politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I’m not sure a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party is equipped t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I’m not sure a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party is equipped to endure the white heat of a six week general election campaign

Perhaps I’m being unduly harsh on Jeremy Corbyn, but the clip above of his press conference yesterday was a mixture of the downright embarrassing and painful to watch, all because of Traingate. All politicians make gaffes, or their spin gets unspun, but the whole traingate farrago isn’t an exception and his response to it does not inspire confidence in him or his team.

Read the full story here

foxinsoxuk

First to find an empty seat!

CarlottaVance

Second, like Labour, Smith & SINDY......

foxinsoxuk

It really is hard to top the #edstone, but Jezza does seem to have managed it with #traingate.

A general election campaign is going to be hilarious.

kle4

The clip of him was pretty bad. Arrogant and entitled, expecting, nay, demanding he be asked what he wants to be asked. It's a tough and awful job and he gets a lot of crap thrown at him, but it would have been so easy to make the same point without coming across so poorly. Much like Traingate itself.

Yes, won't on its affect vites etc etc making big deal out of trivial things, most people won't notice blah blah

Charles

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

CarlottaVance

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

CarlottaVance

And to get the Nats' blood pressure up:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html

MI7 have done a great job persuading everyone there's no such thing as Whisky export duty.....

Charles

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

kle4

The transformation of Jeremy from usually placid, pleasant demeanour is really quite striking. I thinks it's interesting to see flashes behind the regular personas - not to say the personas are false necessarily, just because someone is careful how they present themselves does not mean that presentation is not a genuine reflection - like Cameron revealing his penchant for slightly cruel jibes, and Corbyn revealing a pretty whiny irritation when he loses control of a situation.

kle4

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

CarlottaVance

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

No, at least IDS had the wit to know when the game was up, Jeremy on the other hand sails on oblivious......

I don't know them well enough, but possibly SLAB have had someone of such preternaturally spectacular unsuitability.....

DecrepitJohnL

kle4 said:

The clip of him was pretty bad. Arrogant and entitled, expecting, nay, demanding he be asked what he wants to be asked. It's a tough and awful job and he gets a lot of crap thrown at him, but it would have been so easy to make the same point without coming across so poorly. Much like Traingate itself.

Yes, won't on its affect vites etc etc making big deal out of trivial things, most people won't notice blah blah

For passengers, traingate will either reflect their version of reality or it won't. Commuters might well sympathise, as standing in the rush hour, assuming you can board the train at all, is a twice-daily reality, and the rush hour has expanded to several hours, twice a day.

JackW

Mrs JackW has taken a keen interest in Cornish tin mine owners of yore as portrayed on the Beeb. She advises me it has absolutely nothing to do with the handsome hunk flaunting his winding gear in her direction.

She advises me that Mr Poldark and I have much in common .... .... we are now both crusty old relics - one long dead and the other doing his best to join him !! ....

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

And to get the Nats' blood pressure up:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html

MI7 have done a great job persuading everyone there's no such thing as Whisky export duty.....

Sad thing is that some morons actually believe the crap.

PS: Fact that you use that absolute losers viepoint says it all. He cannot count, needs to spend more time on his own deficit methinks

SimonStClare

I know we’re expecting two back to back articles on Jeremy, but is this the critical or flattering one? - I think we should be told...

TheScreamingEagles

SimonStClare said:

I know we’re expecting two back to back articles on Jeremy, but is this the critical or flattering one? - I think we should be told...

This is the unflattering one.

The Jez is awesome one should go up by the weekend.

MaxPB

Hmm, agree with the article. However, since when has porn been hard to describe?

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

The clip of him was pretty bad. Arrogant and entitled, expecting, nay, demanding he be asked what he wants to be asked. It's a tough and awful job and he gets a lot of crap thrown at him, but it would have been so easy to make the same point without coming across so poorly. Much like Traingate itself.

Yes, won't on its affect vites etc etc making big deal out of trivial things, most people won't notice blah blah

For passengers, traingate will either reflect their version of reality or it won't. Commuters might well sympathise, as standing in the rush hour, assuming you can board the train at all, is a twice-daily reality, and the rush hour has expanded to several hours, twice a day.

But why did he need to lie? As you say plenty have much to sympathise in his stated position, nationalisation as an option is fairly popular, but it was not the real position, it was like putting on a play and claiming it was true because the events depicted in the play happen somewhere.

