I'm starting to wonder whether Labour electing Corbyn would be better for them than them electing Cooper or Burnham with Corbyn just a few percent behind. The first would probably result in him losing a few local elections before being replaced by the next election. The second scenario would cause the Labour left to feel robbed, and then when a mediocre Brownite didn't achieve much, would leave the "we weren't true enough lefties" idea alive for the next leadership election.
No, as there is no guarantee Corbyn would be replaced and of course the Tories still lost even when they replaced IDS, the damage had already been done. Nobody will care in 5 years time if Corbyn came second, and Burnham and Cooper at least have a chance of winning
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.
It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .
That's an excellent point. Of course, the bit Blair is wrong about is the immigration bit. If the public has a view as strong as they do on an issue they care as much about, then it is simply obnoxious to ignore them. Labour are far more likely to win on an anti-immigration, economically left programme than a pro-immigration economically right-wing one.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
Yvette Cooper was weak, wouldn't hold an opinion on much. This won't play well.
Andy Burnham came across again as just flipping opinions that he thinks might suit voters. Bit weak.
Kendall rude and abrasive but held her own. Did well presenting an alternative.
Corbyn did well. Having his own views came across well again. Being partially Eurosceptic but from a different stance to Nigel Farage (when Farage phoned in) will go down well with some UKIP ex labour supporters. The rest were weak on Europe.
The idiotic sentimentality that allowed MPs who did not want him as their leader to nominate him is exactly why Lab has already lost the 2020 GE.
I may disagree with him, but I fail to see why members should be denied the chance to vote for him if they so desire
Nor do I, but if that's what the party wants, they should adopt a system which does not require MPs to nominate a potential leader, as it leads to the silly situation where people nominated someone they didn't want and a few publicly regret it, looking silly. As it is, plenty of people may have wanted the chance to vote for some other Labour figure, but because they were not liked by enough MPs and didn't get sympathy nominations, cannot.
What about all those passionate Mary Creagh supporters, they have been denied the chance to vote for her because MPs didn't care for her.
As it is, if the system they have requires MP nominations, it would have been perfectly appropriate for Corbyn not to get on the ballot if he failed to get enough of those nominations, since clearly the idea behind the system is someone should have some measure of parliamentary support.
They could introduce the Tory knock-out leader method then, which would never produce this scenario. Certainly the Tories did not get to a farcical scenario where IDS knocked out Portillo by 1 vote to face Clarke in the run-off did they!!
Can't you understand that everyone hates Blair because everyone agrees on the bad things that he did to his country?
I'll repeat it: The only thing that matters in life and in politics is the end. Blair started as a saint but ended up as a devil.
It does not matter if he won 3 elections if he was one of the worst PM's in history.
In which case, the MP's who backed him in Parliament, and the voters who backed him at the ballot box have to accept their culpability.
Indeed. I never really liked Blair (though was only old enough to vote for the first time in 2005), but the public backed him even when a lot of bad stuff had occurred and his personality traits well known. Even if people now think he is the devil and couldn't have known how bad things would be, nor did it come out of nowhere about the third time he led his party to victory.
Well that won't do a thing, her second preferences were hardly going to go to Corbyn anyway.
Her 2nd prefs were decisively breaking for Cooper, despite the repeated assurances of some.
Cooper is going to end up being the stop Corbyn candidate
And Burnham's supporters will have plenty of Corbyn second preferences. I don't think a stop Corbyn candidate can arise if Corbyn is so close to victory from first preferences alone.
It's unfortunate that Labour couldn't put a candidate that was a normal human being with the exception of Corbyn.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Maybe its a hard left sentiment. They dont like success. Success in general. They dont like successful schools, successful businesses, successful individuals. They equate success as been the reason for someone else's failure.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Blair is, of course, still alive.
But you see my point. Blair is meant to be the socialist Thatcher, the great leader, the one they point to, the election winner.
Yet 99% of lefties now loathe Blair, as far as I can see, "Blairite" is now an active and hurtful insult within Labour circles, whereas Thatcher was worshipped (overly?) all the way to her death, and beyond, by Tories.
Both psychologies are perhaps problematic, but a party that honours its gods and fathers, is, as Freud would attest, much healthier than one that abjures the elders, and vomits on the ancestral portraits.
Labour are diseased.
Labour honours plenty of its gods and fathers. But Blair is Loki
There is a lot more historical consciousness around Labour, maybe because they have less of it, and what they do have is more relevant to today's world than tales of Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby or Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. More likely because they have an ideology and a socialisation in the labour movement which had its glory days some time ago, whereas Conservatives are more likely to have a profound or vague sense of duty to country without particular regard to what Andrew Bonar Law got up to.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
IDS was never a fan of Blair, Cameron on the other hand certainly is, he is certainly more the 'heir to Blair' than Miliband and Corbyn. Just as in some ways Blair was more the heir to Thatcher than John Major
And that is why Mr. Stephen Bush that Labour is in such a predicament in it's leadership race, essentially the other 3 are so useless so far that it's like Corbyn is running all by himself with no opponent.
Well that won't do a thing, her second preferences were hardly going to go to Corbyn anyway.
If anything, it might help Corbyn. Having a more rightwing candidate gives a bit of political cover to Cooper and Burnham. Plus the appearance of an establishment conspiracy wouldn't help cool down the Corbynites.
