I'm not sure how viable it would be though. The Co-Op had arcane, cumbersome and complex governance arrangements before its crisis, and I doubt that the associated party is much different. Could defecting MPs gain hold of its levers of power sufficiently quickly to launch a challenger party?
The Co-Op Party tends to have centrist members (since purist leftists are not especially attracted by the Co-op model). But it's very much an article of faith in the party that they never, ever stand against Labour, and it's above all a traditionalist movement enabling MPs with a general sympthy for the ideas to get a little extra support and financial assistance. I think that any move to make it a vehicler for a split would be rejected by the membership - not for ideological reasons, but because it's not the sort of thing the party does.
The party is incidentally effectively distinct from the shop, though I think the retail arm gives some financial support. You can join the party without taking out a retail Co-op shopping card and vice versa. Some people like to buy from the shop in the theory that they're thereby supporting the movement (and my Tory/UKIP-voting uncle refuses to shop there for the same reason), but it's pretty tenuous.
I've always refused to shop at the Co-Op for the same reason, until that is Her Indoors discovered that we could save about £60 on our new Smeg Gas Range, by purchasing it online from said supplier and after much soul-searching, we decided to make a one off exception.
There's something very sinister about the Corbynite takeover of Labour. Something that sends a tiny shiver down the spine. Or my spine, at any rate.
I couldn't work out why, until I realised Corbynites, as a movement, are exhibiting classic parasitical behaviour: to be precise, they are behaving like the Emerald Jewel Wasp (ampulex compressa) whose extraordinary life-cycle - brain-washing, zombifying, and mutilating a cockroach, and forcing the cockroach to become a living incubator of new wasps - was the plotline in a Tom Knox Novel.
The truly chilling thing is that the much larger cockroach seems to believe that everything will somehow be OK, even as the wasp mind-bends the brain-numbed victim towards an inevitable and horrible death.
This is what is happening to Labour. Nick Palmer is the half-amputated antenna.
I wrote about something similar a while back, also as a parable for Labour.
There is a liver fluke that inhabits sheep and cattle (Dicrocoelium dendriticum). The eggs are excreted in the faeces. A snail eats the faeces and becomes infected. The snail encysts the larvae and ejects them. These cysts are eaten by an ant, which is where things become creepy.
The cycts contain hundreds of young flukes. Most just form another cyst in the ant's thorax, but one always moves to the ant's ganglion. It then manipulates the ants behaviour.
When the sun goes down, the fluke forces the ant up a blade of grass, and then locks its mandibles in place. If the ant isn't eaten by a grazing animal by daylight, the fluke forces the ant to the ground, as direct sun will kill the parasite. Rinse and repeat.
When the ant is eventually eaten, the cycle begins again. Evolution, she be freaky.
In the article, there's also reference to a parasitic worm that forces grasshoppers to commit suicide by drowning. The parasite has evolved ways to escape even if its host is eaten.
The goverment has a fetish for Asian education and Singapore in particular. In my experience, it ain't all its cracked up to be (in Japan, don't know about Singapore)
You are having a laugh. Check the world education rankings
1 China 2 Singapore 3 Hong Kong 4 Taiwan 5 South Korea 6 Macau, China 7 Japan
26 United Kingdom
Nope, can't see why the government thinks asian educations works at all, not the slightest idea on that one.
Average IQs are notably higher in East Asia. So this is, in part, simply a reflection of the basic human potential.
IQ is the ability to do IQ tests
No, it's not. IQ tests are the basis of SAT tests, which almost no one complains about, and which govern admissions into the American university system: the best in the world.
I enjoy the fact that Episcopalians ( Yank Anglicans ) are the highest IQ religious cohort in the US.
The goverment has a fetish for Asian education and Singapore in particular. In my experience, it ain't all its cracked up to be (in Japan, don't know about Singapore)
You are having a laugh. Check the world education rankings
1 China 2 Singapore 3 Hong Kong 4 Taiwan 5 South Korea 6 Macau, China 7 Japan
26 United Kingdom
Nope, can't see why the government thinks asian educations works at all, not the slightest idea on that one.
Average IQs are notably higher in East Asia. So this is, in part, simply a reflection of the basic human potential.
IQ is the ability to do IQ tests
No, it's not. IQ tests are the basis of SAT tests, which almost no one complains about, and which govern admissions into the American university system: the best in the world.
SAT tests are *definitely* tests of the ability to do SAT tests.
(I used to work for a franchise of a monster American test prep company called The Princeton Review, which was literally founded on the principle that SAT tests primarily measure the ability to do SAT tests, and you could beat the test with strategy.)
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.
Re your last para (and no obligation on you to do this, of course, as I realize you're a busy man etc) I would be interested in your take on the thread I wrote at the weekend. It is my own (and probably from your perspective, entirely wrong-headed) attempt to work out how one might start constructing a left of centre perspective in today's world.
I've been reflecting on this a lot recently. To be honest, I kind of "get" Corbyn.
If you are a true socialist who yearns for equality of outcomes, and a radically reformed society, and unbothered by nation states, but by the plight of the poor and disadvantaged wherever they might be, and you think it's all Britain and the US's fault anyway then Corbyn is a seductive proposition.
He looks the part, sounds the part and acts the part - and you know he means it. He will never sell out true socialism. He is a living figurehead for your ideology. I'm sure the beard and sandals approach and the quasi Christian socialist imagery help too - he looks a bit like a Jesus, has the same initials, fortunately for him, and has a similar life long mission too.
By comparison, you have a variety of has-beens, non-entities and vacuous drifters in Labour who don't nearly excite anything like the same heart or vision and all of which just bleat on about beating the Tories. As if that's all that matters. But Labour have been there before, with Blair, and look how that ended?
That can come across by Labour MPs as more about their parliamentary careers than the "movement". Why do they want to win? What will they do with it?
