The tories like fight against what they imagine JC to be rather than what he is.
Socialism is meant to be the first step on the road to Communism in modern political theory. I am aware that it predates it but are there many Socialists who look to Robert Owen or even Tom Paine rather than Marx for inspiration now?
Of course Socialism doesn't actually lead to Communism because it doesn't work. That's why Brezhnev's government came up with 'developed Socialism' to explain why things seemed to have ossified.
Great Soviet joke:
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
And this one (or something like it):
A train heading towards the destination of Communism keeps stopping when the tracks run out. Each Soviet leader applies his own solution. Lenin gathers workers and peasants from miles around and exhorts them to build more track. Stalin shoots the train crew when the train still doesn’t move. Khrushchev rehabilitates the dead crew and orders the tracks behind the train ripped up and relaid in front. Brezhnev pulls down the curtains and rocks back and forth, and says "let's pretend the train is moving".
The tories like fight against what they imagine JC to be rather than what he is.
Socialism is meant to be the first step on the road to Communism in modern political theory. I am aware that it predates it but are there many Socialists who look to Robert Owen or even Tom Paine rather than Marx for inspiration now?
Of course Socialism doesn't actually lead to Communism because it doesn't work. That's why Brezhnev's government came up with 'developed Socialism' to explain why things seemed to have ossified.
Great Soviet joke:
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
And this one (or something like it):
A train heading towards the destination of Communism keeps stopping when the tracks run out. Each Soviet leader applies his own solution. Lenin gathers workers and peasants from miles around and exhorts them to build more track. Stalin shoots the train crew when the train still doesn’t move. Khrushchev rehabilitates the dead crew and orders the tracks behind the train ripped up and relaid in front. Brezhnev pulls down the curtains and rocks back and forth, and says "let's pretend the train is moving".
I think most times Corbyn has been polled against rivals in the labour party as potential PM he has come out ahead or very close, even in pre 2017 election times. I think people confuse what they want with what would go down well with the general public.
Corbyn enthused millions of voters to vote Labour, with the Conservative vote share boosted by Brexit support you need those voters Corbyn brings along to make the difference to stand a good chance of winning.
It is all well and good to talk about how easy it would be for Labour to win if they replaced Corbyn but it is Corbyn that has brought them to this position where winning looks possible. Corbyn passing the leadership on at some point should be okay, shoving him aside for a centrist would almost certainly cost the party electorally.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
Salmond supporters are certainly living up to their 'Joyous & Civic' reputation:
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
It doesn't matter which hypothetical leader may score higher in hypothetical polls. Corbyn is leader, and we need to cut the internecine war and get on with building a campaign against the Tories. Defending abuse of Israel/Jews and getting Willsman elected to the NEC seem to be far more important to crazy people disinterested in power, but to the rest of us who actually want to change the country for the better its immensely frustrating.
The monster that has been created is that even Jeremy isn't listened to. Nor are Momentum. The cult is happy to ignore what Jeremy says in order to defend what they think is in his best interest. Which is of course batshit crazy...
I think most times Corbyn has been polled against rivals in the labour party as potential PM he has come out ahead or very close, even in pre 2017 election times. I think people confuse what they want with what would go down well with the general public.
Corbyn enthused millions of voters to vote Labour, with the Conservative vote share boosted by Brexit support you need those voters Corbyn brings along to make the difference to stand a good chance of winning.
It is all well and good to talk about how easy it would be for Labour to win if they replaced Corbyn but it is Corbyn that has brought them to this position where winning looks possible. Corbyn passing the leadership on at some point should be okay, shoving him aside for a centrist would almost certainly cost the party electorally.
I think there's little doubt Corbyn is an effective campaigner - its what he's been doing for 40 years. The questions arise over the campaigns he has chosen to support, his fellow travellers and his intellectual capacity for the top job. In the interest of tact not getting in the way of clarity - 'He's a bit thick".
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
Indeed. It's absolute rubbish. But what do we expect? What may be true is that any new leader would face a challenge shifting the polls much due to the divisive nature of Brexit, but pretty much every poll has shown Corbyn is a drag on Labour (personally much less popular than the party) - with the exception of maybe one or two in the bizarre two weeks after the election. Where he has had a bit of success is in dragging in the anti-establishment left protest vote, but while normally that would cost you more sensible voters, Brexit and the way it has been pursued has made a lot of voters stick with Labour even though they think Corbyn a fool or worse.
I think most times Corbyn has been polled against rivals in the labour party as potential PM he has come out ahead or very close, even in pre 2017 election times. I think people confuse what they want with what would go down well with the general public.
Corbyn enthused millions of voters to vote Labour, with the Conservative vote share boosted by Brexit support you need those voters Corbyn brings along to make the difference to stand a good chance of winning.
It is all well and good to talk about how easy it would be for Labour to win if they replaced Corbyn but it is Corbyn that has brought them to this position where winning looks possible. Corbyn passing the leadership on at some point should be okay, shoving him aside for a centrist would almost certainly cost the party electorally.
I think there's little doubt Corbyn is an effective campaigner - its what he's been doing for 40 years. The questions arise over the campaigns he has chosen to support, his fellow travellers and his intellectual capacity for the top job. In the interest of tact not getting in the way of clarity - 'He's a bit thick".
Is he an effective campaigner? Which of the campaigns in which he was involved before becoming leader actually achieved their goals?
He is not really a great speaker - there is no sense of rhetorical finesse to any of his set-piece speeches. He has, absolutely, created a movement (with the help of others) and the noise they make is certainly being heard.
But I do not imagine people in 100 years time creating a compilation playlist of great speeches of the 20th and 21st centuries and including anything from Corbyn.
There are very few decent speakers in our current political class - people who can really create a moment. And Corbyn really isn't one of them.
It is the movement that is driving this - not the campaigning skills of JC.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
Agree that Sturgeon has handled this (which must be very difficult for her personally) by the book. Also talk of 'civil war' entertainingly overblown, but as yea sow etc.