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.
It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .
That's an excellent point. Of course, the bit Blair is wrong about is the immigration bit. If the public has a view as strong as they do on an issue they care as much about, then it is simply obnoxious to ignore them. Labour are far more likely to win on an anti-immigration, economically left programme than a pro-immigration economically right-wing one.
I have heard this argument before. It might almost be classified as common sense. Except that the former led Ukip down a dead end, whereas the latter is the platform on which Tony Blair won bigger majorities than David Cameron, three times.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
IDS was never a fan of Blair, Cameron on the other hand certainly is, he is certainly more the 'heir to Blair' than Miliband and Corbyn. Just as in some ways Blair was more the heir to Thatcher than John Major
Oh yeah I forgot Cameron from the list, IDS is a Blair supporter de-facto, as he supports many central Blair policies and he helped Blair to remain in office and supporting crucial votes when the Labour party turned against him after Iraq.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
IDS was never a fan of Blair, Cameron on the other hand certainly is, he is certainly more the 'heir to Blair' than Miliband and Corbyn. Just as in some ways Blair was more the heir to Thatcher than John Major
The first bit is correct. The second bit is not. Major was much more the heir to Thatcher: moderately eurosceptic, fiscally prudent, sensible on foreign policy.
And that is why Mr. Stephen Bush that Labour is in such a predicament in it's leadership race, essentially the other 3 are so useless so far that it's like Corbyn is running all by himself with no opponent.
I had thought it was a 2 way contest between Corbyn and Koopurnall.
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.
It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .
That's an excellent point. Of course, the bit Blair is wrong about is the immigration bit. If the public has a view as strong as they do on an issue they care as much about, then it is simply obnoxious to ignore them. Labour are far more likely to win on an anti-immigration, economically left programme than a pro-immigration economically right-wing one.
I have heard this argument before. It might almost be classified as common sense. Except that the former led Ukip down a dead end, whereas the latter is the platform on which Tony Blair won bigger majorities than David Cameron, three times.
UKIP more than quadrupled their vote, despite hardly any resources or incumbency, and being a one man band. Blair won in a time when people weren't as worried about immigration as they are now.
EDIT: I also would question how right-wing Blair's economic platform was. He did some privatisation, but also borrowed-and-spent as good as any leftist.
Well that won't do a thing, her second preferences were hardly going to go to Corbyn anyway.
Her 2nd prefs were decisively breaking for Cooper, despite the repeated assurances of some.
Cooper is going to end up being the stop Corbyn candidate
And Burnham's supporters will have plenty of Corbyn second preferences. I don't think a stop Corbyn candidate can arise if Corbyn is so close to victory from first preferences alone.
It's unfortunate that Labour couldn't put a candidate that was a normal human being with the exception of Corbyn.
Well done Speedy. I've been posting this less eloquently for days, and you've hit the nail on the head.
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.
It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .
That's an excellent point. Of course, the bit Blair is wrong about is the immigration bit. If the public has a view as strong as they do on an issue they care as much about, then it is simply obnoxious to ignore them. Labour are far more likely to win on an anti-immigration, economically left programme than a pro-immigration economically right-wing one.
I have heard this argument before. It might almost be classified as common sense. Except that the former led Ukip down a dead end, whereas the latter is the platform on which Tony Blair won bigger majorities than David Cameron, three times.
UKIP more than quadrupled their vote, despite hardly any resources or incumbency, and being a one man band. Blair won in a time when people weren't as worried about immigration as they are now.
Blair won at a time when even Foot would have won. Beating the Tories in 1997 is no achievement, anyone could have done it as long as he/she wore a red rosette.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
IDS was never a fan of Blair, Cameron on the other hand certainly is, he is certainly more the 'heir to Blair' than Miliband and Corbyn. Just as in some ways Blair was more the heir to Thatcher than John Major
Oh yeah I forgot Cameron from the list, IDS is a Blair supporter de-facto, as he supports many central Blair policies and he helped Blair to remain in office and supporting crucial votes when the Labour party turned against him after Iraq.
IDS also fiercely opposed Blair on Europe and issues like gay adoption. His 'social justice' agenda was also a reaction at what he saw as Blair's managerialism
Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.
Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.
They all look terrified and dwarvish.
Heh.
Blimey. Just blimey. That clip is astonishing.
What's most astonishing about it is that, after Liz Kendall has given a master class in how to completely screw up a reply to this simple question, Andy and Yvette then manage to repeat the same mistake. And that's after Jeremy Corbyn has shown them how to get it right.
Well that won't do a thing, her second preferences were hardly going to go to Corbyn anyway.
Her 2nd prefs were decisively breaking for Cooper, despite the repeated assurances of some.
Cooper is going to end up being the stop Corbyn candidate
And Burnham's supporters will have plenty of Corbyn second preferences. I don't think a stop Corbyn candidate can arise if Corbyn is so close to victory from first preferences alone.
It's unfortunate that Labour couldn't put a candidate that was a normal human being with the exception of Corbyn.
Well done Speedy. I've been posting this less eloquently for days, and you've hit the nail on the head.
Politics has become a matter of clone wars, and it's about time someone paid the price for that. You can't maintain a normal-human-being-free zone, if at some point normal people get involved in the selection process...
Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.
Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.
They all look terrified and dwarvish.
Heh.
Blimey. Just blimey. That clip is astonishing.
What's most astonishing about it is that, after Liz Kendall has given a master class in how to completely screw up a reply to this simple question, Andy and Yvette then manage to repeat the same mistake.
And now you know why Corbyn is on his way to victory, simply because in reality he's alone in the race with no opponents.
EDIT: I also would question how right-wing Blair's economic platform was. He did some privatisation, but also borrowed-and-spent as good as any leftist.
I don't remember Blair ever having an economic policy. From the off all such matters were decided by Gordon Brown. The only time I remember Blair managed to have any real say on money matters was when he announced massive increases in NHS spending on live TV - without first consulting Brown.
I rather think half the reason why we went into Iraq was that if Blair had not been so wrapped up in foreign affairs he would have nothing to do.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
'And that is why Mr. Stephen Bush that Labour is in such a predicament in it's leadership race, essentially the other 3 are so useless so far that it's like Corbyn is running all by himself with no opponent.'
Spot on, just watched the Sunday politics debate.
Burnham fits exactly Tony Benn's description of a political weathercock,Cooper doesn't do public speaking,just spouts vacuous waffle and Kendall keeps banging on why Labour must change but with very little substance.
It's a bit of a weird question IMO to ask whether Ed Miliband would be in a shadow cabinet. He might not even be an MP in 12 months' time.
Sure, so you preface your reply by saying 'I don't know whether Ed would want a front-bench role, but if he did he could make a great contribution blah blah...'
Or you say 'Look, I like Ed, and I greatly admire him, but I wouldn't want him in my first shadow cabinet, it would be a distraction from the changes I want to make to the direction of the party'.
It really isn't hard. It's about as simple a question as any of the contenders could be expected to answer.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Maybe its a hard left sentiment. They dont like success. Success in general. They dont like successful schools, successful businesses, successful individuals. They equate success as been the reason for someone else's failure.
Yes, socialism is built on equality, hence its championing of comprehensive schools, mistrust of private, grammar and free schools and Oxbridge, dislike of the private sector and capitalism and its 'moral' superiority to the rich and flashy with its intellectuals seeing themselves as the real leaders of society
Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.
Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.
They all look terrified and dwarvish.
Heh.
Blimey. Just blimey. That clip is astonishing.
What's most astonishing about it is that, after Liz Kendall has given a master class in how to completely screw up a reply to this simple question, Andy and Yvette then manage to repeat the same mistake. And that's after Jeremy Corbyn has shown them how to get it right.
It is an amazingly poor performance from all three of them.
'Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.'
Remembered as a case study on how to lose an election ?
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Yeap, I can name Blair's remaining supporters as Dan Hodges, John Rentoul, Chukka Ummuna, Liz Kendall, Tristram Hunt, Mandelson, D.Milliband and ermm that's it really, oh and Ken Clarke and IDS.
IDS was never a fan of Blair, Cameron on the other hand certainly is, he is certainly more the 'heir to Blair' than Miliband and Corbyn. Just as in some ways Blair was more the heir to Thatcher than John Major
The first bit is correct. The second bit is not. Major was much more the heir to Thatcher: moderately eurosceptic, fiscally prudent, sensible on foreign policy.
Blair was closer to the rich than Major, closer to the US right than Major and Thatcher said 'Tony will not let us down' in 1997. Blair actually spent less than Major for most of his term and kept the top rate the same
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Maybe its a hard left sentiment. They dont like success. Success in general. They dont like successful schools, successful businesses, successful individuals. They equate success as been the reason for someone else's failure.
Yes, socialism is built on equality, hence its championing of comprehensive schools, mistrust of private, grammar and free schools and Oxbridge, dislike of the private sector and capitalism and its 'moral' superiority to the rich and flashy with its intellectuals seeing themselves as the real leaders of society
Sorry but I don't accept that view. Socialism isn't about a drive for equality, it is about state control and restricting freedom for the individual to reach their full potential. It is about limits and central planning. None of that brings equality.
Equality of opportunity is what we should all be seeking. Everyone having the scope to develop and reach the goals that they can set for themselves. Providing support to those who are not able to support themselves and encouraging others to be the best that they can be.
Socialism doesn't offer that kind of equality. It never has and it never will.
EDIT: I also would question how right-wing Blair's economic platform was. He did some privatisation, but also borrowed-and-spent as good as any leftist.
I don't remember Blair ever having an economic policy. From the off all such matters were decided by Gordon Brown. The only time I remember Blair managed to have any real say on money matters was when he announced massive increases in NHS spending on live TV - without first consulting Brown.
I rather think half the reason why we went into Iraq was that if Blair had not been so wrapped up in foreign affairs he would have nothing to do.
It's a bit of a weird question IMO to ask whether Ed Miliband would be in a shadow cabinet. He might not even be an MP in 12 months' time.
Yes, the question was vacuous but the responses were instructive. The one talking about change was so non-specific as to remind me of Obama in 2008 with 'hope and change'.
The worn and battered one who actually answered the question at least was coherent.
Blair won at a time when even Foot would have won. Beating the Tories in 1997 is no achievement, anyone could have done it as long as he/she wore a red rosette.
