Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn wrecks McDonnell’s economic credibility plans

SystemSystem Posts: 11,684
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn wrecks McDonnell’s economic credibility plans

For someone who insisted for years that Twitter wouldn’t catch on I’m pathetically pleased these days when one of my tweets get’s liked.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    What a joke...coming up in the pool...cheaters...

    The women's 100m breaststroke final sees Russian Yulia Efimova go for gold just weeks after being cleared to compete at all. The 24-year-old was banned between 2013 and 2015 for taking steroids, and tested positive for meldonium in March of this year.

    And in the men's 200m freestyle final, Sun Yang of China is a real force. Sun was banned in 2014 after he tested positive for the banned stimulant trimetazidine, while he has also spent time in jail for crashing a car that he had driven without a licence.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    No cheating here, second :(
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Matt Latimer in the New York Times: Mike Pence Should Get Donald Trump to Withdraw.

    Latimer, a former speechwriter for George W Bush, argues that Pence could do a Brutus and get backing from establishment figures such as Paul Ryan, from Ted Cruz, and even from much of the Trump faction; take over as the presidential candidate himself; and choose a running-mate who would broaden the ticket. He concludes that the "future of America" is in Mike Pence's hands.
  • Options
    ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
  • Options
    ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    Would be happy if anyone in the UK was banned or if all were banned, as Russians should be, because of systematic drug abuse tainting the whole nation's athletes.

    There should be no half measures, but IOC corruption is allowing them to prosper.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    there's no jingoism here at all.

    Well why say

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    ?

    Did I say anything like that?

  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    I don't buy the line that McDonnell is the acceptable face of the Corbyn project.

    His words on the economy have been just that - words. He doesn't believe them. His instincts are those that Corbyn articulates (or at least tries to)

    He is better at appearing reasonable. He can handle the media far better than Corbyn.

    But at heart, the two share the same ideals - and none of them include financial responsibility.

    If McDonnell was a fiscal realist, he would never have let Corbyn make those unfunded (and unfundable) pledges.

    It is all an act. Quite a clever one. But the McDonnell veneer of being reasonable would vanish the minute he got a sniff of real power. Which we can all hope will never happen. Otherwise Venezuela might just be a taste of what was to hit the UK economy...
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Dromedary said:

    there's no jingoism here at all.

    Well why say

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    ?

    Did I say anything like that?

    I took your post as suggesting that athletes are more or less equally likely to cheat regardless of the nation. I think the Russian case is obvious. As for China, it's less clear, but their bribery problem is huge. State-sponsored doping wouldn't be a surprise.

    Apologies if I misunderstood your meaning
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
    If you look at the improvement in times that Adam Peaty has achieved, it is easy to make a case that his performance improvements have been so significant as to raise questions.

    Personally I think that would be unfair to a young man who has worked hard and put in the effort with a dedication that is inspiring. But with the current air of suspicion hanging over all sport, those questions will be asked.

    Similarly Hosszu, the Hungarian swmmer, is showing massive, massive improvements in her performances. Now they are almost certainly due to her work ethic, talent and influence of her husband. But questions are being asked about her.

    Sometimes records are set because of talent, training and the right conditions. Sometimes they are achieved due to the influence of drugs.
  • Options
    ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    Neither Peaty or Hosszu have been exposed as drugs cheats, the Russian team and the Chinese swimmer have. It's a very simple dividing line. When the Russian regime is controlled then their clean athletes should be allowed to compete but not now. The Chinese swimmer should have been banned for life. For missed tests I'm in favour of twelve month automatic bans.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
    If you look at the improvement in times that Adam Peaty has achieved, it is easy to make a case that his performance improvements have been so significant as to raise questions.

    Personally I think that would be unfair to a young man who has worked hard and put in the effort with a dedication that is inspiring. But with the current air of suspicion hanging over all sport, those questions will be asked.

    Similarly Hosszu, the Hungarian swmmer, is showing massive, massive improvements in her performances. Now they are almost certainly due to her work ethic, talent and influence of her husband. But questions are being asked about her.

    Sometimes records are set because of talent, training and the right conditions. Sometimes they are achieved due to the influence of drugs.
    Sure, Peaty may turn out to be a cheat. And the questions will be asked, and need to be asked. The IOC is in trouble. credibility lower than FIFA. (though to be fair, nobody wants to even mention drugs in football. or rugby for that matter)
  • Options
    oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    edited August 2016
    Thrak said:

    Neither Peaty or Hosszu have been exposed as drugs cheats, the Russian team and the Chinese swimmer have. It's a very simple dividing line. When the Russian regime is controlled then their clean athletes should be allowed to compete but not now. The Chinese swimmer should have been banned for life. For missed tests I'm in favour of twelve month automatic bans.

    I agree - but every winner is now facing suspicions. And that is not good for sport.

    The IOC have blighted these games by allowing any Russians to participate. The IPC got it absolutely right.

    I would remove all Russian athletes and teams from all sports for a minimum of 5 years to show how seriously this is being taken. I would also remove all international sport from Russian soil for that period - including the World Cup.

    Is that unfair on clean Russian sportsmen and women? Absolutely. Is it necessary to show that doping on that scale is unacceptable? Absolutely.

    Russian sport needs to be punished - and the IOC's refusal to act has ruined Rio by not taking a harsh line. The crowds know this - and are booing known drugs cheats. It is blighting the Olympics.

    English football was banned from European competition for an extended period as a result of the behaviour of so-called fans.

    We should be demanding Russia be removed from all sport for a minimum period. We should also be demanding that anyone who is caught doping is banned from sport forever. One strike and you are out.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    Reminds me of this scene:

    http://dai.ly/x27roto?start=570

    :D
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited August 2016

    Dromedary said:

    there's no jingoism here at all.

    Well why say

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    ?

    Did I say anything like that?

    I took your post as suggesting that athletes are more or less equally likely to cheat regardless of the nation.
    I did mean that. So I am very far from believing that Chinese sports officials are uncorruptible. And the British media has been jingoistic for years on the drugs in sports issue, which I should imagine is equally true of the media in other countries.

    Apologies if I misunderstood your meaning

    No probs!
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    At 04:12am this morning, Dan Goodfellow got his 20,000th Twitter follower. Just before the start of the Olympic diving competition 8 hours earlier, he had 11,922.

    Enver Hoxha had at least five different officially-documented dates of birth, according to Blendi Fevziu's book.

    Some of the episodes of "Bagpuss" could plausibly be argued to be full of insidious reactionary bourgeois propaganda and hierarchicalist attitudes.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JohnLoony said:



    Some of the episodes of "Bagpuss" could plausibly be argued to be full of insidious reactionary bourgeois propaganda and hierarchicalist attitudes.

    probably down to Hilary's email security flaws
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    What is Evan McMullin, the Republican former CIA officer who announced yesterday that he is running for President as an Independent, up to? How big is the Utah angle? His "Letter to America" is here.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Morning. How much does McDonnell genuinely think what he's been saying, and how much does he actually agree with everything Corbyn says? Do we think that if elected they would use Blair's labour as a model of economic governance, or the current mob that are turning Venezuela into a failed state?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
    If you look at the improvement in times that Adam Peaty has achieved, it is easy to make a case that his performance improvements have been so significant as to raise questions.

    Personally I think that would be unfair to a young man who has worked hard and put in the effort with a dedication that is inspiring. But with the current air of suspicion hanging over all sport, those questions will be asked.

    Similarly Hosszu, the Hungarian swmmer, is showing massive, massive improvements in her performances. Now they are almost certainly due to her work ethic, talent and influence of her husband. But questions are being asked about her.

    Sometimes records are set because of talent, training and the right conditions. Sometimes they are achieved due to the influence of drugs.
    Sure, Peaty may turn out to be a cheat. And the questions will be asked, and need to be asked. The IOC is in trouble. credibility lower than FIFA. (though to be fair, nobody wants to even mention drugs in football. or rugby for that matter)
    A lot of top golfers declined to appear at the Olympics, all citing the Zika virus as the reason. The lack of prize money and the strict drug testing are much more likely reasons.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Sandpit said:

    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    Britain another medal stolen by a drug cheat, this time Chinese not Russian. That's three medals already we are down on where we should be. It will be interesting to see how many it will be by the end of the games.

    An irregular verb:

    - foreigners cheat, often backed by their corrupt governments
    - British athletes sometimes test positive for banned substances they didn't know were contained in their cough mixtures, painkillers, etc.
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
    If you look at the improvement in times that Adam Peaty has achieved, it is easy to make a case that his performance improvements have been so significant as to raise questions.

    Personally I think that would be unfair to a young man who has worked hard and put in the effort with a dedication that is inspiring. But with the current air of suspicion hanging over all sport, those questions will be asked.

    Similarly Hosszu, the Hungarian swmmer, is showing massive, massive improvements in her performances. Now they are almost certainly due to her work ethic, talent and influence of her husband. But questions are being asked about her.

    Sometimes records are set because of talent, training and the right conditions. Sometimes they are achieved due to the influence of drugs.
    Sure, Peaty may turn out to be a cheat. And the questions will be asked, and need to be asked. The IOC is in trouble. credibility lower than FIFA. (though to be fair, nobody wants to even mention drugs in football. or rugby for that matter)
    A lot of top golfers declined to appear at the Olympics, all citing the Zika virus as the reason. The lack of prize money and the strict drug testing are much more likely reasons.
    what kind of drugs do golfers use? like steroids etc for strength?

    I hadn't thought of the Zika angle as an excuse. there were a few cyclists who droppped out citing that too..

    most of tennis seems to be there though?
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    What a joke...coming up in the pool...cheaters...

    The women's 100m breaststroke final sees Russian Yulia Efimova go for gold just weeks after being cleared to compete at all. The 24-year-old was banned between 2013 and 2015 for taking steroids, and tested positive for meldonium in March of this year.

    And in the men's 200m freestyle final, Sun Yang of China is a real force. Sun was banned in 2014 after he tested positive for the banned stimulant trimetazidine, while he has also spent time in jail for crashing a car that he had driven without a licence.

    The steroids stuff really annoys me the most - the physiological impact they have long after use isn't comparable with the temporary boost of others. The IPC have shown a great deal more backbone than the IOC.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Sandpit said:

    Dromedary said:

    Thrak said:

    .

    .
    there's no jingoism here at all. The russians have been clearly and openly cheating, and winked at by the IOC.

    If you think that chinese sport officials are incorruptable...

    This is not to say that all British atheletes are paragons of virtue, but any cheating is simply not on the same scale. orders of magnitude different
    If you look at the improvement in times that Adam Peaty has achieved, it is easy to make a case that his performance improvements have been so significant as to raise questions.

    Personally I think that would be unfair to a young man who has worked hard and put in the effort with a dedication that is inspiring. But with the current air of suspicion hanging over all sport, those questions will be asked.

    Similarly Hosszu, the Hungarian swmmer, is showing massive, massive improvements in her performances. Now they are almost certainly due to her work ethic, talent and influence of her husband. But questions are being asked about her.

    Sometimes records are set because of talent, training and the right conditions. Sometimes they are achieved due to the influence of drugs.
    Sure, Peaty may turn out to be a cheat. And the questions will be asked, and need to be asked. The IOC is in trouble. credibility lower than FIFA. (though to be fair, nobody wants to even mention drugs in football. or rugby for that matter)
    A lot of top golfers declined to appear at the Olympics, all citing the Zika virus as the reason. The lack of prize money and the strict drug testing are much more likely reasons.
    what kind of drugs do golfers use? like steroids etc for strength?

    I hadn't thought of the Zika angle as an excuse. there were a few cyclists who droppped out citing that too..

    most of tennis seems to be there though?
    Can't claim to be an expert of the use of drugs in sport, but a golfer will want something to bulk up out of season, and something to slow the heart down and relax while playing. Probably something for the constant travel and jet lag too, although not as extreme as some of @SeanT's remedies mentioned here the other day!

    I think Tennis has the Olympics in the international tour schedule, so there's no other tournaments on this week. Not so in golf.
  • Options
    madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    Currently gene doping is untested.
    So it is likely to be used. By anyone.

    Anyone who thinks the Olympics is clean has got to be naive. And UK participants include at least one regular test misser..


    As for Corbyn/McDonnell ' economics, if in Government they might be faced with hard spending choices. All the evidence so far is they would not make them.. So a disaster in waiting.

    And if a Party cannot run a competent and professional Leadership election, and no credible Opposition, it has NO chance of running a Government. Period.

    No chance of running any sort of Government : let alone a competent one.

    Labour make UKIP appear competent.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    If you missed it and are a paywaller - good article by Tom Holland on the latest edition of Dabiq entitled Breaking The Cross. Apparently, it also includes cute kitten pix - yes really.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/mass-murder-of-christians-is-the-new-isis-plot-2jmkspvfb

    Here's the latest edition for the curious http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/isis-islamic-state-dabiq-1437-shawwal-15-issue-edition-orlando-nice-ansbach-france-germany-pdf/2/
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Suspect they won't get to answer such questions they'll be too busy answering questions like "so why if a third of your MPs left to set up their own party and those that remain have no confidence in your leadership should anyone vote for you?"
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Saying they want to spend more is perfectly fine left wing politics, but to be intellectually honest they also need to say how they'll pay for that spending. More borrowing, or extra taxes only affecting the richest few, aren't going to cut it with the electorate.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sandpit said:

    I think Tennis has the Olympics in the international tour schedule, so there's no other tournaments on this week. Not so in golf.

    Not so. The main ATP has a tour event at Los Cobos this week and a Masters event in Cincinnati next week.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2016
    JackW said:

    Sandpit said:

    I think Tennis has the Olympics in the international tour schedule, so there's no other tournaments on this week. Not so in golf.

    Not so. The main ATP has a tour event at Los Cobos this week and a Masters event in Cincinnati next week.
    Ah, so my thoughts were wrong then!

    Tennis have done a better job than golf, of getting the higher ranked players to Rio - although why either sport is played by professionals at the Olympics I don't really understand.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    "10 pledges". ...I think we have been here before

    http://tinyurl.com/zfd23ma
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    ToryJim said:

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Suspect they won't get to answer such questions they'll be too busy answering questions like "so why if a third of your MPs left to set up their own party and those that remain have no confidence in your leadership should anyone vote for you?"
    By the time we get to the next election, not having confidence in the Leader will have been grounds for deselection. So all candidates under the Labour Party flag at the next election will have been vetted as "confident in Corbyn" - and have that prominent in their centrally-approved leaflets.

    The Party offered to the voters will look nothing like that offered to them in 2015.

    The names voters know will likely have decamped to the Co-operative Labour Party. But I doubt they'll get any divi from the voters. LibDems gain Bootle? Maybe - if they had chosen Lamb....
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ToryJim said:

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Suspect they won't get to answer such questions they'll be too busy answering questions like "so why if a third of your MPs left to set up their own party and those that remain have no confidence in your leadership should anyone vote for you?"
    Both of them will have enough problems come the elections with their back history of support for some very nasty people.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Saying they want to spend more is perfectly fine left wing politics, but to be intellectually honest they also need to say how they'll pay for that spending. More borrowing, or extra taxes only affecting the richest few, aren't going to cut it with the electorate.
    You might recall the now-discredited Cameron/Osborne regime also had unfunded commitments and a magic money tree. Sauce for the goose, eh?
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    Currently gene doping is untested.
    So it is likely to be used. By anyone.

    Anyone who thinks the Olympics is clean has got to be naive. And UK participants include at least one regular test misser..

    mostly clean in most sports is achievable, if the blazers and freeloaders at the IOC were prepared to act.

    As it is, partially clean in some sports is likely what we have.

    Gene doping is unlikely because it doesn't really work at present, as far as I know.


    Armistead has been a poor show. Suspect Antidoping had no choice but to allow her in after CAS verdict. They should probably change the rules to make a time limit to challenge missed tests. At least she didn't win a medal, I suppose
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Dromedary said:

    Matt Latimer in the New York Times: Mike Pence Should Get Donald Trump to Withdraw.

    Latimer, a former speechwriter for George W Bush, argues that Pence could do a Brutus and get backing from establishment figures such as Paul Ryan, from Ted Cruz, and even from much of the Trump faction; take over as the presidential candidate himself; and choose a running-mate who would broaden the ticket. He concludes that the "future of America" is in Mike Pence's hands.

    What exactly does 'do a Brutus' mean?

    No-one can take Trump down because he *is* the elected nominee and will remain so for as long as he wants to be, subject to legal or health intervention, neither of which look likely. There is simply no mechanism to remove a candidate who doesn't want to go. If the establishment wanted to block Trump, the time to do so was the convention. Expecting him to fall on his sword seems optimistic in the extreme.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Sandpit said:

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Saying they want to spend more is perfectly fine left wing politics, but to be intellectually honest they also need to say how they'll pay for that spending. More borrowing, or extra taxes only affecting the richest few, aren't going to cut it with the electorate.
    You might recall the now-discredited Cameron/Osborne regime also had unfunded commitments and a magic money tree. Sauce for the goose, eh?
    At the last election, Cameron and Osborne pledged to eliminate the deficit, whereas Miliband said that the brown government - which left a £170bn annual deficit - didn't spend too much, and Ed Balls proposed a tax on bankers which he spent at least ten times.

    One side is trusted with the finances, the other isn't. Corbyn and McDonnell aren't doing much to change this perception.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Sandpit said:

    Come the next election, both Corbyn and McDonnell will be asked the question that sank Ed Miliband with the Question Time audience (and with the wider electorate): "Did the last Labour Government overspend?"

    I suspect that McDonnell will answer with the politically wily but still unconvincing "In certain areas" - without ever admitting what those areas might have been.

    Corbyn will merrily volunteer that it didn't spend anywhere near enough.

    Labour - glug, glug, glug......

    Saying they want to spend more is perfectly fine left wing politics, but to be intellectually honest they also need to say how they'll pay for that spending. More borrowing, or extra taxes only affecting the richest few, aren't going to cut it with the electorate.
    You might recall the now-discredited Cameron/Osborne regime also had unfunded commitments and a magic money tree. Sauce for the goose, eh?
    Discredited.. in your eyes perhaps.. but they both did a very good job given what they inherited.
  • Options

    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.

    The policy would work if people liked each other enough. They don't: in a multicultural society they never will.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.

    The policy would work if people liked each other enough. They don't: in a multicultural society they never will.
    Planning to borrow money faster than the economy can sustain it (which is effectively the growth rate), indefinitely, can never work.
  • Options

    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.

    The policy would work if people liked each other enough. They don't: in a multicultural society they never will.
    Planning to borrow money faster than the economy can sustain it (which is effectively the growth rate), indefinitely, can never work.
    Is anyone planning anything "indefinitely"? By your argument, David, the NHS was always unfundable.

  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited August 2016
    The judoka who won Kosovo’s historic first Olympic title has been provisionally suspended in France for refusing to take a drugs test. A tearful Majlinda Kelmendi was the toast of Rio 2016 on Sunday after claiming under-52kg glory for her war-torn country at its debut Games.

    But it emerged last night that Kelmendi refused to give a urine sample in an unannounced, out-of-competition test sprung by the French Anti-Doping Agency two months ago

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2016/08/08/rio-olympics-2016-kosovas-history-making-judoka-suspended-after/
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Dromedary said:

    What is Evan McMullin, the Republican former CIA officer who announced yesterday that he is running for President as an Independent, up to? How big is the Utah angle? His "Letter to America" is here.

    Aha. I didn't know he was Mormon - he will have a decent shot in Utah for sure with his policy platform.
  • Options
    Basic error of rationale - stop trying to rationalise the irrational.

    "Corbyn will win the election. Everyone knows that. We all support him therefore everyone does, and because we all went to cheer him he's obviously popular. His policies are popular cos we have supported them for ages. You can't believe what you read in the MSM it's all Tory and the polls too did you know a Tory founded one of them? It's so biased why not read the Canary instead or look at our Facebook page it's got so many likes. Blair didn't do Facebook because he was a Tory it's all you need to stop having our message distorted by those Tories elected as Labour MPs "

    As we get closer to an election and the polls show we're going to get reamed the shrieking of bias will continue. By then they will have ousted all the people who do the actual work and replaced them with Momentum rally based politics so whatever voter ID data we have will be old. An election campaign will be some mega rallies ("we're alright!") And a new stragedy of arguing with voters who may be Tory, once voted for Tony Blair (Tory), thinks Corbyn is mad (Tory) or worries about their interests (Tory). Won't be on the doorstep as campaigning is so Tory but see them picketing outside Starbucks instead.

    Then the election which gives a landslide to the Tories. Its all the fault of the MSM and Murdoch and Tories and the PLP and the old MPs being replaced by Tories doesn't matter as ours were Tory anyway and being elected by Tory voters doesn't matter as we can do so much more by being true to our beliefs and having another rally to show the Tories and the MSM that they can't buy our views.

    I watched in wonder as the LibDems repeatedly punched themselves in their knackers until they all but disappeared. Had no idea the Labour Party were so inspired by this that we would do the same
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908

    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.

    The policy would work if people liked each other enough. They don't: in a multicultural society they never will.
    Planning to borrow money faster than the economy can sustain it (which is effectively the growth rate), indefinitely, can never work.
    If you accept there is a need for investment... Then surely the time to do it is when interest rates are at a record low?
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150


    The names voters know will likely have decamped to the Co-operative Labour Party.

    Out of interest is there such a thing as a Leader of the Parliamentary Cooperative Party?
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    edited August 2016
    Am still puzzled how such a plodding, talentless, dull speaker like Corbyn has managed to achieve the adulation of a mass meeting.

    Corbyn rambled through a history of trade unions, political causes and legislation from the 1960s and 70s, throws in references to neoliberalism, privatisation, Blair & Iraq. He claims his children & grandchildren won't have access to university education because of fees. Makes uncosted, calls for wider free access. Chucks in token reference to mental health care, giving it parity of esteem or some such rubbish, after Abbott had had her say on her mum's work as a mental health nurse in Yorkshire.

    If Jezza is the answer the question is why do young cardinals back old dopes?
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865


    The names voters know will likely have decamped to the Co-operative Labour Party.

    Out of interest is there such a thing as a Leader of the Parliamentary Cooperative Party?
    Maybe not but the new name of the Labour breakaway group should be the Affiliated Socialist Democratic Alliance


    .......or ASDA for short
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    I remain of the view the most realistic replacement for Corbyn before the general election is John McDonnell, not Owen Smith, so this article is interesting in that it suggests that Brownites at least are willing to give the Shadow Chancellor some credit if not the leader himself
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting piece, Mr. Brind.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,995


    The names voters know will likely have decamped to the Co-operative Labour Party.

    Out of interest is there such a thing as a Leader of the Parliamentary Cooperative Party?
    According to Wikipedia, no.
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,977
    dr_spyn said:

    Am still puzzled how such a plodding, talentless, dull speaker like Corbyn has managed to achieve the adulation of a mass meeting.

    Corbyn rambled through a history of trade unions, political causes and legislation from the 1960s and 70s, throws in references to neoliberalism, privatisation, Blair & Iraq. He claims his children & grandchildren won't have access to university education because of fees. Makes uncosted, calls for wider free access. Chucks in token reference to mental health care, giving it parity of esteem or some such rubbish, after Abbott had had her say on her mum's work as a mental health nurse in Yorkshire.

    If Jezza is the answer the question is why do young cardinals back old dopes?

    I think the fact theres no substance in any of his policy is probably why he's so successful - his admiring fans can project all of their desires for fervent socialism on him, secure in the knowledge he'll never be PM. Why else would he come up with such ludicrous crap on a daily basis?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    HYUFD said:

    I remain of the view the most realistic replacement for Corbyn before the general election is John McDonnell, not Owen Smith, so this article is interesting in that it suggests that Brownites at least are willing to give the Shadow Chancellor some credit if not the leader himself

    The trouble is the level of cult surrounding Corbyn is such that even replacement by McDonnell would be seen as a coup against the anointed one etc etc.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    Basic error of rationale - stop trying to rationalise the irrational.

    "Corbyn will win the election. Everyone knows that. We all support him therefore everyone does, and because we all went to cheer him he's obviously popular. His policies are popular cos we have supported them for ages. You can't believe what you read in the MSM it's all Tory and the polls too did you know a Tory founded one of them? It's so biased why not read the Canary instead or look at our Facebook page it's got so many likes. Blair didn't do Facebook because he was a Tory it's all you need to stop having our message distorted by those Tories elected as Labour MPs "

    As we get closer to an election and the polls show we're going to get reamed the shrieking of bias will continue. By then they will have ousted all the people who do the actual work and replaced them with Momentum rally based politics so whatever voter ID data we have will be old. An election campaign will be some mega rallies ("we're alright!") And a new stragedy of arguing with voters who may be Tory, once voted for Tony Blair (Tory), thinks Corbyn is mad (Tory) or worries about their interests (Tory). Won't be on the doorstep as campaigning is so Tory but see them picketing outside Starbucks instead.

    Then the election which gives a landslide to the Tories. Its all the fault of the MSM and Murdoch and Tories and the PLP and the old MPs being replaced by Tories doesn't matter as ours were Tory anyway and being elected by Tory voters doesn't matter as we can do so much more by being true to our beliefs and having another rally to show the Tories and the MSM that they can't buy our views.

    I watched in wonder as the LibDems repeatedly punched themselves in their knackers until they all but disappeared. Had no idea the Labour Party were so inspired by this that we would do the same

    Exactly, I think a true Corbynista would be horrified if Labour actually won seats like Harlow, Peterborough and Nuneaton thinking they obviously had to betray their principles to actually win such seats inhabited by immigrant hating white plebs. Far better to ratchet up huge majorities in Islington and Camden in multicultural areas inhabited by decent leftleaning people who at least provide a foundation for the revolution
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Ian McNichols days numbered?

    "Jeremy Corbyn's allies plot to oust Labour's General Secretary after accusing party's ruling body of trying to rig leadership election"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/08/jeremy-corbyn-given-huge-boost-after-130000-members-win-right-to/
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Don has it back-to-front. Corbyn's 'wish list' is little more than a set of aspirations and values, which the public will generally look at with a degree of approval and scepticism. The borrowing apart, there's no meat to the bones so while the statements might meet with accord, the public will reserve judgement until the detail's filled in. The wish list won't, however, undermine existing hard policy.

    By contrast, MacDonnell cannot ride the two horses that he's trying to. You cannot be 'anti-austerity' unless you either reject economic reality altogether or plan swinging tax rises. It's one or the other: the spending has to be paid for somehow. It's easy to talk of 'boosting private industry' but what does that mean - and how can it be done without ultimately imposing more taxes and regulation either directly or indirectly on business or people? If there's one thing Labour's good at, it's adding to paperwork and regulation and on that score at least, Corbyn and MacDonnell are right out of Labour's tradition.

    As an aside, the Tories will be delighted to fight the election on boosting private industry, when millions of jobs have been created in the private sector since 2010, contrary to the predictions of at least some of those who make up Labour's "impressive Economic Advisory Committee".

    Don is right that MacDonnell is at least nominally trying to put forward a credible alternative but he will always be caught by the contradictions of the Momentum movement; the desire to have cake and eat it. Corbyn, by contrast, is not undermining the policy; he's simply lifting the veil on it.

    The policy would work if people liked each other enough. They don't: in a multicultural society they never will.
    Planning to borrow money faster than the economy can sustain it (which is effectively the growth rate), indefinitely, can never work.
    Is anyone planning anything "indefinitely"? By your argument, David, the NHS was always unfundable.

    In terms of it's current set up it probably is!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    HYUFD said:

    I remain of the view the most realistic replacement for Corbyn before the general election is John McDonnell, not Owen Smith, so this article is interesting in that it suggests that Brownites at least are willing to give the Shadow Chancellor some credit if not the leader himself

    The trouble is the level of cult surrounding Corbyn is such that even replacement by McDonnell would be seen as a coup against the anointed one etc etc.
    In which case declare Corbyn leader for life and be done with it, the sane wing of Labour either moves elsewhere or May becomes PM for life too
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    Moses_ said:


    The names voters know will likely have decamped to the Co-operative Labour Party.

    Out of interest is there such a thing as a Leader of the Parliamentary Cooperative Party?
    Maybe not but the new name of the Labour breakaway group should be the Affiliated Socialist Democratic Alliance


    .......or ASDA for short
    Well the interesting thing about the Cooperative Party angle is that it's already a party-within-a-party, and it already has an electoral pact with Labour. So it seems like the obvious way for the Corbyn refuseniks to jump ship without burning their bridges.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited August 2016
    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    Dromedary said:

    Matt Latimer in the New York Times: Mike Pence Should Get Donald Trump to Withdraw.

    Latimer, a former speechwriter for George W Bush, argues that Pence could do a Brutus and get backing from establishment figures such as Paul Ryan, from Ted Cruz, and even from much of the Trump faction; take over as the presidential candidate himself; and choose a running-mate who would broaden the ticket. He concludes that the "future of America" is in Mike Pence's hands.

    What exactly does 'do a Brutus' mean?

    No-one can take Trump down because he *is* the elected nominee and will remain so for as long as he wants to be, subject to legal or health intervention, neither of which look likely. There is simply no mechanism to remove a candidate who doesn't want to go. If the establishment wanted to block Trump, the time to do so was the convention. Expecting him to fall on his sword seems optimistic in the extreme.
    Indeed Trump is the GOP nominee unless he drops out. Pence is the VP nominee and cannot replace the senior nominee even if he wanted to
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    Maybe they are all on holiday?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    Moses_ said:

    Ian McNichols days numbered?

    "Jeremy Corbyn's allies plot to oust Labour's General Secretary after accusing party's ruling body of trying to rig leadership election"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/08/jeremy-corbyn-given-huge-boost-after-130000-members-win-right-to/

    Probably be glad to get out of it!!!
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I remain of the view the most realistic replacement for Corbyn before the general election is John McDonnell, not Owen Smith, so this article is interesting in that it suggests that Brownites at least are willing to give the Shadow Chancellor some credit if not the leader himself

    The trouble is the level of cult surrounding Corbyn is such that even replacement by McDonnell would be seen as a coup against the anointed one etc etc.
    In which case declare Corbyn leader for life and be done with it, the sane wing of Labour either moves elsewhere or May becomes PM for life too
    Sanity Labour? Has a ring to it.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    Maybe they are all on holiday?
    Presume you mean parliament is in recess. Either way they always tell us they live for the party you would have thought at least some would be criticising the court actions etc. at least. The only thing we have heard from any of them is Ed Balls stating he is quite frankly terrified of strictly?
  • Options
    RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,977
    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    Because its a tribal thing...Labour are one big happy family etc etc. Ultimately, they lack the ruthlessness of the Tories.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Moses, hard to say much when you're wearing a ball-gag, one imagines.

    Either there'll be a split, or the PLP will meekly trot along to the political guillotine.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    McDonnell definitely wears a better suit than Corbyn and is less likely to be stuck answering a question more difficult than "why are you so wonderful" but the idea that his credibility is being undermined is a bit of stretch.

    Of course, if it were true it would simply put him in the same category as the rest of the shadow cabinet.

    The silence from the sane wing of the party is deafening. Have they really decided that they are so out of step with the membership that their assistance would be counter-productive? What is it going to take for them to realise that unless they can win this argument they really need to find a different party? It's sad.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2016
    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party brand works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own by a spineless cabinet.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Abode, whilst I agree (hence my long-running wolves, sheep and high students comparison for the major parties [the latter being Lib Dems]), you could also argue there's a more emotional/almost religious aspect.

    The sensible left need to decide whether they love the word Labour so much they'll line up behind Corbyn, or whether they place greater worth on their values and seeing those enacted in government.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Sandpit said:

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own by a spineless cabinet.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
    Burnham for one is on his hols: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/536311/compass-jellyfish-found-UK-sea-ocean-Wales-Pembrokeshire-PADI-diving-video
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited August 2016
    Sandpit said:

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
    Splitting involves loss of everything: brand, infrastructure, funding, social connections and much more. A new top-down party is surely doomed. All that is left is to await a landslide defeat in the next GE and that the union paymasters then call time on demonstrably unworkable hard left politics.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Sandpit said:

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own by a spineless cabinet.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
    Either spineless, or to be more charitable, why put yourself in a position that you make yourself a target for the left.

    Owen Smith may be a damp unpleasant squib, but he's trying to do something. Where's Yvette Cooper, or Dan Jarvis, or Stella Creasey etc etc... They appear to have given up.

    I don't particularly blame them. The split is already there.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
    Mr Dancer - you are correct in identifying a religious aspect to tribal Labour. The trouble is fanatical religion often becomes cultish a la Corbynism and often adherence to a religious cult ends in a mass suicide.
  • Options
    Religions also think they are a source of moral virtue - based upon their stated principles - whereas the practical reality and experience of religions is often utterly gruesome - in a 'softer, kinder, politics' brick through your window / rentamob outside your constituency surgery kind of way.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    (((Dan Hodges))) ‏@DPJHodges 2m2 minutes ago
    We need to stop asking "will the Labour party split?". It has split. The question now is what happens next.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,337
    DavidL said:

    McDonnell definitely wears a better suit than Corbyn and is less likely to be stuck answering a question more difficult than "why are you so wonderful" but the idea that his credibility is being undermined is a bit of stretch.

    Of course, if it were true it would simply put him in the same category as the rest of the shadow cabinet.

    The silence from the sane wing of the party is deafening. Have they really decided that they are so out of step with the membership that their assistance would be counter-productive? What is it going to take for them to realise that unless they can win this argument they really need to find a different party? It's sad.

    I think that PB contributors tend to misread Labour MPs and what makes them tick, and it leads to serial betting mistakes, as well as the bafflement that you describe. I've got a piece in mind to submit to Mike on this which I hope will be useful, if I can get past the various immediate translation and seminar preparation stuff that has piled up when I was on holiday.

    Briefly, though, most Labour MPs don't especially disagree with the direction of the Corbyn agenda; they are simply doubtful if he can win. They act when they think that action will produce a better chance of winning (as they thought the no-conidence letter seemed to), but neither the Smith candidacy nor splitting into a sub-SDP looks likely to produce that nor fronting a failed rebellion, so they don't see any point in championing any of these.

    As for the Labour membership more widely, PB is still dominated by supporters of the "what counts most is winning" school of thought, which is a minority view in Labour. The "first you have to work out what you stand for" school is currently dominant, and unless that's understood, people will keep making the wrong bets.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Thanks for the thread, Mr Brind.

    Owen Smith's main campaign strand seemed to be based on ... Jezza is a bad leader because he refused to campaign vigorously on a policy he disagreed with.

    That may be true, but it's hardly a damning indictment.

    Sorry, Owen, but you need to tell the truth to get your message across. He's a 60/70s throwback and has not moved on. Wolfie Smith was a comedy. Jezza and his acolytes are a scheming bunch of schoolboy fanatics whose main characteristic is hatred of the UK.

    Dissembling makes you look oily and the worst kind of politician.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    PeterC said:

    Sandpit said:

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
    Splitting involves loss of everything: brand, infrastructure, funding, social connections and much more. A new top-down party is surely doomed. All that is left is to await a landslide defeat in the next GE and that the union paymasters then call time on demonstrably unworkable hard left politics.
    I wouldn't count on it - the only people who vote in union leadership elections are the hard left (someone posted an interesting article about this on a thread a couple of weeks ago, can't remember what publication though). They are motivated by ideological purity, not power. When Corbyn is reduced to sub-200 seats there will always be people to blame - the MSM, Red Tories, the voters didn't get it, etc.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    PeterC said:

    Sandpit said:

    Moses_ said:

    Sandpit said:

    As a resident of Islington I must approve:

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/762899525644251136

    The takeover is nearly complete. Just the Tory MPs in red rosettes to get rid of now.
    Why are they so quiet though? They an see their party being destroyed in front of them yet not a squeal from any. Perhaps they have accepted the court of public Islington opinion?
    They all seem to have the spine of Andy Burnham unfortunately, from what we've seen so far.
    Maybe they will split once Corbyn is re-elected with a larger majority than before? If they're sensible (yes, I know!) then they're looking at moderate unions and financial backers over the summer, as others have suggested maybe the existing Co-Operative Party works better for the MPs than a new SDP2 structure.

    What's clear to me is that if they wait until the deselections start it will be too late, the split needs to happen from a position of power and in such numbers to make them the official Opposition in Parliament. I remember the night James Purnell resigned in 2009, it was expected that David Miliband and others would follow him out, but he got hung out to dry on his own.

    I'm generally supportive of the government, but the Opposition plays an important role in democracy - they need to look and act like a government in waiting, Corbyn and his mob are no such thing.
    Splitting involves loss of everything: brand, infrastructure, funding, social connections and much more. A new top-down party is surely doomed. All that is left is to await a landslide defeat in the next GE and that the union paymasters then call time on a demonstrably unworkable hard left politics.
    Yes, for a lot of the MPs the Labour brand is important - it's something they've been around for decades and there's an emotional attachment that's not really seen with other parties (nationalists excepted). For this reason the Co-Operative Party reboot might be the better option, as there's already a known brand that a lot of MPs already have attachments to, with links in traditional working class Labour areas.

    When it comes to funding, as well as getting a couple of unions on side, they need to look back through those who donated to Blair - most will be horrified at what's become of the Labour Party, and will be prepared to support a new opposition to the Tories.

    What it all boils down to is the MPs though. A dozen or two walking out just doesn't work, it needs to be all 172 of them to kick Corbyn to the back benches. I don't think they've got the balls to do it.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,231
    ToryJim said:

    Mr Dancer - you are correct in identifying a religious aspect to tribal Labour. The trouble is fanatical religion often becomes cultish a la Corbynism and often adherence to a religious cult ends in a mass suicide.

    Well, they are certainly going to be very very unhappy when the electorate delivers a thrashing. I doubt they will understand why though.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I remain of the view the most realistic replacement for Corbyn before the general election is John McDonnell, not Owen Smith, so this article is interesting in that it suggests that Brownites at least are willing to give the Shadow Chancellor some credit if not the leader himself

    The trouble is the level of cult surrounding Corbyn is such that even replacement by McDonnell would be seen as a coup against the anointed one etc etc.
    In which case declare Corbyn leader for life and be done with it, the sane wing of Labour either moves elsewhere or May becomes PM for life too
    Sanity Labour? Has a ring to it.
    Sanity Labour Liberal Alliance?
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Dr Palmer,

    Jezza's economics aren't the turn-off for many. The multiplier system or whatever the magic money tree is called has attractions. But his foreign policy is based on hatred and a guilt complex for being born in the UK.

    That will be ruthlessly exposed in a GE campaign. Owen Smith would have a chance. Even you might, but Jezza would have none - he can't rely on middle class, virtue signallers to spread the message. They may as well elect Emily Thornberry as his successor.

  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    DavidL said:

    McDonnell definitely wears a better suit than Corbyn and is less likely to be stuck answering a question more difficult than "why are you so wonderful" but the idea that his credibility is being undermined is a bit of stretch.

    Of course, if it were true it would simply put him in the same category as the rest of the shadow cabinet.

    The silence from the sane wing of the party is deafening. Have they really decided that they are so out of step with the membership that their assistance would be counter-productive? What is it going to take for them to realise that unless they can win this argument they really need to find a different party? It's sad.

    I think that PB contributors tend to misread Labour MPs and what makes them tick, and it leads to serial betting mistakes, as well as the bafflement that you describe. I've got a piece in mind to submit to Mike on this which I hope will be useful, if I can get past the various immediate translation and seminar preparation stuff that has piled up when I was on holiday.

    Briefly, though, most Labour MPs don't especially disagree with the direction of the Corbyn agenda; they are simply doubtful if he can win. They act when they think that action will produce a better chance of winning (as they thought the no-conidence letter seemed to), but neither the Smith candidacy nor splitting into a sub-SDP looks likely to produce that nor fronting a failed rebellion, so they don't see any point in championing any of these.

    As for the Labour membership more widely, PB is still dominated by supporters of the "what counts most is winning" school of thought, which is a minority view in Labour. The "first you have to work out what you stand for" school is currently dominant, and unless that's understood, people will keep making the wrong bets.
    Well Nick I am sure that the 'real' Labour party - that is the WWC do not agree with the Islington, cappuccino swilling, rich elitists that currently are the public face of Labour. I think the traditional labour voter wants a return to looking after the working man that cannot represent him/her self to the establishment. They're not interested in Che Guvara or Castro or Lenin. They want a fair deal for the work they perform and hate it when they see people at the top pulling in 10's of millions of pound for doing nowt.

    Until the Labour party returns to it's true values they will remain an irrelevance and fail the people they were set up to help.
  • Options
    CD13 said:

    Dr Palmer,

    Jezza's economics aren't the turn-off for many. The multiplier system or whatever the magic money tree is called has attractions. But his foreign policy is based on hatred and a guilt complex for being born in the UK.

    That will be ruthlessly exposed in a GE campaign. Owen Smith would have a chance. Even you might, but Jezza would have none - he can't rely on middle class, virtue signallers to spread the message. They may as well elect Emily Thornberry as his successor.

    I struggle to see how Corbyn can go through a 6 week general election campaign without seriously putting his foot in it. He'll have to do debates with the other parties and engage with members of the public!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    DavidL said:

    McDonnell definitely wears a better suit than Corbyn and is less likely to be stuck answering a question more difficult than "why are you so wonderful" but the idea that his credibility is being undermined is a bit of stretch.

    Of course, if it were true it would simply put him in the same category as the rest of the shadow cabinet.

    The silence from the sane wing of the party is deafening. Have they really decided that they are so out of step with the membership that their assistance would be counter-productive? What is it going to take for them to realise that unless they can win this argument they really need to find a different party? It's sad.

    I think that PB contributors tend to misread Labour MPs and what makes them tick, and it leads to serial betting mistakes, as well as the bafflement that you describe. I've got a piece in mind to submit to Mike on this which I hope will be useful, if I can get past the various immediate translation and seminar preparation stuff that has piled up when I was on holiday.

    Briefly, though, most Labour MPs don't especially disagree with the direction of the Corbyn agenda; they are simply doubtful if he can win. They act when they think that action will produce a better chance of winning (as they thought the no-conidence letter seemed to), but neither the Smith candidacy nor splitting into a sub-SDP looks likely to produce that nor fronting a failed rebellion, so they don't see any point in championing any of these.

    As for the Labour membership more widely, PB is still dominated by supporters of the "what counts most is winning" school of thought, which is a minority view in Labour. The "first you have to work out what you stand for" school is currently dominant, and unless that's understood, people will keep making the wrong bets.
    Nick, surely you and many Labour MPs went into politics to make the country a better place?

    Actually making the country more how you'd like it involves being the party of power, a process that involves appealing to the wider electorate and inevitably some compromises along the way.

    Do you think the Labour MPs are happy to see an ever reducing number of them in perpetual opposition to the Tories, or will they eventually break out of their shells and regroup to appeal to those who voted Conservative last year?

    PS I did say on here last night I'd have voted for you rather the sourpuss Soubry. ;)
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited August 2016

    CD13 said:

    Dr Palmer,

    Jezza's economics aren't the turn-off for many. The multiplier system or whatever the magic money tree is called has attractions. But his foreign policy is based on hatred and a guilt complex for being born in the UK.

    That will be ruthlessly exposed in a GE campaign. Owen Smith would have a chance. Even you might, but Jezza would have none - he can't rely on middle class, virtue signallers to spread the message. They may as well elect Emily Thornberry as his successor.

    I struggle to see how Corbyn can go through a 6 week general election campaign without seriously putting his foot in it. He'll have to do debates with the other parties and engage with members of the public!
    I was thinking that in a general election campaign, he'd not turn up to the debates, or any TV studio, and would spend every day addressing large rallies of the Faithful - who should really be on the streets rather than in the hall listening!

    Let's call it the 20% strategy.
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,601
    PeterC said:



    Splitting involves loss of everything: brand, infrastructure, funding, social connections and much more. A new top-down party is surely doomed. All that is left is to await a landslide defeat in the next GE and that the union paymasters then call time on demonstrably unworkable hard left politics.

    It is undoubtably a big step if not one as big as you suggest - a lot of core members would also leave, some funding would be there and the brand is already compromised. Given the certainty that to continue as you are is to lose everything, then the risks inherent in a split seem positively inviting.

    Labour MPs will be aware that:
    1. Even if they tried to patch it up, many of their seats would be at risk in 2020 or earlier.
    2. Their chances of finding a seat to contest under the new boundaries will hang on the whim of the Corbynites, and many of them will lose out anyway.
    3. Even if they managed to be re-elected in 2020, another five years in opposition is nailed on and they'll be going through the motions for a third parliament in a row.
    4. A split is clearly going to happen anyway, further damaging the party's chances and their own prospects of holding their seats. Even it were limited just to defections it would be highly damaging. So it's more a case of in for a penny, in for a pound.

    Nor is there any real chance that with the hard left having captured the party, it can be won back post 2020.
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    edited August 2016



    Briefly, though, most Labour MPs don't especially disagree with the direction of the Corbyn agenda; they are simply doubtful if he can win. They act when they think that action will produce a better chance of winning (as they thought the no-conidence letter seemed to), but neither the Smith candidacy nor splitting into a sub-SDP looks likely to produce that nor fronting a failed rebellion, so they don't see any point in championing any of these.

    Seems to me, Nick that they have already had their rebellion and that failed once Corbyn declined to step down after the vote of no confidence. They've already played all their cards and lost. They fell into the trap of underestimating their opponent. Corbyn showed great strength and courage ( if viewed through the eyes of his supporters) or stubborn obstinacy (if viewed through the eyes of the PLP) and faced them down.

    It does beg the question though, if they do not see the Smith candidacy as being likely to produce a better chance of winning, why did they give him their support at the nomination stage and why could they not have come up with a candidate who they thought WOULD produce a better chance of winning?

  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Provocative as ever from Allison Pearson

    "For some reason, we think it’s OK for an athletic child like Adam Peaty to be singled out, drilled relentlessly and pushed to the very limit of his capability, and that specialness is then a cause for national celebration. (What else are these Olympic Games if not a triumphant endorsement of such natural selection, the survival and the garlanding of the world’s fittest?)

    By contrast, if you’re a brainy British kid who could seriously do with being plucked from their background, selection is a dirty word. Mums who drive their future Olympians to daily sports training are unsung heroines. Mums who drive their kids to tutoring are “pushy”. Grammar schools may turn out gold medallists of the mind who enrich our society a thousandfold, they may still hold an astonishing eleven places in the Top 20 schools, but they make the people who don’t get into them feel bad so, sorry, we can’t build any more of them."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/07/why-cheer-elite-athletes-but-not-top-students-bring-back-grammar/
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited August 2016
    I notice down thread that some people try to make any sort of comparison between UK approach to drugs cheats & the likes of Russia or China. Let's not forget that for many years & only after the courts forced them to change thus, a UK athlete caught doping was not only banned but never picked for another Olympics. Pretty much every other country selected former banned athletes.

    In terms of your career / earning potential, if you can't compete at the Olympics it is a massive blow.

    Also I am glad to see the crowd booing known drugs cheats. It's isn't really Olympic spirit but when the authorities are ducjing this issue, public shaming is all that is left.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,722
    There's a lot we don't know about Brexit, but one thing seems clear: we will spend oodles of cash we don't have to buy off all the special interests:

    To get each one of the 28 EU countries to agree to whatever deal we cobble together; to get Scotland and Northern Ireland to sign up to an arrangement that opposes their interests and which they voted against; to protect pensioners and the WWC from the consequences of their Leave votes; to keep banks, farmers, car manufacturers and other industries operating in the UK.

    Fiscal responsibility is just so pre 24/6. Corbyn taps into the new era.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    Inappropriate apostrophe in the first line. Oh dear.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,722
    On another topic. Italy is doing well at the Olympics.
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,414
This discussion has been closed.