politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pick Corbyn now and do it all again in three years time?
Comments
-
Has someone told all the candidates to shut up? It all seems very quiet (comparatively speaking) today?0
-
This really relies on Cooper coming over all 'the Lady's not for turning' to gain some sort of wider respect. However the attacks she would be facing would be from her own party - not the then opposition like Thatcher. Indeed the policies followed by Thatcher were all worked out whilst in opposition and followed through. There is no evidence that Labour want to face up to any of that they have already had 5 years with no semblance of success.antifrank said:I cannot see any benefit to the Labour party of having three years of china-smashing rows between the hard left and the rest of the party. Since two of the four leadership candidates have already said that they would not serve under Jeremy Corbyn, that is what a Jeremy Corbyn victory would mean.
It may be too late for any other outcome, but Labour need a candidate who can provide a semblance of unity to the party while giving it the space to air policy differences and while offering a firm hand of leadership. Of the four candidates, the only one who looks to me to be remotely likely to be able to do that is Yvette Cooper. Even she does not stand very good chances, but right now Labour have to take what they can find.0 -
Really - ? The first sentence in your link says -- ''Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time''dugarbandier said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoliberalismPlato said:I've no idea what a *neo-liberal* is - can you help me out here?
dugarbandier said:
definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellowsFlightpathl said:Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''
Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.
you should get a google on your internet, you can find out all sorts of things
Thats a big help.
It covers - ''laissez-faire economic liberalism''
and
''a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.''0 -
Yup – Ms Eagle today on LabourList.SquareRoot said:Has someone told all the candidates to shut up? It all seems very quiet today?
The unwelcome briefings and the public prophesies of doom and destruction from senior figures in the Labour Party over the past week about Jeremy Corbyn are doing more damage to the Party than they are to the leadership candidate himself. Not only are they harmful, they are disrespectful to Labour Party members and supporters who.. Cont’d Pg 94.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-political-elite-need-to-lay-off-jeremy-corbyn/
0 -
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
Running the model on the 600 seats proposed, the Tories are 19 short of a majority (CON 282 seats, LAB 275 seats) which is strange as I thought the new 600 seats werer supposed to give the Tories an advantage.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.0 -
Well quite. And being smugly patronising to boot.Flightpathl said:
Really - ? The first sentence in your link says -- ''Neoliberalism is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time''dugarbandier said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoliberalismPlato said:I've no idea what a *neo-liberal* is - can you help me out here?
dugarbandier said:
definitely rattled, I'd say, you neo-liberal fellowsFlightpathl said:Barnsian says .... ''To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals.''
Ho hum. Meantime every single person of a centrist and right wing tendency is sitting on their hands are they? Your notion of Corbyn 'winning' is for the Tories to be just short of an overall majority - thereby leaving Labour to form a loopy loop left wing alliance with the SNP. Yeah - brilliant how that worked last time.
You also suggest that Corbyn's views on immigration will go down well with the euphemistically named 'WWC'
This is Corbyn's view as expressed in a question - ''Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?''
All this without his friendship with middle east terrorist organisations.
you should get a google on your internet, you can find out all sorts of things
Thats a big help.
It covers - ''laissez-faire economic liberalism''
and
''a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.''0 -
Can someone point me to the twitter feed of Tim, late of PB?0
-
She is right but I cannot abide her whiny voice..SimonStClare said:
Yup – Ms Eagle today on LabourList.SquareRoot said:Has someone told all the candidates to shut up? It all seems very quiet today?
The unwelcome briefings and the public prophesies of doom and destruction from senior figures in the Labour Party over the past week about Jeremy Corbyn are doing more damage to the Party than they are to the leadership candidate himself. Not only are they harmful, they are disrespectful to Labour Party members and supporters who.. Cont’d Pg 94.
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-political-elite-need-to-lay-off-jeremy-corbyn/0 -
I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.0 -
-
LOL.Scott_P said:
The SNP?Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
Hateful venal small-minded nationalists.
0 -
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
Fingers crossed if he wins we should hear Skinner cheering, 'I've got my Party back' (as opposed to 'I want my seat back').dr_spyn said:
Quite a roll call of lost causes which will do little to swing voters back to Labour. Corbyn is like Benn wrong on too many big issues.TheWhiteRabbit said:I think if Corbyn were merely an economic left-winger, then Labour could survive him - if they were prepared to as Don says, do it all again in three years. But Corbyn's support for Chavez, the IRA, Hamas, Argentina's claim to the Falklands (all to varying and disputed degrees) and many other such issues will be too much for much of the party to bear.
But he won't. Sad really.
0 -
@SquareRoot Thanks.0
-
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
Also forget our recording funding of International Aid.0
-
Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.0 -
"Aylesbury child sex abuse trial: Six men found guilty"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-336568020 -
Conversely, the Tories represent those who have gotten on, made something of themselves and know how to help those who haven't had the chance.
They're very focused on educational standards, work and a hand-up.