I'm surprised by how often this is said. 1997 was not preordained and there is no guarantee that Labour would have won without Blair
We live once. There are not too people around who at the end of their lives can think back and believe that they did something, anything particularly well.
FWIW, my grandfather served the public for more than 50 years. He used to say that during that time he was involved in 3 significant decisions: in one there was no choice, over one he had no influence, but he got the third decision spot on!
It's a bit of a weird question IMO to ask whether Ed Miliband would be in a shadow cabinet. He might not even be an MP in 12 months' time.
Yes, the question was vacuous but the responses were instructive. The one talking about change was so non-specific as to remind me of Obama in 2008 with 'hope and change'.
The worn and battered one who actually answered the question at least was coherent.
Though he did think Ed did a good job on climate change and wants him to keep doing it.
I would have thought teaboy would be the safer option.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Maybe its a hard left sentiment. They dont like success. Success in general. They dont like successful schools, successful businesses, successful individuals. They equate success as been the reason for someone else's failure.
Yes, socialism is built on equality, hence its championing of comprehensive schools, mistrust of private, grammar and free schools and Oxbridge, dislike of the private sector and capitalism and its 'moral' superiority to the rich and flashy with its intellectuals seeing themselves as the real leaders of society
Sorry but I don't accept that view. Socialism isn't about a drive for equality, it is about state control and restricting freedom for the individual to reach their full potential. It is about limits and central planning. None of that brings equality.
Equality of opportunity is what we should all be seeking. Everyone having the scope to develop and reach the goals that they can set for themselves. Providing support to those who are not able to support themselves and encouraging others to be the best that they can be.
Socialism doesn't offer that kind of equality. It never has and it never will.
So sayeth the voice of capitalism. The obverse side of the same coin.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
I assume Jezza is a diminutive of Jeremy. I immediately thought you meant Clarkson. If he got in he could run it from wherever the hell he wants - it'd be like electing Trump over here.
I don't know where we'd end up, but it would be one hell of a ride!
For those who found the LBC clip appalling, I can tell you that the BBC movie "Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise" is actually worse and even more content free.
I was a bit surprised by the part right at the end where they talked about their faith (or in fact, that none of them were religious). Andy Burnham's press coverage has often strayed onto him being a devout Catholic, and using that to explain his voting record on things like gay adoption:
Andy Burnham hasn’t had the best LGBT voting record, with high-profile votes against lesbian fertility rights and absenteeism during the gay adoption debate. Little is known of his official stance on marriage. He famously declared his devotion to “Everton FC, the Labour Party and the Catholic church,” in the Guardian last year.
But in the LBC interview he says he sends his kids to Catholic school because of the "values" it teaches, he enthuses about Catholic Social Teaching, and used to be an altar boy, but goes on to say he "doesn't do God" himself and his religious beliefs are agnostic.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
I assume Jezza is a diminutive of Jeremy. I immediately thought you meant Clarkson. If he got in he could run it from wherever the hell he wants - it'd be like electing Trump over here.
I don't know where we'd end up, but it would be one hell of a ride!
It's a bit of a weird question IMO to ask whether Ed Miliband would be in a shadow cabinet. He might not even be an MP in 12 months' time.
Yes, the question was vacuous but the responses were instructive. The one talking about change was so non-specific as to remind me of Obama in 2008 with 'hope and change'.
The worn and battered one who actually answered the question at least was coherent.
Though he did think Ed did a good job on climate change and wants him to keep doing it.
I would have thought teaboy would be the safer option.
It was a case of damning with faint praise - useless on social policies, the economy, housing - but he was OK on climate change.
Blair won at a time when even Foot would have won. Beating the Tories in 1997 is no achievement, anyone could have done it as long as he/she wore a red rosette.
I'm surprised by how often this is said. 1997 was not preordained and there is no guarantee that Labour would have won without Blair
Quite. Labour would almost certainly have won with Smith, though not as big. However the Tories retained a decent score on the economy and if Major wasn't particularly respected, he was quite well liked. But by 1997 the country wasn't a disaster-zone. Labour won because they felt it was safe to let them in *and* the Tories deserved to lose for the scandal and general stupidity of the mid-90s government.
However, had it not been safe to let Labour in, the country would have rather unenthusiastically returned Major's Tories, much as it returned Blair's Labour in 2005.
Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.
Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.
They all look terrified and dwarvish.
Heh.
Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard
Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved.
"I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it."
For all their claims, Blairites are just as ideological as the hard left.
It was also amusing when he claimed how laughable the idea that Labour could win back Tory voters by takng a stronger line against austerity would be, how it was 'insulting to the electorate' to tell them they were wrong about their views on the economy ..... before a minute later without a hint of irony he claimed UKIP voters were wrong about immigration and that the way to win them back was to make an unashamedly pro-immigration argument .
There's a case to be made for a higher tax/higher spending government. All Labour have to do is make it. People (e.g. me) distrust Labour because they want to let us have our cake and eat it. We know that's not possible - it's our kids who will pay for that.
If Labour can make the higher tax/higher spend/no borrowing case, then I think they'll do well. For example, reinstating free university education (personally, I'd target it on subjects that the country need, but whatever). I bet a lot of people would be in favour of that. Tax some wealthy pensioners to pay for it.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
For those who found the LBC clip appalling, I can tell you that the BBC movie "Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise" is actually worse and even more content free.
the clue was in the title, really wasn't it. But if you wanted to be fair to the BBC you could mention it was made by the hugely successful and popular filmmaker Danny Boyle (shallow grave was pretty good, trainspotting OK IMHO)....