Of course, it's all bollocks. So don't bother replying telling me so - I know. Corbyn will lose - astoundingly badly. But I can understand, for the Left, that they'd prefer an opposition figurehead in the news all the time saying things they like and agree with, with a infinitesimal chance that somehow he might win round voters in a Damascene conversion, and risk being clearly but purely defeated by the Tories, who they think will win anyway. The alternative, to them, is to support an insipid uninspiring Labour leader, who doesn't really animate anyone except by calling for electoral victory over the Tories, and appealing to the electoral head will get you nowhere without a strong mission of the heart. From someone who sincerely means it.
Until another Labour leader can win over the soul of the Left in Britain they are stuck with Corbyn, or others like him.
The goverment has a fetish for Asian education and Singapore in particular. In my experience, it ain't all its cracked up to be (in Japan, don't know about Singapore)
You are having a laugh. Check the world education rankings
1 China 2 Singapore 3 Hong Kong 4 Taiwan 5 South Korea 6 Macau, China 7 Japan
26 United Kingdom
Nope, can't see why the government thinks asian educations works at all, not the slightest idea on that one.
Average IQs are notably higher in East Asia. So this is, in part, simply a reflection of the basic human potential.
We need more of the basic foundational educational ability in this country. 3Rs and all that. But we do NOT need the Far Eastern 'brutal rote learning until you become a pliant automaton' element of their education systems.
I am not convinced that is a whole lot to do with the education system so much as a complete culture of risk-aversion in most of Asia, especially the poorer bits. Most people seem to be terrified (for economic or 'face' reasons) for losing their jobs, and the tendency to follow process to the exclusion of product becomes endemic as a result. The mindset appears to be that if you follow the rules you can't get sacked no matter how idiotic it might appear in retrospect, whereas if you take a risk on bending the rules and it goes wrong you are out on your ear. In the poor countries it's incredibly hard to find a new job, and in the richer ones its incredibly difficult to find a new job when people find out why you lost your previous one.
I was talking to a prominent local businessman on this very subject a month or two ago and he was of the opinion that the problem at the root is the mentality of (principally) Chinese investors. Who don't on the whole expect fantastic returns but are utterly unforgiving of failure, and as business failure will make it impossible to borrow money from almost anyone else for any future venture, people run their business in an extremely cautious and risk averse way (hence the proliferation of senseless franchise businesses, which give the owner a comfort blanket). Contrast this to the attitude of many western investors who see the right sort of previous business failure as a good indicator because it means you will have learned from it and will be more careful with their money.
It's not that long ago that any atypicality in thought and deed would see you purged. They - like every other country that once had a strongly enforced orthodoxy - will work their way through it in a couple of generations.
No, it's not. IQ tests are the basis of SAT tests, which almost no one complains about, and which govern admissions into the American university system: the best in the world.
No they are not.
SATs are not IQ tests, although for obvious reasons they correlate reasonable well with IQ. SATs involve a reading component, which concentrates mostly on vocabulary , which will have been studied a school and is learnable. A writing component concentrates largely on grammar, also covered as school and completely learnable. Having memorise formula will help immeasurably on the math component. SATs are to do with what you learn at school, more intelligent students of course tend to learn more and better, but SATs are completely gameable, there is a huge industry in the US for SAT prep tutors charging thousands of dollars, and they are able to charge that because by and large it works, to the extent that there is currently a lot of rethinking going on in this area to reduce the ability to game the system.
The split is real. The NEC result will only accelerate the timetable if they then try and purge the General Secretary and then the regional directors. There are enough QCs in the PLP to have a legal plan already underway.
My assumption is this. We create a new Party called "The Labour Party (2016) Ltd" or similar but trading as "The Labour Party" with the old Labour Party declared defunct. Transferred across are all of the assets and staff of the old party, the MPs, Councillors, etc. Owen Smith is declared the chair of the PLP and becomes leader of the opposition. Membership is automatically transferred to the new entity with the assumption that the Momentum insurgency will leave en masse in protest.
Its now an Extinction Level Event. Either they win or we win. Momentum and the Shiny Happy People insist that anyone who isn't worshipping is a Tory/Progress/Portland/Blairite/MI5 drone. The reality is that the bulk of the party - soft left, centre left, centre, centre right and right - have been united in a way I didn't think possible before.
If the insurgents are allowed to seize power fully then all of us will be purged. A new party would be needed which is very very hard under FPTP. So we will have to launch a counter-insurgency before they have the chance. Electorally we will get smashed but thats a given now anyway. Better to lose one election and rebuild than lose the movement and never compete again.
For those keenly following our glorious post-Brexit renaissance/grimly fascinated by watching us going over Niagara in a barrel* this ONS page is invaluable:
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
For those keenly following our glorious post-Brexit renaissance/grimly fascinated by watching us going over Niagara in a barrel* this ONS page is invaluable:
I've been reflecting on this a lot recently. To be honest, I kind of "get" Corbyn.
If you are a true socialist who yearns for equality of outcomes, and a radically reformed society, and unbothered by nation states, but by the plight of the poor and disadvantaged wherever they might be, and you think it's all Britain and the US's fault anyway then Corbyn is a seductive proposition.
He looks the part, sounds the part and acts the part - and you know he means it. He will never sell out true socialism. He is a living figurehead for your ideology. I'm sure the beard and sandals approach and the quasi Christian socialist imagery help too - he looks a bit like a Jesus, has the same initials, fortunately for him, and has a similar life long mission too.
By comparison, you have a variety of has-beens, non-entities and vacuous drifters in Labour who don't nearly excite anything like the same heart or vision and all of which just bleat on about beating the Tories. As if that's all that matters. But Labour have been there before, with Blair, and look how that ended?
That can come across by Labour MPs as more about their parliamentary careers than the "movement". Why do they want to win? What will they do with it?