Take your pick. I'm in the *teach a man to fish camp*.Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
Can I clone you and marry your twin brother?Charles said:
Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.0 -
I agree Corbyn's wacky foreign policy stances will alienate Kippers. However, if he had enough pragmatism to play them down, I do think some of his economic stances and the sheer novelty of a politician who "says what he thinks" could win some Kippers back.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
Running the model on the 600 seats proposed, the Tories are 19 short of a majority (CON 282 seats, LAB 275 seats) which is strange as I thought the new 600 seats werer supposed to give the Tories an advantage.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
0 -
Centre-left political thought would have no problem with any of that.Plato said:Conversely, the Tories represent those who have gotten on, made something of themselves and know how to help those who haven't had the chance.
They're very focused on educational standards, work and a hand-up.
Take your pick. I'm in the *teach a man to fish camp*.Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
From the current PB header post:
"He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives"
Sort of gives the game away...0 -
I think that a desire to control peoples' lives (for their own good, and society's good of course) is what propels many people into politics.Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.0 -
Actually, I think the problem is that a big chunk in the economy was cyclical (arguably a supercycle) and once there was a return to a semblance of normality in the financial sector that disappeared and won't be replaced.Flightpathl said:
Debt went up because of the increase in spending over the previous 10 years. Up 50% in real terms. The crash (a crash not simply a downturn in the economic cycle) also destroyed a big chunk of the economy that was structural not cyclical and would not come back in any upturn. We are cutting spending now because it is unaffordable in any circumstances. The economy has been supported kin this time by a relatively slow rate of cuts - in effect the Keynesian type of deficit spending associated with a normal recession. But all this time the govt has been making and planning cuts to its spending.
The problem was - as you identify - Brown increased structural spending based on cyclical revenues. Hence that structural spending needs to be eliminated to rebase the government's spending to a sustainable level.0 -
How terrible. It seems very sad that these cases are so common now that child abuse on a 'massive scale' now barely makes the news.AndyJS said:"Aylesbury child sex abuse trial: Six men found guilty"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-336568020 -
Really?
Kippers would be happy handing over the Falklands, chumming with the IRA and loving immigration?
You can't *play that down*. The media won't be shy in bringing that up.Danny565 said:
I agree Corbyn's wacky foreign policy stances will alienate Kippers. However, if he had enough pragmatism to play them down, I do think some of his economic stances and the sheer novelty of a politician who "says what he thinks" could win some Kippers back.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
snipTheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
Running the model on the 600 seats proposed, the Tories are 19 short of a majority (CON 282 seats, LAB 275 seats) which is strange as I thought the new 600 seats werer supposed to give the Tories an advantage.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.0 -
@foxinsox has a bit of crush on her thoughRichard_Nabavi said:
What adoration for Liz? She's said some sensible things which the party doesn't want to hear, but as far as her actual leadership qualities are concerned, she's completely useless: she lacks charisma, can't answer a simple question, talks too much, and gets herself tied in knots on even the simplest subjects. She looks and sounds like a rather naive primary school teacher.Danny565 said:
How come your adoration of Liz has worn off?Richard_Nabavi said:
IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.Slackbladder said:Lets keep it simple
Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.
I'm sure she's very nice, though. 0 -
He does look lost. Desperately trying to get the more famous people to respond to his twits...SquareRoot said:
"look at me".
0 -
'Barely?' - Don’t be confused with the BBC’s reporting of the Aylesbury Six and that of ITV.JEO said:
How terrible. It seems very sad that these cases are so common now that child abuse on a 'massive scale' now barely makes the news.AndyJS said:"Aylesbury child sex abuse trial: Six men found guilty"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33656802
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-07-24/six-members-of-child-sex-ring-found-guilty-of-abuse/
0 -
Hence why I've voted centre Left and Right since 1986. It's all about who can most credibly deliver this - I don't have any hang-ups about what the Party name is if they are doing what I think is best.
The Never Kissed A Tory hate that comes from certain Lefties is beyond my comprehension.Monty said:
Centre-left political thought would have no problem with any of that.Plato said:Conversely, the Tories represent those who have gotten on, made something of themselves and know how to help those who haven't had the chance.
They're very focused on educational standards, work and a hand-up.
Take your pick. I'm in the *teach a man to fish camp*.Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
Nice to see he's mellowing and not bitter and twisted at all.SquareRoot said:0 -
Hopi Sen - the thinking man's lefty - wrote a good blog post on that subject recently:Charles said:Actually, I think the problem is that a big chunk in the economy was cyclical (arguably a supercycle) and once there was a return to a semblance of normality in the financial sector that disappeared and won't be replaced.