And that is why Mr. Stephen Bush that Labour is in such a predicament in it's leadership race, essentially the other 3 are so useless so far that it's like Corbyn is running all by himself with no opponent.
I had thought it was a 2 way contest between Corbyn and Koopurnall.
Comrade kle4!
Andy Corbyn Jeremy Burnham Yvette Kendall Liz Cooper
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
I assume Jezza is a diminutive of Jeremy. I immediately thought you meant Clarkson. If he got in he could run it from wherever the hell he wants - it'd be like electing Trump over here.
I don't know where we'd end up, but it would be one hell of a ride!
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
I assume Jezza is a diminutive of Jeremy. I immediately thought you meant Clarkson. If he got in he could run it from wherever the hell he wants - it'd be like electing Trump over here.
I don't know where we'd end up, but it would be one hell of a ride!
Blair won at a time when even Foot would have won. Beating the Tories in 1997 is no achievement, anyone could have done it as long as he/she wore a red rosette.
I'm surprised by how often this is said. 1997 was not preordained and there is no guarantee that Labour would have won without Blair
Absolutely. And even if you think anyone could have won, Blair won 43 per cent and over 400 seats. So there was clearly a big market for economic-centrist, quietly pro-immigration liberalism. Just as there is a market for the current economic-moderate-right, quietly pro-immigration liberalism. Whereas there is no market for a party that cribs and moans about everything modern and foreign bar in Clacton.
Yes, 2 polls out today have Trump ahead, as Quinnipiac make clear a Bush/Rubio/Walker v Clinton battle could go to the wire, Trump on the other hand would be trounced, he could even lose to Sanders if he were to shock Hillary. Despite his denials though I think Trump will not be nominee but go 3rd party which helps Hillary
For those who found the LBC clip appalling, I can tell you that the BBC movie "Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise" is actually worse and even more content free.
the clue was in the title, really wasn't it. But if you wanted to be fair to the BBC you could mention it was made by the hugely successful and popular filmmaker Danny Boyle (shallow grave was pretty good, trainspotting OK IMHO)....
The few things I've seen of his seem to be lefty influenced.
Labour are just screwed. They are all so feeble. Apart from Corbyn. Who is catastrophic.
Why can't Burnham just say Yes I'd have Ed in my Cabinet, he maybe wasn't the luckiest leader, but he's a big thinker with good ideas on energy prices blah blah. FFS this stuff is easy.
They all look terrified and dwarvish.
Heh.
And that's the point. Even if Corbyn doesn't win, one of the others will.
Perhaps the reason they don't want EdM in the Shadow Cabinet is that they don't want him to out-shine them.
I was a bit surprised by the part right at the end where they talked about their faith (or in fact, that none of them were religious). Andy Burnham's press coverage has often strayed onto him being a devout Catholic, and using that to explain his voting record on things like gay adoption:
Andy Burnham hasn’t had the best LGBT voting record, with high-profile votes against lesbian fertility rights and absenteeism during the gay adoption debate. Little is known of his official stance on marriage. He famously declared his devotion to “Everton FC, the Labour Party and the Catholic church,” in the Guardian last year.
But in the LBC interview he says he sends his kids to Catholic school because of the "values" it teaches, he enthuses about Catholic Social Teaching, and used to be an altar boy, but goes on to say he "doesn't do God" himself and his religious beliefs are agnostic.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
Last time we had a disciple of Rome as PM he started an illegal war.
Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard
Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
I was a bit surprised by the part right at the end where they talked about their faith (or in fact, that none of them were religious). Andy Burnham's press coverage has often strayed onto him being a devout Catholic, and using that to explain his voting record on things like gay adoption:
Andy Burnham hasn’t had the best LGBT voting record, with high-profile votes against lesbian fertility rights and absenteeism during the gay adoption debate. Little is known of his official stance on marriage. He famously declared his devotion to “Everton FC, the Labour Party and the Catholic church,” in the Guardian last year.
But in the LBC interview he says he sends his kids to Catholic school because of the "values" it teaches, he enthuses about Catholic Social Teaching, and used to be an altar boy, but goes on to say he "doesn't do God" himself and his religious beliefs are agnostic.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
Last time we had a disciple of Rome as PM he started an illegal war.
Pity us atheists with all these god-botherers strutting on the political stage!
All the Blairites ruling themselves out of serving in @jeremycorbyn shadow cabinet. Looks like it's me, Dennis Skinner & David Lammy. For once in her life she may be spot-on
No she has been spot on at least once before. She did after all send her children to private school rather than the local comprehensive.
A stark contrast with Thatcher. Sainted to the end. Adored by Tories, still.
Yet Blair is actually quite popular with many Tories and not loathed by centrist voters, it is the left that loathe him
Thatcher may be adored by Tories, the left still loathe her too
Maybe its a hard left sentiment. They dont like success. Success in general. They dont like successful schools, successful businesses, successful individuals. They equate success as been the reason for someone else's failure.