Of course, it's all bollocks. So don't bother replying telling me so - I know. Corbyn will lose - astoundingly badly. But I can understand, for the Left, that they'd prefer an opposition figurehead in the news all the time saying things they like and agree with, with a infinitesimal chance that somehow he might win round voters in a Damascene conversion, and risk being clearly but purely defeated by the Tories, who they think will win anyway. The alternative, to them, is to support an insipid uninspiring Labour leader, who doesn't really animate anyone except by calling for electoral victory over the Tories, and appealing to the electoral head will get you nowhere without a strong mission of the heart. From someone who sincerely means it.
Until another Labour leader can win over the soul of the Left in Britain they are stuck with Corbyn, or others like him.
I'm with you in the sense that I 'got' Jeremy during the first hustings. He's like Martin Luther 'Here I stand. I can do no other'.
He's very vulnerable, in a traditional political sense, to his position on the EU. 90% of Labour members voted Remain. He could easily have trimmed his sails, matched Smith's call for a 2nd referendum or such. He didn't, because that's not what he believes. He wants the verdict to be respected.
That's quite potent, even if it does lead to electoral disaster.
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.
Re your last para (and no obligation on you to do this, of course, as I realize you're a busy man etc) I would be interested in your take on the thread I wrote at the weekend. It is my own (and probably from your perspective, entirely wrong-headed) attempt to work out how one might start constructing a left of centre perspective in today's world.
Sorry Cyclefree, only had a a chance to skim this at the weekend - wife and I are busy trying to flog our house - but I thought your thread header was excellent.
Also I thought it notable that noone had any good answers, including me, but asking the right questions is a start for Labour.
Miss Plato, the idiots were the PLP who supported someone they didn't want as leader and have a rulebook that makes it nigh on impossible to shift a leader.
Labour's downfall was caused by the Aw, Bless Tendency, who in an outbreak of patronising pity, lent their votes to get Corbyn heard. They could never have guessed the level of decibls he would achieve. But if there is one lesson that comes out of this, it is never, ever, EVER take pity on your political opponents. To be fair, it's a lesson the Hard Left didn't need to learn.
There appears to be a strong streak of sentimentality within Labour which is inimical to the sort of hard thinking and ruthless action which is sometimes needed. Too many of those who nominated Corbyn probably thought, without really thinking this through, that the sort of socialism Corbyn and his confreres believe in was not really very different to what they believed in ("all part of the tribe", all on the same left of centre side etc). Whereas in reality, the hard left view of the world is fundamentally very different and very opposed to the social democratic left.
Anyone with any knowledge of the history of the left would know this. But mix misty-eyed sentimentality and an ignorance of your own history (or a refusal to learn from it) with a belief that bad people only ever exist amongst your political opponents and you get the mess Labour is now in.
They may as well stick with Corbyn, see where he leads them and work it out from there. A bodged up split now will have cries of "Betrayal!" ringing in everyone's ears until Doomsday.
As a resident of the area known as "Greater Manchester", I'm disappointed by the vote for Burnham, given that he is clearly going to win by a large margin, for the following reasons:
- I can't stand him (I could have lived with Tony Lloyd, who is a Mancunian and seems to look beyond narrow political confines, or even Ivan Lewis, my MP)
- Manchester gets a Scouser as its first formal Metro Mayor
- we won't get a by-election in my seat of Bury South, which I think the Tories might well have won given current polling trends, aided by Corbyn's anti-Jewish culture in one of the country's most Jewish seats
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?
Government borrowing is not akin to household, personal or corporate borrowing. Partly that is the nature of the scale of it. Were the govt to borrow £500bn, it would crowd out a lot of money from being spent on other, potentially productive, causes (though not necessarily), and would certainly distort the borrowing markets.
But two other points are more important. Firstly, government borrowing is not paid off in the same way so is likely to need refinancing at some future point. Expanding the national debt has long-term consequences.
Even more important, governments are dreadful for accurately defining investment and use the word to include all sorts of ongoing whim spending - see Don's comment about childcare. Now, there might be a case to be made that subsidising childcare is a form of investment but if there is (and some aspects tend in that direction), you could say the same about the entire education budget. Should that be funded by borrowing too? Once an ongoing spending commitment is made, it becomes extremely difficult to reverse - as with the austerity attempts over the last six years. And ongoing spending should be met by general taxation.
I think Labour have been clear they want to borrow to invest in infrastructure. Spending more on childcare isn't investment- Don is incorrect to suggest it is.
Crowding out will occur when the economy is close to full capacity. Which we aren't.
I think if you compare George Osborne's fiscal rule with John McDonnell's... you'll find the Labour one makes a lot more sense.
Although I think it's very unlikely that we'll have another Brexit referendum, were this to take place for one reason or another, I think it could quite conceivably be wrapped up with the GE vote in 2020. On this basis Ladbrokes' odds of 25/1 look like half decent value .... a betting slip to store away in the bottom bedroom drawer methinks.
I've been reflecting on this a lot recently. To be honest, I kind of "get" Corbyn.
If you are a true socialist who yearns for equality of outcomes, and a radically reformed society, and unbothered by nation states, but by the plight of the poor and disadvantaged wherever they might be, and you think it's all Britain and the US's fault anyway then Corbyn is a seductive proposition.
He looks the part, sounds the part and acts the part - and you know he means it. He will never sell out true socialism. He is a living figurehead for your ideology. I'm sure the beard and sandals approach and the quasi Christian socialist imagery help too - he looks a bit like a Jesus, has the same initials, fortunately for him, and has a similar life long mission too.
By comparison, you have a variety of has-beens, non-entities and vacuous drifters in Labour who don't nearly excite anything like the same heart or vision and all of which just bleat on about beating the Tories. As if that's all that matters. But Labour have been there before, with Blair, and look how that ended?
That can come across by Labour MPs as more about their parliamentary careers than the "movement". Why do they want to win? What will they do with it?
Of course, it's all bollocks. So don't bother replying telling me so - I know. Corbyn will lose - astoundingly badly. But I can understand, for the Left, that they'd prefer an opposition figurehead in the news all the time saying things they like and agree with, with a infinitesimal chance that somehow he might win round voters in a Damascene conversion, and risk being clearly but purely defeated by the Tories, who they think will win anyway. The alternative, to them, is to support an insipid uninspiring Labour leader, who doesn't really animate anyone except by calling for electoral victory over the Tories, and appealing to the electoral head will get you nowhere without a strong mission of the heart. From someone who sincerely means it.