What I'm less clear on is why Salmond has launched this 'judicial review':
A LEGAL expert has called for more transparency from Alex Salmond over what his court challenge is about — as it’s now being funded by members of the public. Professor James Chalmers branded it “worrying” that the former First Minister didn’t reveal what he was hoping to contest or the solution he wants to achieve. The Glasgow Univeristy expert said: “Salmond is entitled to seek crowdfunding for a judicial review if he wants, and people are entitled to give him money. “What is worrying is that the crowdfunder does not state what decision he seeks to challenge in a judicial review, nor what remedy he is seeking in that process.” Prof Chalmers also called on the funding sites to have stricter guidelines in future. He added: “As a general rule, not specific to this case, I think crowdfunders should be more specific on these points before soliciting donations. His page refers to clearing his name, but a judicial review cannot do that, it is now secondary to the police investigation.”
The Police can decide to proceed or not (which is hardly satisfactory as it doesn't 'clear his name' to the "no smoke without fire" brigade) so I understand the difficult position he is in - but surely letting the Police conclude their investigation first would have been the wiser course? This smacks of classic Eck grandstanding, which not only may prove horribly misjudged, but will almost certainly damage the Scottish government.
As with Adams at the Standard, we need to distingush between "That's not funny" meaning "that supports the other side" and "that's not funny" meaning literally and boringly, that is not funny. I have rarely seen anything so crass, puerile and generally awful, and I have absolutely zero dog/skin in the Salmond fight/game.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
As with Adams at the Standard, we need to distingush between "That's not funny" meaning "that supports the other side" and "that's not funny" meaning literally and boringly, that is not funny. I have rarely seen anything so crass, puerile and generally awful, and I have absolutely zero dog/skin in the Salmond fight/game.
Yes, I expect its being reported for being 'unfunny'. Haven't seen many Guardian cartoons, have you?
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
The Tories are at their most popular since the mid-80s, scoring around 40%. Its mathematically impossible for Labour to be miles ahead if the Tories are this popular. And with society as polarised and divided as it now is I don't see a popular Tory party as the fault of Labour just as I don't see a popular Labour Party as the fault of the Tories.
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
ydoethur , regardless of who wins the punch up it will not mean end of independence movement, union will not be that lucky.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
LOL! Tearing the party apart by winning and governing for 13 years.
Great thread. All of the people mentioned outside of McDonnell and Abbott are potential traitors. None of them can be trusted. Nandy and Lewis were future leadership material and they turned Tory. Wouldnt bet against Rayner being a Tory after she defended Blair.
There's a decent point here. One of Corbynisms inherent weaknesses is its distinct lack of positive ideas beyond 'this thing is awful, let's do away with it via the medium of socialism'. As a result it is largely held together by the man himself and the (mistaken) belief in his innate goodness. It's that which allows people on the left with very different beliefs to come together by projecting their various ideals and ideas on to a blank slate of a man in the general assessment that he'll 'do the right thing' (the right thing being whatever scheme the supporter favours to solve particular social or global ill). Any deviation from Corbyn himself risks shattering the illusion. Getting into power would shatter it too. Even the biggest Corbyn loyalist - say Rebecca Long-Bailey (we can discount Burgon, the laughing stock) would face, possibly terminal, party/faction management problems as various people fought over who were Jeremy's real heirs. There's no unifying idea beyond Jeremy Corbyn being wonderful and his Underpants Gnome version of socialism being a cureall that a new generation can champion and independently win respect and adoration.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
Salmond supporters are certainly living up to their 'Joyous & Civic' reputation:
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
Salmond supporters are certainly living up to their 'Joyous & Civic' reputation:
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
Yep , you and others agonise for a soft left Labour leader.
However it is in polite terms rhetoric, in reality bullshit. When Milliband was leader , nearly everyday we had a Ed is crap thread. Listening to Tories , who are disengenuous about any Labour leader would be crazy.
Talking to people , who are not enamoured with this government , has to be more beneficial as they might actually vote Labour.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
Salmond supporters are certainly living up to their 'Joyous & Civic' reputation:
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
As with Adams at the Standard, we need to distingush between "That's not funny" meaning "that supports the other side" and "that's not funny" meaning literally and boringly, that is not funny. I have rarely seen anything so crass, puerile and generally awful, and I have absolutely zero dog/skin in the Salmond fight/game.
Carlotta cannot get over her hatred and bitterness of Scottish affairs, unless of course they are about her hero Ruthie
As some of us on PB have been saying for months and months.
Labour under Cooper or someone else of responsible competence would be 10 points ahead, maybe more.
But I can't see how on earth it will happen.
Cooper wasn't noticeably competent when in government nor impressive on the Opposition frontbench nor would she be offering change.
It needed an outsider like Corbyn to offer change on student debt, housing etc.
When we say 'change,' he treated all his spending commitments as loose change...
He reminded me of the Aberystwyth University treasurer who described losing the University reserve fund of about £5 million in the Icelandic banks collapse as 'piss in a bucket.' It's one reason why the uni now doesn't have a pot to piss in...
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
There are still Unionists in senior positions in the Scottish government? Who and where?
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
Agree that Sturgeon has handled this (which must be very difficult for her personally) by the book. Also talk of 'civil war' entertainingly overblown, but as yea sow etc.
What I'm less clear on is why Salmond has launched this 'judicial review':
A LEGAL expert has called for more transparency from Alex Salmond over what his court challenge is about — as it’s now being funded by members of the public. Professor James Chalmers branded it “worrying” that the former First Minister didn’t reveal what he was hoping to contest or the solution he wants to achieve. The Glasgow Univeristy expert said: “Salmond is entitled to seek crowdfunding for a judicial review if he wants, and people are entitled to give him money. “What is worrying is that the crowdfunder does not state what decision he seeks to challenge in a judicial review, nor what remedy he is seeking in that process.” Prof Chalmers also called on the funding sites to have stricter guidelines in future. He added: “As a general rule, not specific to this case, I think crowdfunders should be more specific on these points before soliciting donations. His page refers to clearing his name, but a judicial review cannot do that, it is now secondary to the police investigation.”
The Police can decide to proceed or not (which is hardly satisfactory as it doesn't 'clear his name' to the "no smoke without fire" brigade) so I understand the difficult position he is in - but surely letting the Police conclude their investigation first would have been the wiser course? This smacks of classic Eck grandstanding, which not only may prove horribly misjudged, but will almost certainly damage the Scottish government.
Unknown experts and unionist lickspittles do not like Alex Salmond being able to challenge the establishment. Want crowdfunding limited to unionist lickspittle approved people only.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
The Tories are at their most popular since the mid-80s, scoring around 40%. Its mathematically impossible for Labour to be miles ahead if the Tories are this popular. And with society as polarised and divided as it now is I don't see a popular Tory party as the fault of Labour just as I don't see a popular Labour Party as the fault of the Tories.