PlatoSaid

kle4 said:

The transformation of Jeremy from usually placid, pleasant demeanour is really quite striking. I thinks it's interesting to see flashes behind the regular personas - not to say the personas are false necessarily, just because someone is careful how they present themselves does not mean that presentation is not a genuine reflection - like Cameron revealing his penchant for slightly cruel jibes, and Corbyn revealing a pretty whiny irritation when he loses control of a situation.

From the moment Jezza got very petulant on C4 News way back last year, we've been wondering when he'd do it again. There's been flashes of it - but TrainGate with Darren McCaffrey was the worst by far.

The daft thing is that Jez can handle this stuff with good humour when he chooses too. He held a prezza a month or two back and I was surprised by his self depreciating manner.

Getting all arsey defensive looks terrible.

TheScreamingEagles

MaxPB said:

Hmm, agree with the article. However, since when has porn been hard to describe?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

DecrepitJohnL

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

JackW

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

I know we’re expecting two back to back articles on Jeremy, but is this the critical or flattering one? - I think we should be told...

This is the unflattering one.

The Jez is awesome one should go up by the weekend.

The weekend after the 2020 general election?

SimonStClare

TheScreamingEagles said:

SimonStClare said:

I know we’re expecting two back to back articles on Jeremy, but is this the critical or flattering one? - I think we should be told...

This is the unflattering one.

The Jez is awesome one should go up by the weekend.

Cheers TSE, in that case, this article is a violation of Jeremy’s private space and typical of right-wing bullying…

Charles

kle4 said:

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

Indeed! I was just objecting to poor writing, nothing else!

TCPoliticalBetting

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3757386/Slave-girls-aged-six-workers-racked-ill-health-ruthless-exploitation-countless-deaths-barbaric-reality-life-Poldark-s-tin-mines.html
Ah SeanT

I know it's only the Daily Mail, but not @SeanT finest work. A few sterotypes ("gloating owners") creeping in.

He must have meant 'altruistic patricians with interests in the region'.

SeanT as our PB working class hero?

kle4

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

Indeed! I was just objecting to poor writing, nothing else!

As you say, it was only the mail, who does their best work for that*

*with apologies to mail aficionados.

Charles

MaxPB said:

Hmm, agree with the article. However, since when has porn been hard to describe?

It's a legal in-joke I believe.

PlatoSaid

This is popular with Corbynistas this morning on Twitter

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/24/virgin-rail-controversy-has-helped-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-bid?CMP=share_btn_tw

PlatoSaid

Jeremy Corbyn
My head is so ram-packed with unimpeachable social justice that there's no space for my brain to sit down #braingate

Charles

kle4 said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

Indeed! I was just objecting to poor writing, nothing else!

As you say, it was only the mail, who does their best work for that*

*with apologies to mail aficionados.

He does do the house style - mendicant crap - quite well to be fair

Concanvasser

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Pulpstar

PlatoSaid said:

This is popular with Corbynistas this morning on Twitter

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/24/virgin-rail-controversy-has-helped-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-bid?CMP=share_btn_tw

Let's hope so, I have investments in Jez

rottenborough

Top hole. This Thread made me LOL. Fantastically funny. Seriously TSE, you are "not sure"?

It will be a six week clusterf*** of epic proportions which will go down in political and media lore. Old journalists will sit their grandchildren on their knees in thirty years time and say 'Oh let me you tell you about my part in the election of 2020'.

SquareRoot

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Few are going to listen to fantasy policies from Jezza, his policies may be on the table, but only the hard left will be listening ergo heavy defeat at the GE. QED

kle4

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

rottenborough

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

Indeed! I was just objecting to poor writing, nothing else!

As you say, it was only the mail, who does their best work for that*

*with apologies to mail aficionados.

He does do the house style - mendicant crap - quite well to be fair

To be honest, in the mail, I would have expected something more like:

Slave girls aged six, workers racked by ill health, ruthless exploitation and countless deaths: the barbaric reality of life in modern London.

Jonathan

IMO gravitas comes quite late in the day. Until they have power opposition leaders rarely have it. May had no gravitas until she stood for leader. Then it changed overnight.

There are notable exceptions like John Smith

Charles

SquareRoot said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Few are going to listen to fantasy policies from Jezza, his policies may be on the table, but only the hard left will be listening ergo heavy defeat at the GE. QED

His argument is that eg Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy could win with a traditional Labour programme (moderate only compared to Corbyn) in 2025

I think the British people are too smart for that
We saw it with the Thatcher and Blair-Brown hovernments: the pendulum only swings of the alternative is acceptable.