Until another Labour leader can win over the soul of the Left in Britain they are stuck with Corbyn, or others like him.
I'm with you in the sense that I 'got' Jeremy during the first hustings. He's like Martin Luther 'Here I stand. I can do no other'.
He's very vulnerable, in a traditional political sense, to his position on the EU. 90% of Labour members voted Remain. He could easily have trimmed his sails, matched Smith's call for a 2nd referendum or such. He didn't, because that's not what he believes. He wants the verdict to be respected.
That's quite potent, even if it does lead to electoral disaster.
But, he gets away with it because everyone knows he's an internationalist at heart and he just thought the EU was a neoliberal capitalist club and an obstacle to his purist socialist dreams.
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
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.
Re your last para (and no obligation on you to do this, of course, as I realize you're a busy man etc) I would be interested in your take on the thread I wrote at the weekend. It is my own (and probably from your perspective, entirely wrong-headed) attempt to work out how one might start constructing a left of centre perspective in today's world.
Sorry Cyclefree, only had a a chance to skim this at the weekend - wife and I are busy trying to flog our house - but I thought your thread header was excellent.
Also I thought it notable that noone had any good answers, including me, but asking the right questions is a start for Labour.
No worries. And thank you.
Good luck with the house sale. I hope you are moving to somewhere nice!
As a resident of the area known as "Greater Manchester", I'm disappointed by the vote for Burnham, given that he is clearly going to win by a large margin, for the following reasons:
- I can't stand him (I could have lived with Tony Lloyd, who is a Mancunian and seems to look beyond narrow political confines, or even Ivan Lewis, my MP)
- Manchester gets a Scouser as its first formal Metro Mayor
- we won't get a by-election in my seat of Bury South, which I think the Tories might well have won given current polling trends, aided by Corbyn's anti-Jewish culture in one of the country's most Jewish seats
Ah well...
A Bury South by-election would have been fascinating, I agree.
I had to go through the demographics and electoral history of that seat in detail with our young Corbynista, to try and explain one of the many reasons that the Lab vote will wither in swing seats.
(He's gone over to Owen Smith now, after meeting him).
Wonder whom the Tories will put up as Manchester mayor candidate.
Don't laugh, but I think Osborne would make a great mayor given the Northern Powerhouse pet project and his interest in and involvement in the city region, having represented a seat just outside its boundaries but home to many folk who work and socialise in Manchester.
But that would be a toxic choice for most voters, clearly. Can't think of anyone else. Shall I throw my hat in the ring, if they're desperate....?
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
I'm not sure how viable it would be though. The Co-Op had arcane, cumbersome and complex governance arrangements before its crisis, and I doubt that the associated party is much different. Could defecting MPs gain hold of its levers of power sufficiently quickly to launch a challenger party?
The Co-Op Party tends to have centrist members (since purist leftists are not especially attracted by the Co-op model). But it's very much an article of faith in the party that they never, ever stand against Labour, and it's above all a traditionalist movement enabling MPs with a general sympthy for the ideas to get a little extra support and financial assistance. I think that any move to make it a vehicler for a split would be rejected by the membership - not for ideological reasons, but because it's not the sort of thing the party does.
The party is incidentally effectively distinct from the shop, though I think the retail arm gives some financial support. You can join the party without taking out a retail Co-op shopping card and vice versa. Some people like to buy from the shop in the theory that they're thereby supporting the movement (and my Tory/UKIP-voting uncle refuses to shop there for the same reason), but it's pretty tenuous.
Cheers for the detail. Both points confirm the vague impression i had but wasn't all that confident about - and in the specifics of the example, the Co-op party couldn't be easily taken over by a Labour split (and apart from anything else, if they tried it, the Momentum members could join anyway to counter the numbers).
Wonder whom the Tories will put up as Manchester mayor candidate.
Don't laugh, but I think Osborne would make a great mayor given the Northern Powerhouse pet project and his interest in and involvement in the city region, having represented a seat just outside its boundaries but home to many folk who work and socialise in Manchester.
But that would be a toxic choice for most voters, clearly. Can't think of anyone else. Shall I throw my hat in the ring, if they're desperate....?
The Tory candidate for Manchester Mayor should be a charismatic political blogger, with a great taste in fashion and pop music, and a love of subtle puns who works in Manchester.
There is loads of evidence that 'braininess' can be trained, metric, metric tonnes of it.
evidence that the best way to train it is by relentless drilling and selective education?
Yeah, you see, that's not what I said. And the wonderful thing about it being in text form is that we can both see that that's not what I said.
However, the first part of it does work, yes. That's what training - at the very top levels - actually is.
no, but that's the point I was making re Alison Pearson. I'm not disputing that practicing brain stuff makes you better at it.
But that's the 'drilled relentlessly' part - maybe relentlessly is the emotive word.
But yeah, drilled. And the military image being picked up is especially relevent - trained until you no longer consciously think about it.
I'm not a fan of adjectives in social sciences. We were drilled in primary school. Some of those drills were useful (in a personal sense) - my facility with mental arithmetic is due to memorising times tables. Others, less so - I doubt my ability to recite the English monarchs in order has changed my life in a significant way.
Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere. My love of maths came from my teacher (Miss Podmore pbuh) pointing out the patterns in the times tables - obvious to an adult, but captivating to a child. Then she showed us some of the tricks for extending beyond the twelve times table without memorisation and so on.
"Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere."
Aye, but to go anywhere, you're going to have to practice at it.
Another bugbear I have with this is the vague and mildly patronising suggestion that being clever/brainy is in some way easy.
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.
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.
Re your last para (and no obligation on you to do this, of course, as I realize you're a busy man etc) I would be interested in your take on the thread I wrote at the weekend. It is my own (and probably from your perspective, entirely wrong-headed) attempt to work out how one might start constructing a left of centre perspective in today's world.
