everyone is a Tory, where's the insult?
Of course, in Scotland, Tory is code for English, but any dilution of the term would be interesting.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
The Nat bully boys seem to have steered clear of the Corbyn rallies. They generally like to disrupt and break up events involving English politicians but the numbers and enthusiasm have scared them off this time.
The zoomers are on form today, forget your medication today Monica
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I agree with @kle4. Labour survived 1983, Foot and the hard left as well as a generation being out of power. They can survive a nutter like Corbyn being leader. Far too many have already written off Labour now, in fact for four GEs in a row, many wrote off Labour - but they still came back. Why? Because politics is cyclical. At some point the government becomes the worst option.
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
Labour survived 18 years in the wilderness and emerged to win a massive majority. Sure, if they can avoid spending near as long in the wilderness again that would be best for them and they should do what they can to avoid it, but even if they lose 2020 that'll add up to 15 years, not the worse they've ever done. They'll survive, is the point, even if it will feel like hell.
It will add up to at least 15 years, there's no guarantee that they'll win 2025.
New governments often are won on the back of groundwork done by their predecessor. Blair built on work done by Kinnock and Smith, Cameron built on work done by Howard. If Labour go backwards this Parliament then winning 2025 will be as unlikely as winning 2020 is today.
Personally I would like DC to stay on and fight the 2020 GE. However it won;t happen in my view for two reason. In order for the Party to stay united he will (sadly) be the sacrificial lamb which the eurosceptics will demand for an In success in the referendum. Far more importantly SamCam does not want him to carry on! I wouldn't be as sure as Kieran is that George will become the new leader. Too much water to go under the bridge to be certain about that.
halfwitted , cretinous bitter and twisted sad turnip
Well, you got that bit right.
You calling someone else a zoomer is like, how can I put this in words you might understand, like you in a Celtic strip, shouting at Walter Smith and calling him a dirty fenian
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
Having had a fair few bloody noses during the GE2015 campaign I would've expected the right wing commentators to have waited a bit before hitting Twitter. If I were them I would wait for the polls around Corbyn's electability before cracking open the champagne. I've already started saving up a few of their tweets:
Ms. Apocalypse, the Romans probably thought the same thing when they kept getting rubbish emperors in the West.
Edited extra bit: Red Len = Alaric/Ricimer?
Sure, there is conceivably a point where continual failures add up to just too much and Labour as it currently exists folds. But at their lowest, supposedly craziest, they won what, 200+ seats? And the Liberals managed to survive going down to single figures (if not back to the heights they once enjoyed, and are back to that point again) through transmutation (rather than outright folding). What chance Labour could fall so low, for so long, without the Tories offering opportunities for revival, to actually fail to survive?
I think @The_Apocalypse has some valid points, however for me the stand-out issues for Labour under Corbyn revolve around it feeling a bit dangerous.
Too gobby, too radical/angry, too *revolutionary* re changing lots of things at the same time, and crucially - too far from reality/idealogical.
Now, I can see why Corbyn's Manifesto contains all the things he's discussed over organic fair-trade artisan soda bread - but to Mr and Mrs Average it doesn't feel *safe*. Creating money from thin air doesn't help either.
Hate them or hate them, Tony and Gordon spent YEARS convincing the electorate that Labour were trustworthy again re the nation's credit cards and car keys. We now know a great deal better, and it'll be a very hard slog to get back to the 1997 credibility levels.
Corbyn and his ilk don't give me any warm and fuzzy feelings at all. So long as the Tories or LDs or SNP feel safer - Labour doesn't stand a chance.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
Ms. Apocalypse, the Romans probably thought the same thing when they kept getting rubbish emperors in the West.
Edited extra bit: Red Len = Alaric/Ricimer?
Sure, there is conceivably a point where continual failures add up to just too much and Labour as it currently exists folds. But at their lowest, supposedly craziest, they won what, 200+ seats? And the Liberals managed to survive going down to single figures (if not back to the heights they once enjoyed, and are back to that point again) through transmutation (rather than outright folding). What chance Labour could fall so low, for so long, without the Tories offering opportunities for revival, to actually fail to survive?
The best way to put the black spot on loonies like Corbyn is to vote tory in 2020.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
So much for 'austerity' then. Corbynites need to invent problems and ignore successes to rationalise their warped world.
halfwitted , cretinous bitter and twisted sad turnip
Well, you got that bit right.
You calling someone else a zoomer is like, how can I put this in words you might understand, like you in a Celtic strip, shouting at Walter Smith and calling him a dirty fenian
Put down the can of Special Brew...