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
The post I was replying too mentioned the Tories being split, it isn't unreasonable to mention Labour splits in response even if that isn't the reason.
I can see your rationale and it isn't without merit but there are still floating voters not locked in that may have been put off even in your scenario. There is another scenario that I wouldn't completely rule out where the Labour civil war has actually boosted him which isn't something I completely dismiss.
My overall guess though would be that it probably did cost Labour some voters, not millions upon millions because I do agree that society is quite polarised and divided but it could have been to possibly win the election.
Mr. City, almost everyone here, including me, has said at one time or another that May is crap. And yes, Miliband was crap too. But crap beats dangerously stupid every day of the week. I'd rather have a bacon sarnie with Miliband than sushi with Corbyn.
I am starting to wonder if the SNP could formally split over this.
Egoism is a much bigger force in political division than most people realise. Sure, you have the odd split more or less purely over policy - Corn Laws in 1845-6, the Liberals in 1886, the SDP in 1981 - but they're far outweighed by the splits over outsize egos. Lloyd George (twice) Rosebery, Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, John Simon in 1931, possibly Blair and Brown, Grenville and Pitt in 1804. The Irish Nationalists over Parnell perhaps could be included.
Of all the bizarre ways that the independence movement in Scotland could fizzle out however, I never thought it could have been something like this.
Salmond supporters are certainly living up to their 'Joyous & Civic' reputation:
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
There are still Unionists in senior positions in the Scottish government? Who and where?
Civil service is full of them and Mundell has thousands working for Westminster in Edinburgh
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
LOL! Tearing the party apart by winning and governing for 13 years.
Versus Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. That's not to underestimate the achievements of Cameron, Osborne and others but Labour hasn't produced a star in that time.
As some of us on PB have been saying for months and months.
Labour under Cooper or someone else of responsible competence would be 10 points ahead, maybe more.
But I can't see how on earth it will happen.
I don't think this is correct.
Cooper most importantly doesn't even want the job.
She went on vacation with her family when Jeremy was campaigning in the first leadership election.
If you are ambivalent about leading the Labour Party (or any political party), then you won't end up as leader.
The ambition, the drooling hunger for power has to be there.
Yvette doesn't have it.
(She has other defects as well, like lack of ideas & vision, but that isn't fatal to leadership ambitions.)
Parris picked her, he writes, mainly because he thought his non-political readers may actually have heard of her. She would make a decent fist of the job. He did list some other shadow cabinet names as well.
Doesn't she suffer from some form of ME which makes being PM pretty much impossible.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “We are told that the communism is already seen at the horizon.” Then, what is a horizon?” We’re answering: “Horizon is an imaginary line which moves away each time you approach it.”
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
Our listeners ask: will there be theft under communism?
Radio Yerevan answers: no, everything will already have been stolen under socialism.
There actually was, and perhaps still is for all I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
There are still Unionists in senior positions in the Scottish government? Who and where?
Civil service is full of them and Mundell has thousands working for Westminster in Edinburgh
But this leak appears to have come from Sturgeon's private office, or the executive. The only other source might be the police.
F1: Ladbrokes is down so almost certainly won't be a pre-qualifying tip from me. I had considered a Williams/Sauber to win FP3 bet, but obviously that's off the agenda.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
The Tories are at their most popular since the mid-80s, scoring around 40%. Its mathematically impossible for Labour to be miles ahead if the Tories are this popular. And with society as polarised and divided as it now is I don't see a popular Tory party as the fault of Labour just as I don't see a popular Labour Party as the fault of the Tories.
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
Though that begs the question why are the Tories so popular? Its clearly not from their unity.
So is it because 40% of the country thinks they're doing a very good job? Is it because 40% of the country is willing to vote for them just because of Brexit? Or is it because Corbyn is that antithetical to 40% of the country that they're rallying to the Tories to stop him?
If it's the last one then yes Labour could do better.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
Agree that Sturgeon has handled this (which must be very difficult for her personally) by the book. Also talk of 'civil war' entertainingly overblown, but as yea sow etc.
What I'm less clear on is why Salmond has launched this 'judicial review':
A LEGAL expert has called for more transparency from Alex Salmond over what his court challenge is about — as it’s now being funded by members of the public. Professor James Chalmers branded it “worrying” that the former First Minister didn’t reveal what he was hoping to contest or the solution he wants to achieve. The Glasgow Univeristy expert said: “Salmond is entitled to seek crowdfunding for a judicial review if he wants, and people are entitled to give him money. “What is worrying is that the crowdfunder does not state what decision he seeks to challenge in a judicial review, nor what remedy he is seeking in that process.” Prof Chalmers also called on the funding sites to have stricter guidelines in future. He added: “As a general rule, not specific to this case, I think crowdfunders should be more specific on these points before soliciting donations. His page refers to clearing his name, but a judicial review cannot do that, it is now secondary to the police investigation.”
The Police can decide to proceed or not (which is hardly satisfactory as it doesn't 'clear his name' to the "no smoke without fire" brigade) so I understand the difficult position he is in - but surely letting the Police conclude their investigation first would have been the wiser course? This smacks of classic Eck grandstanding, which not only may prove horribly misjudged, but will almost certainly damage the Scottish government.
Unknown experts
The "unknown expert" is called Professor James Chalmers, and he's the Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow:
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
LOL! Tearing the party apart by winning and governing for 13 years.
Versus Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. That's not to underestimate the achievements of Cameron, Osborne and others but Labour hasn't produced a star in that time.
That said, Blair was an extraordinary political phenomenon. Only Attlee and Thatcher rivalled his impact on postwar politics, although they both had far more economic and social impact. And not even Thatcher rivalled his electoral dominance.
The problem for Labour is that where the cult of those leaders for good and for ill sustained their parties for decades, even after their deaths, Blair has been consciously rejected by Labour. Every leader since has defined themselves by breaking with Blairism, and that includes his amazing capacity to reach out to people who were not his supporters. Labour has as a result become a feature of a divided society, whereas it could have become a unifying force. That was always going to end badly for it electorally given that actually its core vote is quite small. Corbyn has cobbled together a new coalition but it remains to be seen how enduring it is.