Charles

rottenborough said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

@williamglenn FPT

I'm sure that some of them gloated. But I doubt the Duke of Cornwall did. And the three Cornish mine-owning families that I know (the Aclands, the Mathers, and the St Aubyns) we're precisely as you describe them - philanthropically-minded (if not altruistic) patricians

Patricians have such a hard time of it, reputationally. I also cry tears over all those in finance smeared with the label if banker when they are in totally different fields involving billions of pounds.

Indeed! I was just objecting to poor writing, nothing else!

As you say, it was only the mail, who does their best work for that*

*with apologies to mail aficionados.

He does do the house style - mendicant crap - quite well to be fair

To be honest, in the mail, I would have expected something more like:

Slave girls aged six, workers racked by ill health, ruthless exploitation and countless deaths: the barbaric reality of life in modern London.

That's next Thursday. You need to mix it up a bit.

Mortimer

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

I'm not sure the demographics bear that out. Tory seats are generally getting safer, there are now very few LD Tory marginals (my local one, for example, which had LD MP 97-2015, now has a 10k Tory majority). Similarly winning a majority without Scotland is nigh on impossible. The Tories could lose a few voters in the centre but secure swathes of UKIP returnees in the SE - especially if they at the same time pursue a northern strategy forcing Labour to deploy resources in previously safe seats...

Jonathan

Charles said:

SquareRoot said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Few are going to listen to fantasy policies from Jezza, his policies may be on the table, but only the hard left will be listening ergo heavy defeat at the GE. QED

His argument is that eg Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy could win with a traditional Labour programme (moderate only compared to Corbyn) in 2025

I think the British people are too smart for that
We saw it with the Thatcher and Blair-Brown hovernments: the pendulum only swings of the alternative is acceptable.

I have no doubt that Labour could win on a left platform, with a few radical bits chucked in, but to do it the leadership needs to be seen as competent and attractive.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

No use of "The Jeremiad"?

Honestly.

F1 starts again tomorrow. Huzzah!

Mortimer

Jonathan said:

IMO gravitas comes quite late in the day. Until they have power opposition leaders rarely have it. May had no gravitas until she stood for leader. Then it changed overnight.

There are notable exceptions like John Smith

John Smith had gravitas? Who knew.

CD13

Mr Concanvasser,

"Everything is cyclical in the end."

You are right, but there are two problems that Labour under the messiah will struggle to overcome.

Firstly, they have to look like a government in waiting or the protest vote will go elsewhere.

And secondly, even if they succeed in being elected, everything bad that happens will be blamed on them. Trains when nationalised still run badly. And the SWPers will blame all and everyone else except themselves, but only the truly committed will believe a word.

Tony, or Tory Tony if you wish, had the talent of succeeding at (1), and reducing the natural wastage from (2).

Jezza and his acolytes will fail badly at both because they' know' they are infallible (even when their ideas are clearly failing), and that the electorate are stupid for not understanding that.

A recipe for a short shelf life.

Edit: Can I have my politics degree now, please?

rottenborough

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

TheScreamingEagles

It came as Dr Fox was branded "nutty and obsessive" by a Whitehall official, believed to be linked to the Foreign Office.

The official told The Times: "He’s Donald Rumsfeld on steroids. Fox is the more nutty and obsessive one. There’s something strange about him.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Casino_Royale

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

Mortimer

CD13 said:

Mr Concanvasser,

"Everything is cyclical in the end."

You are right, but there are two problems that Labour under the messiah will struggle to overcome.

Firstly, they have to look like a government in waiting or the protest vote will go elsewhere.

And secondly, even if they succeed in being elected, everything bad that happens will be blamed on them. Trains when nationalised still run badly. And the SWPers will blame all and everyone else except themselves, but only the truly committed will believe a word.

Tony, or Tory Tony if you wish, had the talent of succeeding at (1), and reducing the natural wastage from (2).

Jezza and his acolytes will fail badly at both because they' know' they are infallible (even when their ideas are clearly failing), and that the electorate are stupid for not understanding that.

A recipe for a short shelf life.

Tremendously good post.

What Corbyn thinks is style is actually strategy. Labour do not win elections by pretending to have the answers in state ownership. Because the public can cope with poor service by blaming the owners - but when the owners are the government they vote against it...