Yes, socialism is built on equality, hence its championing of comprehensive schools, mistrust of private, grammar and free schools and Oxbridge, dislike of the private sector and capitalism and its 'moral' superiority to the rich and flashy with its intellectuals seeing themselves as the real leaders of society
Sorry but I don't accept that view. Socialism isn't about a drive for equality, it is about state control and restricting freedom for the individual to reach their full potential. It is about limits and central planning. None of that brings equality.
Equality of opportunity is what we should all be seeking. Everyone having the scope to develop and reach the goals that they can set for themselves. Providing support to those who are not able to support themselves and encouraging others to be the best that they can be.
Socialism doesn't offer that kind of equality. It never has and it never will.
Yes and all those state controls, nationalisations, high taxes, high spending, limited choice in education and health etc all goes back to enforcing 'equal misery rather than unequal blessings' as Churchill said, so that does not contradict what I said. Socialists are not interested in equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome!
For those who found the LBC clip appalling, I can tell you that the BBC movie "Vacuuming Completely Nude in Paradise" is actually worse and even more content free.
the clue was in the title, really wasn't it. But if you wanted to be fair to the BBC you could mention it was made by the hugely successful and popular filmmaker Danny Boyle (shallow grave was pretty good, trainspotting OK IMHO)....
The few things I've seen of his seem to be lefty influenced.
Rather ironic that Kendall, who managed to get the nominations, is now being asked to stand aside while Corbyn, who didn't, may go on to win.
How late can a candidate drop out? Beyond a certain point, all the ballots will have been printed...
Not that that makes a great difference, under an AV election, but are there technical barriers to dropping out? Aside from the psychological barrier of it being silly to drop out very near to the finishing line?
Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard
Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
Sorry, but Northern Rock was just the first symptom of a UK catastrophe. RBS, BoS/Halifax and all. HSBC had supposedly its over seas operations to keep it capitalised, and Barclays, had seemingly an interesting time of it.
If the banks had gone under, very few other UK institutions would have survived.
It's a bit of a weird question IMO to ask whether Ed Miliband would be in a shadow cabinet. He might not even be an MP in 12 months' time.
Yes, the question was vacuous but the responses were instructive. The one talking about change was so non-specific as to remind me of Obama in 2008 with 'hope and change'.
The worn and battered one who actually answered the question at least was coherent.
Though he did think Ed did a good job on climate change and wants him to keep doing it.
I would have thought teaboy would be the safer option.
Corbyn's older brother - who lays bets on the weather apparently - does not believe in man made global warming. Far from it.
The most disturbing part of that LBC debate was when the New Labour Three all said there were no conceivable circumstances in which they'd support leaving the EU. What, even if they demanded we sack our Prime Minister or they'd force us into bankruptcy? What about if they banned deficit spending during recessions? What if they forced us to sell off the NHS to pay off debts?
All three of them.are automatons, incapable of original thought. Ask them.any question and they give you Brownism or Blairism reheated. Corbyn was the only one that actually mentally processed the question and gave a rational answer. No wonder he is wiping the floor with them.
Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.
Except by those who get punctures on the M25 thanks to bits of the EdStone
Its mysterious disappearance leads me to think more and more that it was only a polystyrene mockup.
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
He said he would not 'live' in No10. He would presumably work there. After all that's where the red button he would have to press to wipe out Russia is.
I've heard third-hand that something odd happened with the Gedling CLP and Ealing North CLP nominations - that they met, but in fact they didn't nominate a candidate at all.
Apparently (again, I hear this second or third hand) several CLPs have had the leadership nomination meeting (mis)scheduled as General Committee rather than All Member and ended up not nominating anyone as a result. I think - super-tentatively - Brentford and Isleworth is an example of that.
Anyone have any idea what is going on with this one?
(This might be a good question to ask Andrea. I'm not usually in the same "PB timezone" as he is, sadly, but if anyone catches him online I'd be interested to hear from him.)
The most disturbing part of that LBC debate was when the New Labour Three all said there were no conceivable circumstances in which they'd support leaving the EU. What, even if they demanded we sack our Prime Minister or they'd force us into bankruptcy? What about if they banned deficit spending during recessions? What if they forced us to sell off the NHS to pay off debts?
All three of them.are automatons, incapable of original thought. Ask them.any question and they give you Brownism or Blairism reheated. Corbyn was the only one that actually mentally processed the question and gave a rational answer. No wonder he is wiping the floor with them.
Copied from last thread : Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
The most disturbing part of that LBC debate was when the New Labour Three all said there were no conceivable circumstances in which they'd support leaving the EU. What, even if they demanded we sack our Prime Minister or they'd force us into bankruptcy? What about if they banned deficit spending during recessions? What if they forced us to sell off the NHS to pay off debts?
All three of them.are automatons, incapable of original thought. Ask them.any question and they give you Brownism or Blairism reheated. Corbyn was the only one that actually mentally processed the question and gave a rational answer. No wonder he is wiping the floor with them.
I think they're probably reading "conceivable" there as something like "plausibly might happen" rather than "logically possible".
I was a bit surprised by the part right at the end where they talked about their faith (or in fact, that none of them were religious). Andy Burnham's press coverage has often strayed onto him being a devout Catholic, and using that to explain his voting record on things like gay adoption:
Andy Burnham hasn’t had the best LGBT voting record, with high-profile votes against lesbian fertility rights and absenteeism during the gay adoption debate. Little is known of his official stance on marriage. He famously declared his devotion to “Everton FC, the Labour Party and the Catholic church,” in the Guardian last year.
