"Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck."
Actually, of course, that's where you start to need thousands of times more luck than you did in Opposition.
What the clueless hard left don't seem to realise, of course, is that all hard left governments in democractic societies have faced their Thermidor moments, and mostly sooner rather than later. Think Syriza when it disregarded the results of the referendum it had called itself. Or Mitterrand in 1983. Or Wilson calling in the IMF. Or, though obviously not in a democractic society, Lenin with his New Econmic Policy. And it's always for the same reason: sooner or later they run out of other people's money.
Nowadays, given the speed and size of capital markets, the counter-revolution will happen much quicker than in the 18th century - I'd predict weeks rather than years. The difficulty for the country, of course, is that it'll take decades to clean up the detritus.
But then, if we're stupid enough to vote Corbyn and his bunch in, we'd probably deserve it. Fortunately, I don't think we are, so it'll never happen.
Power lies with financial markets, not electorates - that's OK by you?
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
I thought he was just stating it as he sees it as someone who knows the guy. Too many frothers on here think that everybody is a slime ball with no principles. His policies may be crap but at least they are his. We have enough PR , lowlife, unprincipled, self seeking politicians. Corbyn has just been thrown to the top without having to have debased himself getting up the greasy pole.
"Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck."
Actually, of course, that's where you start to need thousands of times more luck than you did in Opposition.
What the clueless hard left don't seem to realise, of course, is that all hard left governments in democractic societies have faced their Thermidor moments, and mostly sooner rather than later. Think Syriza when it disregarded the results of the referendum it had called itself. Or Mitterrand in 1983. Or Wilson calling in the IMF. Or, though obviously not in a democractic society, Lenin with his New Econmic Policy. And it's always for the same reason: sooner or later they run out of other people's money.
Nowadays, given the speed and size of capital markets, the counter-revolution will happen much quicker than in the 18th century - I'd predict weeks rather than years. The difficulty for the country, of course, is that it'll take decades to clean up the detritus.
But then, if we're stupid enough to vote Corbyn and his bunch in, we'd probably deserve it. Fortunately, I don't think we are, so it'll never happen.
Power lies with financial markets, not electorates - that's OK by you?
Yes. It is OK with everyone, name a nation that has EVER bucked the markets long term.
Mr. D, nice idea but: 1) There isn't a Liberal Party [ok, there is, but it's tiny] 2) The Lib Dems have fewer than 10 seats 3) Labour has over 200 seats
For Labour to fail, a replacement party needs to arise.
The Greens and Lib Dems are too small. UKIP has a history of stupid electoral strategies coupled with a leader who's made himself look a damned fool. The SNP are already in a dominant position in the constituencies they'll contest.
If all disaffected leftwingers jumped one way, that could give the Lib Dems or UKIP a critical advantage, but as I imagine left voters will split between various parties and just not voting it's hard to see a challenger to Labour's status as official opposition party.
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
There is no credible alternative to Labour as an opposition. Corbyn is clearly concentrating on control of the mechanisms by which the Labour Party is run (ironically mechanisms intentionally designed to stop the Hard Left having influence on the party but apparently completely failing to consider that the Hard Left could end up in control of those mechanisms).
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
There would a fascinating period of politics if more than half the Parliamentary Labour Party were to leave into a new party and proclaim themselves the official Opposition, with the Corbynistas having the union funding going to pay off the debts...
Of course, to do so they would have to coalesce around a new leader, untainted by this summer's leadership debacle. Step forward The Postie. Has he perhaps stepped down from his role on the EU Referendum to do something a bit bigger?
Mr. D, nice idea but: 1) There isn't a Liberal Party [ok, there is, but it's tiny] 2) The Lib Dems have fewer than 10 seats 3) Labour has over 200 seats
For Labour to fail, a replacement party needs to arise.
The Greens and Lib Dems are too small. UKIP has a history of stupid electoral strategies coupled with a leader who's made himself look a damned fool. The SNP are already in a dominant position in the constituencies they'll contest.
If all disaffected leftwingers jumped one way, that could give the Lib Dems or UKIP a critical advantage, but as I imagine left voters will split between various parties and just not voting it's hard to see a challenger to Labour's status as official opposition party.
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
There is no credible alternative to Labour as an opposition. Corbyn is clearly concentrating on control of the mechanisms by which the Labour Party is run (ironically mechanisms intentionally designed to stop the Hard Left having influence on the party but apparently completely failing to consider that the Hard Left could end up in control of those mechanisms).
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
There would a fascinating period of politics if more than half the Parliamentary Labour Party were to leave into a new party and proclaim themselves the official Opposition, with the Corbynistas having the union funding going to pay off the debts...
Of course, to do so they would have to coalesce around a new leader, untainted by this summer's leadership debacle. Step forward The Postie. Has he perhaps stepped down from his role on the EU Referendum to do something a bit bigger?
Tory Fantasy
No Tory Fantasy is that Corbyn stays until 2020, is as toxic as we dare to dream and the electorate destroys the Labour Party once and for all. The new opposition then is one not founded and controlled by the unions so when we lose power (as all parties must) a relatively sane opposition doesn't do so much damage to the nation.
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
I thought he was just stating it as he sees it as someone who knows the guy. Too many frothers on here think that everybody is a slime ball with no principles. His policies may be crap but at least they are his. We have enough PR , lowlife, unprincipled, self seeking politicians. Corbyn has just been thrown to the top without having to have debased himself getting up the greasy pole.
I find it hard to understand how someone might enthusiastically support both Blair and Corbyn. The personal dimension is one explanation.
Mr. D, nice idea but: 1) There isn't a Liberal Party [ok, there is, but it's tiny] 2) The Lib Dems have fewer than 10 seats 3) Labour has over 200 seats
For Labour to fail, a replacement party needs to arise.
The Greens and Lib Dems are too small. UKIP has a history of stupid electoral strategies coupled with a leader who's made himself look a damned fool. The SNP are already in a dominant position in the constituencies they'll contest.
If all disaffected leftwingers jumped one way, that could give the Lib Dems or UKIP a critical advantage, but as I imagine left voters will split between various parties and just not voting it's hard to see a challenger to Labour's status as official opposition party.