PlatoSaid

Stephen Pollard
Guardian editorial on #traingate manages to say absolutely nothing incredibly pompously https://t.co/0e7BYx5xBQ

Concanvasser

kl4 "I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997?"

Labour would have won in 1997 under Kinnock, Smith and on an old Labour platform. They wouldn't have won nearly as big but so what?

Achieving and then maintaining those huge majorities actually became the aim in itself and handstrung the Labour government for the first crucial two terms form actually acting like a Labour government.

When a party gets 'its turn' it only really means something if you can reverse your opponents most objectionable measures and entrench a few of your most dearly held ones.

I think Corbyn understands this in a way Blair didn't.

HYUFD

The big news overnight was Farage's speech at a Trump rally in Mississippi where he was personally introduced by the Donald himself. BREXIT was big news in the U.S. and led most of the news the day after and Trump clearly intends to fight a similar anti establishment, white working class focused campaign. At the moment he is doing as well with non-college educated whites as vote Leave but a little worse with ethnic minorities and significantly worse with white college graduates. However Trump almost tied Hillary with white college graduates after the GOP convention and if he can get back to that level after the GOP convention he has a real chance

Essexit

rottenborough said:

Top hole. This Thread made me LOL. Fantastically funny. Seriously TSE, you are "not sure"?

It will be a six week clusterf*** of epic proportions which will go down in political and media lore. Old journalists will sit their grandchildren on their knees in thirty years time and say 'Oh let me you tell you about my part in the election of 2020'.

Remember bigoted woman? Remember the Edstone? Whatever cock-ups Corbyn produces will make them look like a nativity play.

Slackbladder

PlatoSaid said:

Stephen Pollard
Guardian editorial on #traingate manages to say absolutely nothing incredibly pompously https://t.co/0e7BYx5xBQ

Isn't that the Guardian as a whole?

Mortimer

TheScreamingEagles said:

It came as Dr Fox was branded "nutty and obsessive" by a Whitehall official, believed to be linked to the Foreign Office.

The official told The Times: "He’s Donald Rumsfeld on steroids. Fox is the more nutty and obsessive one. There’s something strange about him.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I'm not a Fox fan - but I have never heard a sensible suggestion from the FO. It has made massive errors of judgement in the last century as well as constantly being behind the curve on major international events and discussions. And from what I've heard a lot of that is because of institutional flaws... Hannan and Carswell quite good on this in The Plan.

Mortimer

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

Agreed on all but the last sentence - he has never been political enough to make a success of the ideas. He should have been pushing for Osborne to go in 2012.

Morris_Dancer

F1: trying to crack on with work so this is on the backburner until tomorrow or maybe Sunday, but having missed the obvious value on Rosberg, with Hamilton's likely grid penalty, which has now vanished, there might be value elsewhere. Only nine markets up on Ladbrokes currently, though.

HYUFD

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Charles

O

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

SquareRoot said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Few are going to listen to fantasy policies from Jezza, his policies may be on the table, but only the hard left will be listening ergo heavy defeat at the GE. QED

His argument is that eg Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy could win with a traditional Labour programme (moderate only compared to Corbyn) in 2025

I think the British people are too smart for that
We saw it with the Thatcher and Blair-Brown hovernments: the pendulum only swings of the alternative is acceptable.

I have no doubt that Labour could win on a left platform, with a few radical bits chucked in, but to do it the leadership needs to be seen as competent and attractive.

To be honest, so long as the manifesto vaguely adds up and isn't self-evidently bollocks, i think the voters focus more on character/judgement of the leadership than actual policies.

Mortimer

Concanvasser said:

kl4 "I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997?"

Labour would have won in 1997 under Kinnock, Smith and on an old Labour platform. They wouldn't have won nearly as big but so what?

Achieving and then maintaining those huge majorities actually became the aim in itself and handstrung the Labour government for the first crucial two terms form actually acting like a Labour government.

When a party gets 'its turn' it only really means something if you can reverse your opponents most objectionable measures and entrench a few of your most dearly held ones.

I think Corbyn understands this in a way Blair didn't.

This was pre SNP success.

Kinnock et al would probably not have won with only 1 Scottish seat.

Casino_Royale

Essexit said:

rottenborough said:

Top hole. This Thread made me LOL. Fantastically funny. Seriously TSE, you are "not sure"?