Dear dear , insulted by a dead sheep, how can I survive. You cretin go play tig on the M8 and do us all a favour. Or alternatively help your Mum cook your dinner you stupid jessie.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I agree with @kle4. Labour survived 1983, Foot and the hard left as well as a generation being out of power. They can survive a nutter like Corbyn being leader. Far too many have already written off Labour now, in fact for four GEs in a row, many wrote off Labour - but they still came back. Why? Because politics is cyclical. At some point the government becomes the worst option.
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
Labour had a lot of advantages in those years that they do not have now. They had a vibrant Union movement that was not just a public sector phenomenon. They had a much larger base of activists. They had more councillors. They had strong roots in places like Scotland. They had an intellectual heft that has now gone.
Just because a completely different Labour party survived before does not mean that this pale shadow of today has the same resilience. They are damned lucky that buffoon decided to stay on as leader of UKIP instead of someone more palatable to social conservatives of a leftist disposition. Since the election pretty much nothing else has gone their way.
Having had a fair few bloody noses during the GE2015 campaign I would've expected the right wing commentators to have waited a bit before hitting Twitter. If I were them I would wait for the polls around Corbyn's electability before cracking open the champagne. I've already started saving up a few of their tweets:
I suspect what will happen is that Corbyn won't do too badly at first, as he's seen as a breath of fresh air, but then falls back and stagnates until the next election.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I agree with @kle4. Labour survived 1983, Foot and the hard left as well as a generation being out of power. They can survive a nutter like Corbyn being leader. Far too many have already written off Labour now, in fact for four GEs in a row, many wrote off Labour - but they still came back. Why? Because politics is cyclical. At some point the government becomes the worst option.
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
Politics is cyclical to the extent that parties rotate in and out of power, but there's no guarantee that the party the Conservatives are replaced with will be the Labour Party. A new SDP, a resurgent Liberal Democrat party or even a left-moving UKIP could possibly do it. It's a very rare thing for one of the big two parties to collapse, a once in a century thing, but when it happens it's after this sort of event.
Having had a fair few bloody noses during the GE2015 campaign I would've expected the right wing commentators to have waited a bit before hitting Twitter. If I were them I would wait for the polls around Corbyn's electability before cracking open the champagne. I've already started saving up a few of their tweets:
I suspect what will happen is that Corbyn won't do too badly at first, as he's seen as a breath of fresh air, but then falls back and stagnates until the next election.
Probably. Initially the trouble may therefore come from inside the party, as polling wise he'll probably do alright.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
Although we decided to include drugs and prostitution - bizarrely this is what triggered off that EU bill which Osbo hid under a carpet in his office - not all EU countries adopted the policy - not sure about Germany.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I agree with @kle4. Labour survived 1983, Foot and the hard left as well as a generation being out of power. They can survive a nutter like Corbyn being leader. Far too many have already written off Labour now, in fact for four GEs in a row, many wrote off Labour - but they still came back. Why? Because politics is cyclical. At some point the government becomes the worst option.
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
Labour had a lot of advantages in those years that they do not have now. They had a vibrant Union movement that was not just a public sector phenomenon. They had a much larger base of activists. They had more councillors. They had strong roots in places like Scotland. They had an intellectual heft that has now gone.
Just because a completely different Labour party survived before does not mean that this pale shadow of today has the same resilience. They are damned lucky that buffoon decided to stay on as leader of UKIP instead of someone more palatable to social conservatives of a leftist disposition. Since the election pretty much nothing else has gone their way.
Farage and Corbyn will have been getting to know each other pretty well I would have thought at their weekly 'Friends of Vladimir Putin' meetings.
The veteran MP ‘doesn’t believe in leaders’, in fact in a joint interview with Corbyn earlier this year he declared ‘we believe that leaders should be following the masses’. Still, not believing in leadership isn’t stopping McDonnell from trying to ensure discipline and loyalty to the Corbyn campaign, describing dissension within the Labour Party as a ‘little bit of over-excitement’. Corbyn’s closest political ally may be able to sympathise with potential rebels, however, the veteran MP claimed he would ‘swim through vomit to vote against’ the Welfare Bill. Just the man to calm the ‘over-excitement’.
Miss Apocalypse, I strongly disagree that Labour needs Corbyn as leader.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I agree with @kle4. Labour survived 1983, Foot and the hard left as well as a generation being out of power. They can survive a nutter like Corbyn being leader. Far too many have already written off Labour now, in fact for four GEs in a row, many wrote off Labour - but they still came back. Why? Because politics is cyclical. At some point the government becomes the worst option.