The problem was - as you identify - Brown increased structural spending based on cyclical revenues. Hence that structural spending needs to be eliminated to rebase the government's spending to a sustainable level.
http://hopisen.com/2015/a-modest-and-doubly-stolen-proposal/
(I guess he must be in complete despair at the state of Labour, however).0 -
Perhaps the next PB competition should be: "what should Lab's "big idea" for 2020 be?"kle4 said:
Yes, but it helps if they can start laying out their narratives now. That said, if that is to be gung-ho opposition, that;s fine as long as they commit to it. At the moment they are still having an internal debate about what narrative to adopt, and that's amusing for their opponents, but I would think not a fatal problem for Labour unless that debate never stops in the next 5 years. That doesn't mean they need to be united from start to finish, but I think if the gung-ho approach is adopted and not working after a few years, time to switch strategies while there's still time (when the Tories seemed to be panicking a little a few years ago I think they showed how switching tack too late is not as effective, when they tried to go from Ed is Crap to Ed is Dangerous (in the sense of what he would do, not merely that his crapness would be dangerous, but dangerously competent in the wrong way))Danny565 said:irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years.
Serious answers only pls (that rules you out, Jeremy).
My submission would be: a credible private and social house-building programme, fully costed, in detail together with UK region-wide plans together with councils and developers. As it is a Lab plan, it could combine some lefty, anti-nimby, anti-landlord rhetoric but would need to withstand all-comers (eg. Johns Pienaar and Humphries, Andrew Neil, etc) and be able to be espoused, confidently, with numbers to hand, by the most inept junior shadow minister (ie all of them).
Not sure if it is "big" enough an idea but it would be something that everyone agrees governments over the many many years have neglected. Housing (hi tim) remains our key challenge whatever your political stripe.0 -
A double wedding with @HYUFD and Andy?
That's so romantic!
Charles said:
@foxinsox has a bit of crush on her thoughRichard_Nabavi said:
What adoration for Liz? She's said some sensible things which the party doesn't want to hear, but as far as her actual leadership qualities are concerned, she's completely useless: she lacks charisma, can't answer a simple question, talks too much, and gets herself tied in knots on even the simplest subjects. She looks and sounds like a rather naive primary school teacher.Danny565 said:
How come your adoration of Liz has worn off?Richard_Nabavi said:
IMO Burnham will prove to be about the same as Ed, Yvette is a bit better.Slackbladder said:Lets keep it simple
Is Burnham sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
Is Cooper sigifigantly better/more electable than Ed Miliband?
If the answer to both of those questions is NO then Labour have a big f-ing problem.
I'm sure she's very nice, though.0 -
At the end of R4Today 8.55am was David Aaronovitch. Discussing what the hard left stands for. His view was that after the end of socialism in Europe, socialists in Europe have turned into a group that is clear on what they are against but not what they are for.
I then heard a clip from Ms Kendall today who was also stating that Labour were needed to oppose the Conservatives.... So is it a wider problem for all the left that they are argiung what they are against, not what they are for? Excluding motherhood, apple pie and universal peace.0 -
Not sure what the problem is! It's just a less polite way of saying what politics is really about, not the usual euphemisms about leadership that we use to hide the indignity of surrendering our sovereignty.AndyJS said:From the current PB header post:
"He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives"
Sort of gives the game away...
Democracy is still a -cracy.0 -
A magnificent rant! Agree wholeheartedly. Governments who want to control people's lives can get stuffed.Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.
0 -
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
UKIP of course are a dying force having peaked in 2015. They did much more damage to Labour than Tory in the last election so their demise will be more to Labour's advantage.0 -
You want to provide some stats on diminishing social mobility?Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.
I think you will find they don't show what you expect0 -
Just build 1 million flats in London within 5 years. That is where demand is and where the money is. No need for subsidy, just ease the planning restrictions and Build Baby Build.TOPPING said:
Perhaps the next PB competition should be: "what should Lab's "big idea" for 2020 be?"kle4 said:
Yes, but it helps if they can start laying out their narratives now. That said, if that is to be gung-ho opposition, that;s fine as long as they commit to it. At the moment they are still having an internal debate about what narrative to adopt, and that's amusing for their opponents, but I would think not a fatal problem for Labour unless that debate never stops in the next 5 years. That doesn't mean they need to be united from start to finish, but I think if the gung-ho approach is adopted and not working after a few years, time to switch strategies while there's still time (when the Tories seemed to be panicking a little a few years ago I think they showed how switching tack too late is not as effective, when they tried to go from Ed is Crap to Ed is Dangerous (in the sense of what he would do, not merely that his crapness would be dangerous, but dangerously competent in the wrong way))Danny565 said:irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years.
Serious answers only pls (that rules you out, Jeremy).
My submission would be: a credible private and social house-building programme, fully costed, in detail together with UK region-wide plans together with councils and developers. As it is a Lab plan, it could combine some lefty, anti-nimby, anti-landlord rhetoric but would need to withstand all-comers (eg. Johns Pienaar and Humphries, Andrew Neil, etc) and be able to be espoused, confidently, with numbers to hand, by the most inept junior shadow minister (ie all of them).
Not sure if it is "big" enough an idea but it would be something that everyone agrees governments over the many many years have neglected. Housing (hi tim) remains our key challenge whatever your political stripe.
London also has the infrastructure to move the workers around. The other need is for retirement villages on cheap land away from London. Same level units. Could even have an iht exclusion to incentivise the old to buy up and move.0 -
My older brother is still single. But he's not half as charmingPlato said:Can I clone you and marry your twin brother?
Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.
0 -
I'm so surprised they aren't Croatians...SimonStClare said:
'Barely?' - Don’t be confused with the BBC’s reporting of the Aylesbury Six and that of ITV.JEO said:
How terrible. It seems very sad that these cases are so common now that child abuse on a 'massive scale' now barely makes the news.AndyJS said:"Aylesbury child sex abuse trial: Six men found guilty"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33656802
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-07-24/six-members-of-child-sex-ring-found-guilty-of-abuse/0 -
In terms of votes the Tories are the party of the non-metropolitan middle-classes and the upper working-classes. They're certainly not the party of the rich since they only account for a small percentage of the electorate. By saying they're the party of the rich you're effectively saying they've brainwashed most of their supporters who aren't rich.Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
There you go - feel better now - you've become a Corbynite!Monty said:
Can't join the Tories. They appear happy to preside over growing division between rich and poor and diminishing social mobility. They are undoubtably the party of the rich, funded by the super-rich to preserve the wealth and power of the rich.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.
0 -
Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
UKIP of course are a dying force having peaked in 2015. They did much more damage to Labour than Tory in the last election so their demise will be more to Labour's advantage.
it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?0 -
I feel sorry for people like @HopiSen.Richard_Nabavi said:
Hopi Sen - the thinking man's lefty - wrote a good blog post on that subject recently:Charles said:Actually, I think the problem is that a big chunk in the economy was cyclical (arguably a supercycle) and once there was a return to a semblance of normality in the financial sector that disappeared and won't be replaced.
The problem was - as you identify - Brown increased structural spending based on cyclical revenues. Hence that structural spending needs to be eliminated to rebase the government's spending to a sustainable level.
http://hopisen.com/2015/a-modest-and-doubly-stolen-proposal/
(I guess he must be in complete despair at the state of Labour, however).
He's clearly sensible, and emotionally connected to the Labour Party. He must feel like I did during the IDS years...0 -
One of the interesting things if Corbyn wins will be seeing how he manages his party colleagues. He has a couple of options:
1) - have a shadow cabinet of fellow travellers - Meacher, McDonnell, Abbott etc
2) Have a cross-party shadow cabinet including Umunna, Hunt etc (if they are willing to serve)
Option 1 would lead to a united shadow cabinet and consistent policy agenda but leave the Blairite wing and the mainstream in the cold and preparing rebellion
Option 2 - would lead to a shadow cabinet at loggerheads and a policy mish mash (you might end up with Hunt at education backing free schools and Abbott at health promising to end all private provision in the NHS)0 -
I was coming over all @SeanTCyclefree said:
A magnificent rant! Agree wholeheartedly. Governments who want to control people's lives can get stuffed.Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.0 -
Comrades!Charles said:
I feel sorry for people like @HopiSen.Richard_Nabavi said:
Hopi Sen - the thinking man's lefty - wrote a good blog post on that subject recently:Charles said:Actually, I think the problem is that a big chunk in the economy was cyclical (arguably a supercycle) and once there was a return to a semblance of normality in the financial sector that disappeared and won't be replaced.
The problem was - as you identify - Brown increased structural spending based on cyclical revenues. Hence that structural spending needs to be eliminated to rebase the government's spending to a sustainable level.
http://hopisen.com/2015/a-modest-and-doubly-stolen-proposal/
(I guess he must be in complete despair at the state of Labour, however).
He's clearly sensible, and emotionally connected to the Labour Party. He must feel like I did during the IDS years...
Remember, IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!0 -
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
s.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
UKIP of course are a dying force having peaked in 2015. They did much more damage to Labour than Tory in the last election so their demise will be more to Labour's advantage.
it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP0 -
How is that a caricature? Leftish UKIP voters might very well vote for the Labour Party of Jim Callaghan. I can assure you that they won't vote for Corbyn, whose views are diametrically opposed to theirs. A Corbyn-led Labour party is the best thing that could happen to UKIP.Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
I can imagine strong support here in Leyton but there is no underground hoard waiting to spring up in support of Labour across the marginals.
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
UKIP of course are a dying force having peaked in 2015. They did much more damage to Labour than Tory in the last election so their demise will be more to Labour's advantage.0 -
-
"The Angry WWC" wants someone who will stand up for them. Corbyn isn't that.Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.
He does not stand for their aspirations, their hopes, their desire for a better life.
His position on immigration is totally contrary to the demands of 'the angry WWC'
0 -
I wonder how many of us PB Oldies remember the time eternally polite @david_herdson got so irked that he said F*** in a comment?
That must have been at least 7yrs ago by my reckoning!SimonStClare said:0 -
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.Sean_F said:
Why on earth would UKIP voters rally to a Labour Party led by someone who welcomes mass migration, supports Sinn Fein, backs Argentina's claim to the Falklands, and is a hard left-winger?Barnesian said:
To win in Tory marginals, Corbyn doesn't need to persuade a single Tory to vote Labour. He needs to persuade LibDems, Greens, WWC UKIP and Labour DNV to come out and vote Labour in those marginals. It isn't a battle for the centre or middle England. It is a battle to focus the anti-Tory vote to vote Labour in Tory/LAB marginals which Corbyn and Farron will be well placed to do. Quid pro quo in Tory/LD marginals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't know where Corbyn's gains would be.SandyRentool said:I think that if JC wins, and sees in a couple of years time that it isn't working, he will stand down. Then the likes of Starmer, Jarvis and Chuka will be up for it.
