politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn: Winning the election but losing the argument?

Casino_Royale said:

Tissue_Price said:

The lady who posted the Milibeard pic is now trolling the media quite amusingly:

https://twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/with_replies

Not the sharpest:

"4h4 hours ago
Gráinne Maguire ‏@GrainneMaguire
I would encourage Labour members to join Tories to vote for most ridiculously alienating right wing candidate but he's already the leader"

Yes, pretty silly that. Even if people think Cameron is awful and really right wing (in secret, presumably), he's clearly not the most ridiculous or alienating, given his electoral successes based primarily, I suspect, because he is unthreatening enough that scare tactics about him being an alienating ridiculous right winger weren't very effective (at least not when comments about alienating left wingers were more effective against Ed M, true or not).

Tissue_Price said:

tyson said:

I am struck by people's intelligence. I met Tissue Price briefly and you could sense that hyper intelligence he possesses. Also, when you read Tissue's leads, they are exceptionally well written and clever. Similarly, Sean Fear- his posts are often just one liners but he manages to get his whole argument in those few words.

RodCrosby is clearly too intelligent for his own good- he could do with being a bit dumber and his life would be easier. JackW writes beautifully. SeanT is incredibly creative. Nick Palmer's understated and polite demeanour hides his intelligence. I'd love to see Nick unshackled and really tell us how it it. He'll never do it though.
You Casino, strike me as being successful in what you do.

I like pbCOM because you get intelligent people here. All of us are politically misguided to a greater or lesser extent. It is what makes it such an entertaining site.

There's only a minimal amount of persuading going on, but some beautiful argument from all sides.

Cue a series of people worried they are not making sweet, beautiful arguments sufficiently.

welshowl said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reuters is a bit more circumspect about Tsipras' plans:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/uk-eurozone-greece-tsipras-idUKKCN0QP16020150820

It'll be interesting to see who tops the polls. Will it be New SYRIZA, Old SYRIZA, or New Democracy.

Tsipiras remains personally popular, so I suspect he will win. But this is Greece, so who knows..

Which party is at the Centaur of Greek politics?

Dunno but Labour is beyond Satyr right now.

(waits for another round of shocking Greek puns)

I think the Greeks will have lost their marbles if they vote Syrizia back into government.

TOPPING said:

The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.

Look, we're never going to agree about the size of the state or anything like that.

But my fundamental problem is that the Conservatives are making an argument about the deficit rather than arguing about the size and the role of the state. If they had run and won on a mandate of smaller and decentralised government (although I'd argue that they're very inconsistent about what that actually means) then it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much. They're saying one thing while doing something completely different.

And, yes, the credit rating stuff was fluff. But the government pushed it hard and the press repeated it uncritically. But there were posters here, sincere posters, saying that the AAA credit rating was vitally important and the key difference between a Conservative and Labour government. The fact that people believed that nonsense shows the press isn't doing its job.

TOPPING said:

Oliver_PB said:

CopperSulphate said:

I can't understand how you're calling for higher spending and a lower deficit at the same time. Where's the extra money going to come from?

That's not what I'm arguing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even discussed about what the country should do about the deficit - in fact, I imagine my opinion on the matter would surprise you!

My problem is that the Conservatives present themselves as prioritising cutting the deficit when what they are really focusing on is reduce revenue by lowering taxes and spending money by increasing pensions instead. That's the problem.

There was a need for austerity because, analagously to 1997 when sleaze had overtaken the Cons and everyone was sick of it, by 2010 everyone was sick of the excess spending.

As, it seems, you are aware, governments have and arguably should run manageable deficits. The narrative in 2010 was that we needed austerity, the electorate agreed we needed cleansing and thus the Cons won.

Look on it as we went on the 5:2 diet. We did indeed have two years of austerity, after which it was quietly abandoned and we are three years through our five of non-austerity.

The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.

Lib Dems (or at least the liberals in the Lib Dems) also want the least powers for the state over individuals and businesses, which also leads to a smaller state than otherwise.

