politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Corbyn might not win the Labour leadership

PaddyBriggs said:

"Surely the Labour party aren’t going to be this stupid and self indulgent and elect someone who is a throwback to the worst mistakes and excesses of the Labour party in the 1980s?"

What mistakes and excesses were these? Labour was out of power in the 1980s. Without the Falklands War they could well have won the 1983 election or at least been in a position to form a coalition with the SDP/Liberals. Having lost in 1983, and with FPTP having scuppered the Alliance, Labour under Neil Kinnock started a major process of reform. This included gradually adopting the centrist positions of the SDP. By end of the decade Labour was a sensible Party and the SDP was no more. It was not a period of mistakes at all but the opposite.

Interesting take. If it's at all typical amongst lefties then it explains a lot. I'm only doing this so his post gets repeated'

JEO said:

Does anyone know why Alternative for Germany are not doing better in the polls? In the UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria right wing parties (or various stripes) have surged in the polls. In Germany, Merkel has just accepted 800,000 Middle Eastern migrants and people seem to be on board.

Last year as I read it there were 200,000 and this year they 'expect' to take 800,000. So they have not, if we are being strict, just accepted that number.
Germany is quite a big country BTW (and yes I do know that you are aware of this) 243,000 sq km for UK and 357,000 sq km for Germany. I am not sure if this makes a difference but given that a decent chunk of our land area is either mountainous or in NI and I think most of Germany is relatively habitable (?) then this must make a difference to national perceptions. The French land area is relatively enormous at 640,000sq km.
On this basis the argument is only just beginning into what would be the right way to 'divvi up' these migrants.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

PaddyBriggs said:

"Surely the Labour party aren’t going to be this stupid and self indulgent and elect someone who is a throwback to the worst mistakes and excesses of the Labour party in the 1980s?"

What mistakes and excesses were these? Labour was out of power in the 1980s. Without the Falklands War they could well have won the 1983 election or at least been in a position to form a coalition with the SDP/Liberals. Having lost in 1983, and with FPTP having scuppered the Alliance, Labour under Neil Kinnock started a major process of reform. This included gradually adopting the centrist positions of the SDP. By end of the decade Labour was a sensible Party and the SDP was no more. It was not a period of mistakes at all but the opposite.

I do not know enough of the 80s to judge, but given labour didn't win agin until 1997, not making enough progress in the 80s to win sounds like a mistake, or at least a failing.

Mrs Thatcher was arguably the luckiest Prime Minister, not just through the Falklands and SDP but also in North Sea Oil and technological advances. In other circumstances, she'd likely have been deposed by her own Cabinet. It turns out "events, dear boy, events" can be beneficial.

Not this 'lucky' meme again. It can be used against every single PM: for instance Blair was 'lucky' that John Smith died. If he had not, then Labour might still have won in 1997, but without Blair's changes (e.g. ridding itself of Clause 4) with a reduced majority from Blair's rout. This means that the next Labour leadership election might not have been until 2001/2, and then, seven or eight years on, there would have been other leadership candidates aside from Brown and Blair.

People using the term 'lucky' are just looking for silly excuses why their side lost. After all, it cannot have been their sides fault: the other side were just lucky ....

Not my side -- I have no vote for Labour leader, and you missed the word "beneficial" but there we are.

On topic, I expect Jeremy Corbyn to make it. Yvette Cooper has come into form too late.

That said, I made sure a couple of weeks ago that I was green on all outcomes other than Liz Kendall winning.

antifrank said:

This may be of interest to some:

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-britain-must-accept-its-fair-share-of-refugees-seeking-safety-in-europe

So what's a "fair share"? A percentage the European Commission sets of the number Angela Merkel's just attracted to Germany?

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

I really hope that TSE is right. The Labour party should not be a monomaniacal pressure group obsessed with one element of our complicated lives and blaming it for all ills but an at least vaguely credible and capable alternative government. The election of Jeremy is not consistent with either that role or that duty to the country.

This has become painfully and increasingly clear over the last couple of weeks as stories of the Bin Laden "tragedy" and other idiotic comments have gained greater traction but the failure of the other competitors to actually take this fool on, no doubt believing that being nice would help the chances of second choices from his supporters, has been a complete dereliction of duty and leadership. This is not what Kinnock did to save the party in the 80s, it is not what new Labour, for all its faults, did after 1994 and it is not what Labour needs to do to fulfil their role.