If, however, the nation takes to a Corbynite Labour Party a la Syriza, then JC4PM it is.
Although he might be able to get back support in Scotland, I doubt Labour can hope to gain more than about 20 seats. Which means 80+ gains in England and Wales.
s.
In Scotland, he need to persuade Labour voters who voted SNP to come back to Labour.
I have run this scenario on Electoral Calculus:
In Scotland, I have assumed Labour gets back half the Labour defectors to SNP.
This gives LAB 28 extra seats in Scotland.
In England and Wales, I have assumed that there is effective tactical voting between Lab, LD and Grn in respective marginals. I have also assumed that Corbyn appeals to 30% of the UKIP vote that is disillusioned WWC. I haven't made any assumption about getting Labour DNVs to actually vote. That would be a bonus.
This gives LAB 37.0% to CON 37.8%.
In terms of seats CON are 12 short of a majority.
CON 314
LAB 282
LD 14
SNP 18
PC 3
.
It's far more likely that in Con/Lab marginal, UKIP voters would switch heavily to the Conservatives to keep out Labour, and in Labour-held seats where UKIP are second, like Hartlepool, Dagenham & Rainham, Rother Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Conservative voters would switch behind UKIP.
UKIP of course are a dying force having peaked in 2015. They did much more damage to Labour than Tory in the last election so their demise will be more to Labour's advantage.
it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +10 -
There was some work done a few years ago which credibly showed that city housing problem could be very much alleviated by bringing the dwellings built above shops back into use. From the government's point of view this could be done quite cheaply with some tax changes and would require almost no planning consents so it would be less subject to delay and nimbyismTCPoliticalBetting said:
Just build 1 million flats in London within 5 years. That is where demand is and where the money is. No need for subsidy, just ease the planning restrictions and Build Baby Build.TOPPING said:
Perhaps the next PB competition should be: "what should Lab's "big idea" for 2020 be?"kle4 said:
Yes, but it helps if they can start laying out their narratives now. That said, if that is to be gung-ho opposition, that;s fine as long as they commit to it. At the moment they are still having an internal debate about what narrative to adopt, and that's amusing for their opponents, but I would think not a fatal problem for Labour unless that debate never stops in the next 5 years. That doesn't mean they need to be united from start to finish, but I think if the gung-ho approach is adopted and not working after a few years, time to switch strategies while there's still time (when the Tories seemed to be panicking a little a few years ago I think they showed how switching tack too late is not as effective, when they tried to go from Ed is Crap to Ed is Dangerous (in the sense of what he would do, not merely that his crapness would be dangerous, but dangerously competent in the wrong way))Danny565 said:irrespective of what they prefer, there's no election to be won or lost for another 5 years.
Serious answers only pls (that rules you out, Jeremy).
My submission would be: a credible private and social house-building programme, fully costed, in detail together with UK region-wide plans together with councils and developers. As it is a Lab plan, it could combine some lefty, anti-nimby, anti-landlord rhetoric but would need to withstand all-comers (eg. Johns Pienaar and Humphries, Andrew Neil, etc) and be able to be espoused, confidently, with numbers to hand, by the most inept junior shadow minister (ie all of them).
Not sure if it is "big" enough an idea but it would be something that everyone agrees governments over the many many years have neglected. Housing (hi tim) remains our key challenge whatever your political stripe.
London also has the infrastructure to move the workers around. The other need is for retirement villages on cheap land away from London. Same level units. Could even have an iht exclusion to incentivise the old to buy up and move.0 -
Sadly, it isn't surprising that these men are all of Muslim Asian backgrounds. I wonder if the local authorities looked the other way once again. Will Lowell Goddard's review include local governments, or is it just looking at Westminster?Plato said:I'm so surprised they aren't Croatians...
SimonStClare said:
'Barely?' - Don’t be confused with the BBC’s reporting of the Aylesbury Six and that of ITV.JEO said:
How terrible. It seems very sad that these cases are so common now that child abuse on a 'massive scale' now barely makes the news.AndyJS said:"Aylesbury child sex abuse trial: Six men found guilty"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33656802
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-07-24/six-members-of-child-sex-ring-found-guilty-of-abuse/0 -
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).0 -
Plus, like most lefties, Corbyn will despair at the WWC's failure to adopt "correct" thinking and attitudes.oxfordsimon said:
"The Angry WWC" wants someone who will stand up for them. Corbyn isn't that.Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.
He does not stand for their aspirations, their hopes, their desire for a better life.