It will be a six week clusterf*** of epic proportions which will go down in political and media lore. Old journalists will sit their grandchildren on their knees in thirty years time and say 'Oh let me you tell you about my part in the election of 2020'.

Remember bigoted woman? Remember the Edstone? Whatever cock-ups Corbyn produces will make them look like a nativity play.

Neither or which were shown to have materially affected the result, of course.

What it does do is blot out any other, potentially positive, campaign coverage and reinforce existing pre-conceptions.

Neither of which will be good for Corbyn.

Casino_Royale

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It came as Dr Fox was branded "nutty and obsessive" by a Whitehall official, believed to be linked to the Foreign Office.

The official told The Times: "He’s Donald Rumsfeld on steroids. Fox is the more nutty and obsessive one. There’s something strange about him.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I'm not a Fox fan - but I have never heard a sensible suggestion from the FO. It has made massive errors of judgement in the last century as well as constantly being behind the curve on major international events and discussions. And from what I've heard a lot of that is because of institutional flaws... Hannan and Carswell quite good on this in The Plan.

The Foreign Office is stuffed full of pinkos and traitors.

It's been a problem for decades.

Mortimer

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Would he ring 999 to speak to the Police about policy? *innocent face*

Seriously, being more competent than Corbyn is not enough if you have barmy policies that most average voters think are laughable.

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

It came as Dr Fox was branded "nutty and obsessive" by a Whitehall official, believed to be linked to the Foreign Office.

The official told The Times: "He’s Donald Rumsfeld on steroids. Fox is the more nutty and obsessive one. There’s something strange about him.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

WTF is an "official" doing getting involved in this?

I think it's all been blown out of proportion anyway. It's not a scrap. Fox tried a land grab and was put back in his box

JosiasJessop

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

IDS needs congratulating over the direction and intent of his reforms. However, I cannot recall him being such a reformer whilst leader (*), and he could only go down that road as a minister because Cameron agreed with him and gave him the opportunity.

Sadly, IDS does appear to have been as incompetent directing the project as he was party leader.

I think you're being slightly unfair to Osborne. He was given a job to do, and he went some way down that road (although he failed by not meeting his own targets). Also, did he really 'sneer' at those on benefits, or ave you fallen for Labour's propaganda?

(*) This may be wrong, and quite possibly unfair.

SquareRoot

It suddenly occurred to me what Team Jezza reminds me of..

A football team with a losing manager, its Xmas and the team is bottom of the table, no money to buy new players, unable to change tactics but every week the team comes out and gets beaten, sometimes narrowly, sometimes a thrashing and its gloom all the way with no hope of redemption..

A bit like Aston Villa (last season) really?

Casino_Royale

PlatoSaid said:

Stephen Pollard
Guardian editorial on #traingate manages to say absolutely nothing incredibly pompously https://t.co/0e7BYx5xBQ

That's the Guardian all over.

Dreadful paper.

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

The big news overnight was Farage's speech at a Trump rally in Mississippi where he was personally introduced by the Donald himself. BREXIT was big news in the U.S. and led most of the news the day after and Trump clearly intends to fight a similar anti establishment, white working class focused campaign. At the moment he is doing as well with non-college educated whites as vote Leave but a little worse with ethnic minorities and significantly worse with white college graduates. However Trump almost tied Hillary with white college graduates after the GOP convention and if he can get back to that level after the GOP convention he has a real chance

What time will the standard PB pieties start about people from one country sticking there nose into the politics of another? Should I hold breath in excited anticipation?

HYUFD

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Would he ring 999 to speak to the Police about policy? *innocent face*

Seriously, being more competent than Corbyn is not enough if you have barmy policies that most average voters think are laughable.

About 30% of voters want Corbynlite

SquareRoot

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Would he ring 999 to speak to the Police about policy? *innocent face*

Seriously, being more competent than Corbyn is not enough if you have barmy policies that most average voters think are laughable.

About 30% of voters want Corbynlite

Citation required, and polls are not accurate...

AlastairMeeks

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Jonathan

SquareRoot said:

It suddenly occurred to me what Team Jezza reminds me of..

A football team with a losing manager, its Xmas and the team is bottom of the table, no money to buy new players, unable to change tactics but every week the team comes out and gets beaten, sometimes narrowly, sometimes a thrashing and its gloom all the way with no hope of redemption..

A bit like Aston Villa (last season) really?