The key question is whether too many voted before these second thoughts surfaced. The evidence on that is somewhat mixed, partly because Labour seem to have been incompetent in getting voting options out to people. But the real risk is that a significant proportion of those who have not voted don't. Labour needs its members and supporters to save it from itself without leadership from the top. It's possible but a big ask. I would certainly urge those who have a vote and have not used it to try and save their party.

What do you think Labour's role should be, David? An alternative government? A perpetual opposition preventing any other Party from creating a credible alternative government to the Tories?

I think Labour should be an alternative government. I think that like any political party the Tories attract their share of nutters who need to be restrained and sometimes have the errors of their ways demonstrated to them. So if the Tories starve the welfare state of capital resources (as they arguably did after about 1990) or show a cruel indifference to the less able in our society they can be kicked out and an alternative government can correct the errors. I accept that new Labour, particularly in the first Parliament, did this.

I would answer your second question in a different way. If Labour cannot provide that pressure towards the centre, moderation and fairness that are the quintessential British attributes they will need to be replaced by something that can. Under our electoral system that is difficult but not impossible as Scotland has shown. Labour either chooses to remain a player in our politics or they go off on one with Corbyn to deserved irrelevance. I really think it is that simple.

In other words, you believe that English voters want two Tory parties, so they can kick out the first one when it gets complacent. You may well be right.

antifrank said:

This may be of interest to some:

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-britain-must-accept-its-fair-share-of-refugees-seeking-safety-in-europe

Define "fair share".

JEO said:

This is ridiculous:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34136388

I agree, utterly crackers. Can the police not use some disgression and common sense here ?

Professor Hawking believes that time began with the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, that requires faith rather than science. As I mentioned earlier, his analogy is that south begins at the South Pole and there is no further south on Earth. It's obviously more mathematical and beyond me, but the nine year old in me always asks "Well, what was before then?"

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

What do you think Labour's role should be, David? An alternative government? A perpetual opposition preventing any other Party from creating a credible alternative government to the Tories?

I think Labour should be an alternative government. I think that like any political party the Tories attract their share of nutters who need to be restrained and sometimes have the errors of their ways demonstrated to them. So if the Tories starve the welfare state of capital resources (as they arguably did after about 1990) or show a cruel indifference to the less able in our society they can be kicked out and an alternative government can correct the errors. I accept that new Labour, particularly in the first Parliament, did this.

I would answer your second question in a different way. If Labour cannot provide that pressure towards the centre, moderation and fairness that are the quintessential British attributes they will need to be replaced by something that can. Under our electoral system that is difficult but not impossible as Scotland has shown. Labour either chooses to remain a player in our politics or they go off on one with Corbyn to deserved irrelevance. I really think it is that simple.

In other words, you believe that English voters want two Tory parties, so they can kick out the first one when it gets complacent. You may well be right.

Yes, I suppose so, but 2 Tory parties that can evolve and take a more enlightened view over time. The current Tory party of government introduced Gay marriage, for example. I don't think they would ever have got there without the influence of Labour. Both parties evolve in tandem.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

PaddyBriggs said:

"Surely the Labour party aren’t going to be this stupid and self indulgent and elect someone who is a throwback to the worst mistakes and excesses of the Labour party in the 1980s?"

What mistakes and excesses were these? Labour was out of power in the 1980s. Without the Falklands War they could well have won the 1983 election or at least been in a position to form a coalition with the SDP/Liberals. Having lost in 1983, and with FPTP having scuppered the Alliance, Labour under Neil Kinnock started a major process of reform. This included gradually adopting the centrist positions of the SDP. By end of the decade Labour was a sensible Party and the SDP was no more. It was not a period of mistakes at all but the opposite.

I do not know enough of the 80s to judge, but given labour didn't win agin until 1997, not making enough progress in the 80s to win sounds like a mistake, or at least a failing.

Mrs Thatcher was arguably the luckiest Prime Minister, not just through the Falklands and SDP but also in North Sea Oil and technological advances. In other circumstances, she'd likely have been deposed by her own Cabinet. It turns out "events, dear boy, events" can be beneficial.