Yes, as I believe I said right at the start of this nonsense, there is not a credible outcome to it all that does not involve a split in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
There is no credible alternative to Labour as an opposition. Corbyn is clearly concentrating on control of the mechanisms by which the Labour Party is run (ironically mechanisms intentionally designed to stop the Hard Left having influence on the party but apparently completely failing to consider that the Hard Left could end up in control of those mechanisms).
The mandate he achieved makes it impossible for him to be ousted. The only way for the moderate wing of Labour to deal with this is to form a New SDP and they would be much better doing so while they still have a reasonable Parliamentary representation.
It is surely possible that a New SDP could become the official opposition from the start given the likely numbers. But unless they move soon they will be faced with elections in 2020 which will remove a great many of the anti-Corbynites from holding seats and the Hard Left begin to dominate the PLP.
...Of course, to do so they would have to coalesce around a new leader, untainted by this summer's leadership debacle. Step forward The Postie. Has he perhaps stepped down from his role on the EU Referendum to do something a bit bigger?
I have seen a couple of references to this but is there an artticle about Johnson standing down?
To continue malcomg you Scots have rid yourselves of the Labour Party as a credible party and they only have 1 MP now. That would have once been unimaginable. Can we English not dare to dream to be as lucky as the Scots?
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
I thought he was just stating it as he sees it as someone who knows the guy. Too many frothers on here think that everybody is a slime ball with no principles. His policies may be crap but at least they are his. We have enough PR , lowlife, unprincipled, self seeking politicians. Corbyn has just been thrown to the top without having to have debased himself getting up the greasy pole.
I find it hard to understand how someone might enthusiastically support both Blair and Corbyn. The personal dimension is one explanation.
Another is (and I say this with all due respect) is zeal, the self-belief and self-righteousness of the converted. If someone converts their beliefs then they convince themselves that they must be right as they have switched and so fervently support it.
See USA Born Again Christians. Palmer is Born Again Corbyn.
The problem for the left is that this strategy is a very high risk strategy, like playing Texas Hold Em poker without even looking at your own cards.
For every election defeat that Labour suffers/the Tories win the country will move further to the right, then the centre of politics will move to the right. In this Parliament we are already seeing changes such as the tax credit reforms, changes to union legislation, privatisations etc - these will continue for five years and be the "new normal" in five years time.
If Labour lose again next time and Corbyn retires (as he'd have to) but a Corbynite takes over in 2020 then the Hard Left still have control of Labour but the Tories still have control of government. There will be five more years of reforms by Osborne, May or whoever else wins the leadership. The "new normal" at the time of the 2025 election will not be like the normal of today.
Ultimately even if a Hard Left party 'gets lucky once' the party won't just have to make changes from today's status quo but the status quo of the future - while abandoning and attempt at governing the country between now and then.
The other issue is that there is an assumption that the hard left would win a majority, but it is quite possible they might have to go into coalition, which would make it harder for them to get their policies through.
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
I can't say I care for the phrase "hard left" but I use it because others instantly know who I mean by it. I'm open to other phrases that other readers will understand as easily.
Great article antifrank. NickMP "But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway." Thus we have 200 Labour MPs faced with a choice of:- 1. Change their beliefs and sleep with the enemy. The choice of Burnham and Benn. 2. Brave. Mount a coup and remove Corbyn. Probably the choice of 10% who have courage. 3. Radical. Jump before being pushed and form a new party Indepedent Labour. 4. Cowardice. Ignore it and hope it all goes away whilst they await deselection. Cowardice is the usual position of most Labour MPs whenever they have a terrible Leader.
So far we are seeing a mixture of Sleeping with the enemy and Cowardice. Alan Johnson has shown loyalty to the party which is actually a mixture of 1 and 4.
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
I thought he was just stating it as he sees it as someone who knows the guy. Too many frothers on here think that everybody is a slime ball with no principles. His policies may be crap but at least they are his. We have enough PR , lowlife, unprincipled, self seeking politicians. Corbyn has just been thrown to the top without having to have debased himself getting up the greasy pole.
I find it hard to understand how someone might enthusiastically support both Blair and Corbyn. The personal dimension is one explanation.
Yes different viewpoints , but at the time just about everybody was enthusiastic about Blair , even Tories. Hard to take anything from the biased viewpoints on here, nearly all Tory fan boys and of the extreme type who cannot take a pragmatic view on anything. Lots of fruitcakes on here nowadays.
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
To continue malcomg you Scots have rid yourselves of the Labour Party as a credible party and they only have 1 MP now. That would have once been unimaginable. Can we English not dare to dream to be as lucky as the Scots?
Yes indeed and they do make it very hard for themselves. It seems they are heading the way Scotland went , Brown will have a legacy after all. Only issue for me is it means the Tories wrecking Scotland, as you well know they are far from popular.
The implication of Antifrank's main piece is that the UK will one day have a hard left government. This gives poor prospects for the UK's alliances particularly with the USA. If the US thinks that eventually the UK will opt out of NATO etc they will focus their efforts on other countries.
I suspect with their penchant for clenched fists anything less would sound effete though I've always thought 'hard' as in brutal better suited to the right
"Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck."
But then, if we're stupid enough to vote Corbyn and his bunch in, we'd probably deserve it. Fortunately, I don't think we are, so it'll never happen.
Power lies with financial markets, not electorates - that's OK by you?
It's not that they have power, it's just that they accelerate and accentuate developments that would happen anyway. There were no developed financial markets in Lenin's Russia, but the traders and peasants forced a U-turn on the government once it ran out of other people to blame after the end of the first Civil War.
And yes, it's OK with me that people can decide what to do with their own money.
Great article antifrank. NickMP "But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway." Thus we have 200 Labour MPs faced with a choice of:- 1. Change their beliefs and sleep with the enemy. The choice of Burnham and Benn. 2. Brave. Mount a coup and remove Corbyn. Probably the choice of 10% who have courage. 3. Radical. Jump before being pushed and form a new party Indepedent Labour. 4. Cowardice. Ignore it and hope it all goes away whilst they await deselection. Cowardice is the usual position of most Labour MPs whenever they have a terrible Leader.
So far we are seeing a mixture of Sleeping with the enemy and Cowardice. Alan Johnson has shown loyalty to the party which is actually a mixture of 1 and 4.
Johnson will do nothing , just there topping up his pension and supping at the trough till retirement. He would be little if any better than Corbyn.