But in the LBC interview he says he sends his kids to Catholic school because of the "values" it teaches, he enthuses about Catholic Social Teaching, and used to be an altar boy, but goes on to say he "doesn't do God" himself and his religious beliefs are agnostic.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
Last time we had a disciple of Rome as PM he started an illegal war.
Pity us atheists with all these god-botherers strutting on the political stage!
Sacrificing Kendall could actually HELP Corbyn as people who would have voted for her don't bother and bang goes the Cooper/Burnham 2nd pref.
I think any attempt to engineer an 'anyone but Corbyn' situation only makes a Corbyn victory more likely.
Having set up this 4-way fight, the party has to see it through - otherwise whatever support there is for the party will collapse even more quickly. The membership want this choice - for good or ill. They have to be permitted to make it.
Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard
'Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
Sorry, but Northern Rock was just the first symptom of a UK catastrophe. RBS, BoS/Halifax and all. HSBC had supposedly its over seas operations to keep it capitalised, and Barclays, had seemingly an interesting time of it.
If the banks had gone under, very few other UK institutions would have survived. '
Yes, bailouts may eventually have been needed, but Northern Rock, like Lehmans, could have gone under pour encourager les autres!
Sacrificing Kendall could actually HELP Corbyn as people who would have voted for her don't bother and bang goes the Cooper/Burnham 2nd pref.
There's also the problem that a Kendall endorsement would contaminate either Burnham or Cooper in the eyes of the mainstream. The assumption would be that any candidate who got her endorsement would have made policy concessions to her behind the scenes.
Comments
Cooper is going to end up being the stop Corbyn candidate
I don't think a stop Corbyn candidate can arise if Corbyn is so close to victory from first preferences alone.
It's unfortunate that Labour couldn't put a candidate that was a normal human being with the exception of Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/623970863017279488
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/623971441915097088
EDIT: I also would question how right-wing Blair's economic platform was. He did some privatisation, but also borrowed-and-spent as good as any leftist.
Well done Speedy. I've been posting this less eloquently for days, and you've hit the nail on the head.
Beating the Tories in 1997 is no achievement, anyone could have done it as long as he/she wore a red rosette.
What's most astonishing about it is that, after Liz Kendall has given a master class in how to completely screw up a reply to this simple question, Andy and Yvette then manage to repeat the same mistake. And that's after Jeremy Corbyn has shown them how to get it right.
I rather think half the reason why we went into Iraq was that if Blair had not been so wrapped up in foreign affairs he would have nothing to do.
'And that is why Mr. Stephen Bush that Labour is in such a predicament in it's leadership race, essentially the other 3 are so useless so far that it's like Corbyn is running all by himself with no opponent.'
Spot on, just watched the Sunday politics debate.
Burnham fits exactly Tony Benn's description of a political weathercock,Cooper doesn't do public speaking,just spouts vacuous waffle and Kendall keeps banging on why Labour must change but with very little substance.
Or you say 'Look, I like Ed, and I greatly admire him, but I wouldn't want him in my first shadow cabinet, it would be a distraction from the changes I want to make to the direction of the party'.
It really isn't hard. It's about as simple a question as any of the contenders could be expected to answer.
Just seen a new 2016 national poll from PPP.
Trump has taken the lead with PPP too, no sign of the McCain comments hitting his vote share.
Trump 19
Walker 17
Bush 12
Carson 10
Rubio 10
Huckabee 8
Cruz 4
Fiorina 4
Paul 4
Christie 3
Kasich 3
Goodnight.
We'll have big laughs in 2 weeks time watching the GOP debates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw
'Ed Miliband may have lost Scotland for Labour, had carved the ‘heaviest suicide note’ in British politics and instigated ‘The longest suicide vote in history’, but I still think he will be fondly remembered.'
Remembered as a case study on how to lose an election ?
I couldn't see Labour forking out the £30k for the real thing - to plant in the Rose Garden - until Miliband actually had the keys to Number 10...
Anyhow, we won't need to worry about such loopy stunts if Jezza gets in - hasn't he promised to abandon Downing Street and run Britain from his North Islington flat?
Equality of opportunity is what we should all be seeking. Everyone having the scope to develop and reach the goals that they can set for themselves. Providing support to those who are not able to support themselves and encouraging others to be the best that they can be.
Socialism doesn't offer that kind of equality. It never has and it never will.
The worn and battered one who actually answered the question at least was coherent.
I would have thought teaboy would be the safer option.
I don't know where we'd end up, but it would be one hell of a ride!
All the Blairites ruling themselves out of serving in @jeremycorbyn shadow cabinet. Looks like it's me, Dennis Skinner & David Lammy.