Not this 'lucky' meme again. It can be used against every single PM: for instance Blair was 'lucky' that John Smith died. If he had not, then Labour might still have won in 1997, but without Blair's changes (e.g. ridding itself of Clause 4) with a reduced majority from Blair's rout. This means that the next Labour leadership election might not have been until 2001/2, and then, seven or eight years on, there would have been other leadership candidates aside from Brown and Blair.

People using the term 'lucky' are just looking for silly excuses why their side lost. After all, it cannot have been their sides fault: the other side were just lucky ....

Not my side -- I have no vote for Labour leader, and you missed the word "beneficial" but there we are.

I forgot you were a well-known Conservative supporter ...

Mr. CD13, as you say, it's unproven, perhaps unprovable.

Also, Earth's just one planet. Yes, you can't go further south than the South Pole, but there are whole other worlds to explore.

I share your wondering about what happened beforehand. Was the singularity always there?

Mr. Mark, as mentioned previously, I briefly looked into time dilation due to faster than light travel. Surprisingly, that also occurs with very fast but sub-light speeds (so, you could spend a few decades away from Earth but centuries would pass by on the planet).

The most disturbing multiverse is the distance one. Where does the universe end and what is it bounded by? In the universe with no boundary, they can calculate statistically how far you'd have to travel to find you in an identical world. It's a bloody long walk.

MarqueeMark said:

Interesting how pb.com works. On the same day we are dealing with the mind-boggling concepts of multi-verses, infinite time and space - and the Labour Party electing Jeremy Corbyn.

It may require a lie down later....

Even stranger. 42% might be the line Corbyn needs to cross on 1st pass.

Mr. Roger, very confident assertion given our military contribution is limited to air strikes.

Mr. CD13, I thought there was evidence for a spherical universe? [ie travel far enough in one direction and you return to where you started]. Could be wrong, of course. Not my field. And I don't have a faster than light spaceship either

I'm hesitant to reopen the migrant topic, but there's another aspect that hasn't been talked about much: and that's the traffickers.

Currently some people are making an absolute fortune from people desperate to (escape from danger / get a better life). Some reports say this is a more profitable business than drugs smuggling (*). These evil people will want to continue making money.

Whatever we do, they will react to undermine or work around it, so their revenue streams are not diminished. We need to tackle them before we can even start to come up with a solution to the problem. Yet they are, by their nature, in the shadows.

This is not a reason to do nothing; but it is an added layer of complexity that is not getting much discussion.

(*) Citation needed.

JEO said:

This is ridiculous:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34136388

"Olivia Pinkney, Sussex Police's assistant chief constable and the National Police Chief Council's lead on children and young people, said if a school chose to take an incident to the police, then officers must record the crime."

What's a "lead"? It sounds like one of those new-fangled social worker terms.

JosiasJessop said:

: and that's the traffickers.

They will cynically and ruthlessly exploit Merkel's latest gesture.

On topic - Anyone else find the lack of recent polling on the Labour leadership a bit odd ?

You can smell Kellner lining up his excuses.

MarqueeMark said:

Interesting how pb.com works. On the same day we are dealing with the mind-boggling concepts of multi-verses, infinite time and space - and the Labour Party electing Jeremy Corbyn.

It may require a lie down later....

just think y'self lucky we're not in the universe that elects edwina currie as labour leader

As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.

I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.

Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?

Pulpstar said:

On topic - Anyone else find the lack of recent polling on the Labour leadership a bit odd ?

You can smell Kellner lining up his excuses.

I think it's very strange. Where's Lord Ashcroft when you need him?

Well, he's in Belize obviously, but you know what I mean.

DearPB said:

Pulpstar said:

On topic - Anyone else find the lack of recent polling on the Labour leadership a bit odd ?

You can smell Kellner lining up his excuses.

I think it's very strange. Where's Lord Ashcroft when you need him?

Well, he's in Belize obviously, but you know what I mean.

Only YouGov have a panel large enough to poll on the Labour leadership election.