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
Labour had a lot of advantages in those years that they do not have now. They had a vibrant Union movement that was not just a public sector phenomenon. They had a much larger base of activists. They had more councillors. They had strong roots in places like Scotland. They had an intellectual heft that has now gone.
Just because a completely different Labour party survived before does not mean that this pale shadow of today has the same resilience. They are damned lucky that buffoon decided to stay on as leader of UKIP instead of someone more palatable to social conservatives of a leftist disposition. Since the election pretty much nothing else has gone their way.
Farage and Corbyn will have been getting to know each other pretty well I would have thought at their weekly 'Friends of Vladimir Putin' meetings.
To be fair to Farage, he did criticize Putin for locking up journalists. Has Corbyn ever said anything bad about the man?
Just when I thought I couldn't despise him any further..
It was said of Sir Stafford Cripps, formerly a leading figure of the CPGB and later Chancellor of the Exchequer under Attlee, that he 'was not only a vegetarian and a teetotaller, but he looked like one too.'
EDIT - he was also of course a non-smoker, but that's not unusual today.
Gives me an excuse...
Churchill cordially loathed Cripps. On one occasion, when Cripps (when he was Lord Privy Seal) insisted on seeing him right away, Churchill sent back a message : Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
Germany's problem is the Greeks aren't buying so many Mercs and BMWs. Not sure why.
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
Germany's problem is the Greeks aren't buying so many Mercs and BMWs. Not sure why.
From what I can see, both the pre- and post-revision stats are independently indexed at 2008Q1 = 100.
The pre-revision economy is at 100 again, and the post-revision one is 102.5, or thereabouts. So those components included in the revision must be growing more quickly than those not in the revision.
Just when I thought I couldn't despise him any further..
It was said of Sir Stafford Cripps, formerly a leading figure of the CPGB and later Chancellor of the Exchequer under Attlee, that he 'was not only a vegetarian and a teetotaller, but he looked like one too.'
EDIT - he was also of course a non-smoker, but that's not unusual today.
Gives me an excuse...
Churchill cordially loathed Cripps. On one occasion, when Cripps (when he was Lord Privy Seal) insisted on seeing him right away, Churchill sent back a message : Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time
I really hope Corbyn is not too much like Cripps, or Putin will be saying: "What fool will sell us his secrets?"
as for Corbyn's 10 point plan, I see nothing much objectionable in it. We'd all like a fully funded NHS, a decent lifelong education service etc etc. There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
The NHS already has huge sums of money spent on it. It will take teachers and parents who are motivated to improve education - not money. Everything about it all is bogus - just an excuse to spend spend spend. As is the preposterous people's investment back or whatever its name is. A real bank takes in deposits in order to then borrow, where would Corbyn's money come from? All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
Labour did not cause the global financial crash or the enormous deficit. The current Chancellor flatlined the recovery inherited from Labour and drove debt up to record levels.
Interesting graph of post crash GDP growth across the G7 - would've been great if we'd followed the USA and Canada approach - the graph also compares UK GDP with and without the inclosing of drug dealing and prostitution etc in our GDP figures:
Does that chart really imply that drug dealing and prostitution weren't hit as badly as the rest of the economy?
No it shows that before the changes were made we did not calculate our GDP on the same basis as some of our competitors (although you may be right).
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
Germany's problem is the Greeks aren't buying so many Mercs and BMWs. Not sure why.
OT. Lord Janner wrote me the rudest letter I've ever received.
Nonetheless making a man with advanced Alzheimers face a court when it's clear he has no idea what's going on is barbaric and those newspapers which demanded it and the court authorities who agreed to it should be ashamed.
It's not barbaric, what's going on in Iraq and Syria is barbaric.
Comments
England 86-7
But that does require Cameron to stay to 2020 and either Truss to be leader then or Cameron to stay all the way to 2025.
Edited extra bit: bah, I think I got her confused with Stella Creasy.! Sorry, my reply didn't make sense
But there are others like Hunt and Javid who are well ahead of Ms Truss in the pecking order. I think you are letting your fantasies get the better of you. Understandable but unwise.
"I was just accused of 'running scared' as a tory suggesting that voting for Corbyn might not be the smartest thing for Labour to do."
Can you or anyone else suggest why Burhnam for example would improve Labour's chances beyond where they stood when Ed was in charge?
LOL. You're a poet.
Caught chipping to mid on off a full toss !
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf
Glasbury on Powys (Con defence)
Result: Liberal Democrats 457 (44%, no candidate in 2012), Conservatives 415 (40% -15%), Independent 106 (10% -23%), Green Party 52 (5%, no candidate in 2012)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative with a majority of 42 (4%) on a notional swing of 29.5% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat
Lib Dems not quite dead yet.