His position on immigration is totally contrary to the demands of 'the angry WWC'0 -
Kendall now 6 nominations away from matching Diane Abbott's 2010 tally.0
-
Those found guilty in Aylesbury case:
Vikram Singh, Asif Hussain, Arshad Jani, Mohammed Imran, Akbari Khan, Taimoor Khan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-336568020 -
Charles said:
I was coming over all @SeanTCyclefree said:
A magnificent rant! Agree wholeheartedly. Governments who want to control people's lives can get stuffed.Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.
Who are you and what have you done to Charles?
0 -
The PB Tories are never wrong, the PB Tories always learn!RobD said:
Another PB Tory being wrong.. the correct quotation is "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories always learn"...taffys said:Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.
If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned.
0 -
Worth a read for the growing division in Labour.
Progress vs Unite
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/the-rival-factions-at-war-over-labours-leadership-contest/
There was also the attempt the GMB almost made to ban Progress from Labour.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/06/29/revealed-the-gmb-backtracks-on-progress/
0 -
The Left is in a mess. There's nothing to say labour has to be the incumbent leftist party. They have the advantage of incumbency but increasing their faultlines are looking chasms. It will take a strong leader to bring the pieces back together. Currently I can't see one.Philip_Thompson said:
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).0 -
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +10 -
Thanks.. may have just disproven the ruleSunil_Prasannan said:
The PB Tories are never wrong, the PB Tories always learn!RobD said:
Another PB Tory being wrong.. the correct quotation is "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories always learn"...taffys said:Indeed..the same 'rattled' as people when they said 'Ed is crap'.
If I had a quid for every time I read on this site that PB tories were always wrong, never learned. 0 -
Interesting bloc there.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Worth a read for the growing division in Labour.
Progress vs Unite
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/the-rival-factions-at-war-over-labours-leadership-contest/
There was also the attempt the GMB almost made to ban Progress from Labour.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2012/06/29/revealed-the-gmb-backtracks-on-progress/0 -
My God – that’s on a par with Phileas Fogg allowing ‘women’ into a gentleman’s club.
Any more of that sort of thing and the British Empire is doomed…!Plato said:I wonder how many of us PB Oldies remember the time eternally polite @david_herdson got so irked that he said F*** in a comment?
That must have been at least 7yrs ago by my reckoning!SimonStClare said:0 -
Lab is far from leftist.Alanbrooke said:
The Left is in a mess. There's nothing to say labour has to be the incumbent leftist party. They have the advantage of incumbency but increasing their faultlines are looking chasms. It will take a strong leader to bring the pieces back together. Currently I can't see one.Philip_Thompson said:
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).
That is the whole basis of the debate engendered by JC.0 -
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.0 -
-
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.0 -
Six men involved in a child sex ring in Buckinghamshire have been found guilty of abusing two schoolgirls on a "massive scale".
The Old Bailey heard the abuse in Aylesbury went on for years and involved rape and child prostitution.
Eleven defendants faced trial, accused of 47 sexual offences between 2006 and 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33656802
The surnames of the men involved are interesting0 -
Re: Aylesbury rapes. To understand some folk's comments below about the BBC's selective reporting I have just heard BBC R5 news report.
In 5+ minutes of time spent on the report, no mention was made of the background of the 6 men found guilty and none of their "friends" that the 6 passed the girls onto. None of the 6 rapists names were read out either.
Staggering.0 -
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.0 -
Coming all over SeanT?Charles said:
I was coming over all @SeanTCyclefree said:
A magnificent rant! Agree wholeheartedly. Governments who want to control people's lives can get stuffed.Charles said:Wow. Wow! OMFG.
He has never show any interest in holding power — ie controlling people’s lives
How very revealing.
Government is not about controlling people's lives. It's about clearing the path so people can make the best of their own abilities. It's about providing a safety net to those who - for whatever reason - struggle in the modern world. It's about providing those functions (infrastructure, defence, etc) that it makes sense to provide centrally.
But "controlling people's lives".
Nope. Not that. F*ck you and your party if you even try.
You should have used a condom! 0 -
NB The cookies are for tracking your internet use.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.0 -
This is a problem for all left of centre parties because with the collapse of socialism/communism in Eastern Europe they no longer have a big idea or a raison d'etre other than to be against. And being against - apart from being fundamentally adolescent - has led tto some of those parties into some strange if not sinister cul de sacs.TCPoliticalBetting said:At the end of R4Today 8.55am was David Aaronovitch. Discussing what the hard left stands for. His view was that after the end of socialism in Europe, socialists in Europe have turned into a group that is clear on what they are against but not what they are for.
I then heard a clip from Ms Kendall today who was also stating that Labour were needed to oppose the Conservatives.... So is it a wider problem for all the left that they are argiung what they are against, not what they are for? Excluding motherhood, apple pie and universal peace.
This is not to say that Labour are like Communists but the socialist ideal - whether full on communism or social democracy - has been shown as a failure. It has had the stuffing knocked out of it and so various parties of the left have ended up being a mix of oppositionism (we hate the US and cosy up to those who hate the US as well, however repellent - the Leftish alliance with Islamists) to cries of pain (Syriza) to a desperate attempt to turn the world back to a time when those parties were at their zenith (Labour and the NHS and its fetish with life in 1949) to the pathetically vacuous (the woman on R4 this morning repeating "we believe in people" over and over like a political placebo).