Sorry Cyclefree, only had a a chance to skim this at the weekend - wife and I are busy trying to flog our house - but I thought your thread header was excellent.
Also I thought it notable that noone had any good answers, including me, but asking the right questions is a start for Labour.
No worries. And thank you.
Good luck with the house sale. I hope you are moving to somewhere nice!
Yeah, we dunno yet. Although we were both shocked just how much we could borrow (and how cheaply) and how much more our house is apparently worth than we thought.
Of course all of the above tells a story too - and one scarily similar to 2007.
The split is real. The NEC result will only accelerate the timetable if they then try and purge the General Secretary and then the regional directors. There are enough QCs in the PLP to have a legal plan already underway.
My assumption is this. We create a new Party called "The Labour Party (2016) Ltd" or similar but trading as "The Labour Party" with the old Labour Party declared defunct. Transferred across are all of the assets and staff of the old party, the MPs, Councillors, etc. Owen Smith is declared the chair of the PLP and becomes leader of the opposition. Membership is automatically transferred to the new entity with the assumption that the Momentum insurgency will leave en masse in protest.
Its now an Extinction Level Event. Either they win or we win. Momentum and the Shiny Happy People insist that anyone who isn't worshipping is a Tory/Progress/Portland/Blairite/MI5 drone. The reality is that the bulk of the party - soft left, centre left, centre, centre right and right - have been united in a way I didn't think possible before.
If the insurgents are allowed to seize power fully then all of us will be purged. A new party would be needed which is very very hard under FPTP. So we will have to launch a counter-insurgency before they have the chance. Electorally we will get smashed but thats a given now anyway. Better to lose one election and rebuild than lose the movement and never compete again.
And what part does the law have in this plan, which might reasonably be summaraized as 'theft'?
Wonder whom the Tories will put up as Manchester mayor candidate.
Don't laugh, but I think Osborne would make a great mayor given the Northern Powerhouse pet project and his interest in and involvement in the city region, having represented a seat just outside its boundaries but home to many folk who work and socialise in Manchester.
But that would be a toxic choice for most voters, clearly. Can't think of anyone else. Shall I throw my hat in the ring, if they're desperate....?
The Tory candidate for Manchester Mayor should be a charismatic political blogger, with a great taste in fashion and pop music, and a love of subtle puns who works in Manchester.
As a resident of the area known as "Greater Manchester", I'm disappointed by the vote for Burnham, given that he is clearly going to win by a large margin, for the following reasons:
- I can't stand him (I could have lived with Tony Lloyd, who is a Mancunian and seems to look beyond narrow political confines, or even Ivan Lewis, my MP)
- Manchester gets a Scouser as its first formal Metro Mayor
- we won't get a by-election in my seat of Bury South, which I think the Tories might well have won given current polling trends, aided by Corbyn's anti-Jewish culture in one of the country's most Jewish seats
Ah well...
A Bury South by-election would have been fascinating, I agree.
I had to go through the demographics and electoral history of that seat in detail with our young Corbynista, to try and explain one of the many reasons that the Lab vote will wither in swing seats.
(He's gone over to Owen Smith now, after meeting him).
Great. Now we could just explain that to 500,000 members....
"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."
Yes it's an interesting dissonance which I assume results in part from middle class left wingers not being terribly interested in sport.
Notably, we have had some whingeing of late from such people about the supposed dominance of public school educated actors though and faux concern about the lack of 'working class' ones. I doubt they will call for RADA or the RSC to be closed down though.
There was also a lot of gnashing of teeth about the disproportionate amount of medalists in 2012 who had gone to private school. My school cricket team was drawn away at Charterhouse in the Surrey County Cup and what struck me about the place was just what wonderful facilities and coaching staff (from Surrey CCC) that they had at their disposal. I was always asking for us to have winter nets at our school, but we were never allowed because you have to have supervision.
My experience comparing my timeteaching at a Kent grammar with my earlier experience at other state schools - was that the students at the grammar tended to perform better at everything including sport, art, music, etc as well as the more traditional academic subjects. I believe that they were more generally highly motivated and better supported by their parents [irrespective of income levels, etc] in every suspect. It was difficult not to conclude that success bred success and that those from poorer social background benefited especially from the environment of a good grammar school. In the case of my school it drew heavily from Se London/Nw Kent and there was a strong social/ethnic mix.
Wonder whom the Tories will put up as Manchester mayor candidate.
Don't laugh, but I think Osborne would make a great mayor given the Northern Powerhouse pet project and his interest in and involvement in the city region, having represented a seat just outside its boundaries but home to many folk who work and socialise in Manchester.
But that would be a toxic choice for most voters, clearly. Can't think of anyone else. Shall I throw my hat in the ring, if they're desperate....?
The Tory candidate for Manchester Mayor should be a charismatic political blogger, with a great taste in fashion and pop music, and a love of subtle puns who works in Manchester.
Hmm, suspect the Tory candidate will probably be the current leader of Trafford Council.
There is loads of evidence that 'braininess' can be trained, metric, metric tonnes of it.
evidence that the best way to train it is by relentless drilling and selective education?
Yeah, you see, that's not what I said. And the wonderful thing about it being in text form is that we can both see that that's not what I said.
However, the first part of it does work, yes. That's what training - at the very top levels - actually is.
no, but that's the point I was making re Alison Pearson. I'm not disputing that practicing brain stuff makes you better at it.
But that's the 'drilled relentlessly' part - maybe relentlessly is the emotive word.
But yeah, drilled. And the military image being picked up is especially relevent - trained until you no longer consciously think about it.
I'm not a fan of adjectives in social sciences. We were drilled in primary school. Some of those drills were useful (in a personal sense) - my facility with mental arithmetic is due to memorising times tables. Others, less so - I doubt my ability to recite the English monarchs in order has changed my life in a significant way.
Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere. My love of maths came from my teacher (Miss Podmore pbuh) pointing out the patterns in the times tables - obvious to an adult, but captivating to a child. Then she showed us some of the tricks for extending beyond the twelve times table without memorisation and so on.
"Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere."
Aye, but to go anywhere, you're going to have to practice at it.
Another bugbear I have with this is the vague and mildly patronising suggestion that being clever/brainy is in some way easy.
My experience is that practicing hard things gets results. Most people don't practice. They just think they do.
Anecdota again: my dirt poor WWC parents read to us every day. My Mum taught me the alphabet. I could read and write passably well by the time I started primary school. It's all about the early years imo.
I completely agree with your last point. Very few people can succeed effortlessly, and let's face it, we hate those people .
As a resident of the area known as "Greater Manchester", I'm disappointed by the vote for Burnham, given that he is clearly going to win by a large margin, for the following reasons:
- I can't stand him (I could have lived with Tony Lloyd, who is a Mancunian and seems to look beyond narrow political confines, or even Ivan Lewis, my MP)
- Manchester gets a Scouser as its first formal Metro Mayor
- we won't get a by-election in my seat of Bury South, which I think the Tories might well have won given current polling trends, aided by Corbyn's anti-Jewish culture in one of the country's most Jewish seats
Ah well...
A Bury South by-election would have been fascinating, I agree.
I had to go through the demographics and electoral history of that seat in detail with our young Corbynista, to try and explain one of the many reasons that the Lab vote will wither in swing seats.
(He's gone over to Owen Smith now, after meeting him).
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
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?
Government borrowing is not akin to household, personal or corporate borrowing. Partly that is the nature of the scale of it. Were the govt to borrow £500bn, it would crowd out a lot of money from being spent on other, potentially productive, causes (though not necessarily), and would certainly distort the borrowing markets.
But two other points are more important. Firstly, government borrowing is not paid off in the same way so is likely to need refinancing at some future point. Expanding the national debt has long-term consequences.
Even more important, governments are dreadful for accurately defining investment and use the word to include all sorts of ongoing whim spending - see Don's comment about childcare. Now, there might be a case to be made that subsidising childcare is a form of investment but if there is (and some aspects tend in that direction), you could say the same about the entire education budget. Should that be funded by borrowing too? Once an ongoing spending commitment is made, it becomes extremely difficult to reverse - as with the austerity attempts over the last six years. And ongoing spending should be met by general taxation.
I think Labour have been clear they want to borrow to invest in infrastructure. Spending more on childcare isn't investment- Don is incorrect to suggest it is.
Crowding out will occur when the economy is close to full capacity. Which we aren't.
I think if you compare George Osborne's fiscal rule with John McDonnell's... you'll find the Labour one makes a lot more sense.
Revenue expenditure can be investment. Not all capital expenditure is investment.
For example, think about money spent on education. Capital expenditure on school buildings does not improve children's education without revenue expenditure on teachers.
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
According to most people. I'll treasure your de facto assertion that England isn't a country though.
'Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom'
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
According to most people. I'll treasure your de facto assertion that England isn't a country though.
'Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom'
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
The United Kingdom is competing as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. It seems to exclude the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
One's a country, the other's a region or regions within a country, tough titty. Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
According to you. Don't see Scotland competing in Rio. Kingdom perhaps but not a country.
The United Kingdom is competing as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. It seems to exclude the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Nay, nay and thrice nay my good sir. It is competing as Team GB. That encompasses GB & NI, the Crown dependencies and all British Overseas Territories that lack an organized federation.
Mr. Dugarbandier, I'd argue memory is the single critical aspect (hard to teach someone who forgets everything), the point I was making, although I can see why this wasn't perhaps apparent, was that learning by rote is a valid method of memorising things. Other approaches can work too.
Rote is very handy because it is generally a quick way to acquire a lot of knowledge and sometimes the why is rather less important than the what..
Not only that but the what can combine with the why. In every day work life I use my 12 times tables etc regularly to do quick mental arithmetic. The knowledge of rules of arithmetic (why) combines well with the knowledge of times tables (what, rote) to be more effective and not need a calculator for the most basic of tasks.
More importantly in some respects you can front load rote learning. All my kids knew their tables well before they knew how to multiply numbers together - a little judicious bribery worked wonders . Initially they didn't get much use from it, but as soon as they started to study multiplication/fractions/division etc, the facts were at their fingertips and progress was much faster.
Good idea to know your times tables and your more important percentage-fraction-decimal conversions by heart.
There's no need to even understand what "multiplication" of two numbers is to learn your times tables at the beginning. You can just do "counting up in ..." e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 is counting up in twos.
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......
That won't be so easy next time given that the Tories are abandoning Austerity and effectively rubbishing Osborne's record.
There is loads of evidence that 'braininess' can be trained, metric, metric tonnes of it.
evidence that the best way to train it is by relentless drilling and selective education?
Yeah, you see, that's not what I said. And the wonderful thing about it being in text form is that we can both see that that's not what I said.
However, the first part of it does work, yes. That's what training - at the very top levels - actually is.
no, but that's the point I was making re Alison Pearson. I'm not disputing that practicing brain stuff makes you better at it.
But that's the 'drilled relentlessly' part - maybe relentlessly is the emotive word.
But yeah, drilled. And the military image being picked up is especially relevent - trained until you no longer consciously think about it.
I'm not a fan of adjectives in social sciences. We were drilled in primary school. Some of those drills were useful (in a personal sense) - my facility with mental arithmetic is due to memorising times tables. Others, less so - I doubt my ability to recite the English monarchs in order has changed my life in a significant way.
Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere. My love of maths came from my teacher (Miss Podmore pbuh) pointing out the patterns in the times tables - obvious to an adult, but captivating to a child. Then she showed us some of the tricks for extending beyond the twelve times table without memorisation and so on.
"Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere."
Aye, but to go anywhere, you're going to have to practice at it.
Another bugbear I have with this is the vague and mildly patronising suggestion that being clever/brainy is in some way easy.