Corbyn won't. Nor (for different reasons) would Liz Kendall.
Not what you might think of as an inspired batting performance. Have they been taking lessons from the Australian male team?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/corbyn-will-not-bring-back-mandatory-reselection-mps
And hints that SNP fervour is transferring in Edinburgh:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/aug/14/corbyn-holds-rally-as-labour-leadership-ballot-papers-go-out-politics-live
She has a unique talent repelling men.
According to this more than twice the number of men say they are less likely to vote Labour than women if Cooper is the leader, a gap of -9 compared with -2 with women:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/jvcr8gkvrb/SundayTimesResults_150724_W.pdf
There's just the little matter of how to pay for it all.
Reminds me of the Greens. Lots of lovely sounding ideas. Not a clue about the real world.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Leading-Labour-the-Fabian-essays-Aug-15.pdf
He could only manage to fill 7, so the other 3 are things like fair taxes and equality to all.
It looks like it was written on the back of an envelope (and it probably was) this morning.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Better speaker.
Most Prime Ministerial out of the four and also over Osborne and Johnson.
Seems more in touch with people.
Has shown signs he'd be willing to broaden Labour's appeal.
Wouldn't be tarred by the union brush. (as he wasn't nominated by them)
Backed by the majority of MPs unlike Ed.
More popular amongst members. (before the Corgasm)
Which of these would you disagree with?
Burnham's a lightweight.
'Which of these would you disagree with?'
You forgot,first cabinet minister to privatize an NHS hospital.
If you use the same poll's other regional breakdowns, he might gain the 2 marginals in London and another 2-3 in the North, but he will lose 7 marginals in the midlands and the south.
What's frustrating for a Corbyn leadership is that there are no marginals in Scotland and not many marginals in the north or London for Labour to gain, but equally what aids him is that there are not many marginals left in the midlands or the south for Labour to lose either.
It's a very neutral position.
"According to PoliticsHome, the Burnham camp also do not accept that Corbyn has a massive lead over his rivals. According to their figures, Corbyn is on 35%, Burnham 31%, Cooper 23% and Kendall 11%. Based on those figures, the Burnham team think Burnham would beat Corbyn by 52% to 48% in the final run-off."
If those are Burnham's own figures he's completely and utterly finished. 4% lead in his own canvass?!
YouGov might just be spot on.
The campaign has clearly shown that Burnham was a myth.
Why? Firstly, Cooper, Burnham and Kendall wouldn't do anything for Labour anyway, even if they were elected. They are dull, middle of the road characters who make being a moderate sound unprincipled and without any strong political beliefs. When Blair - someone who once upon a time, was a genuine moderate - managed to inspire, and excite many people with his vision. Their completely and utterly poor leadership campaigns, tells me that if they cannot inspire Labour members, or activists then there's not a hope in hell they can do the same in the wider electorate. Yes, Labour members and the wider public are two different groups - but Labour members were still the people who, in the leadership contests in the last twenty years - three overall - two out of those three times voted for those on the Right of the party (D Miliband and Blair).
Labour look like they have no solutions to the issues of immigration, or indeed an alternative programme of welfare reform, and ideas on the role of the state in the 21st century. If they have no solutions to immigration and welfare, then they haven't a hope of regaining voters trust back and making inroads into the currently negative way they are seen my large swathes of the electorate. Ed Miliband, already tried 'tough' rhetoric on immigration and welfare, as Burnham, Kendall and Cooper to a lesser extent have rolled out in this leadership campaign, and it didn't work. The sheer lack of authenticity on the issue, combined with no coherent policy to match it, and unelectability meant that such rhetoric was uneffective. These problems will still exist with Cooper, Burnham, and Kendall as leaders.
Really, Labour needs the sheer disaster of a Corbyn leadership to hit them. To perhaps kill off the hard-left like never before, but also to let a new generation of MPs, and others involved within Labour rise who can genuinely give Labour a purpose for existing. Because right now, many don't know the purpose of the Labour party. In fact, it's a problem for the Left in general - the only centre-Left party who doesn't face this issue is the SNP, and their purpose is less ideological and more about nationality.
All totally bogus. And of course the biggest bit of bogosity of all is the anti-austerity rhetoric. Labour left an appalling legacy of financial mismanagement and an enormous deficit with a shrunken economy to pay it off. Simply slowly cutting spending to live within means is not 'austerity'.