Mr. Jezziah, then why don't Labour and Corbyn have consistent and significant leads over the Conservatives and May?
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
The Tories have Brexit boosting their support, Labour centrists have been tearing the party apart for years, there may have been problems under Miliband but Corbyn's Labour opponents have been conducting open warfare. Yet still he actually did better than Miliband.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
The Tories are at their most popular since the mid-80s, scoring around 40%. Its mathematically impossible for Labour to be miles ahead if the Tories are this popular. And with society as polarised and divided as it now is I don't see a popular Tory party as the fault of Labour just as I don't see a popular Labour Party as the fault of the Tories.
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
Though that begs the question why are the Tories so popular? Its clearly not from their unity.
So is it because 40% of the country thinks they're doing a very good job? Is it because 40% of the country is willing to vote for them just because of Brexit? Or is it because Corbyn is that antithetical to 40% of the country that they're rallying to the Tories to stop him?
Of it's the last one then yes Labour could do better.
Even if it was the last one and the Tories lost 5% from Labour replacing their leader that wouldn't matter if Labour also lost 5%, the calculation isn't just votes the Tories gain from him but also the votes Labour gain from him.
As some of us on PB have been saying for months and months.
Labour under Cooper or someone else of responsible competence would be 10 points ahead, maybe more.
But I can't see how on earth it will happen.
I don't think this is correct.
Cooper most importantly doesn't even want the job.
She went on vacation with her family when Jeremy was campaigning in the first leadership election.
If you are ambivalent about leading the Labour Party (or any political party), then you won't end up as leader.
The ambition, the drooling hunger for power has to be there.
Yvette doesn't have it.
(She has other defects as well, like lack of ideas & vision, but that isn't fatal to leadership ambitions.)
Parris picked her, he writes, mainly because he thought his non-political readers may actually have heard of her. She would make a decent fist of the job. He did list some other shadow cabinet names as well.
Doesn't she suffer from some form of ME which makes being PM pretty much impossible.
She did in the past - and decided not to run for Labour Leader because of her young children - not sure she's ruled it out now:
As some of us on PB have been saying for months and months.
Labour under Cooper or someone else of responsible competence would be 10 points ahead, maybe more.
But I can't see how on earth it will happen.
Cooper wasn't noticeably competent when in government nor impressive on the Opposition frontbench nor would she be offering change.
It needed an outsider like Corbyn to offer change on student debt, housing etc.
When we say 'change,' he treated all his spending commitments as loose change...
He reminded me of the Aberystwyth University treasurer who described losing the University reserve fund of about £5 million in the Icelandic banks collapse as 'piss in a bucket.' It's one reason why the uni now doesn't have a pot to piss in...
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
Corbyn is a disaster for Labour and the Labour left in particular. His inability to motivate or work with anyone who disagrees with him is his failure. He can campaign, but he cannot lead a party.
Just imagine a left winger with an ability and desire to lead and reconcile with the 40% of members who did not vote for him. Instead he seems to antagonise them.
Imagine someone who had the confidence to bring others on board, have talented people with other views in his cabinet and to tell his outriders to shut up when needed.
Corbyn is the Labour left's great lost opportunity.
It doesn't matter which hypothetical leader may score higher in hypothetical polls. Corbyn is leader, and we need to cut the internecine war and get on with building a campaign against the Tories. Defending abuse of Israel/Jews and getting Willsman elected to the NEC seem to be far more important to crazy people disinterested in power, but to the rest of us who actually want to change the country for the better its immensely frustrating.
The monster that has been created is that even Jeremy isn't listened to. Nor are Momentum. The cult is happy to ignore what Jeremy says in order to defend what they think is in his best interest. Which is of course batshit crazy...
I have to say that the centrist Labour MP's should look at themselves before they blame anyone else. Wishy washy virtue signalling politics led directly to the Corbyn takeover. People who didn't want JC to be leader in a million years nominated him is a candidate because they calculated it would make them look look "inclusive" with no downside, as he could never win. Now it has come back to bite them, and possibly the country.
In an interview with the Guardian, Ivor Caplin, who was defence minister under Tony Blair, said the row was no longer only affecting the Jewish community, but raising broader questions about the party’s commitment to equality across the country.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
I hope you all had a relaxing nights rest and are refreshed and ready to contibute political discourse to a brilliant forum that provides an extraordinary degree of insight and learning
While at times is gets rather fractious arguments are made and many change views, but maybe not on Brexit.
See Malc is fighting a one man defence of Alex while lots of posters south of the border seem to think this is an existential crisis for the SNP
As an English/Welsh man with strong Scottish connections I can say with some confidence it is not going to move many votes away from the SNP and I do not pass judgment until the truth is out, as it will be one day
Corbyn is a disaster for Labour and the Labour left in particular. His inability to motivate or work with anyone who disagrees with him is his failure. He can campaign, but he cannot lead a party.
Just imagine a left winger with an ability and desire to lead and reconcile with the 40% of members who did not vote for him. Instead he seems to antagonise them.
Imagine someone who had the confidence to bring others on board, have talented people with other views in his cabinet and to tell his outriders to shut up when needed.
Corbyn is the Labour left's great lost opportunity.
I would , agree .However the last election blew mine and many people's certainties apart. It looked like a conservative majority absolutely nailed on.
It must have sent a warning shot in the establishment . That a hard left leader in this country cane so close.
Corbyn is a disaster for Labour and the Labour left in particular. His inability to motivate or work with anyone who disagrees with him is his failure. He can campaign, but he cannot lead a party.
Just imagine a left winger with an ability and desire to lead and reconcile with the 40% of members who did not vote for him. Instead he seems to antagonise them.
Imagine someone who had the confidence to bring others on board, have talented people with other views in his cabinet and to tell his outriders to shut up when needed.
Corbyn is the Labour left's great lost opportunity.
I would , agree .However the last election blew mine and many people's certainties apart. It looked like a conservative majority absolutely nailed on.
It must have sent a warning shot in the establishment . That a hard left leader in this country cane so close.
The polling that persuaded May to call the election set the tone for it. Combine that with a very poor Tory manifesto and campaign and you had a set of circumstances where the Corbyn platform went without the sort of scrutiny that it might have received under more normal circumstances.
No-one at the start of the campaign saw Corbyn coming anywhere near to power. And so he wasn't taken as seriously as he should have been.