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

I agree with Ruth. However, Dan Hannan's piece is very interesting:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html

We (including the UK) clearly need to help the people who have already made it to Europe, but crucially without encouraging more to try to make the same journey - for their own sake as much as for ours. It's the journey that is killing people.

Accordingly investment in dealing with the problem at source (or as close as is practicable) seems to be the way to go. Not coincidentally, that's what Britain has been doing far more of than any of our EU partners over the last few years. Cameron is well within his rights to be furious with Merkel; not the other way around.

I agree with Dan.

Pulpstar said:

I agree with Dan.

It is a very well balanced piece.

The bit we might all do well to follow would be to avoid "treating immigration policy as a test of decency".

On topic, I'm not sure the economists' letter in the FT has yet been linked to on here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23076458-50d2-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kOxa3Ql4

"Sir, We wish to register our opinion that the economic policies sketched by Jeremy Corbyn are likely to be highly damaging, and send this message to counter the impression that might be got from the previous letter of “41 economists” that Mr Corbyn’s policies command widespread support in the mainstream of the discipline.

Renationalising industries is highly unlikely to improve the performance of its targets, and very likely, if history is anything to go by, to make things worse. If compensation is paid, it will be a waste of fiscal space, even unaffordable; in case it is not, it will be extremely damaging to the climate for enterprise in the UK as other companies fear the government would get a taste for it.

“People’s QE” would be a highly damaging threat to fiscal credibility, and unnecessary, since at this time of very low interest rates and tolerable debt/GDP public investment — in many areas much needed — can be financed conventionally. Figures put on money that could be found from ending “corporate welfare” and combating tax evasion are almost unbelievable and add to the sense that Mr Corbyn’s plans have not been seriously thought through."

DearPB said:

As JJ is, I'm also loathe to mention the migrant crisis (I do think it's all got a bit odd here the last couple of days), but I wondered what people felt about (morally, tactically etc.) about the decision to publish the photographs and what effect it will have on public opinion.

I'm feeling a bit outraged of Tunbridge Wells about it. I looked at online news last night, and although I clicked away as quickly as I could the image is seared in my mind - it took me many hours to sleep last night.

Clearly the media have taken a view, and as far as I can see that view is that the public need to be shocked into caring about the people. But how will people react? And it's so complicated an issue that that shock can't be easily harnessed. We see starving children in Africa we think the answer is send them food - we see migrant children drowning in the Med, what are we supposed to do about it?

My son is one, and when I saw that picture I automatically thought of him. And as he was at nursery, I couldn't do what I wanted and immediately give him a hug. It was very unsettling, to say the least.

It's a powerful set of images, and they might take its place amongst images that have helped change public opinion: from Phan Thi Kim Phuc to Michael Beurk's reports on starving children in Africa in 1984.

But as you rightly say, the answers about what to do about the problem are far from clear, and it is easy to see every course of action making things worse, both in the short and the long term. Yet choosing to do nothing is also a choice, and is just as worthy of criticism.

Tissue_Price said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

I agree with Ruth. However, Dan Hannan's piece is very interesting:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html

We (including the UK) clearly need to help the people who have already made it to Europe, but crucially without encouraging more to try to make the same journey - for their own sake as much as for ours. It's the journey that is killing people.

Accordingly investment in dealing with the problem at source (or as close as is practicable) seems to be the way to go. Not coincidentally, that's what Britain has been doing far more of than any of our EU partners over the last few years. Cameron is well within his rights to be furious with Merkel; not the other way around.

I agree; we are doing what we can and that which is for the best. Its quite pathetic to see all this self serving criticism of Cameron and the Govt.

Alistair said:

AndyJS said:

The most recent Trump vs Clinton polls put Clinton's lead at 4, 6 and 5 points:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Are US opinion polls like this done on a national popular vote basis? If so then that's like a total landslide is it not when translated into electoral college?

Are you ready for the Fiorina surge ?

Alistair said:

AndyJS said:

The most recent Trump vs Clinton polls put Clinton's lead at 4, 6 and 5 points:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Are US opinion polls like this done on a national popular vote basis? If so then that's like a total landslide is it not when translated into electoral college?

A bit of a shocker for those who thought Trump would be a breath of fresh air to American politics.