What is desperately needed is some understanding of what social democracy in the 21st century should / could be. To do that you need to face up to the total failure of the socialist experiment in the 20th century and some understanding of why social democratic parties got it wrong. No-one in today's Labour party seems to me even to have begun this process.
0 -
Agreed completely that there's no reason that Labour has to be the incumbent leftist party but from the starting point of well over 200 seats, even if Corbyn drives the party further backwards I don't see who can or will displace them.Alanbrooke said:
The Left is in a mess. There's nothing to say labour has to be the incumbent leftist party. They have the advantage of incumbency but increasing their faultlines are looking chasms. It will take a strong leader to bring the pieces back together. Currently I can't see one.Philip_Thompson said:
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).
In a parallel universe where Cameron scraped a majority government in 2010 and "I agree with" Nick Clegg remained on the opposition benches with a starting point of 23% of the vote then he could have surged relative to Milliband and we could potentially be looking at crossover between Labour and the Liberals.
But for all the difficulties Labour has, their potential leftwing opposition is dead and buried. It will take some time to find the strong leader I agree and we could be looking at 18-20 years of Tory government (like Thatcher/Major) but eventually a sanish Labourite will be found and the pendulum will swing left.
For all the problems Labour has, there is no real left-wing alternative. So they'll stay in opposition as they're currently crap, but they'll remain the opposition.0 -
Turned UKIP into a joke post election.Alanbrooke said:
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.
Osborne is a genius.0 -
If that is true, and it could well be so then Labour's task in the rUK is much much harder.Philip_Thompson said:
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).0 -
Do you not think I'm being lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek myself in talking about the politics of the thirty sixth century?Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.0 -
Now if Kier Hardie was cloned and brought to adulthood, he could lead Labour and recapture the WWC vote as he was very anti-immigrant and would revive SLAB. Job done.TOPPING said:
Plus, like most lefties, Corbyn will despair at the WWC's failure to adopt "correct" thinking and attitudes.oxfordsimon said:
"The Angry WWC" wants someone who will stand up for them. Corbyn isn't that.Barnesian said:
That is a misleading caricature of Corbyn that will be dispelled. I think he will appeal to the angry WWC who despise the London elite of all politcal parties.
He does not stand for their aspirations, their hopes, their desire for a better life.
His position on immigration is totally contrary to the demands of 'the angry WWC'
0 -
The public finances would say otherwise.TheScreamingEagles said:
Turned UKIP into a joke post election.Alanbrooke said:
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.
Osborne is a genius.
Osborne is just a UKIP recruiting sergeant cunningly placed to empty the Conservatives of MPs.
0 -
There's a reason why I wear this medical alert braceletTissue_Price said:
NB The cookies are for tracking your internet use.TheScreamingEagles said:
Come join the Tory party.Monty said:I despair I really do. Not sure I will be able to stay in a party led by Corbyn. I will be politically homeless for the first time. Surely there must be room for a centre-left party who are actually interested in forming a government?
It appears not.
We love the NHS, look at our record funding of it. We also believe in social justice, look at our national living wage policy.
We believe in redistribution of wealth. Cameron and Osborne have had the higher rate of tax higher than Labour ever had it between 1997 and 2010 bar a few days.
The Tory high command are also doing their best to keep us in the EU unlike Jezza.
So come join the only truly one nation party in the UK, we also have cookies.
http://www.incrediblethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Delete-My-Browser-History-Medicalert-Bracelet.jpg0 -
At the risk of bringing @SeanT and @Socrates back toghether with their ethno-socio-anthropological cod lecturing bollocks, there really is no significance that of all the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed of all types in the UK, the guilt of the "Aylesbury Six" somehow proves a predilection to crime by any particular ethnic grouping.TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: Aylesbury rapes. To understand some folk's comments below about the BBC's selective reporting I have just heard BBC R5 news report.
In 5+ minutes of time spent on the report, no mention was made of the background of the 6 men found guilty and none of their "friends" that the 6 passed the girls onto. None of the 6 rapists names were read out either.
Staggering.
Nor do I want to be presented with the one study (as I remember the number was) "proving" that this behaviour (ie crime) is somehow the cultural norm in and particular to various south Asian cultures.0 -
Cyclefree true.
The one thing that New Labour/Progress want is power.0 -
Hmmm.... does that make Farage the anti-recruiting sergeant?Alanbrooke said:
The public finances would say otherwise.TheScreamingEagles said:
Turned UKIP into a joke post election.Alanbrooke said:
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.
Osborne is a genius.
Osborne is just a UKIP recruiting sergeant cunningly placed to empty the Conservatives of MPs.0 -
I think I need to do one of my Sunday threads on the brilliance of Osborne. Might be the longest thread header in Pb history.Alanbrooke said:
The public finances would say otherwise.TheScreamingEagles said:
Turned UKIP into a joke post election.Alanbrooke said:
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.