I trust there is no overlap between those who laugh at Labour for having a leader with zero ministerial experience, put in power by the more zealous members of their party, who holds to a credo stuck in the past... and those who advocate a Rees-Mogg party leadership.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
Good post and I love your avatar. But then I love all things steam engines
I trust there is no overlap between those who laugh at Labour for having a leader with zero ministerial experience, put in power by the more zealous members of their party, who holds to a credo stuck in the past... and those who advocate a Rees-Mogg party leadership.
Has anyone on here seriously advocated JRM for party leader? I can't think of anyone.
I remember him from student days and he wasn't taken seriously then. He was noticed - for sure. But was never credible.
There’s a serious amount of wishful thinking in that article, that the UK would just happily roll over and agree to customs checks imposed by the EU between different parts of the UK. Parliament has already voted against this once, and they’d do so again.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
But irrespective of that this government has happily borrowed and spent on its own vanity projects and on its own bribing of voters.
A Corbyn government would certainly do likewise and probably even more so.
But that's irrelevant to many individuals - what they are concerned about is whether the borrowing and spending benefits them personally.
And for many people Corbyn's borrowing and spending would benefit them far more than the Conservative borrowing and spending did.
That is the change Corbyn offered and that is a reason why he attracted votes which establishment Labour politicians had been unable to get.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
There is no way that May gets the backstop through the HoC. Even Grieve has said it is unacceptable. Some kind words EU fluff will butter no parsnips
Brussels need to accept that it’s either accept the backstop is UK wide, and temporary, or that it’s no deal.
Northern Ireland won’t be split from the rest of the United Kingdom after Brexit, Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, said.
The idea of placing a border in the Irish Sea is an “absolute deal breaker,” Grieve said at the Institute of International and European Affairs event in Dublin Monday.
At present, the only plan on the table for keeping the Irish border invisible after Brexit is the EU’s “backstop” option, which would effectively keep Northern Ireland in the bloc’s customs union and parts of the single market if needed. That amounts to erecting a border between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, which the U.K. considers unacceptable.
The U.K. has indicated during talks that the bloc’s “backstop” option that keeps Northern Ireland in a “common regulatory area” with the EU should apply to the whole of the U.K., according to three people familiar with the EU side of the negotiations. It would mean the whole U.K. stays in parts of the single market and customs union as a last resort.
A Corbyn government would certainly do likewise and probably even more so.
But that's irrelevant to many individuals - what they are concerned about is whether the borrowing and spending benefits them personally.
And for many people Corbyn's borrowing and spending would benefit them far more than the Conservative borrowing and spending did.
That is the change Corbyn offered and that is a reason why he attracted votes which establishment Labour politicians had been unable to get.
In the short term, if Corbyn could actually borrow the amounts he wanted at reasonable interest rates, if his plans didn't tip the economy into another crash, if it wasn't ultimately paid for by money printing leading to inflation, you may be right.
Longer term, however, even if the three major negatives were avoided, the debt burden would leave massive transfers of wealth which would leave everyone worse off.
That said, the only governments I can think of who have got this about right are the Norwegians, the Estonians and the Australians under Howard, and at least two of those had certain advantages in terms of mineral wealth tompopualtion that most countries don't have.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
If you run them to maximize profit then yes, but the whole point of privatizing the utilities is supposed to be that they're currently being run to maximize profits, when they should be run to benefit their customers. I don't think even the Corbynites are trying to claim that they'll run them more efficiently than the private sector, so they'll keep on making the same profits or better, but that's what's required by their maths.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
Which is what I said in the first sentence.
How much government borrowing does pay for that, rather than being splurged on bungs for client groups?
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
If you run them to maximize profit then yes, but the whole point of privatizing the utilities is supposed to be that they're currently being run to maximize profits, when they should be run to benefit their customers. I don't think even the Corbynites are trying to claim that they'll run them more efficiently than the private sector, so they'll keep on making the same profits or better, but that's what's required by their maths.
But nationalising the utilities won’t make them work for their customers, it will make them work for their staff.
Interesting, here in Edinburgh East have just been canvassed by Labour by the parliamentary candidates' team. Seems to be a decent squad about along with the candidate.
Edit - and sending in Mo at three is an interesting decision. I know that's where he bats for Worcestershire but even so...he feels he is a lower middle order player in Tests, a five to seven, and I have to say his record tends to support him.
There is no way that May gets the backstop through the HoC. Even Grieve has said it is unacceptable. Some kind words EU fluff will butter no parsnips
Brussels need to accept that it’s either accept the backstop is UK wide, and temporary, or that it’s no deal.
Also John Redwood in his replies on his blog has stated that a fair few Tory MP's think that trade deals do not cost, how much did Japan and Canada pay? So for 40 billion and our intelligence for free, then the future trade deal had better be a detailed proposal and absolutely super duper or they will vote against.
Corbyn & his gang of thugs know this is their only chance of creating their own Cuba without the sunshine in the UK.
They've spent their lives in the cold being laughed at by all but a tiny minority and yet somehow they find themselves in control of the Labour party with a chance of power.
None of the old mob are going to go anywhere until after 2022.
Apart from anything else, they must love all the trappings they get funded by Short money. They must dream & lust after ministerial salaries, cars, houses etc.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
When the government's £1.5 trillion debt is next refinanced, as it will have to be, it will almost certainly be at far higher interest rates than we currently pay. The next generation will inherit a time bomb of govenment finances.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
If you run them to maximize profit then yes, but the whole point of privatizing the utilities is supposed to be that they're currently being run to maximize profits, when they should be run to benefit their customers. I don't think even the Corbynites are trying to claim that they'll run them more efficiently than the private sector, so they'll keep on making the same profits or better, but that's what's required by their maths.
But nationalising the utilities won’t make them work for their customers, it will make them work for their staff.
This is also probably true, but either way, if they're no longer being run by rapacious profit-seekers, you're going to have to pay for the profits you're not making.
In the short term, if Corbyn could actually borrow the amounts he wanted at reasonable interest rates, if his plans didn't tip the economy into another crash, if it wasn't ultimately paid for by money printing leading to inflation, you may be right.
Longer term, however, even if the three major negatives were avoided, the debt burden would leave massive transfers of wealth which would leave everyone worse off.
That said, the only governments I can think of who have got this about right are the Norwegians, the Estonians and the Australians under Howard, and at least two of those had certain advantages in terms of mineral wealth tompopualtion that most countries don't have.
Lets take an example.
Does a student prefer the Conservative borrow and spend which leaves him £50k in debt or Corbyn's borrow and spend which promises not to give him that debt ?
The student might suspect that Corbyn's promises might not work out but £50k is a very big upside if they do.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
When the government's £1.5 trillion debt is next refinanced, as it will have to be, it will almost certainly be at far higher interest rates than we currently pay. The next generation will inherit a time bomb of govenment finances.
It's being refinanced all the time, we're not on a 30 year fix rate for the whole thing. Bond sales happen continuously.
Let me start by pointing out that we didn't have a 'boom' let alone a 'dizzy and unstable' one.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
That's something of a distinction without a difference.
You're wrong there's a great deal of difference between a boom and a bubble.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they.
So can I just be clear - are you saying that we should or should not have had a PSBR of 8% of GDP prior to the crash?
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
Edit - as for your second point, all that proves is that the student financing system is shockingly little understood. Almost no student will pay that money or anything like it.
That does of course mean it is a very bad and likely in the medium term disastrous funding system of course, but I saw no real world solutions put forward to replace it.
Radio Yerevan Jokes occupy a niche in Russian culture roughly analogous to knock knock jokes in British culture.
I know, a regular Q&A feature on Radio Yerevan but it wasn't remotely amusing apparently.
It would be interesting to have a perspective from Scotland on this.
From my admittedly partial information, it seems as though Nicola Sturgeon has behaved correctly.
Assuming that you're replying to a different post, the general non partisan view in Scotland would probably also be that NS has behaved correctly. The SNP members' view would also tend to be that she's behaved correctly, but that Salmond also has the right to challenge the process that got him to where he is.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
It’s difficult to see what else NS could have done, as First Minister she has to be impartial, but more importantly to be seen to be impartial given her close relationship to Salmond.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
Not if you are from Scotland and understand how the unionists have tried to stitch him up by leaking this. Difficult for Sturgeon but it was wrong that some unionist working for government gave it to the papers.
There are still Unionists in senior positions in the Scottish government? Who and where?
Civil service is full of them and Mundell has thousands working for Westminster in Edinburgh
But this leak appears to have come from Sturgeon's private office, or the executive. The only other source might be the police.
Not seen any speculation re where it came from , only that Scottish Government should have proper processes and prevent leaks. Plenty of civil servants would have been privy to it, and many of them will be anti SNP.
Certainly Corbyn's promises were unfunded but lets not forget that establishment politicians have borrowed nearly a trillion and a half quid during the last decade and a half.
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
I am opposed to borrowing whoever does it unless it is to pay for things that will show a financial return higher than the interest on the debt. This is because borrowing for any other reason is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (via taxation) to the rich (via interest payments). Last year, the central government spent more on debt interest than on education (although that's only 50-odd% of total education spending). More on debt interest than defence, or transport. It's madness.
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
If the borrowing is for infrastructure, then the government (and hence the public in general) gains an asset. If the asset also makes some cash that pays the interest bill, then even better.
When the government's £1.5 trillion debt is next refinanced, as it will have to be, it will almost certainly be at far higher interest rates than we currently pay. The next generation will inherit a time bomb of govenment finances.
But most of it is in relatively long maturity gilts, so any short term interest effects are minimised. UK has the highest average maturity in G7.
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
Agree that Sturgeon has handled this (which must be very difficult for her personally) by the book. Also talk of 'civil war' entertainingly overblown, but as yea sow etc.
What I'm less clear on is why Salmond has launched this 'judicial review':
A LEGAL expert has called for more transparency from Alex Salmond over what his court challenge is about — as it’s now being funded by members of the public. Professor James Chalmers branded it “worrying” that the former First Minister didn’t reveal what he was hoping to contest or the solution he wants to achieve. The Glasgow Univeristy expert said: “Salmond is entitled to seek crowdfunding for a judicial review if he wants, and people are entitled to give him money. “What is worrying is that the crowdfunder does not state what decision he seeks to challenge in a judicial review, nor what remedy he is seeking in that process.” Prof Chalmers also called on the funding sites to have stricter guidelines in future. He added: “As a general rule, not specific to this case, I think crowdfunders should be more specific on these points before soliciting donations. His page refers to clearing his name, but a judicial review cannot do that, it is now secondary to the police investigation.”
The Police can decide to proceed or not (which is hardly satisfactory as it doesn't 'clear his name' to the "no smoke without fire" brigade) so I understand the difficult position he is in - but surely letting the Police conclude their investigation first would have been the wiser course? This smacks of classic Eck grandstanding, which not only may prove horribly misjudged, but will almost certainly damage the Scottish government.
Unknown experts
The "unknown expert" is called Professor James Chalmers, and he's the Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow:
Not seen any speculation re where it came from , only that Scottish Government should have proper processes and prevent leaks. Plenty of civil servants would have been privy to it, and many of them will be anti SNP.
I agree that they should leave leaks to us Welsh Malc, although personally I prefer daffodils.
But this does seem closer to the SNP leadership than the civil service. I think it's anti-Salmond not anti-ScotNat.
Corbyn & his gang of thugs know this is their only chance of creating their own Cuba without the sunshine in the UK.
They've spent their lives in the cold being laughed at by all but a tiny minority and yet somehow they find themselves in control of the Labour party with a chance of power.
None of the old mob are going to go anywhere until after 2022.
Apart from anything else, they must love all the trappings they get funded by Short money. They must dream & lust after ministerial salaries, cars, houses etc.
You mean Corbynism isn't going to make the sun shine as well?
Corbyn & his gang of thugs know this is their only chance of creating their own Cuba without the sunshine in the UK.
They've spent their lives in the cold being laughed at by all but a tiny minority and yet somehow they find themselves in control of the Labour party with a chance of power.
None of the old mob are going to go anywhere until after 2022.
Apart from anything else, they must love all the trappings they get funded by Short money. They must dream & lust after ministerial salaries, cars, houses etc.
You mean Corbynism isn't going to make the sun shine as well?
I'm out.
There are Corbynistas who probably believe he's already made it shine out of his arse...
Comments
A train heading towards the destination of Communism keeps stopping when the tracks run out. Each Soviet leader applies his own solution. Lenin gathers workers and peasants from miles around and exhorts them to build more track. Stalin shoots the train crew when the train still doesn’t move. Khrushchev rehabilitates the dead crew and orders the tracks behind the train ripped up and relaid in front. Brezhnev pulls down the curtains and rocks back and forth, and says "let's pretend the train is moving".
Gorbachev gets out and yells, 'No tracks!'
Well, at least the writer will know total cack when they see it...
Corbyn enthused millions of voters to vote Labour, with the Conservative vote share boosted by Brexit support you need those voters Corbyn brings along to make the difference to stand a good chance of winning.
It is all well and good to talk about how easy it would be for Labour to win if they replaced Corbyn but it is Corbyn that has brought them to this position where winning looks possible. Corbyn passing the leadership on at some point should be okay, shoving him aside for a centrist would almost certainly cost the party electorally.
In a two way contest, Corbyn comes third, behind 'don't know'.
Miliband, at times, had significant leads over Cameron's Conservatives. Corbyn faces a far more inept leader, with a far more split party, struggling with a far more difficult situation. And he's doing worse than Miliband.
Donors to a web campaign to help Mr Salmond clear his name used the money-spinning site to hurl slurs at his accusers, including “snake” and “Tory plant”.
And they called for the women to be named, even though complainers in alleged sex cases have a right to anonymity under Scots law....
The First Minister told MPs, MSPs and senior staff gathered for the private Nats summit: “How we deal with this, and how we are seen to respond to this, will say a lot about who we are as a party and also about the country we are today and want to build for the future.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/3145579/alex-salmond-legal-fund-donors-accusers-trolled-slurs-liars/
The monster that has been created is that even Jeremy isn't listened to. Nor are Momentum. The cult is happy to ignore what Jeremy says in order to defend what they think is in his best interest. Which is of course batshit crazy...
Talk of an SNP civil war (now officialy downgraded to 'turmoil' by BBC Scotland) is...er...somewhat hysterical, and can be filed under the wish being the father of the thought.
https://twitter.com/ianbhood/status/1035528495949139970
He is not really a great speaker - there is no sense of rhetorical finesse to any of his set-piece speeches. He has, absolutely, created a movement (with the help of others) and the noise they make is certainly being heard.
But I do not imagine people in 100 years time creating a compilation playlist of great speeches of the 20th and 21st centuries and including anything from Corbyn.
There are very few decent speakers in our current political class - people who can really create a moment. And Corbyn really isn't one of them.
It is the movement that is driving this - not the campaigning skills of JC.
Salmond of course has the right to challenge his accusers, his mistake was to do so overtly and publically, crowdsourcing for a legal challenge to the process *looks* to outsiders like a powerful man trying to use process to shut down the investigation, rather than allowing the allegations to be tested in court. He should have gone down the Sturgeon route of saying nothing.
How awful, Salmond's being accused of some awful sexual assault, no smoke without fire, SNP cover up , these poor women.
Also Yoons:
Bloody humorless Nats, why can't they see that alleged sexual harassment is a fit subject for a joke?
What I'm less clear on is why Salmond has launched this 'judicial review':
A LEGAL expert has called for more transparency from Alex Salmond over what his court challenge is about — as it’s now being funded by members of the public.
Professor James Chalmers branded it “worrying” that the former First Minister didn’t reveal what he was hoping to contest or the solution he wants to achieve.
The Glasgow Univeristy expert said: “Salmond is entitled to seek crowdfunding for a judicial review if he wants, and people are entitled to give him money.
“What is worrying is that the crowdfunder does not state what decision he seeks to challenge in a judicial review, nor what remedy he is seeking in that process.”
Prof Chalmers also called on the funding sites to have stricter guidelines in future.
He added: “As a general rule, not specific to this case, I think crowdfunders should be more specific on these points before soliciting donations. His page refers to clearing his name, but a judicial review cannot do that, it is now secondary to the police investigation.”
The Police can decide to proceed or not (which is hardly satisfactory as it doesn't 'clear his name' to the "no smoke without fire" brigade) so I understand the difficult position he is in - but surely letting the Police conclude their investigation first would have been the wiser course? This smacks of classic Eck grandstanding, which not only may prove horribly misjudged, but will almost certainly damage the Scottish government.
Hard to judge on the polls outside the election period. When the rules kick in for TV impartiality that is when Labour can make its case to the public and we are starting much closer than last time.
Yes, I expect its being reported for being 'unfunny'. Haven't seen many Guardian cartoons, have you?
Of course following this rationale utterly kyboshes the "we would have won had it not been for Labour MPs/Labour head office/Labour General Secretary betraying Corbyn in the election" argument that keeps going around. The Tories added nearly 2m votes nationally vs 2015. Whilst there is no direct correlation between any national vote tallies and seats won, it would be unlikely for the party in power to add that many more votes and NOT expect to win.
Labour did sensationally well getting that result (and a few hundred votes different in a dozen seats would have made it very different...). Claims that He would have won had Stephen Kinnock not wanted to lose are laughable.
It needed an outsider like Corbyn to offer change on student debt, housing etc.
However it is in polite terms rhetoric, in reality bullshit.
When Milliband was leader , nearly everyday we had a Ed is crap thread.
Listening to Tories , who are disengenuous about any Labour leader would be crazy.
Talking to people , who are not enamoured with this government , has to be more beneficial as they might actually vote Labour.
He reminded me of the Aberystwyth University treasurer who described losing the University reserve fund of about £5 million in the Icelandic banks collapse as 'piss in a bucket.' It's one reason why the uni now doesn't have a pot to piss in...
I can see your rationale and it isn't without merit but there are still floating voters not locked in that may have been put off even in your scenario. There is another scenario that I wouldn't completely rule out where the Labour civil war has actually boosted him which isn't something I completely dismiss.
My overall guess though would be that it probably did cost Labour some voters, not millions upon millions because I do agree that society is quite polarised and divided but it could have been to possibly win the election.
So is it because 40% of the country thinks they're doing a very good job?
Is it because 40% of the country is willing to vote for them just because of Brexit?
Or is it because Corbyn is that antithetical to 40% of the country that they're rallying to the Tories to stop him?
If it's the last one then yes Labour could do better.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/law/staff/jameschalmers/
Hint - it says so in the second sentence.