I'll get my coat

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. PB, being sad won't bring him back. We should focus on trying to stop it happening again, or at least reducing the odds on it recurring.

People with good intentions suggesting we open the borders will only increase dangerous journeys undertaken by desperate people, enriching criminals and risking lives.

On a personal level, you could always give money to a charity assisting refugee camps in the area.

My point is that there is legitimate disagreement on how we "try to stop it happening again". Many honourable and caring people have diametrically opposed views.

And one could argue that giving money to fund refugee camps only exacerbates the problem (one could not that I do).

If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.

antifrank said:

If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.

Obviously he's not going to head to jail, but couldn't it have a very real affect on his employment chances ?

Theuniondivvie said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

Johnny Mercer quite good on Today this am also, the lily-livered, addled softy that he is.

There was an excellent profile of Mercer on HuffPo on Tuesday. Good to see Parliament hasn't washed his mouth out yet ("some little shitbag in Plymouth found it on the internet and sent it to the local paper")

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01/johnny-mercer-we-need-to-_n_8070974.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Indigo said:

TGOHF said:

Interesting contrast between the outrage at the photos of the US newsreader being killed and the importance of publishing a dead child on a beach.

It shocking. Its its causing people to leave their brains in their other trousers. So suppose we say yes, we will take half a million refugees. Will that cause more people to cross or less? Will that in turn cause more dead children to be washed up on beaches or less? People appear to want to kill more children to salve their consciences.

In other parts of the world hundreds of children die in disgraceful circumstances, and yet we don't get pictures of those in our newspapers, so people don't care, its not about helping children, its about feeling better about ourselves. I expect there will be a twitter hashtag about it shortly, that always makes things better.

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_82940.html

SANAA, Yemen, 19 August 2015 – An average of eight children are being killed or maimed every day in Yemen as a direct result of the conflict gripping the country, according to a report released by UNICEF.

If you were shocked by that image of the dead child and want to help desperate people in poverty, then think on this from UNICEF:

"Deadly diseases like measles, polio, tetanus, tuberculosis, diphtheria and whooping cough are all easily and cheaply preventable by immunisation. Yet every day, 17,000 children under five die, usually because they don’t get the health care and life-saving vaccines they need. "

You can choose to help a fortunate few, those who have raided their family savings to pay people smugglers to get them out. Or you can choose to help entire stricken communities.

DearPB said:

Pulpstar said:

antifrank said:

If we're criminalising teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with their bodies, the prisons are going to be very full indeed.

Obviously he's not going to head to jail, but couldn't it have a very real affect on his employment chances ?

Depends what he wants to be when he grows up....

You're right, it's a sexual offence relating to a child isn't it ! Bloody hell. It needs to be annulled or some such when he turns 18.

Roger said:

MD

"Edited extra bit: Mr. Roger, if you want to make that comparison then surely you must also be in favour of an Allies-style coalition to destroy ISIS?"

Isis are not destroyable by any known means. It is like sticking nails into the proverbial blancmange

What's proverbial about "blancmange"? ISIS is singular and I would suggest that anything on this planet is destroyable and we have the means to do it. It's the will that is lacking as far as ISIS is concerned.

Tissue_Price said:

Theuniondivvie said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

Johnny Mercer quite good on Today this am also, the lily-livered, addled softy that he is.

There was an excellent profile of Mercer on HuffPo on Tuesday. Good to see Parliament hasn't washed his mouth out yet ("some little shitbag in Plymouth found it on the internet and sent it to the local paper")

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01/johnny-mercer-we-need-to-_n_8070974.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

He's rather good, isn't he? The bit about how to deal with ISIL is worth a read.

Tissue_Price said:

Theuniondivvie said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

Johnny Mercer quite good on Today this am also, the lily-livered, addled softy that he is.

There was an excellent profile of Mercer on HuffPo on Tuesday. Good to see Parliament hasn't washed his mouth out yet ("some little shitbag in Plymouth found it on the internet and sent it to the local paper")

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01/johnny-mercer-we-need-to-_n_8070974.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I have a humongous man crush on Johnny Mercer.

If he told me to be nice and complimentary to Mark Reckless I would then say nice things about Reckless

DearPB said:

ReggieCide said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

PaddyBriggs said:

"Surely the Labour party aren’t going to be this stupid and self indulgent and elect someone who is a throwback to the worst mistakes and excesses of the Labour party in the 1980s?"

What mistakes and excesses were these? Labour was out of power in the 1980s. Without the Falklands War they could well have won the 1983 election or at least been in a position to form a coalition with the SDP/Liberals. Having lost in 1983, and with FPTP having scuppered the Alliance, Labour under Neil Kinnock started a major process of reform. This included gradually adopting the centrist positions of the SDP. By end of the decade Labour was a sensible Party and the SDP was no more. It was not a period of mistakes at all but the opposite.

I do not know enough of the 80s to judge, but given labour didn't win agin until 1997, not making enough progress in the 80s to win sounds like a mistake, or at least a failing.

Mrs Thatcher was arguably the luckiest Prime Minister, not just through the Falklands and SDP but also in North Sea Oil and technological advances. In other circumstances, she'd likely have been deposed by her own Cabinet. It turns out "events, dear boy, events" can be beneficial.

Not this 'lucky' meme again. It can be used against every single PM: for instance Blair was 'lucky' that John Smith died. If he had not, then Labour might still have won in 1997, but without Blair's changes (e.g. ridding itself of Clause 4) with a reduced majority from Blair's rout. This means that the next Labour leadership election might not have been until 2001/2, and then, seven or eight years on, there would have been other leadership candidates aside from Brown and Blair.

People using the term 'lucky' are just looking for silly excuses why their side lost. After all, it cannot have been their sides fault: the other side were just lucky ....

Any discussion about luck always brings to my mind Arnie Palmer's response when it was suggested he was a bit lucky - "It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get"

Or maybe Gary Player; or perhaps Lee Trevino or was it Sam Goldwyn?

Thank you for correcting me. It was of course Gary Player but the sentiment holds despite the misidentification. I'm still embarrassed.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Theuniondivvie said:

antifrank said:

Meanwhile, some Conservatives aren't quibbling or logic-chopping:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN93HqHWUAA-D-f.png

Cue 20 pbers tweeting Ruth Davidson to ask her what "more" is.

Johnny Mercer quite good on Today this am also, the lily-livered, addled softy that he is.

There was an excellent profile of Mercer on HuffPo on Tuesday. Good to see Parliament hasn't washed his mouth out yet ("some little shitbag in Plymouth found it on the internet and sent it to the local paper")

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/01/johnny-mercer-we-need-to-_n_8070974.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I have a humongous man crush on Johnny Mercer.

If he told me to be nice and complimentary to Mark Reckless I would then say nice things about Reckless

Perhaps. But not in this universe.

antifrank said:

On topic, I'm not sure the economists' letter in the FT has yet been linked to on here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23076458-50d2-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kOxa3Ql4

"Sir, We wish to register our opinion that the economic policies sketched by Jeremy Corbyn are likely to be highly damaging, and send this message to counter the impression that might be got from the previous letter of “41 economists” that Mr Corbyn’s policies command widespread support in the mainstream of the discipline.

Renationalising industries is highly unlikely to improve the performance of its targets, and very likely, if history is anything to go by, to make things worse. If compensation is paid, it will be a waste of fiscal space, even unaffordable; in case it is not, it will be extremely damaging to the climate for enterprise in the UK as other companies fear the government would get a taste for it.

“People’s QE” would be a highly damaging threat to fiscal credibility, and unnecessary, since at this time of very low interest rates and tolerable debt/GDP public investment — in many areas much needed — can be financed conventionally. Figures put on money that could be found from ending “corporate welfare” and combating tax evasion are almost unbelievable and add to the sense that Mr Corbyn’s plans have not been seriously thought through."

What is an "economist"?

I ask, because I suspect most members of the public when asked would expect it to mean someone who has practical expertise in either (or all) of money, business and trade and is therefore very well informed in understanding how to maintain and maximise prosperity.

Yet most of these Corbynite "economists" seem to be academics. With the greatest respect, someone who's gone straight from an undergrad degree, and then into a PhD, and then into a junior lecturing position - eventually reaching professorship after writing many peer-approved studies and papers - at a left-wing university isn't quite the same thing.