For once in her life she may be spot-on
I was a bit surprised by the part right at the end where they talked about their faith (or in fact, that none of them were religious). Andy Burnham's press coverage has often strayed onto him being a devout Catholic, and using that to explain his voting record on things like gay adoption: But in the LBC interview he says he sends his kids to Catholic school because of the "values" it teaches, he enthuses about Catholic Social Teaching, and used to be an altar boy, but goes on to say he "doesn't do God" himself and his religious beliefs are agnostic.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
What happens in 12 months' time?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
"I’ll always be a Milifan. Ed was the best prime minister we never had"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11751242/Jeremy-Corbyn-If-Im-PM-I-wouldnt-want-to-live-in-10-Downing-Street.html
However, had it not been safe to let Labour in, the country would have rather unenthusiastically returned Major's Tories, much as it returned Blair's Labour in 2005.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved.
If Labour can make the higher tax/higher spend/no borrowing case, then I think they'll do well. For example, reinstating free university education (personally, I'd target it on subjects that the country need, but whatever). I bet a lot of people would be in favour of that. Tax some wealthy pensioners to pay for it.
Andy Corbyn
Jeremy Burnham
Yvette Kendall
Liz Cooper
Perhaps the reason they don't want EdM in the Shadow Cabinet is that they don't want him to out-shine them.
This is at odds with his Wikipedia page, which uses this old Indie article as a citation for his religion being Catholic. "Mr Burnham is one of the most prominent Catholics in Westminster", according to the article. But the only hard facts in the article are about Burnham's upbringing, not his current faith.
(This isn't the only Wikipedia article I know of which has got someone's religion wrong - at one point in his biography, they incorrectly list Sajid Javid as a practising Muslim, based on a wry comment he made in a newspaper article about how his wife goes to church more often than he goes to mosque. But he's always been clear he is a non-practising Muslim, as the article goes on to note. Whoever wrote that bit of the article was apparently taking a somewhat facetious statement at face value.)
Last time we had a disciple of Rome as PM he started an illegal war.
'Heh.
Why would he be? Hague was not in the Shadow Cabinets of IDS and Howard
Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
Pity us atheists with all these god-botherers strutting on the political stage!
What does that mean, "lefty influenced"?
Not that that makes a great difference, under an AV election, but are there technical barriers to dropping out? Aside from the psychological barrier of it being silly to drop out very near to the finishing line?
Watch the vid. Iain Dale made a thing, from the start, about the candidates shirking questions, being robotic, etc - unlike the candid Corbyn. Burnham's chance came later in the segment, when he knew this. So he had time to formulate an answer (as did Cooper). Both flunked it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
Sorry, but Northern Rock was just the first symptom of a UK catastrophe. RBS, BoS/Halifax and all. HSBC had supposedly its over seas operations to keep it capitalised, and Barclays, had seemingly an interesting time of it.
If the banks had gone under, very few other UK institutions would have survived.
All three of them.are automatons, incapable of original thought. Ask them.any question and they give you Brownism or Blairism reheated. Corbyn was the only one that actually mentally processed the question and gave a rational answer. No wonder he is wiping the floor with them.
Socialism is completely the opposite of this.
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/dawkins-doubts/
Apparently (again, I hear this second or third hand) several CLPs have had the leadership nomination meeting (mis)scheduled as General Committee rather than All Member and ended up not nominating anyone as a result. I think - super-tentatively - Brentford and Isleworth is an example of that.
Anyone have any idea what is going on with this one?
(This might be a good question to ask Andrea. I'm not usually in the same "PB timezone" as he is, sadly, but if anyone catches him online I'd be interested to hear from him.)
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Anyway, i'm off to bed, Good night all.
You had Ed Miliband and Clegg!
Having set up this 4-way fight, the party has to see it through - otherwise whatever support there is for the party will collapse even more quickly. The membership want this choice - for good or ill. They have to be permitted to make it.
They are crap. Really really crap. I could aaaaaaaaalmost sympathise with Labour members.
Corbyn is the best politician amongst them. Unhelpfully, he is also insane.
Because you disagree with him doesn't make him insane but does open you to questions on your own sanity.
You put your money in a bank. Jeremy Corbyn plans to nationalise the banks. Therefore he would be in charge of our money. And he thinks people will vote for that. That's pretty fecking insane. But I admit to finding him resolutely principled and impressive, and I would love to see him win.
Really hate to tell you this, but the majority of the UK population thinks that Banks should be nationalised.
The people in charge screwed the tax payers of the UK for billions, then still expected bonuses of many millions. Plus, they are still getting away with the lie.
No, when polled that is the area voters definitely do not want nationalised. They believe more banks should have been allowed to go bust like Lehmans, the problem was too little capitalism with the banks
Interesting point, but true. The problem being, that if the banks had gone bust, they would have been fully nationalised by which ever government. The individual person would still need to be paid into their bank account to pay the bills. With out the bills being paid, the service companies would have gone bust needing to be nationalised. Transport companies, rail, air, bus companies would have to be nationalised.
Which ever way you look at it, we do not have a cash economy (except admittedly for the black one) and the majority of the population would have suffered and starved. '
Maybe, but still no reason we had to bail out Northern Rock, the US economy had a difficult time for a few years but has recovered even though Lehmans went bust
Sorry, but Northern Rock was just the first symptom of a UK catastrophe. RBS, BoS/Halifax and all. HSBC had supposedly its over seas operations to keep it capitalised, and Barclays, had seemingly an interesting time of it.
If the banks had gone under, very few other UK institutions would have survived. '
Yes, bailouts may eventually have been needed, but Northern Rock, like Lehmans, could have gone under pour encourager les autres!