My experience is that practicing hard things gets results. Most people don't practice. They just think they do.
Anecdota again: my dirt poor WWC parents read to us every day. My Mum taught me the alphabet. I could read and write passably well by the time I started primary school. It's all about the early years imo.
I completely agree with your last point. Very few people can succeed effortlessly, and let's face it, we hate those people .
"Most people don't practice. They just think they do. "
There is loads of evidence that 'braininess' can be trained, metric, metric tonnes of it.
evidence that the best way to train it is by relentless drilling and selective education?
Yeah, you see, that's not what I said. And the wonderful thing about it being in text form is that we can both see that that's not what I said.
However, the first part of it does work, yes. That's what training - at the very top levels - actually is.
no, but that's the point I was making re Alison Pearson. I'm not disputing that practicing brain stuff makes you better at it.
But that's the 'drilled relentlessly' part - maybe relentlessly is the emotive word.
But yeah, drilled. And the military image being picked up is especially relevent - trained until you no longer consciously think about it.
I'm not a fan of adjectives in social sciences. We were drilled in primary school. Some of those drills were useful (in a personal sense) - my facility with mental arithmetic is due to memorising times tables. Others, less so - I doubt my ability to recite the English monarchs in order has changed my life in a significant way.
Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere. My love of maths came from my teacher (Miss Podmore pbuh) pointing out the patterns in the times tables - obvious to an adult, but captivating to a child. Then she showed us some of the tricks for extending beyond the twelve times table without memorisation and so on.
"Practice makes perfect. But it doesn't necessarily lead you anywhere."
Aye, but to go anywhere, you're going to have to practice at it.
Another bugbear I have with this is the vague and mildly patronising suggestion that being clever/brainy is in some way easy.
My experience is that practicing hard things gets results. Most people don't practice. They just think they do.
Anecdota again: my dirt poor WWC parents read to us every day. My Mum taught me the alphabet. I could read and write passably well by the time I started primary school. It's all about the early years imo.
I completely agree with your last point. Very few people can succeed effortlessly, and let's face it, we hate those people .
"Most people don't practice. They just think they do. "
Yes.
Which golfer was it who said, on being told he was lucky, that “the harder I practice, the luckier I get!”?
I went to the 1940s weekend in Howarth a few years ago and predictably there were a few iron crosses on show. Nobody seemed bothered and it was a very good event. Of course, the local media ran its usual story telling readers how outrageous this was.
Time to reissue my Red Flag (Burnham version) from last year's leadership election
The Burnham flag is brightest blue, it flutters for his passion true He's standing 'cause he thinks he ought to mouth the words his forebears taught His policies are full of air; Look inside and nothings there. But that fight's just his daytime one: his true heart's Evertonian
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!
Corbyn would not be obliged to go along with debates. Cameron has given him a useful precedent there!
"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?)
Yes it's an interesting dissonance which I assume results in part from middle class left wingers not being terribly interested in sport.
Notably, we have had some whingeing of late from such people about the supposed dominance of public school educated actors though and faux concern about the lack of 'working class' ones. I doubt they will call for RADA or the RSC to be closed down though.
There was also a lot of gnashing of teeth about the disproportionate amount of medalists in 2012 who had gone to private school. My school cricket team was drawn away at Charterhouse in the Surrey County Cup and what struck me about the place was just what wonderful facilities and coaching staff (from Surrey CCC) that they had at their disposal. I was always asking for us to have winter nets at our school, but we were never allowed because you have to have supervision.
My experience comparing my timeteaching at a Kent grammar with my earlier experience at other state schools - was that the students at the grammar tended to perform better at everything including sport, art, music, etc as well as the more traditional academic subjects. I believe that they were more generally highly motivated and better supported by their parents [irrespective of income levels, etc] in every suspect. It was difficult not to conclude that success bred success and that those from poorer social background benefited especially from the environment of a good grammar school. In the case of my school it drew heavily from Se London/Nw Kent and there was a strong social/ethnic mix.
Comments
https://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/brainwashed-by-a-parasite/
In the article, there's also reference to a parasitic worm that forces grasshoppers to commit suicide by drowning. The parasite has evolved ways to escape even if its host is eaten.
(I used to work for a franchise of a monster American test prep company called The Princeton Review, which was literally founded on the principle that SAT tests primarily measure the ability to do SAT tests, and you could beat the test with strategy.)
Mirror
First picture of railway fan killed after sticking his head out of train window https://t.co/2xoJZnEj5T https://t.co/LoeNpR3jjJ
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/07/going-back-to-your-roots-cyclefree-on-the-labour-leadership-contest/
Ideals without power is just political onanism
Oh.
As Bob Dylan sang "Everybody must get stoned".
If a bowling club has 40 members and 60 golfers join does it become a golf club?
I think his bowling days are over and in terms of having a prominent role in the new club he has a high handicap
Maybe he should take up Tennis or maybe more appropriately snooker. For certain every tweet ensures he is more and more snookered
If you are a true socialist who yearns for equality of outcomes, and a radically reformed society, and unbothered by nation states, but by the plight of the poor and disadvantaged wherever they might be, and you think it's all Britain and the US's fault anyway then Corbyn is a seductive proposition.
He looks the part, sounds the part and acts the part - and you know he means it. He will never sell out true socialism. He is a living figurehead for your ideology. I'm sure the beard and sandals approach and the quasi Christian socialist imagery help too - he looks a bit like a Jesus, has the same initials, fortunately for him, and has a similar life long mission too.
By comparison, you have a variety of has-beens, non-entities and vacuous drifters in Labour who don't nearly excite anything like the same heart or vision and all of which just bleat on about beating the Tories. As if that's all that matters. But Labour have been there before, with Blair, and look how that ended?
That can come across by Labour MPs as more about their parliamentary careers than the "movement". Why do they want to win? What will they do with it?