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
Nearly every voter does though, Libdems are reviled for the slimeballs they are. If you had to listen to the drivel the Scottish ones come up with you would know for sure how pathetic and irrelevant and dead they are.
I suspect with their penchant for clenched fists anything less would sound effete though I've always thought 'hard' as in brutal better suited to the right
Mr. L, not sure Miliband's problem was veering right.
Miliband's problem was assuming he'd inherit a win if he kept the party quiet for five years. The 2015 defeat had nothing to do with policy, left or right.
The point however is that if Labour's right (or centrists, modernisers or whatever you want to call them) wish to regain control, they need to understand that having just lost two elections is not a convincing argument to those who voted for Corbyn.
I think Milliband consistently wanted to have his cake and eat it.
For example, he wanted to complain about cuts but at the same time, complain about borrowing/debt rising.
In the end, what did he stand for? Complaining. Bonnie Langford would have done a better job.
"Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck."
But then, if we're stupid enough to vote Corbyn and his bunch in, we'd probably deserve it. Fortunately, I don't think we are, so it'll never happen.
Power lies with financial markets, not electorates - that's OK by you?
It's not that they have power, it's just that they accelerate and accentuate developments that would happen anyway. There were no developed financial markets in Lenin's Russia, but the traders and peasants forced a U-turn on the government once it ran out of other people to blame after the end of the first Civil War.
And yes, it's OK with me that people can decide what to do with their own money.
I think you will find the Navy (specifically the Kronstadt mutiny) was probably more important than the traders - there were very few of those left under War Communism (they had been swept away, as had the kulaks). The peasants, however, I will grant you.
Traders re-emerged after, as the famous 'nepmen' whom Pasternak described as 'making paper fortunes that added nothing to the prosperity of the town' in a book banned by Khrushchev for being too anti-Communist.
I suspect with their penchant for clenched fists anything less would sound effete though I've always thought 'hard' as in brutal better suited to the right
Mr. L, not sure Miliband's problem was veering right.
Miliband's problem was assuming he'd inherit a win if he kept the party quiet for five years. The 2015 defeat had nothing to do with policy, left or right.
The point however is that if Labour's right (or centrists, modernisers or whatever you want to call them) wish to regain control, they need to understand that having just lost two elections is not a convincing argument to those who voted for Corbyn.
I think Milliband consistently wanted to have his cake and eat it.
For example, he wanted to complain about cuts but at the same time, complain about borrowing/debt rising.
In the end, what did he stand for? Complaining. Bonnie Langford would have done a better job.
As far as I understood his less than coherent position, he said he would cut spending to deal with borrowing, but that was OK because he wouldn't cut what those nasty Tories were cutting for purely ideological reasons, instead cutting all those things that we didn't need like er, yes, ummm, HS2, oh except the northern Labour voters want it, ummm, OFSTED, oh, parents like it,* ah, er, the Welsh Development office, oh that would cost us Bridgend, ummm, energy companies, oh, that would be more expensive.....
And then he wondered why he was not seen as a credible PM by the majority of the UK's population.
(*Actually, I would have been his most enthusiastic supporter had he proposed abolishing OFSTED, but I don't think he ever did - I just use it as an example of the sort of thing he would have said and reneged on.)
It's an interesting article, but it suggests a degree of systematic planning which I don't think is present. People who dislike his politics are mistaken to see him as Machiavelli - he is much more like Citizen Smith (?), the guy in the Hollywood movie who blows into the Senate full of innocent intention. Corbyn's position is akin to a branch manager of M&S being appointed as CEO after a huge shareholder revolt. He's surprised, pleased and adjusting as quickly as possible, but essentially his training and experience relate to the previous role.
As a backbencher in a safe seat, it's a perfectly viable strategy simply to stand up for what you believe in and work hard for your constituents. He is an excellent constituency MP - I've canvassed numerous supporters of other parties who vote for him because he helped them over the years. He's also genuinely honest and recoils from disavowing past stances for tactical advantage. Nor is he into personal vendettas - he is uninterested in evicting opponents, and his experience - including the recent selection - is that by arguing your case you win in the end, and more decently than by cunningly getting rid of rivals. Take him as a radical left-winger with honest principles and you can predict his actions much better.
Most people who reach the top have got used to numerous big and small compromises, evasions and dishonesties - we expect it of them, and comment critically when they don't do the electorally opportune thing - if Clinton embraces some new stance we just assume she's reacting to a focus group, and nod understandingly. (Who can predict what Boris will think next year? Certainly not him.) That is not Corbyn's habit and I don't think he will change. The furthest he goes is to accept that sometimes the party will outvote him (as on NATO and even Trident). (Some prominent left-wingers are much more willing to shift without conviction as they think necessary, by the way.)
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
"the overall mood of the party, which is basically 'centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing' "
That may be the mood, but surely it is complete nonsense. When have Labour won in modern times? Blair (3 times) and Wilson.
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
Off topic, is Watson's roasting in the press significant?
He was touted by admiring scribes as 1. the man who REALLY controls labour. 2. the man to succeed when Corbyn stumbles.
He is damaged now, surely.
What it will surely do is make the right of the Labour party even more wary of trying to push Corbyn out in case he does indeed walk. Watson, under these circumstances, would be in charge of the Labour party and with these allegations hanging around his neck like an albatross, that could do even worse damage.
Labour have got themselves into a truly unholy mess.
Incidentally, may I say for the record that @Roger's first post was a rare occasion where I totally agreed with him?
I've always thought "hard left" was the other book-end to "far right" - with both being unpalatable to the vast bulk of the electorate, for similar reasons: neither are much impressed by democratic values like free speech.
In short, they both fit the political niche of bat-shit crazy.
Off topic, is Watson's roasting in the press significant?
He was touted by admiring scribes as 1. the man who REALLY controls labour. 2. the man to succeed when Corbyn stumbles.
He is damaged now, surely.
Electing him as deputy was always going to be dangerous; he's resigned from front-bench roles with Labour twice, and on both occasions for incompetently interfering with internal party politics.
In fact, the troubles Labour find themselves in can, to a large degree, be placed at his door. He led to the successful Blair being dethroned in favour of the incompetent Brown; and then he was firmly involved with the Falkirk scandal, which played a large part in Labour's Scottish demolition.