Osborne is a genius.
Osborne is just a UKIP recruiting sergeant cunningly placed to empty the Conservatives of MPs.0 -
That might have been the case under a two party system, now with much more chioice and less brand loyalty it's less certain. They still have all the advantages but a decent challenger could give them a run for their money.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed completely that there's no reason that Labour has to be the incumbent leftist party but from the starting point of well over 200 seats, even if Corbyn drives the party further backwards I don't see who can or will displace them.Alanbrooke said:
The Left is in a mess. There's nothing to say labour has to be the incumbent leftist party. They have the advantage of incumbency but increasing their faultlines are looking chasms. It will take a strong leader to bring the pieces back together. Currently I can't see one.Philip_Thompson said:
As part of the natural pendulum of politics there will always be a party of the left and a party of the right. If not Labour, who is going to replace them on the left? The Lib Dems? The Nigel Farage Party? Labour are wounded but not dead any more than the Tories under Hague/IDS/Howard were not mortally wounded forever.Alanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
In Scotland Labour are dying as the SNP are replacing them on the left (and as taxes are not presently an issue as money is raised in Westminster the pendulum is broken on the right).
In a parallel universe where Cameron scraped a majority government in 2010 and "I agree with" Nick Clegg remained on the opposition benches with a starting point of 23% of the vote then he could have surged relative to Milliband and we could potentially be looking at crossover between Labour and the Liberals.
But for all the difficulties Labour has, their potential leftwing opposition is dead and buried. It will take some time to find the strong leader I agree and we could be looking at 18-20 years of Tory government (like Thatcher/Major) but eventually a sanish Labourite will be found and the pendulum will swing left.
For all the problems Labour has, there is no real left-wing alternative. So they'll stay in opposition as they're currently crap, but they'll remain the opposition.0 -
In terms of when Labour may next be in power, it seems entirely reasonablePhilip_Thompson said:
Do you not think I'm being lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek myself in talking about the politics of the thirty sixth century?Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday. 0 -
Calling all Lib Dems, UKIP and Scottish Labour candidates.
@IsabelHardman: Were you a candidate who didn’t win a seat in 2015 and could bear having a chat with me about your experiences? Please let me know...0 -
Try 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-2019-2020......? When will the public finances balance ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I think I need to do one of my Sunday threads on the brilliance of Osborne. Might be the longest thread header in Pb history.Alanbrooke said:
The public finances would say otherwise.TheScreamingEagles said:
Turned UKIP into a joke post election.Alanbrooke said:
Osborne drove them to it.TheScreamingEagles said:
UKIP wouldn't have any MPs if Carswell and Reckless hadn't attended the Guy Burgess school of loyalty.Alanbrooke said:
yeah it was a windup for Sunil, much as he occasionally likes to wind me up.Philip_Thompson said:
Relative is meaningless without looking at the whole package (including the starting point and the fact that Carswell and Reckless were both incumbents). At the rate of one gain from two defections every five years it will only take 600 defections (if 600 seats is permanent) before UKIP can form a majority government in the year 3515.Alanbrooke said:
Relative movementSunil_Prasannan said:
Labour 232 MPsAlanbrooke said:it doesn't perhaps occur to you that Labour might be the dying force ?
UKIP 1 MP
Labour -26
UKIP +1
Take your head out of your arse and lighten up, it's Friday.
Osborne is a genius.
Osborne is just a UKIP recruiting sergeant cunningly placed to empty the Conservatives of MPs.0 -
Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.TCPoliticalBetting said:Cyclefree true.
The one thing that New Labour/Progress want is power.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to Conservative Central Council (15 March, 1986)
0 -
In the unlikely event that Corbyn is actually elected as Labour leader, I don't think he will want to lead them into the next election. He is not a team player and probably doesn't have the organisational skills or even the energy.GarethoftheVale2 said:One of the interesting things if Corbyn wins will be seeing how he manages his party colleagues. He has a couple of options:
1) - have a shadow cabinet of fellow travellers - Meacher, McDonnell, Abbott etc
2) Have a cross-party shadow cabinet including Umunna, Hunt etc (if they are willing to serve)
Option 1 would lead to a united shadow cabinet and consistent policy agenda but leave the Blairite wing and the mainstream in the cold and preparing rebellion
Option 2 - would lead to a shadow cabinet at loggerheads and a policy mish mash (you might end up with Hunt at education backing free schools and Abbott at health promising to end all private provision in the NHS)
What he does have is a clear narrative that combats the really successful Tory narrative that has the other Labour contenders stuck, mouths open, in the headlights.
Corbyn doesn't want to follow public opinion, he wants to lead public opinion. That is what the Tories have successfully done with their story telling. A new settlement.
If he is elected leader I hope he appoints a broad church of opinion into his shadow cabinet and ask them to simply and honestly speak their minds and not mimic the Tories. He would be excellent at PMQs and in the media. He would show Labour how to combat the Tories and then retire to let someone else lead into the next General Election haven shaken off the Tory spell that is currently hobbling them.0