Or Leicester the season before.

rcs1000

Has this been posted yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj4K9fr_WgY

MP_SE

TheScreamingEagles said:

It came as Dr Fox was branded "nutty and obsessive" by a Whitehall official, believed to be linked to the Foreign Office.

The official told The Times: "He’s Donald Rumsfeld on steroids. Fox is the more nutty and obsessive one. There’s something strange about him.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

A huge pinch of salt is required when it comes to off the record statements from Foreign Office employees.

MaxPB

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public, in-working benefits should have been axed in their entirety and housing benefits should have been axed for private rentals.

edmundintokyo

Charles said:

SquareRoot said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

Few are going to listen to fantasy policies from Jezza, his policies may be on the table, but only the hard left will be listening ergo heavy defeat at the GE. QED

His argument is that eg Clive Lewis or Lisa Nandy could win with a traditional Labour programme (moderate only compared to Corbyn) in 2025

I think the British people are too smart for that
We saw it with the Thatcher and Blair-Brown hovernments: the pendulum only swings of the alternative is acceptable.

I think you could put that last point more strongly: The pendulum is mainly about the opposition and not the government, and the period between swings consists of the amount of time it takes for the opposition party to get sick of losing and put up someone who moderate voters want to vote for.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

The big news overnight was Farage's speech at a Trump rally in Mississippi where he was personally introduced by the Donald himself. BREXIT was big news in the U.S. and led most of the news the day after and Trump clearly intends to fight a similar anti establishment, white working class focused campaign. At the moment he is doing as well with non-college educated whites as vote Leave but a little worse with ethnic minorities and significantly worse with white college graduates. However Trump almost tied Hillary with white college graduates after the GOP convention and if he can get back to that level after the GOP convention he has a real chance

The default position seems to be for Clinton to have a small lead, provided she isn't hit by scandal, and Trump doesn't say something ridiculous. Assuming she wins, I don't think she'll have much in the way of coat-tails.

rcs1000

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Actually, I had more sympathy with Osborne on this.

I am just making a point about IDS. And some modernisers.

AlastairMeeks

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public.

The change in indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI has saved something like £100 billion so far.

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

One of my ex-Lib Dem friends was lamenting recently that it was Labour who introduced fees and opened the door to paid higher education.

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

One of my ex-Lib Dem friends was lamenting recently that it was Labour who introduced fees and opened the door to paid higher education.

ex-LibDem or ex-friend?

Sean_F

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Would he ring 999 to speak to the Police about policy? *innocent face*

Seriously, being more competent than Corbyn is not enough if you have barmy policies that most average voters think are laughable.

About 30% of voters want Corbynlite

Citation required, and polls are not accurate...

The number seems plausible. Left wing Labour, left wing SNP, left wing Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Sinn Fein, SDLP, surely make up at least 30% between them.

MaxPB

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public.

The change in indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI has saved something like £100 billion so far.

For state pensions the triple lock needs axing and for public pensions they all need to be moved to DC rather than DB. I know you're the pension expert and you'll say the latter will cost more money up front, but it will be my generation who are paying tomorrow.

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

One of my ex-Lib Dem friends was lamenting recently that it was Labour who introduced fees and opened the door to paid higher education.

ex-LibDem or ex-friend?

ex-Lib Dem. Similar worldview to Stodge of this parish.

Concanvasser

Squareroot "A bit like Aston Villa (last season) really? "

I don't know enough about football to add to this.

My take would be that Labour is like an old fashioned Yorkshire brewery in the 1970's whose product has gone out of fashion and is losing market share.

The modernisers on the board urge it to go down the "Red Barrel" route. Abandon the old product- it just won't sell nowadays and move to where the market is, even if we privately agree thenew product is a bit shit.

The traditionalists say keep faith. If we are true to our values and selves and the public will tire of novelty and return.

Plenty of Timothy Taylors being downed to good effect in 2016. Anyone had a pint of Watney's recently?

Mortimer

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

One of my ex-Lib Dem friends was lamenting recently that it was Labour who introduced fees and opened the door to paid higher education.

We can either perpetuate an educational elite or have widespread paid higher education. Not both. I'm not at all bothered by tuition fees.

I am bothered by the terribly variable policy of education up yo that level - because that is mandatory...(and much more significant to the public realm).

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 1000, Farage certainly went down with the audience.

Edited extra bit: ahem, went down well*.