Yet Labour seem to think he will be a good deputy leader ...
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
Quite possibly.
But they are an awful lot higher than UKIP were when they peaked!
I cannot stop feeling good about the position of the Labour Party right now..they certainly got what they deserved..,and until someone develops some courage they will go out of business.. I see no alternative for the Labour Party other than a bloody and very messy coup...effin get on with it.
I've always thought "hard left" was the other book-end to "far right" - with both being unpalatable to the vast bulk of the electorate, for similar reasons: neither are much impressed by democratic values like free speech.
In short, they both fit the political niche of bat-shit crazy.
Does the 'far' right really exist in the UK any more as an organised political force?
I suppose that depends on an individual's definition of far right and far left, but there seem many more leftist groups than rightist ones - from the various Communist splinters to the myriad socialist groups.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
By what measure do you say the euro elections were 'peak kipper'?
At the time we had 3% of the vote and no MPs... Both are higher now
The polling at that time was not the highest it ever got to either
Nothing personal, please let's not have a petty argument, but just wondered how you came to that conclusion
There is a credible alternative, it just isn't very likely currently. But then if someone had gone to Ladbrokes 24 months ago and said that in two year's time the Tories would have an absolute majority in Parliament, the Lib Dems would have 8 MPs, the SNP 56 (elected) and Jeremy Corbyn would be leader of the Opposition - what fair odds would have been given for that? The unlikely can come to pass.
The credible alternative is that the Labour Party loses political support which coalesces around an alternative, probably the Lib Dems. Over a couple of years the Lib Dems gradually rise until like a phoenix from the flames they're suddenly polling in the high teens, then the twenties. Meanwhile Labour have drifted down out of the thirties and down the twenties then there's talk of a crossover between the Lib Dems and Labour. At that point even if they only have 8 MPs the polls putting them in touching distance of Labour makes them a credible alternative - defections at this stage may occur both by Labour MPs and Labour voters.
If there is crossover between parties and a tipping point is reached then FPTP can be a cruel mistress. In 2010 Labour won 66% of Scottish MPs, the SNP 10% - five years later Labour won <2% of Scottish MPs and the SNP won 95% of them.
In Canada 1993 the Conservatives went from 156 ridings to holding just 2. A loss of 154. Worst case scenario for the reds is that could feasibly happen to Labour.</p>
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
I said at the start that while it may be unlikely it must be more likely than what has happened in the last 24 months. We've seen in the last few years that unlikely is not the same as impossible.
A week is a long time in politics but there are 55 months between now and the next election so a lot can happen in that time. If there were on average a quarter percentage point per month going from Labour to the Lib Dems between now and the next election then there would be crossover.
I think you will find the Navy (specifically the Kronstadt mutiny) was probably more important than the traders - there were very few of those left under War Communism (they had been swept away, as had the kulaks). The peasants, however, I will grant you.
Traders re-emerged after, as the famous 'nepmen' whom Pasternak described as 'making paper fortunes that added nothing to the prosperity of the town' in a book banned by Khrushchev for being too anti-Communist.
If you're talking about overt traders I'd agree with you - there were huge black markets under War Communism when Lenin's requisitioning left anything at all to the people who'd made it.
Anyway, I think my point still stands. I enjoyed antifrank's article, but don't think the Hard Left's strategy, if such it is, is realistic even on its own terms. It reminds me of countless fantasies I've heard at university (though never, incidentally, from economics students). As a strategy for anything more than the first few weeks of a government, it is Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I think you will find the Navy (specifically the Kronstadt mutiny) was probably more important than the traders - there were very few of those left under War Communism (they had been swept away, as had the kulaks). The peasants, however, I will grant you.
Traders re-emerged after, as the famous 'nepmen' whom Pasternak described as 'making paper fortunes that added nothing to the prosperity of the town' in a book banned by Khrushchev for being too anti-Communist.
If you're talking about overt traders I'd agree with you - there were huge black markets under War Communism when Lenin's requisitioning and the1920 famine left anything at all to the people who'd made it.
Anyway, I think my point still stands. I enjoyed antifrank's article, but don't think the Hard Left's strategy, if such it is, is realistic even on its own terms. It reminds me of countless fantasies I've heard at university (though never, incidentally, from economics students). As a strategy for anything more than the first few weeks of a government, it is Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
I've always thought "hard left" was the other book-end to "far right" - with both being unpalatable to the vast bulk of the electorate, for similar reasons: neither are much impressed by democratic values like free speech.
In short, they both fit the political niche of bat-shit crazy.
Does the 'far' right really exist in the UK any more as an organised political force?
I suppose that depends on an individual's definition of far right and far left, but there seem many more leftist groups than rightist ones - from the various Communist splinters to the myriad socialist groups.
Well, there has been talk of military coups if Corbyn reaches Number Ten.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
Nearly every voter does though, Libdems are reviled for the slimeballs they are. If you had to listen to the drivel the Scottish ones come up with you would know for sure how pathetic and irrelevant and dead they are.
The Scottish Lib Dems are irrelevant though as the Lib Dems aren't needed to displace Labour in Scotland, the SNP have already done that. Mission accomplished, Labour are gone there.
We need a non-Tory party to replace Labour as the non-Tory party in England and Wales. Plaid Cymru are not doing it in Wales and like the SNP are not standing in England. UKIP are even less likely than the LDs IMO.
The Labour Party don't stand in Northern Ireland and may as well not stand in Scotland. For the party to finally die means they need to be replaced in England and Wales too. The LDs could do that.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
So the bad news is that there isn't really a systematic plan. But a good deal of what Antifrank writes may happen anyway. The far left is by no means a united, disciplined force, and lots of reselections are very unlikely, but mainstream members in a redrawn constituency will tend to select candidates who are not hostile to the overall mood of the party, which is basically "centrism feels wrong and usually doesn't actually win, so let's be honestly left-wing". The PLP will consequently reflect the current direction more than its current membership, as is always true because of the selection timelag.
You seem to be guided by large degree of personal respect for Corbyn. Is that correct?
I thought he was just stating it as he sees it as someone who knows the guy. Too many frothers on here think that everybody is a slime ball with no principles. His policies may be crap but at least they are his. We have enough PR , lowlife, unprincipled, self seeking politicians. Corbyn has just been thrown to the top without having to have debased himself getting up the greasy pole.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
It's strange because he is saying exactly what a lot of OUTers use as a reason to convince people to leave... Slightly Ratners-esque
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
In Westminster probably, it is hard to do better than 56/59 seats.