@Tyson just goes to show that IQ tests are not a measure of intellectual ability. Scores are influenced by cultural background and knowledge and by practice.

Having a high IQ is no guarantee that you are a decent human being either. Years ago I passed Mensa's entry tests. They made the mistake of sending me a copy of a recent member's magazine wIth the sign up form. It was all about the benefits of eugenics for breeding "better" human beings. As well as being scientifically illiterate it was also deeply repugnant. A friend who did join told me that at meetings they had to sit in order of IQ!
What bollocks.

Barnesian said:

tyson said:

By damage limitation I mean holding Labour afloat at the 200 mark following the boundary review. I do not envisage any Labour advance at all at the next election- but with Corbyn Labour would lose possibly 50-70 seats.

The reason why I think Burnham will replace Jezza is because the bad blood required to get rid of Corbyn will be horribly decisive. Labour will need someone after who has some kind of cross party appeal, and a safe pair of hands.

justin124 said:

tyson said:

Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

Barnesian said:

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My at 22 on Betfair.

If you were to be proved correct re-Burnham in 2018 - I doubt it myself! - and he does as well as Howard with Labour gaining 30 - 35 seats to reach circa 265 in 2020 he is likely to become PM.

Look at the probablilities:

Prob Burnham is elected LOTO 20% (Betfair)

Prob Corbyn is elected LOTO 70% (Betfair)
Prob Corbyn hands over to Burnham before next GE say 40%. (Put your own figure in here)

So Prob Burnham is LOTO at next GE is 20% plus 70%x40% say 50% chance.

Probability CON lose majority with Burnham as LOTO - say 50% (Betfair suggests 45%). It only needs the LibDems to take back say 10 seats.

So overall probability Burnham is next PM leading a minority LAB government (assuming Cameron doesn't step down before the next election) is 50% x 50% i.e. 25% or 5s on Betfair.

For 22s to be "skinny" there needs to be a less than 5% chance that Burnham will be next PM. There is a 20% chance that Burnham is elected LOTO according to Betfair. If you assume that there is only a 25% chance that the Tories could be deprived of their majority with Burnham as LOTO that still gives a 5% chance overall. And that is disregarding the possibility of Corbyn winning and then handing over to Burnham.

If Cameron stands down before the GE its a loser no matter who the labour leader is

isam said:

If Cameron stands down before the GE its a loser no matter who the labour leader is

Ah yeah, that's the biggy. 75%+

Oliver_PB said:

TOPPING said:

The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.

Look, we're never going to agree about the size of the state or anything like that.

But my fundamental problem is that the Conservatives are making an argument about the deficit rather than arguing about the size and the role of the state. If they had run and won on a mandate of smaller and decentralised government (although I'd argue that they're very inconsistent about what that actually means) then it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much. They're saying one thing while doing something completely different.

And, yes, the credit rating stuff was fluff. But the government pushed it hard and the press repeated it uncritically. But there were posters here, sincere posters, saying that the AAA credit rating was vitally important and the key difference between a Conservative and Labour government. The fact that people believed that nonsense shows the press isn't doing its job.

Perhaps (re. the press) - that said, you couldn't move for Paul Krugman articles decrying deficit reduction in theory and practice.

Or - perhaps - it's the people who aren't doing their job. Perhaps they had had enough of the spending splurge.

They may or may not have interpreted "spending splurge" as increasing the size of the state but they might have. You spotted it, so did I, so did most people interested in politics.

Plus, analagously to TBlair in 2005 being voted in after the Iraq war, by 2015 anyone who cared and wanted to see for themselves could easily find out myth and reality about GO's austerity.

Or they could just have asked @Alanbrooke...

DavidL said:

tyson said:

I posted here earlier- I think the Tories went through something similar with Hague. Do you remember the 2001 election?

I do think losing power is quite traumatic for a party. It takes a long period of soul searching to get through to the other end.

DavidL said:

Perhaps the most obvious thing that arises from the Labour leadership election is what a complete and utter waste of time and space Ed was. 5 years after losing power Labour really had nothing to say, no economic policy, no clear priorities, nothing but vacuous soundbites and the odd bandwagon.

I think this has severely hampered the mainstream candidates that were part of that shadow cabinet. If they had, or had been allowed to develop clear and sensible policies in their areas of responsibility then they would have had a base from which it was possible to set out their priorities, Labour's priorities and the principles that had informed them. Instead they had nothing, nothing to work from and nothing to say leaving the field open to Corbyn.

Labour seem to have wasted 5 years as well as losing Scotland putting them in a weaker position than when Brown stood down. And they seem determined to start the road back with yet another detour.

Yes I remember 2001 well. It was one of the most boring elections in my lifetime with a result so pre-determined it was downright depressing. But whilst I agree that it takes time to recover from the shock of losing office and the pointlessness of opposition (one of the many reasons I would not stand for office) I think Labour should have made some progress.

Where are the shining new lights brought through by Ed?

Where are England going to get their next wicket (sorry getting distracted)?

Hague was up against a 179 majority and a Government with a "golden inheritance" basically following Tory economic plans.

Miliband was up against a coalition government having to manage the aftermath of a recession: neutral observers had thought whoever won in 2010 might be out of power for a generation.

Hague went nowhere. Miliband went backwards.

Pauly said:

BBC Website:
"The Labour Party could end up splitting if Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, Yvette Cooper has claimed."
You don't say...

Actually, I don't say. There are few realistic options for the Labour right to get to the point where they can exercise power except to win their way back inside the Labour party. So, some kind of civil strife seems to me far more likely. Any split is slightly more likely after a counter-coup where the left could position themselves into some kind of anti-austerity English sister-party of the SNP / PC if the chosen Labour candidate is not unity enough. Might suit the SNP to lend credence to the project, damage Labour in England and pre-empt any comeback in Scotland. Such a more left wing party could attract a decent number of the people that the Greens can't reach and maybe also some of those that UKIP can.

Although I think the left split is more likely than the right split, I don't think either are high probability.

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

You missed Philip's point about FPTP ensuring winning parties have sensible people in control......
I'll get my coat

Corals 66-1 Liz Truss next PM ^_~

JEO said:

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

There are two routes to sorting this:
- A threshold for minimum share of vote to get seats
- STV with small constituencies, meaning you'd have to be the first couple of most popular party in each place to get seats

Something that corbyn and I agree on is the German method where parties are allocated seats per % of national vote

I'd say reduced constituencies to 600 and a seat per 2% of vote

Pulpstar said:

Corals 66-1 Liz Truss next PM ^_~

Nope. This is her Lammy/Mastermind clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhlRM6rYck

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

Corals 66-1 Liz Truss next PM ^_~

Nope. This is her Lammy/Mastermind clip:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhlRM6rYck

I don't even need to click play to know what speech that is *cringes*

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

You can repeat the numbers all you want but they don't matter. The truth is that it is perfectly sustainable, our voting system has sustained over a century of reform proposals. Furthermore not only do I not care but most people don't particularly care either. The Lib Dems have made voting reform a totemic issue for them for decades and they've not set the world alight with that - and the one time a voting reform was put forward in a referendum it was rejected by two votes to one.

The British model works, it is not a parody. Many PR nations don't work and that is why we won't and shouldn't change it. Its classic Britishness to evolve and tolerate a system that works rather than constant revolution and disaster.

If people so passionately want voting reform then have a party (like the Lib Dems) that proposes it and get swept to power with a reform pledge in their manifesto.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Greek snap election on 20 September, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras set to announce

http://www.cityam.com/222737/greek-stocks-suffer-amid-speculation-prime-minister-alexis-tsipras-will-call-snap-elections

That's good of him. The Labour leadership campaign will have just finished, so we'll need something new to talk about

EPG said:

justin124 said:

oxfordsimon said:

justin124 said:

oxfordsimon said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tyson said:

Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

Barnesian said:

I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

If Labour get a Howard-style unity candidate it won't be Burnham. Howard was not a contender in the 2001 election which is why he was a credible unity candidate. Burnham as a [by then] twice-defeated leadership contender would not be a credible unity candidate.

If Labour go down the Howard route then it will be someone who hasn't stood this time. An "old Pope" who'd be expected to resign after the election. If he was still an MP it could be for example Alastair Darling, I'm not sure who it would be now.

It would be Harriet.

Experienced. Safe pair of hands (relatively speaking)

And knows where the bodies are buried.

Not after how she has cocked up this time it won't!

The new electoral system was Miliband's proposal - not Hattie's

I know - but it was Harman's Budget response that set everything up so nicely for Corbyn.

Harman and Burnham each signalled the ritual sacrifice of various Labour-aligned groups on the altar of centrism, along the lines of the racist mug. Ed Miliband's role was to exclude from power anyone more impressive than him. David Miliband was wise to work for refugees instead of JPMorgan or Goldman Sachs and it signalled a desire to return.

Will the Labour Party be calling International Rescue :P ?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TQ619CNIE

JEO said:

I also stand by what I've said about the EU referendum. Unless Cameron negotiates genuine constraints on immigration, I think "No" will win.

And constraints on immigration will not happen when it's a fundamental to the entire concept of the EU.

Cameron will not be able to "negotiate" the EU into just being an elaborate free trade agreement, because that's fundamentally not what it is.

Pulpstar said:

Well if I can get the same trading out of Liz as I did with Mastermind, I'll be happy.

When Dave announces his departure, my 40s to lay might get matched

Ah, a trading bet. All is clear ;-)

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

Organised Religion that can't be challenged has been a vile pox on the globe for thousands of years used to abuse, imprison and kill both believers and "heretics". Challenging dogma and fanatics absolutely serves a good purpose and is a good in itself. It absolutely serves good reason.

RobD said:

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

You missed Philip's point about FPTP ensuring winning parties have sensible people in control......
I'll get my coat

Absolutely! The fact that neither Farage for UKIP nor Bennett for the Greens took swathes of Westminster seats and entered Downing Street is a design feature not a flaw for FPTP.

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

You missed Philip's point about FPTP ensuring winning parties have sensible people in control......
I'll get my coat

Absolutely! The fact that neither Farage for UKIP nor Bennett for the Greens took swathes of Westminster seats and entered Downing Street is a design feature not a flaw for FPTP.

OTOH, we did get the SNP winning 56 out of 59, under this system.

JEO said:

Oliver_PB said:

JEO said:

I also stand by what I've said about the EU referendum. Unless Cameron negotiates genuine constraints on immigration, I think "No" will win.

And constraints on immigration will not happen when it's a fundamental to the entire concept of the EU.

Cameron will not be able to "negotiate" the EU into just being an elaborate free trade agreement, because that's fundamentally not what it is.

We have opt outs on other areas of the EU, so we can have an opt out on freedom of movement, if the will is there. If the rest of the EU wants to go ahead with political union, then they can do so.

Things may change if nationalist parties start winning elections in EU member states.

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. F, indeed. The Republic was a more stable, impressive constitution. Emperors would've fallen to Hannibal.

Chukka backs Jowell. Good man.

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/chuka-umunna-backs-jowell-in-london-mayor-race/

Philip_Thompson said:

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

Organised Religion that can't be challenged has been a vile pox on the globe for thousands of years used to abuse, imprison and kill both believers and "heretics". Challenging dogma and fanatics absolutely serves a good purpose and is a good in itself. It absolutely serves good reason.

I think Charlie Hebdo was offensive and bad-mannered, but people should be entitled to be offensive and bad-mannered when it comes to expressing their political and religious opinions. I'd far rather live in a society in which people can be offensive and bad-mannered about religion, or politics, than one in which the State punishes people for it. For that reason, I think the prosecution of Pastor James McConnell for broadcasting rude comments about Islam is ridiculous.

JEO said:

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

I disagree. Interrupting people in their day-to-day lives as they are walking down the street is harassment, and abuse they can not escape. Publishing something in a newspaper that anyone else is free to not read is not harassment, and can easily be escaped. It's the equivalent of writing "British people's mothers are whores" in a newspaper. Unpleasant, but not harassment. And it should be shocking for British people to react to that by killing people.

Well, that's the problem with analogies, people start nit-picking.

How about another one? The Telegraph publishes something deeply anti-semitic on its front page.

I think they should be able to, but I think they should have the common decency not to do it, and they shouldn't be surprised if people get upset about it, but it's still desperately sad and upsetting if the consequences are violent.

Baskerville said:

Tory member's view of Corbyn: a tin of red lentils suddenly discovered at the back of the cupboard with a 1978 sell by date.
Labour member's view: a vinyl pressing of the Sex Pistols found at the back of the cupboard, fresh in its original cellophane.

UKIP member's view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB8MN4Kc

JEO said:

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

I disagree. Interrupting people in their day-to-day lives as they are walking down the street is harassment, and abuse they can not escape. Publishing something in a newspaper that anyone else is free to not read is not harassment, and can easily be escaped. It's the equivalent of writing "British people's mothers are whores" in a newspaper. Unpleasant, but not harassment. And it should be shocking for British people to react to that by killing people.

Absolutely. Same with twitter imo. Don't like it, don't read it.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

Monty said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Monty said:

I keep coming back to the fact that a fractured political landscape desperately needs some form of PR. Then we could all vote for who we liked and Corbyn and his £3 zombies could go and form their own party.

Or the landscape shows why we desperately need to keep FPTP and that it helps ensure that election winning parties that form the government are the broadchurch coalitions with sensible people in control.

The British electorate is very good at working FPTP to get the result that overall over time the country does well out of and can tolerate. I'd rather we didn't go down the route of PR nations like Greece and Israel.

4 million votes for UKIP and Greens. 2 MPs
1.5 million votes for SNP 56 MPs

That's unsustainable and blatantly unfair.
No wonder people disengage with democracy if it is such a parody.

There are ways to fix it without going down the route of Israel or Greece.
I understand that Germany is quite successful for example.

You missed Philip's point about FPTP ensuring winning parties have sensible people in control......
I'll get my coat

Absolutely! The fact that neither Farage for UKIP nor Bennett for the Greens took swathes of Westminster seats and entered Downing Street is a design feature not a flaw for FPTP.

OTOH, we did get the SNP winning 56 out of 59, under this system.

Albeit in a Parliament where it was known that those 59 seats were less than 10% of those on offer. 59 seats in isolation are irrelevant, the SNP won 56/650 under this system.

It seems to me to be perfectly rational for the Scots knowing that they wouldn't be responsible for a party that sets tax rates to elect a party that seeks the most pork for Scotland.

It is nonetheless unfortunate that Scottish Unionists (50% of the population) have almost no representation.

Mr. F, or we could enforce the law equally.

AnneJGP said:

I think you are right. It seemed to me that, after GE2010, the Labour party needed to look hard at its underlying, founding principles and identify an expression of those principles for the 21st century. They need to do that even more urgently now.

It's so frustrating that all that passion, all that energy, all that desire for a good society, is being dissipated on ancient approaches. It's like insisting that all motors should still be preceded by a flag-waving pedestrian. The world has moved on and left Labour behind.

In all fairness, the Conservatives didn't do much better from 1997-2005 and in the end were aided by a catastrophic global financial crisis and a blundering Gordon Brown.

Parties out of office after long periods in Government cannot simply re-invent themselves as effective vehicles of opposition in six months or six years. It takes (arguably) the clear out of all those involved in the defeated Government in whatever form and a new leadership generation or group unencumbered by the sins of the past.

The problem Labour faced after 2010 wasn't just coming to terms with the scale of its defeat but trying to think out a coherent alternative approach and they were as unsuccessful as the Conservatives under Hague from 1997.

Can Labour win in 2020 ? Of course but it requires the political collapse of the Conservative Government on the same scale as 1997 and in the case of Labour 1979. It requires the reputation for sound economics and governance to be destroyed such that the electorate comes to view the alternative as preferable to a continuation of the status quo.

At the moment, all that sounds wildly implausible - doesn't mean it might not happen. The Conservative Government elected in 1970 was radical, vigorous and full of confidence.

HurstLlama said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. F, indeed. The Republic was a more stable, impressive constitution. Emperors would've fallen to Hannibal.

Isn't there a small but fatal flaw in your reasoning there, Mr. D.? I am not sure I can quite put my finger on it, but the fact that The Republic wasn't stable enough to stop civil war and the creation of the emperor Augustus might have something to do with it.

Like any system or the Labour Party establishment or the Cameron ministry, it's rock solid stable until it isn't.

If Jeremy Corbyn wins, who might serve as shadow Foreign Secretary? Given his views, this looks like the most challenging post to fill.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Llama, there was quite a long period between the Second Punic War and Augustus becoming emperor.

About two hundred years from memory, but what has that got to do with the stability of the Republic versus the stability of the Empire?

(Why when we start talking about these things do I get Star wars music playing in my head and the sound of asthmatic breathing?)

isam said:

antifrank said:

If Jeremy Corbyn wins, who might serve as shadow Foreign Secretary? Given his views, this looks like the most challenging post to fill.

Sadiq Khan?

Only possible if he isn't candidate for London.

Philip_Thompson said:

That's true of every majority government regardless of voting system and is a feature of Parliamentary governments, or just governments in general. Does the Israeli government elected by pure PR care what the Joint List (and thus the Arab minority) want?

Fair go, Mr. Thompson, I was thinking of your point that in voting for the SNP the Scots were voting for the party best able to bring home the pork to Scotland. In my view voting for the party least able to affect the deliberations of the government was actually going to do the reverse.

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

Organised Religion that can't be challenged has been a vile pox on the globe for thousands of years used to abuse, imprison and kill both believers and "heretics". Challenging dogma and fanatics absolutely serves a good purpose and is a good in itself. It absolutely serves good reason.

I think Charlie Hebdo was offensive and bad-mannered, but people should be entitled to be offensive and bad-mannered when it comes to expressing their political and religious opinions. I'd far rather live in a society in which people can be offensive and bad-mannered about religion, or politics, than one in which the State punishes people for it. For that reason, I think the prosecution of Pastor James McConnell for broadcasting rude comments about Islam is ridiculous.

I had to google the McConnell case to find out about that, haven't seen any coverage in the Guardian regarding his case. What a shocker, I'm an atheist, but i believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. I hope he wins even though i share no religious affiliation with him.

The news about Corbyn and the anti Danish cartoon protest is no surprise at all. It's the last straw for this leftie, if he's leader there's no way I'm voting Labour while he's in charge.

Mr. Llama, because the prolonged period allowed political dynasties to build up and army loyalty to shift from state to general.

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

antifrank said:

If Jeremy Corbyn wins, who might serve as shadow Foreign Secretary? Given his views, this looks like the most challenging post to fill.

Sadiq Khan?

Indeed! Corbyn being in power may mean that Khan or another drops out of the Mayors race.

Nah he's more likely to win... the nomination ... if Jezza gets in.

Oliver_PB said:

TOPPING said:

The crux of the argument was and is the size of the state, not the size of the deficit. Cons should (I do) want a smaller state than the behemoth that GB had created. I agree all the credit rating stuff was fluff (for a country which issues its own currency and especially in a low inflationary environment) but sometimes the public hears what it wants to hear.

Look, we're never going to agree about the size of the state or anything like that.

But my fundamental problem is that the Conservatives are making an argument about the deficit rather than arguing about the size and the role of the state. If they had run and won on a mandate of smaller and decentralised government (although I'd argue that they're very inconsistent about what that actually means) then it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much. They're saying one thing while doing something completely different.

And, yes, the credit rating stuff was fluff. But the government pushed it hard and the press repeated it uncritically. But there were posters here, sincere posters, saying that the AAA credit rating was vitally important and the key difference between a Conservative and Labour government. The fact that people believed that nonsense shows the press isn't doing its job.

Making an economy more efficient is the way to reduce the deficit, and then, eventually, the debt.

Efficiency is generally increased by:

a) cutting expenditure - i.e. austerity
b) growing the economy - i.e. increasing employment, exports, retail sales etc
c) increasing the tax tax - the only way to achieve this and grow the economy at the same time is to cut tax rates

I know socialists struggle with this concept, but it has worked. Deficit down in real terms since 2010. Unnecessary welfare expenditure down in real terms. Economy grown massively. Employment up massively. Tax take up.

Sean_F said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

I think Charlie Hebdo was offensive and bad-mannered, but people should be entitled to be offensive and bad-mannered when it comes to expressing their political and religious opinions. I'd far rather live in a society in which people can be offensive and bad-mannered about religion, or politics, than one in which the State punishes people for it. For that reason, I think the prosecution of Pastor James McConnell for broadcasting rude comments about Islam is ridiculous.

The Left certainly has no problem with being offensive and bad-mannered when it comes to expressing their views on Tories...

There's the rub with speech codes and legislation against speech. Some groups are expected to have sufficiently broad shoulders to take criticism. Others are expected to be hyper-sensitive.

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/634389455109926913

AllyPally_Rob said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Oliver_PB said:

isam said:

JEO said:

I see Jezbollah joined the march against the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

Those that make the blood libel against the Jews are a "voice that must be heard", but those that insult Islam should not be published. The hypocrisy runs strong in this one.

Interesting... What did corbyn, teather and Livingston say about the Charlie Hebdo murders?

I don't know, but my personal opinion is that that publishing the cartoons was wrong, and needless provocative, but the murders were horrible.

It's the religious speech equivalent of shouting "I THINK YOUR MOTHERS A WH*RE" at strangers in a bad neighbourhood. It's free speech and shouldn't be illegal, but you're still being an arsehole and offending people for no good reason, you really shouldn't be too shocked when something bad happens, but that doesn't make it any less horrible when something bad happens.

Organised Religion that can't be challenged has been a vile pox on the globe for thousands of years used to abuse, imprison and kill both believers and "heretics". Challenging dogma and fanatics absolutely serves a good purpose and is a good in itself. It absolutely serves good reason.

I think Charlie Hebdo was offensive and bad-mannered, but people should be entitled to be offensive and bad-mannered when it comes to expressing their political and religious opinions. I'd far rather live in a society in which people can be offensive and bad-mannered about religion, or politics, than one in which the State punishes people for it. For that reason, I think the prosecution of Pastor James McConnell for broadcasting rude comments about Islam is ridiculous.

I had to google the McConnell case to find out about that, haven't seen any coverage in the Guardian regarding his case. What a shocker, I'm an atheist, but i believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. I hope he wins even though i share no religious affiliation with him.

The news about Corbyn and the anti Danish cartoon protest is no surprise at all. It's the last straw for this leftie, if he's leader there's no way I'm voting Labour while he's in charge.

The Pastor McConnell case is truly astonishing. The pastor's website is here:

http://www.jamesmcconnell.org/

Though if calling Islam "satanic" deserves 6 months in the clink; then it would be fairly easy to lock up the preachers of hate who call non-muslims pigs etc. I won't hold my breath waiting though.

HurstLlama said:

Really now the idea that the Foreign Sec is one of the big four jobs of government is a nonsense. Its more a placement for senior people who, cannot for party purposes, be dumped to see out their time comfortably with lots of first class travel.

I think it would revert to being a big job the moment someone with stature was appointed. Going back over the previous Foreign Secretaries - Hammond, Hague, Miliband, Beckett, Straw, Cook, Rifkind - you have to get all the way to Hurd before encountering anyone who looked like a statesman.