He inherited a massive deficit and record debt. The only way not to increase debt would be to have eliminated the deficit completely and run a small surplus (to offset interest on the debt) in year one.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/there-anyone-labour-who-can-stop-corbyn
Nonetheless making a man with advanced Alzheimers face a court when it's clear he has no idea what's going on is barbaric and those newspapers which demanded it and the court authorities who agreed to it should be ashamed.
I think what we are seeing from the Left is their reaction to (unexpectedly) losing the GE.
Shock has now moved on to Anger.
Immigration (because the chaos and war on europe's borders will continue)
EU (because the eurozone crisis will continue)
Economy (because it always usually is)
Labour is currently on the wrong side of all 3, and every Labour faction is equally on the wrong side for different reasons (the left is pro-immigration because we are all humans, the blairites are pro-immigration to lower wages and marginalize local voices)
The Tories are equally on the wrong side on those 3, but perceived as less wrong than Labour.
By definition Labour is seen as extreme pro-immigration, pro-EU, and against economic reform (especially blairites), compared with the Tories.
If everyone is a Tory, where's the insult?
Of course, in Scotland, Tory is code for English, but any dilution of the term would be interesting.
The underlying premise is that the Labour party will survive this. I do not think this is something we can be confident of.
Under a Corbyn leadership those shiny new Labour MPs will be (a) very few in number and (b) probably to the left of Corbyn as the hard left take over what is left of the party.
Whilst I agree the alternatives have been a long way from inspirational of the 4 Corbyn's ideas on immigration (for example) are probably furthest from the public's centre of gravity.
Another election without a credible economic policy from Labour and far too many will conclude that they are simply not capable of being serious about the single most important issue.
When claiming this was a battle for the Labour party's soul Cooper was not guilty of hyperbole, quite the reverse. I think this is a battle for its very existence.
I assume this is a 'wake up, it isn't funny anymore' price factor.
But this is the Labour electorate. And they don't do sane.
"Labour survived 18 years in the wilderness and emerged to win a massive majority. "
...by installing Tory Blair as leader.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/5.png
It's an odd one. You can say "but even if it's 10% off, Corbyn's home". But why believe it at all if you think it could be 10% off?
If you are going to make an arse of yourself. at least click on the link first...
@MarkHopkins Labour was recovering before Blair became leader - they led in the polls with John Smith. Most likely, had he not died Smith would have been elected PM in 1997.
New governments often are won on the back of groundwork done by their predecessor. Blair built on work done by Kinnock and Smith, Cameron built on work done by Howard. If Labour go backwards this Parliament then winning 2025 will be as unlikely as winning 2020 is today.
Edited extra bit: Red Len = Alaric/Ricimer?
You calling someone else a zoomer is like, how can I put this in words you might understand, like you in a Celtic strip, shouting at Walter Smith and calling him a dirty fenian
Put down the can of Special Brew...
Our economy has continued to grow faster than Germany's since Q1 of 2014 so we are now ahead of them too. So despite having the largest per capita accumulated debt (public + private) in the western world in 2008 we are doing much better than anyone other than those countries smart enough to take advantage of new sources of oil and gas whilst we dither.
https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/632134416702251008
https://twitter.com/chrisdeerin/status/632227880190263296
Too gobby, too radical/angry, too *revolutionary* re changing lots of things at the same time, and crucially - too far from reality/idealogical.
Now, I can see why Corbyn's Manifesto contains all the things he's discussed over organic fair-trade artisan soda bread - but to Mr and Mrs Average it doesn't feel *safe*. Creating money from thin air doesn't help either.
Hate them or hate them, Tony and Gordon spent YEARS convincing the electorate that Labour were trustworthy again re the nation's credit cards and car keys. We now know a great deal better, and it'll be a very hard slog to get back to the 1997 credibility levels.
Corbyn and his ilk don't give me any warm and fuzzy feelings at all. So long as the Tories or LDs or SNP feel safer - Labour doesn't stand a chance.
Just because a completely different Labour party survived before does not mean that this pale shadow of today has the same resilience. They are damned lucky that buffoon decided to stay on as leader of UKIP instead of someone more palatable to social conservatives of a leftist disposition. Since the election pretty much nothing else has gone their way.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/18/us-france-drugs-stats-idUSKBN0ET1L020140618
She not he.
Take it easy on the grog, you can't handle it.
Churchill cordially loathed Cripps. On one occasion, when Cripps (when he was Lord Privy Seal) insisted on seeing him right away, Churchill sent back a message : Tell the Lord Privy Seal that I am sealed in the privy and can only deal with one shit at a time
The pre-revision economy is at 100 again, and the post-revision one is 102.5, or thereabouts. So those components included in the revision must be growing more quickly than those not in the revision.
Can that really be right?