I think in Holyrood 2016 the SNP will almost certainly record gains - though I think as you might mean that will be playing catch up to the growth they've already has since 2011.
Just WHO has “picked” Stuart Rose to “lead" the campaign? I’ve seen nothing from, for example, the European Movement, whose latest press release refers to Laura Sandys as head honcho.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 20% of the countries of Europe - more like 10%.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Can Ireland still be classed as Catholic; I thought the church’s influence had collapsed there under the weight of scandal.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Poland, Ireland, Italy, and Malta. The Italians are so great that their ex-Communist party agitated against the USSR and their man in office, Renzi, has condemned Labour for electing Corbyn. There is a major common element going on here that is impossible to explain in any other way - yes, it's precisely the countries with no popular tradition of anti-clericalism, unlike say the southern French peasants. Sociologically the UK is much closer to France/Germany or the Dutch or even the Nordics who would undoubtedly be described as "hard left" on PB comments.
When the meeting was finally held this week, D.N.C. staffers walked Biden’s representatives through the primary calendar, filing deadlines, the mechanics of ballot-access issues, and the complicated details of the party’s state-by-state selection process for delegates and super delegates. The session included a level of detail that would only be of interest to a candidate who is serious about running. For example, the briefing included information about issues such as whether a particular primary state requires a candidate to send a letter to the Secretary of State in order to get on the ballot, or circulate a petition, or pursue some other method.
But, while the briefing is considered an important step for any candidate who is serious about entering the race, how it will affect Biden’s decision is unclear. It may simply be that Biden is still gathering the necessary information to help him make a final determination. And the details of the complicated process of winning enough delegates to secure his party’s nomination might convince Biden that the window to enter the race has passed.
We know he's seriously considering running... the question is whether he will.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed.
The thing to remember about Corbyn's election is that he stood at the right time. His Party's membership had had a chance to digest the implications of 13 years in office continuously, never known before, and discovered that, so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
It was 35% in 2000, it was 45% in 2010. That looks like about a 30% increase in public spending as percent of GDP.
"Once the hard left reach government, they will need no further luck." Antifrank, it's a good article and one with which I mostly agree. However the "We only have to be lucky once" suggestion indicates that you think a hard left government would be the end of our democracy (please correct me if I've misinterpreted you). I think that Corbyn, and before him Foot and Benn, are democrats. If he gets elected we'll still be able to get rid of him at an election. To think otherwise is just a teensy bit paranoid.
The last hard left government nationalised coal, steel, water, energy, rail,and created the NHS. It was far harder left than Corbyn but Attlee stepped down in 1951 when he was democratically defeated. However the Keynesian consensus survived for 35 years until Thatcher in 1979. The pendulum then swung to the neo-liberal hard right where it remains 35 years later. But pendulums swing.
Edit - Added. Those aged under about 45 have only experienced the hard right swing of the pendulum and think it is the natural order of things.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Can Ireland still be classed as Catholic; I thought the church’s influence had collapsed there under the weight of scandal.
It's certainly much diminished - which given some of the ways it used its power in the past, is no bad thing - but I think 'collapsed' would be an exaggeration. Around one-third of the Irish people still attend a Catholic church on a weekly basis, compared with around 5% of English people who attend services in the Church of England regularly.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed.
The thing to remember about Corbyn's election is that he stood at the right time. His Party's membership had had a chance to digest the implications of 13 years in office continuously, never known before, and discovered that, so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
Wasn't spending closer to 50% of GDP by 2010, not 40%?
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
The left-of-Labour is described as "hard left" on PB, comprising apparently 10 to 15 per cent of the population, but PB also doubts the existence of any kind of sizable "far right". Is this because the distribution is unusually shaped, or because PB's vantage point is on the right?
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Poland, Ireland, Italy, and Malta. The Italians are so great that their ex-Communist party agitated against the USSR and their man in office, Renzi, has condemned Labour for electing Corbyn. There is a major common element going on here that is impossible to explain in any other way - yes, it's precisely the countries with no popular tradition of anti-clericalism, unlike say the southern French peasants. Sociologically the UK is much closer to France/Germany or the Dutch or even the Nordics who would undoubtedly be described as "hard left" on PB comments.
Well, that's a new phenomenon then in Italy - the Italian left of the nineteenth century was fervently anti-clerical. Indeed, that was how Mussolini got his first leg-up in politics, attacking the church.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed. so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spendt.
Public spending went from 34.6% in 2000 up to 47.3% and that's "hovering" in your eyes?
Miliband's error was being wrong. Labour were running a major deficit during growth before the recession - the result when the recession hit was inevitable. If you're running a deficit in growth then cyclical spending factors mean the deficit will blow out of control in the next bust.
Of course Ed and Gordon delusionally believed they had eliminated boom and bust. They were wrong.
I've always thought "hard left" was the other book-end to "far right" - with both being unpalatable to the vast bulk of the electorate, for similar reasons: neither are much impressed by democratic values like free speech.
In short, they both fit the political niche of bat-shit crazy.
Does the 'far' right really exist in the UK any more as an organised political force?
I suppose that depends on an individual's definition of far right and far left, but there seem many more leftist groups than rightist ones - from the various Communist splinters to the myriad socialist groups.
Well, there has been talk of military coups if Corbyn reaches Number Ten.
Has there? Serious talk, or just people being a$$hats?
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Poland, Ireland, Italy, and Malta. The Italians are so great that their ex-Communist party agitated against the USSR and their man in office, Renzi, has condemned Labour for electing Corbyn. There is a major common element going on here that is impossible to explain in any other way - yes, it's precisely the countries with no popular tradition of anti-clericalism, unlike say the southern French peasants. Sociologically the UK is much closer to France/Germany or the Dutch or even the Nordics who would undoubtedly be described as "hard left" on PB comments.
Which Dutch party do you think is as left wing as Corbyn? The PvDA (the Dutch equivalent to Labour) are equivalent to Blair's New Labour not Corbyn Labour.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed. so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spendt.
Public spending went from 34.6% in 2000 up to 47.3% and that's "hovering" in your eyes?
Miliband's error was being wrong. Labour were running a major deficit during growth before the recession - the result when the recession hit was inevitable. If you're running a deficit in growth then cyclical spending factors mean the deficit will blow out of control in the next bust.
Of course Ed and Gordon delusionally believed they had eliminated boom and bust. They were wrong.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed.
The thing to remember about Corbyn's election is that he stood at the right time. His Party's membership had had a chance to digest the implications of 13 years in office continuously, never known before, and discovered that, so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
Wasn't spending closer to 50% of GDP by 2010, not 40%?
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
And you know most of those who want budget surpluses would be screaming for tax cuts if one ever loomed into view.
About 80 per cent of European countries have a leading party that is more left-wing than New Labour. The rest have a strong tradition of devout Catholicism rendering left-wing politics suspect. So the UK was never going to be an outlier forever. Corbyn the man may be unelectable, but the average of the policies of him, the Labour membership and the (Blairite-selected) parliamentary party will be in the European mainstream. And then as Antifrank writes, they need one shot.
Which ones would those be? I would have said most of the Catholic countries of Europe, except possibly Austria, have a strong tradition of left-wing thought based on anticlericalism. You could certainly say that of France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium to a lesser extent.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 80% of the Catholic countries of Europe.
Poland, Ireland, Italy, and Malta. The Italians are so great that their ex-Communist party agitated against the USSR and their man in office, Renzi, has condemned Labour for electing Corbyn. There is a major common element going on here that is impossible to explain in any other way - yes, it's precisely the countries with no popular tradition of anti-clericalism, unlike say the southern French peasants. Sociologically the UK is much closer to France/Germany or the Dutch or even the Nordics who would undoubtedly be described as "hard left" on PB comments.
Well, that's a new phenomenon then in Italy - the Italian left of the nineteenth century was fervently anti-clerical. Indeed, that was how Mussolini got his first leg-up in politics, attacking the church.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
I don't disagree and the Fascist tendency exhibited anti-clericalism right from Fiume. It's hard to find a common theme, but if anyone can improve on a common factor including Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland, but excluding France and Spain, I am open.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed. so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spendt.
Public spending went from 34.6% in 2000 up to 47.3% and that's "hovering" in your eyes?
Miliband's error was being wrong. Labour were running a major deficit during growth before the recession - the result when the recession hit was inevitable. If you're running a deficit in growth then cyclical spending factors mean the deficit will blow out of control in the next bust.
Of course Ed and Gordon delusionally believed they had eliminated boom and bust. They were wrong.
Feb 2008 comment: "that's forty billion pounds in the 'good times'... what happens if we do hit a recession?
Forty billion can turn into one hundred and fifty billion very very quickly "
LOL yes I was saying the same thing at the time too (though not online so can't link to it).
For people like Ed and Decrepit to pretend still that there was no overspend is not intellectual but delusional. Admit your mistake and move on is the way to move on.
The left-of-Labour is described as "hard left" on PB, comprising apparently 10 to 15 per cent of the population, but PB also doubts the existence of any kind of sizable "far right". Is this because the distribution is unusually shaped, or because PB's vantage point is on the right?
Possibly a difference in definitions. Far right, in most European countries, means roughly speaking pro-Nazi. Very few people are openly pro-Nazi, because it is difficult to think of any good reason to be a Nazi. Most of the ones who are pro-Nazi, e.g. David Irving, are clearly frauds and so nobody pays much attention to them.
On the left, however, as there is this belief that the left is somehow about helping people to live better lives, there is more room to manoeuvre - you can say that you want to take over businesses, and schools, and political instruction but it's OK because it's not for personal aggrandisement or wealth. Therefore, there are more people willing to be openly on left, and have no objection to being considered 'pro-Communist' as that can be seen, by them, as a compliment.
Of course, it is also helped by the fact that Britain fought against the Nazis, but with the Communists (as Richard Overy noted, the real irony of WWII was that it was fought against tyranny in company with one of the world's most tyrannical states) and people still have a somewhat rosy view of the former Soviet Union as comparatively little is known about it in this country. So the fact that it was actually a very bad way of running a country, that guaranteed greater poverty for everyone except a few greedy elites (Brezhnev) is often overlooked.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
Wasn't spending closer to 50% of GDP by 2010, not 40%?
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
And you know most of those who want budget surpluses would be screaming for tax cuts if one ever loomed into view.
Absolutely! Tax cuts combined with a budget surplus will be the best insurance policy against any future crashes. Tax rises combined with a budget deficit is asking for trouble.
Surely until fairly late in his campaign Corbyn didn’t EXPECT to win. He hoped to, obviously,otherwise he wouldn’t have stood, but did he originally stand with realistic thoughts of wiming, or of just making a good fist of it; showing that the Left was a significant factor in thre Labour Party. He didn’t expect to have to worry about the nuts and bolts of either the Party or it;s policies.
Then he won!
At the moment he rather reminds me of the Roger McGough poem
"I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?"
Indeed.
The thing to remember about Corbyn's election is that he stood at the right time. His Party's membership had had a chance to digest the implications of 13 years in office continuously, never known before, and discovered that, so far as they were concerned, it meant they'd turned into Tory-lite. They prefer oppositionism.
What you miss is the "Tory-lite" party had just lost its second election in a row. Those 13 years in office were (or will have been) followed by 10 straight years in opposition.
So Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown are Tories now?
You may have missed that I was quoting the previous post, but certainly Gordon Brown was and always had been on the right of the party.
The point is that saying veering to the right guarantees electoral success is no longer convincing after two defeats in a row.
The suggestion is that being on the right of the party is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral success.
Though Brown increasing spending by 50% in real terms was not to the right of the country, not was Ed "no we didn't spend too much" Miliband.
Public spending has hovered around 40 per cent of GDP since the 1960s.
Labour did not spend too much. Miliband's error was in not providing evidence for the rest of the audience -- rather, he just said "no" as if he were an eminent academic whose lecture had been interrupted by a question from a particularly dim student.
It was 35% in 2000, it was 45% in 2010. That looks like about a 30% increase in public spending as percent of GDP.
But that includes the global financial crisis. Odd that. And 2000 is an odd starting point as well.
But that includes the global financial crisis. Odd that. And 2000 is an odd starting point as well.
Of course it includes that, it isn't odd at all. Recessions happen, you can never eliminate boom and bust and prevent them. It is part of life and part of history too when you look at historical records. To ignore a crash because it doesn't suit your agenda is illiterate. There is no reason to exclude the recession.
If Labour had been running a surplus when the country went into recession, as happened historically with the last recession, then the finances would have been manageable. Unfortunately instead of having a surplus like we did historically we had a major and growing deficit.
If your plan is to run finances that work if there are no recessions then your plan is fundamentally flawed.
The left-of-Labour is described as "hard left" on PB, comprising apparently 10 to 15 per cent of the population, but PB also doubts the existence of any kind of sizable "far right". Is this because the distribution is unusually shaped, or because PB's vantage point is on the right?
Possibly a difference in definitions. Far right, in most European countries, means roughly speaking pro-Nazi. Very few people are openly pro-Nazi, because it is difficult to think of any good reason to be a Nazi. Most of the ones who are pro-Nazi, e.g. David Irving, are clearly frauds and so nobody pays much attention to them.
On the left, however, as there is this belief that the left is somehow about helping people to live better lives, there is more room to manoeuvre - you can say that you want to take over businesses, and schools, and political instruction but it's OK because it's not for personal aggrandisement or wealth. Therefore, there are more people willing to be openly on left, and have no objection to being considered 'pro-Communist' as that can be seen, by them, as a compliment.
Of course, it is also helped by the fact that Britain fought against the Nazis, but with the Communists (as Richard Overy noted, the real irony of WWII was that it was fought against tyranny in company with one of the world's most tyrannical states) and people still have a somewhat rosy view of the former Soviet Union as comparatively little is known about it in this country. So the fact that it was actually a very bad way of running a country, that guaranteed greater poverty for everyone except a few greedy elites (Brezhnev) is often overlooked.
OK. But that's not entirely it. I also think Farage is "to-the-right" of the average PB commenter and Blair is "to-the-left", leaving someone like Attlee somewhere beside the Overton window.
The problem with this is that it is very, very unlikely. Unlike the case in Canada, the Liberals are toxic. They are toxic everywhere outside of current Tory heartlands and their only expansion chances are against Tories. Thanks to their coalition with the Tories they will not lose this toxicity any time soon in the sort of seat they need to be able to win to provide an alternative to Labour.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
LDs are doing well council by elections, including taking one off the SNP this week. Their "toxicity" is wearing off. Council byelections did have reasonable predictive power in the last parliament, notably the lack of enthusiasm for Milibands Labour across much of the country. Don't count the LDs out just yet. Not every voter thinks like you!
They have won seats in predominantly Tory heartlands, this prefectly reflects what I've said.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
They took a seat of the SNP. They ain't dead yet!
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
They did not take a seat off the SNP.
They won a seat in an STV byelection. The nominal Hold/Gain position is almost impossible to apply to STV byelections where the entire electorate goes from electing 4 representatives to electing 1 (including 52% of the voters from 2012 who DID NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE of their previous first preference allegiance standing).
In 2012 the constituency returned 2 Independents, 1 SNP and 1 Liberal after a fight between the Liberals and SNP for the 4th slot that the Liberals won fairly easily.
In 2017, based on this byelection, the constituency will return 2 Independents, 1 SNP and a battle between Liberals and SNP for the 4th slot which will be closer than 2012.
Well, that's a new phenomenon then in Italy - the Italian left of the nineteenth century was fervently anti-clerical. Indeed, that was how Mussolini got his first leg-up in politics, attacking the church.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
I don't disagree and the Fascist tendency exhibited anti-clericalism right from Fiume. It's hard to find a common theme, but if anyone can improve on a common factor including Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland, but excluding France and Spain, I am open.
Possibly in systems of government?
Spain and France have been unified countries for centuries, with Catholic absolute monarchs and Catholicism established as the national religion (including heavy penalties for Protestants, Jews and atheists and actual wars fought to impose it in France). Therefore, there has been a tendency on the left to identify the church with the government and see it as an enemy.
In Ireland, Malta and Poland, they have been under foreign rule for centuries, and the only major national institutions to survive that occupation, due to size and support, was the Church, which continued to oppose the government. Therefore, the Church, especially in Ireland and Poland, has tended to be identified as on the side of the ordinary people and a Good Thing by the left.
In Italy, liberalism with its anticlerical overtones and links to Freemasonry, was rapidly discredited and the Church emerged as a strong, stabilising force in the chaotic years that followed, particularly a bulwark against the more sinister elements of Communism and gangsterism. It was also not seen as on the side of the government, but nor was it an enemy of the state (my Socialist schoolteacher, who would make Jeremy Corbyn look like Iain Duncan Smith, said that Mussolini's only lasting and worthwhile achievement was the Lateran Treaty).
I don't have enough evidence to prove that one way or another - or I'd have to write a book on it! - but I suggest that's a more profitable line of research.
The left-of-Labour is described as "hard left" on PB, comprising apparently 10 to 15 per cent of the population, but PB also doubts the existence of any kind of sizable "far right". Is this because the distribution is unusually shaped, or because PB's vantage point is on the right?
wouldn't that suggest that the centre of mass is actually to the left?
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
Well, there has been talk of military coups if Corbyn reaches Number Ten.
The talk presumably being "this won't happen". It won't even be necessary. Economic and political reality will intrude more quickly and decisively than our skeletal and overstretched army ever could.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
All I am saying is that Miliband made the same attempt to attack profits while reassuring voters that there would be no risk to the businesses. It didn't work.
Well, that's a new phenomenon then in Italy - the Italian left of the nineteenth century was fervently anti-clerical. Indeed, that was how Mussolini got his first leg-up in politics, attacking the church.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
I don't disagree and the Fascist tendency exhibited anti-clericalism right from Fiume. It's hard to find a common theme, but if anyone can improve on a common factor including Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland, but excluding France and Spain, I am open.
Possibly in systems of government?
Spain and France have been unified countries for centuries, with Catholic absolute monarchs and Catholicism established as the national religion (including heavy penalties for Protestants, Jews and atheists and actual wars fought to impose it in France). Therefore, there has been a tendency on the left to identify the church with the government and see it as an enemy.