Sandpit

The 2020 election campaign is going to be hillarious. Corbyn will be expecting the media to ask him no hard questions - he'll most likely dodge any debates completely and spend the whole campaign speaking to enthusiastic supporters.

SquareRoot

Sean_F said:

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Howard delivered IDS style policies and an even harder line on immigration but more competently, Smith would deliver Corbynlite policies and an even more pro European line perhaps more competently

Would he ring 999 to speak to the Police about policy? *innocent face*

Seriously, being more competent than Corbyn is not enough if you have barmy policies that most average voters think are laughable.

About 30% of voters want Corbynlite

Citation required, and polls are not accurate...

The number seems plausible. Left wing Labour, left wing SNP, left wing Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Sinn Fein, SDLP, surely make up at least 30% between them.

understood but getting them all to vote for a unity candidate.. impossible, I really meant Labour which is more likely at 20-25% more defections to ukip and others than being picked up by the polls

Mortimer

Concanvasser said:

Squareroot "A bit like Aston Villa (last season) really? "

I don't know enough about football to add to this.

My take would be that Labour is like an old fashioned Yorkshire brewery in the 1970's whose product has gone out of fashion and is losing market share.

The modernisers on the board urge it to go down the "Red Barrel" route. Abandon the old product- it just won't sell nowadays and move to where the market is, even if we privately agree thenew product is a bit shit.

The traditionalists say keep faith. If we are true to our values and selves and the public will tire of novelty and return.

Plenty of Timothy Taylors being downed to good effect in 2016. Anyone had a pint of Watney's recently?

You're comparing socialism to a product with merit?

NickPalmer

Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.

Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:

- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.

- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.

A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.

Charles

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public.

The change in indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI has saved something like £100 billion so far.

For state pensions the triple lock needs axing and for public pensions they all need to be moved to DC rather than DB. I know you're the pension expert and you'll say the latter will cost more money up front, but it will be my generation who are paying tomorrow.

But why should Alastair's generation pay for 2 sets of pensions (any more than our generation should)?

Theuniondivvie

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

Correction: would never have thought that they could get away with introducing tuition fees. They went gangbusters on them once Labour had helpfully done the donkey work.

foxinsoxuk

Jonathan said:

SquareRoot said:

It suddenly occurred to me what Team Jezza reminds me of..

A football team with a losing manager, its Xmas and the team is bottom of the table, no money to buy new players, unable to change tactics but every week the team comes out and gets beaten, sometimes narrowly, sometimes a thrashing and its gloom all the way with no hope of redemption..

A bit like Aston Villa (last season) really?

Or Leicester the season before.

Not true of Leicester 2 years ago during the Great Escape season. Sure we were bottom, but the team always looked up for it and united and had only narrowly lost. We had also famously just beaten Man U 5:3 in a comeback from 3:1 down. It was always a team with ability, and that was since confirmed. The owners always backed the management in word and with cash.

Jezza is a different proposition and shows no leadership skills, has no game plan and has lost the dressing room.

JosiasJessop

NickPalmer said:

Watched the clip, thought the start was a bit uncomfortable but basically came away with two points: (1) he wanted to talk about the NHS and journalists wanted to talk trivia (2) he has a case on the train incident that I can't be bothered to assess. Net effect is to make me even more favourable. I'm more concerned about the Sanders cockup, which shouldn't have gone unchecked.

Now, I'm a sympathiser so you'd expect that reaction to the clip. But two points:

- Anecdotally, two emails from non-Labour ex-constituents have come in saying that they think there is an overcrowding problem, they're glad Corbyn raised it, and the media coverage is just irritating.

- I honestly don't think that either PB leader writers or the mainstream media get why Corbyn is popular with those who like him, and in many cases (cf Ganesh) they've given up even trying. This affects punting (by making people bet on a misunderstanding) and it affects predicting what the party will do.

A distinction is needed between being widely seen as not up to being PM and not having a strong supporter base. The problem with Owen's challenge is that he may fail on both counts.

"Net effect is to make me even more favourable."

LOL. Unexpected comment of the day there.

So Nick, have you ruled out standing for Labour at GE 2020?

Casino_Royale

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

IDS needs congratulating over the direction and intent of his reforms. However, I cannot recall him being such a reformer whilst leader (*), and he could only go down that road as a minister because Cameron agreed with him and gave him the opportunity.

Sadly, IDS does appear to have been as incompetent directing the project as he was party leader.

I think you're being slightly unfair to Osborne. He was given a job to do, and he went some way down that road (although he failed by not meeting his own targets). Also, did he really 'sneer' at those on benefits, or ave you fallen for Labour's propaganda?

(*) This may be wrong, and quite possibly unfair.

According to James Forsyth* of the Spectator he did.

*He is rarely wrong, and his political reports usually well-sourced.

MaxPB

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public.

The change in indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI has saved something like £100 billion so far.

For state pensions the triple lock needs axing and for public pensions they all need to be moved to DC rather than DB. I know you're the pension expert and you'll say the latter will cost more money up front, but it will be my generation who are paying tomorrow.

But why should Alastair's generation pay for 2 sets of pensions (any more than our generation should)?

The cost of their parent's generation of pensions is not anywhere near the cost of their generation's pensions.

CD13

Mr Concanvasser,

"The modernisers on the board urge it to go down the "Red Barrel" route."

As a CAMRA member, I like the simile. However most of the CAMRA members are .... shall we say ... experienced in years.

It's the young and naïve who like the Jezza product. Sorry, the fizzy beers. They drink a lot more (make a fuss on twitter and in the echo chambers) but for many their tastes inevitably evolve as they gain experience.

Jezza is an elderly Red Barrel drinker who won't believe its time is run.

Sandpit

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

I'm trying to think of a LotO less suited to the role - and the only one who comes close is IDS.....serial rebel, imposed by the membership who felt he held the 'true faith'.....

Was IDS really this bad? It's a long time ago, but all I remember is IDS being a professional politician who simply wasn't very good at it.

Jeremy takes it to a whole other level. He's transcendently bad...

IDS did surprisingly well at the ballot box but was terrible at PMQs and a lousy speaker, not least because he'd clear his throat midway through almost every sentence. But it is propaganda of the victors to claim Michael Howard saved the party.

Modernisers hate to hear it but IDS played a major part in changing the Conservative Party's attitudes towards social justice and welfare reform.

You only have to compare Osborne's sneering at those on benefits, and eagerness for cutting it to the bone, compared to IDS's concern that universal credit wouldn't work without being properly funded to see the difference.

IDS main issue is that (although not stupid) he's never been quite clever enough to make a success of himself or his ideas.

If the Conservatives weren't supposed to cut defence spending and they weren't supposed to cut benefits, where were they supposed to make cuts? The other criticism routinely made by the paleo-right of George Osborne is that he didn't cut enough.

The magic money tree has branches on the right as well as the left.

Pensions, state and public.

The change in indexation of pensions from RPI to CPI has saved something like £100 billion so far.

For state pensions the triple lock needs axing and for public pensions they all need to be moved to DC rather than DB. I know you're the pension expert and you'll say the latter will cost more money up front, but it will be my generation who are paying tomorrow.

Have they moved civil service pensions to DC for new starters yet..?

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

Concanvasser said:

TSE I think you are being unduly harsh on Jez and certainly too pessimistic about the prospects of Labour in the medium term.

Yes Jez will almost certainly lead Labour to a reasonably heavy defeat at the next election (probably in 2020). However Labour were almost certain to lose it convincingly anyway, given their performance in 2015 and the effects of the boundary review.

What Jez HAS achieved is to put a whole raft of proper Labour polices; like Public Ownership of the railways, back on the national negotiating table.

Everything is cyclical in the end. At some stage, probably in the mid 2020's but possibly earlier, the public will decide to 'give the other lot a go' . When Labour does come to take its turn, Jez will have ensured it can take office as a proper Labour government and not the sort of Tory tribute act we saw in 1997.

On the basis that at some point a government will so old and tired the other lot will get another go, a premise in this country at least I generally agree with, I'm curious if you feel Blair and did not need to become a Tory tribute act to win in 1997? And I'm curious what Nick p feels about that government being called so, given he was in it and yet is also a Corbynite. Come to that, does Corbyn think it was a Tory tribute act, in which case why didn't he rebel even more!

It has become an accepted trope that Labour in 1997 was a Tory tribute act. That doesn't mean it is actually true. There is a whole wodge of stuff that Blair/Brown did that the Tories had no intention of doing. Let's just start with the minimum wage.

It's true: the Conservatives would never have introduced tuition fees.

Correction: would never have thought that they could get away with introducing tuition fees. They went gangbusters on them once Labour had helpfully done the donkey work.

Always amuses me that Lady Thatcher refused to privatise the Royal Mail but Vince Cable did.