Of course, it's all bollocks. So don't bother replying telling me so - I know. Corbyn will lose - astoundingly badly. But I can understand, for the Left, that they'd prefer an opposition figurehead in the news all the time saying things they like and agree with, with a infinitesimal chance that somehow he might win round voters in a Damascene conversion, and risk being clearly but purely defeated by the Tories, who they think will win anyway. The alternative, to them, is to support an insipid uninspiring Labour leader, who doesn't really animate anyone except by calling for electoral victory over the Tories, and appealing to the electoral head will get you nowhere without a strong mission of the heart. From someone who sincerely means it.
Until another Labour leader can win over the soul of the Left in Britain they are stuck with Corbyn, or others like him.
@ScotTories: Education secretary John Swinney has confirmed the unlawful #NamedPerson policy has been put on hold: https://t.co/9p6hp8eWcC
SATs are not IQ tests, although for obvious reasons they correlate reasonable well with IQ. SATs involve a reading component, which concentrates mostly on vocabulary , which will have been studied a school and is learnable. A writing component concentrates largely on grammar, also covered as school and completely learnable. Having memorise formula will help immeasurably on the math component. SATs are to do with what you learn at school, more intelligent students of course tend to learn more and better, but SATs are completely gameable, there is a huge industry in the US for SAT prep tutors charging thousands of dollars, and they are able to charge that because by and large it works, to the extent that there is currently a lot of rethinking going on in this area to reduce the ability to game the system.
By-election looms.
@JackTindale
Paul Mason is going to be MP for Leigh.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/tracking-the-impact-of-the-eu-referendum/
*delete according to preference
Manufactured b RimmerCorp?
@PaulBrandITV: Interestingly Burnham promises to champion north because it's being 'drowned out by Scotland' - a common feeling in NE/Yorks as well as NW
Power without ideals leads to corruption.
Tony Lloyd 2163
Ivan Lewis 1472
He's very vulnerable, in a traditional political sense, to his position on the EU. 90% of Labour members voted Remain. He could easily have trimmed his sails, matched Smith's call for a 2nd referendum or such. He didn't, because that's not what he believes. He wants the verdict to be respected.
That's quite potent, even if it does lead to electoral disaster.
Also I thought it notable that noone had any good answers, including me, but asking the right questions is a start for Labour.
@MrHarryCole: But only when they suck up to Corbyn and his supporters in order to win their internal party nominations.... https://t.co/WmHUBc1KtC
Anyone with any knowledge of the history of the left would know this. But mix misty-eyed sentimentality and an ignorance of your own history (or a refusal to learn from it) with a belief that bad people only ever exist amongst your political opponents and you get the mess Labour is now in.
They may as well stick with Corbyn, see where he leads them and work it out from there. A bodged up split now will have cries of "Betrayal!" ringing in everyone's ears until Doomsday.
- I can't stand him (I could have lived with Tony Lloyd, who is a Mancunian and seems to look beyond narrow political confines, or even Ivan Lewis, my MP)
- Manchester gets a Scouser as its first formal Metro Mayor
- we won't get a by-election in my seat of Bury South, which I think the Tories might well have won given current polling trends, aided by Corbyn's anti-Jewish culture in one of the country's most Jewish seats
Ah well...
Spending more on childcare isn't investment- Don is incorrect to suggest it is.
Crowding out will occur when the economy is close to full capacity. Which we aren't.
I think if you compare George Osborne's fiscal rule with John McDonnell's... you'll find the Labour one makes a lot more sense.
DYOR.
OGH was never more right than when he described Burnham as a wally.
How on earth was he ever *favourite* for leader given he couldn't lead his mum to his local co-op?
Still, if you had to pick a strong-voiced, principled champion to fight against the drowning out...
Good luck with the house sale. I hope you are moving to somewhere nice!
I had to go through the demographics and electoral history of that seat in detail with our young Corbynista, to try and explain one of the many reasons that the Lab vote will wither in swing seats.
(He's gone over to Owen Smith now, after meeting him).
Don't laugh, but I think Osborne would make a great mayor given the Northern Powerhouse pet project and his interest in and involvement in the city region, having represented a seat just outside its boundaries but home to many folk who work and socialise in Manchester.
But that would be a toxic choice for most voters, clearly. Can't think of anyone else. Shall I throw my hat in the ring, if they're desperate....?
Aye, but to go anywhere, you're going to have to practice at it.
Another bugbear I have with this is the vague and mildly patronising suggestion that being clever/brainy is in some way easy.
Of course all of the above tells a story too - and one scarily similar to 2007.
Anecdota again: my dirt poor WWC parents read to us every day. My Mum taught me the alphabet. I could read and write passably well by the time I started primary school. It's all about the early years imo.
I completely agree with your last point. Very few people can succeed effortlessly, and let's face it, we hate those people
For example, think about money spent on education. Capital expenditure on school buildings does not improve children's education without revenue expenditure on teachers.
I'll treasure your de facto assertion that England isn't a country though.
'Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom'
http://tinyurl.com/cyrhsy4
'Scotland noun uk /ˈskɒt.lənd/ us /ˈskɑːt.lənd/
a country that is part of the United Kingdom'
http://tinyurl.com/jubhscu
'Scotland
(ˈskɒtlənd )
noun a country that is part of the United Kingdom, occupying the north of Great Britain'
http://tinyurl.com/jxbdplq
There's no need to even understand what "multiplication" of two numbers is to learn your times tables at the beginning. You can just do "counting up in ..." e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 is counting up in twos.
Yes.
Does anyone have a scholarly works by Sion Simon so I can judge his political acumen ?
This country is heading in a sad direction with self-censorship.
No sense of humour anymore.
http://news.sky.com/story/police-delete-tweet-showing-men-in-ss-uniforms-10528107
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn4IpyVViw4
new thread
If that is what the future holds, we are all in trouble.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
The Burnham flag is brightest blue,
it flutters for his passion true
He's standing 'cause he thinks he ought
to mouth the words his forebears taught
His policies are full of air;
Look inside and nothings there.
But that fight's just his daytime one:
his true heart's Evertonian
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD