Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level

Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

It doesn't seem to happen though!

Fenman said:

O'Mara is embarrassing the Labour Party by not speaking. While the rest do so.... by speaking.

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level

Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

It doesn't seem to happen though!

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

ICM pinsticker

Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14

So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons

No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government

I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.

So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM

If Labour are the largest party, then they will undoubtedly form the Government. The window for it being a 'moral victory' and not yielding the PM after the GE is entirely a potential for the Tories and not Labour. Labour do not need to be the largest party in order for Corbyn to become PM.

True though as you say the Tories could be largest party but still not form the government as happened in New Zealand recently where Labour came second but their leader still became PM with Green and NZ First support.

If Corbyn did become PM having not won most seats it would be the first time that has happened since WW2

TwistedFireStopper said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/953214846887190528

I can't see why he's bothering. Sadiq Khan is doing well.

On some issues like crime for instance rather less so, if say Alan Sugar or a former senior policeman stood up as an independent they would have a real chance

I think the Lib Dems tried the ex senior policeman. It was not a great success.

Brian Paddick was just a left liberal Guardian candidate who happened to be a policeman.

I was talking a proper, tough, zero tolerance, '3 strikes and you're out' candidate who fights minor crimes as hard as major ones ie a prosecutor or policeman in the Rudy Giuliani or Bill Bratton mode

Let me know when you find a senior copper who is like that.

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level

Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

It doesn't seem to happen though!

david_herdson said:

welshowl said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

david_herdson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

OldKingCole said:

Tissue_Price said:

bigjohnowls said:

It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?

Ah,
I’ve .

Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.

It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.

Hang on, the pension fund is a separate trust, not an asset of the company. Are you suggesting that money should be confiscated from the pension fund for the benefit of creditors (usually in practice HMRC and the banks, who have a charge on the assets?)

In the case of highly-paid staff, yes.

The Pension Protection Fund, in the case of DB schemes that enter it, pays 90% up to £30K. So if the chief exec were in the DB scheme and had a notional entitlement of a £squillions pension, they are not going to get most of it anyway.

Thanks for that. So my own suggestion only expands that principle a little further.

It is fundamentally wrong that senior executives, who are probably the ones primarily to blame for a company going to the wall, can still walk away with pensions worth hundreds of thousands a year while low-paid employees have very little and small businesses creditors - for example - end up with a fraction of what they're owed. I don't think it's unreasonable that the individual pension funds of senior staff, beyond some protected level, are included in the company's assets (or, in the first instance perhaps, the pension fund's assets, if it's in deficit).

stevef said:

The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

Richard_Nabavi said:

There won't be 'mass deselections' of Labour MPs. There will be (indeed already is) a slow process of nudging out some traditional centrist MPs and replacing them with extremists, and side-lining and silencing those who remain MPs.

Pulpstar said:

stevef said:

The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

The Lebo-Norpoth 'PM and pendulum' is normally a decent guide. Nevertheless all the pre 2017 models indicated a decent Tory majority (The local election results backed this up). So just because Labour is only 1 pt ahead doesn't necessarily mean they're stuffed.

https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/people/professors/norpoth/NorpothForecast.pdf

bigjohnowls said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

There won't be 'mass deselections' of Labour MPs. There will be (indeed already is) a slow process of nudging out some traditional centrist MPs and replacing them with extremists, and side-lining and silencing those who remain MPs.

Surely you mean EXTREMMMIIIISSSTTTTS

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Tissue_Price said:

bigjohnowls said:

Tissue_Price said:

bigjohnowls said:

It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

I thought

Carillion paid dividends didnt they

https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/

Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.

Government policy is contradictory.

On the one hand they want established providers who can provide a one-stop-shop service, and can clear their financial resilience hurdles. So relatively few big firms get appointed as framework providers.

There is then a limited amount of competition on the framework (typically between 3-8 providers). Those that play the game know how to play it, and having been winning big contracts for years, mostly know how to meet the quality hurdles, but beat all the others to be awarded contracts on "value". They then rely on bulk work (lots of contracts) to make a small profit overall.

The trouble is that, when one goes down, it takes a lot with it.

On the other hand, the Government want more British SMEs to bid for Government contracts and be awarded the work. This would give much more diversity, and possibly innovation too, but they are poorly set up to support such a procurement approach.

At the heart of it is that there are very few contract and commercial experts within the civil service, because they can earn much more elsewhere in the private sector, and the Government don't want to run the risk of the wrath of the tabloids by paying a market rate for the right staff.

bigjohnowls said:

stevef said:

The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

Nobody had ever lost a 20pt lead 4 weeks before a GE and ended up in minority territory till Jezza arrived,

How many times have you ubderestimated him so far?

Slackbladder said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... And the vacuum in the Labour Parliamentary Party, sucked in Corbyn. Remember, Mr F, Corbyn did not expect to be elected, and I suspect was very surprised to be on the first ballot. That the membership of the party thought he was the best by far of the candidates on offer, twice, and has shown to be one of the best electioneering leaders of any party in recent times, means that you have some very serious questions to ask yourself. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?

Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

and one of the main reasons (in a VERY simplistic sense) that Blair and New labour were able to become the mainstream in labour was that labour were tired of losing in the 80s and 90s.

HHemmelig said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

ICM pinsticker

Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14

So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons

No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government

I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.

So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM

In the same way that the DUP does at present!

Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government

I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.

IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.

stevef said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... lf. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?

Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

You are again playing the old Corbynista trick of presenting to us a simple binary choice between Blairism and Corbynism as if there is nothing inbetween the hard left and the Blairite right. But there is: there is a Labour mainstream which is neither Corbynite or Blairite, the Labour I grew up with, the Labour of Harold Wilson, the Labour of John Smith. Corbynism is not just a break with Blairism, it is a break with Smith, Wilson and yes even Attlee.

No party that wants to survive electorally for very long ever gives too much power to its members. It has to balance power between members and MPs who represent millions of voters.

Remember that even against this awful government, even against the worst Tory campaign in memory, Corbyn could only win a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010-and even now can only muster a tiny 1% lead.

Beware. What turns around, comes around........

volcanopete said:

Could you be specific on what you mean please by "wackier elements of Corbyn's programme"?
There are so many exciting ideas for policy,it's hard for me to see which ones you refer to because it's best to have the debate now.For example,I'm more than happy to defend putting Royal Mail back within the purview of Her Majesty.I agree with Mrs Thatcher-the privaisation of Royal Mail is "a step too far" and the posties will get to keep their free stamps at Christmas as stipulated by Her Majesty.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

ICM pinsticker

Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14

So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons

No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government

I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.

So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM

The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.

Under Cable the LDs certainly lean Labour

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

ICM pinsticker

Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14

So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons

No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government

I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.

So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM

The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.

Under Cable the LDs certainly lean Labour

Absolutely. Were Blair, Miliband or Brown leading Labour, it'd be a very easy call. Corbyn? Not quite so easy. If pushed, I think Cable would actively vote against the Tories remaining in power but would abstain re Labour to 'give change a chance'.

OchEye said:

edmundintokyo said:

OchEye said:

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.

Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?

Theuniondivvie said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?

Unlike Ruth Davidson, they do.

OchEye said:

edmundintokyo said:

OchEye said:

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.

Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?

OchEye said:

edmundintokyo said:

OchEye said:

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.

Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

OchEye said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... lf. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?

Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

You are again playing the old Corbynista trick of presenting to us a simple binary choice between Blairism and Corbynism as if there is nothing inbetween the hard left and the Blairite right. But there is: there is a Labour mainstream which is neither Corbynite or Blairite, the Labour I grew up with, the Labour of Harold Wilson, the Labour of John Smith. Corbynism is not just a break with Blairism, it is a break with Smith, Wilson and yes even Attlee.

No party that wants to survive electorally for very long ever gives too much power to its members. It has to balance power between members and MPs who represent millions of voters.

Remember that even against this awful government, even against the worst Tory campaign in memory, Corbyn could only win a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010-and even now can only muster a tiny 1% lead.

Beware. What turns around, comes around........

Ed Miliband and Brown arguably both fought from the Labour mainstream and lost after Blairism thus opening the way for Corbynism

justin124 said:

HHemmelig said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

HYUFD said:

bigjohnowls said:

LAB: 41% (+1)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 7% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

ICM pinsticker

Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14

So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons

No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government

I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.

So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM

In the same way that the DUP does at present!

Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government

I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.

IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.

I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

justin124 said:

stevef said:

OchEye said:

edmundintokyo said:

OchEye said:

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.

Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?

Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

Er sorry..what was your point?

Labour was not in the hands of the hard left in 1959 , and Labour was pretty united at that election - unlike in 1955. The Tory victory was based on a sense of material wellbeing reflected in their 'You have never had it so good' slogan and had very little to with Labour's internal state.
Your final paragraph really makes little sense at all. Labour's polling position today is little different from what it was 7 months into the 1992 Parliament. I have never been a Corbynite - but he he has already achieved something denied to Kinnock - he has managed to get rid of an overall Tory majority!

stevef said:

OchEye said:

edmundintokyo said:

OchEye said:

Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.

Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?

Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

Er sorry..what was your point?

malcolmg said:

rural_voter said:

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.

No, the pension should be completely outside the company. Everyone in both the private and public sector should be on defined contribution. Yesterday.

Better, return to a SERPS.

Brought in by Barbara Castle. Destroyed by Thatcher.

The US has one. It looks to me as if a household/couple on $13,000 per month get a state pension of 29% of that, i.e. $4,000 per month

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Blimey ...

Anyway, if that's the maximum state pension, you need invest in a personal pension only if you'd suffer a massive drop in living standards and want more than £35,000 per year. I suppose today's retired CEOs and Vice-Chancellors might complain.

They do need half that for medical cover mind you.

stevef said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

stevef said:

And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level

Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

It doesn't seem to happen though!

I have voted Labour for 40 years, and have never voted Tory in my life. You Corbyntrons really should stop characterising everyone who opposes you as a Tory. The chickens will eventually come to roost for Momentum which is Militant by another name.

justin124 said:

HHemmelig said:

justin124 said:

I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.

I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

justin124 said:

I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

NEW THREAD

justin124 said:

HHemmelig said:

justin124 said:

I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.

I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

justin124 said:

welshowl said:

justin124 said:

HHemmelig said:

justin124 said:

I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.

I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

Are you serious? Really????????????

I am being serious here . Most people still holiday at home with an occasional trip overseas. Package holidays etc had become well established long before Geoffrey Howe abolished exchange controls in 1979, and I do not recall that people found the procedures involved in obtaining foreign currency to be that traumatic.Maybe I am wrong - but that is my memory. I really don't feel the issue would be anything like as salient as many on here clearly believe.

calum said:

Charting and Crypto prices - quite a mixture

https://www.coindesk.com/down-14-percent-bitcoin-charts-bearish-amid-asia-concerns/