The problem for Labour is that where the cult of those leaders for good and for ill sustained their parties for decades, even after their deaths, Blair has been consciously rejected by Labour. Every leader since has defined themselves by breaking with Blairism, and that includes his amazing capacity to reach out to people who were not his supporters. Labour has as a result become a feature of a divided society, whereas it could have become a unifying force. That was always going to end badly for it electorally given that actually its core vote is quite small. Corbyn has cobbled together a new coalition but it remains to be seen how enduring it is.
She did in the past - and decided not to run for Labour Leader because of her young children - not sure she's ruled it out now:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8557386/Hay-festival-Yvette-Cooper-talks-of-battle-with-ME.html
There's never been any shortage of money for them when it came to buying votes or funding vanity projects.
When you've been missing out while those establishment politicians were borrowing and spending on their favoured groups it makes a nice change when a politician offers to borrow and spend on you instead.
Just imagine a left winger with an ability and desire to lead and reconcile with the 40% of members who did not vote for him. Instead he seems to antagonise them.
Imagine someone who had the confidence to bring others on board, have talented people with other views in his cabinet and to tell his outriders to shut up when needed.
Corbyn is the Labour left's great lost opportunity.
It’s Backstop or No Deal, and Backstop will win.
https://www.rte.ie/amp/990836/?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/01/antisemitism-row-risks-chances-of-labour-government
Corbyn's proposal to borrow £300 billion for infrastructure was not without its merits, but the real problem was of course that he would have had to borrow much the same to renationalise utilities (water alone around £90 billion - they said it would be free) and then need to borrow more to run them at the huge loss their plans would have entailed. Now that is not smart economics, or politics, or the way to achieve social justice.
However, in the case of the last eight years it was perhaps not altogether the Conservatives' fault that they had to borrow so much. When a government is running an 8% deficit at the top of a dizzy and unstable boom just before tax revenues implode to pay for current account spending there is going to be a major headache for whoever is in power. That may well be true for the next major recession as well.
And yet Labour are planning essentially the same again. To misquote Talleyrand, they have learned nothing and remembered nothing.
I hope you all had a relaxing nights rest and are refreshed and ready to contibute political discourse to a brilliant forum that provides an extraordinary degree of insight and learning
While at times is gets rather fractious arguments are made and many change views, but maybe not on Brexit.
See Malc is fighting a one man defence of Alex while lots of posters south of the border seem to think this is an existential crisis for the SNP
As an English/Welsh man with strong Scottish connections I can say with some confidence it is not going to move many votes away from the SNP and I do not pass judgment until the truth is out, as it will be one day
Brussels need to accept that it’s either accept the backstop is UK wide, and temporary, or that it’s no deal.
It looked like a conservative majority absolutely nailed on.
It must have sent a warning shot in the establishment .
That a hard left leader in this country cane so close.
No-one at the start of the campaign saw Corbyn coming anywhere near to power. And so he wasn't taken as seriously as he should have been.
I can't imagine anyone making that mistake again.
I remember him from student days and he wasn't taken seriously then. He was noticed - for sure. But was never credible.
What we had a was a debt fueled consumption bubble.
But irrespective of that this government has happily borrowed and spent on its own vanity projects and on its own bribing of voters.
A Corbyn government would certainly do likewise and probably even more so.
But that's irrelevant to many individuals - what they are concerned about is whether the borrowing and spending benefits them personally.
And for many people Corbyn's borrowing and spending would benefit them far more than the Conservative borrowing and spending did.
That is the change Corbyn offered and that is a reason why he attracted votes which establishment Labour politicians had been unable to get.
The idea of placing a border in the Irish Sea is an “absolute deal breaker,” Grieve said at the Institute of International and European Affairs event in Dublin Monday.
At present, the only plan on the table for keeping the Irish border invisible after Brexit is the EU’s “backstop” option, which would effectively keep Northern Ireland in the bloc’s customs union and parts of the single market if needed. That amounts to erecting a border between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, which the U.K. considers unacceptable.
The U.K. has indicated during talks that the bloc’s “backstop” option that keeps Northern Ireland in a “common regulatory area” with the EU should apply to the whole of the U.K., according to three people familiar with the EU side of the negotiations. It would mean the whole U.K. stays in parts of the single market and customs union as a last resort.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/brexit-border-in-irish-sea-absolute-deal-breaker-grieve-says
Longer term, however, even if the three major negatives were avoided, the debt burden would leave massive transfers of wealth which would leave everyone worse off.
That said, the only governments I can think of who have got this about right are the Norwegians, the Estonians and the Australians under Howard, and at least two of those had certain advantages in terms of mineral wealth tompopualtion that most countries don't have.
How much government borrowing does pay for that, rather than being splurged on bungs for client groups?
Will he prove us all wrong today a make a century?
Edit - and sending in Mo at three is an interesting decision. I know that's where he bats for Worcestershire but even so...he feels he is a lower middle order player in Tests, a five to seven, and I have to say his record tends to support him.
They've spent their lives in the cold being laughed at by all but a tiny minority and yet somehow they find themselves in control of the Labour party with a chance of power.
None of the old mob are going to go anywhere until after 2022.
Apart from anything else, they must love all the trappings they get funded by Short money. They must dream & lust after ministerial salaries, cars, houses etc.
Whose decision is that?
Poor old Mo, yet again being mucked about to protect others who happen to be more powerful than he is.
They may have some outward similarities - increasing house prices and rising personal expenditure for example.
But a boom has genuine and strong wealth creation funding it whereas a bubble is funded by stealing the wealth of the future.
Home ownership levels were not falling during the 1980s as they were in the 2000s were they. Lets take an example.
Does a student prefer the Conservative borrow and spend which leaves him £50k in debt or Corbyn's borrow and spend which promises not to give him that debt ?
The student might suspect that Corbyn's promises might not work out but £50k is a very big upside if they do.
Because that was actually the point I was making, and we seem to be wandering away from it. Given the economic situation, I would argue we should not have been running a deficit as a nation. That is why it was a 'distinction without a difference.'
Edit - as for your second point, all that proves is that the student financing system is shockingly little understood. Almost no student will pay that money or anything like it.
That does of course mean it is a very bad and likely in the medium term disastrous funding system of course, but I saw no real world solutions put forward to replace it.
But this does seem closer to the SNP leadership than the civil service. I think it's anti-Salmond not anti-ScotNat.
I'm out.