In Ireland, Malta and Poland, they have been under foreign rule for centuries, and the only major national institutions to survive that occupation, due to size and support, was the Church, which continued to oppose the government. Therefore, the Church, especially in Ireland and Poland, has tended to be identified as on the side of the ordinary people and a Good Thing by the left.
In Italy, liberalism with its anticlerical overtones and links to Freemasonry, was rapidly discredited and the Church emerged as a strong, stabilising force in the chaotic years that followed, particularly a bulwark against the more sinister elements of Communism and gangsterism. It was also not seen as on the side of the government, but nor was it an enemy of the state (my Socialist schoolteacher, who would make Jeremy Corbyn look like Iain Duncan Smith, said that Mussolini's only lasting and worthwhile achievement was the Lateran Treaty).
I don't have enough evidence to prove that one way or another - or I'd have to write a book on it! - but I suggest that's a more profitable line of research.
Well, that too suggests Britain is more like Spain and France.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
Nothing’s ever simple. Alongside the rise in immigration, particularly among young, reasonably well educated and at any rate reasonably English-speaking Europeans came a massive increase in shop, bar and restuarant opening hours. People were needed to work those hours, especially in areas with few students.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
All I am saying is that Miliband made the same attempt to attack profits while reassuring voters that there would be no risk to the businesses. It didn't work.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
Nothing’s ever simple. Alongside the rise in immigration, particularly among young, reasonably well educated and at any rate reasonably English-speaking Europeans came a massive increase in shop, bar and restuarant opening hours. People were needed to work those hours, especially in areas with few students.
Remain's new slogan: Don't worry about never being able to afford your own home - at least you can get a drink late at night.
Fair enough if that's his belief, but I don't think that's a vote winning theme.. Ruthless capitalist theory will not sit well with the lefties who want to remain
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
The problem with this rhetoric is that, as LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration, everyone starts to see how they benefit from immigration.
"LEAVE accuses everyone of benefitting from immigration"
Huh? Explanation for that please.
The rhetoric is a bit like Miliband bashing businesses. If you accuse M&S or one hundred other companies of benefitting from immigration, people who shop at M&S won't wake up from their false consciousness and overthrow the oppressor, they'll fear what will happen if immigration stops because they think their interests are aligned with the oppressor.
These shops existed well before mass immigration!
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
All I am saying is that Miliband made the same attempt to attack profits while reassuring voters that there would be no risk to the businesses. It didn't work.
Miliband lost for other reasons.
We know the main reason was that voters didn't trust him with economic management, because he believed in the inverse magic money tree whereon profits can be pruned with no consequences to society.
Well, that's a new phenomenon then in Italy - the Italian left of the nineteenth century was fervently anti-clerical. Indeed, that was how Mussolini got his first leg-up in politics, attacking the church.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
I don't disagree and the Fascist tendency exhibited anti-clericalism right from Fiume. It's hard to find a common theme, but if anyone can improve on a common factor including Ireland, Italy, Malta and Poland, but excluding France and Spain, I am open.
Possibly in systems of government?
Spain and France have been unified countries for centuries, with Catholic absolute monarchs and Catholicism established as the national religion (including heavy penalties for Protestants, Jews and atheists and actual wars fought to impose it in France). Therefore, there has been a tendency on the left to identify the church with the government and see it as an enemy.
In Ireland, Malta and Poland, they have been under foreign rule for centuries, and the only major national institutions to survive that occupation, due to size and support, was the Church, which continued to oppose the government. Therefore, the Church, especially in Ireland and Poland, has tended to be identified as on the side of the ordinary people and a Good Thing by the left.
In Italy, liberalism with its anticlerical overtones and links to Freemasonry, was rapidly discredited and the Church emerged as a strong, stabilising force in the chaotic years that followed, particularly a bulwark against the more sinister elements of Communism and gangsterism. It was also not seen as on the side of the government, but nor was it an enemy of the state (my Socialist schoolteacher, who would make Jeremy Corbyn look like Iain Duncan Smith, said that Mussolini's only lasting and worthwhile achievement was the Lateran Treaty).
I don't have enough evidence to prove that one way or another - or I'd have to write a book on it! - but I suggest that's a more profitable line of research.
Well, that too suggests Britain is more like Spain and France.
There's no real tradition of liberalism - in the JS Mill sense - in France. In that sense British and French political traditions are very different. The "L'etat c'est moi" approach survived the French Revolution very well.
Comments
That's my fantasy at least.
See USA Born Again Christians. Palmer is Born Again Corbyn.
In purely probabilistic terms, the only viable and credible way forward is a New SDP for the moderate sections of the PLP.
1. Change their beliefs and sleep with the enemy. The choice of Burnham and Benn.
2. Brave. Mount a coup and remove Corbyn. Probably the choice of 10% who have courage.
3. Radical. Jump before being pushed and form a new party Indepedent Labour.
4. Cowardice. Ignore it and hope it all goes away whilst they await deselection. Cowardice is the usual position of most Labour MPs whenever they have a terrible Leader.
So far we are seeing a mixture of Sleeping with the enemy and Cowardice. Alan Johnson has shown loyalty to the party which is actually a mixture of 1 and 4.
The win in Scotland was a vagary of the STV byelection system and the bizarre nature of politics in the rural Highlands and Islands. The Liberals actually have LESS chance of retaining 1 seat in the multi-member constituency in 2017 while the SNP have a better chance of winnign 2 seats.
What's so "hard" about the left?
Good question!
I suspect with their penchant for clenched fists anything less would sound effete though I've always thought 'hard' as in brutal better suited to the right
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Fist.svg/2000px-Fist.svg.png
And yes, it's OK with me that people can decide what to do with their own money.
He would be little if any better than Corbyn.
For example, he wanted to complain about cuts but at the same time, complain about borrowing/debt rising.
In the end, what did he stand for? Complaining. Bonnie Langford would have done a better job.
Traders re-emerged after, as the famous 'nepmen' whom Pasternak described as 'making paper fortunes that added nothing to the prosperity of the town' in a book banned by Khrushchev for being too anti-Communist.
And then he wondered why he was not seen as a credible PM by the majority of the UK's population.
(*Actually, I would have been his most enthusiastic supporter had he proposed abolishing OFSTED, but I don't think he ever did - I just use it as an example of the sort of thing he would have said and reneged on.)
That may be the mood, but surely it is complete nonsense. When have Labour won in modern times? Blair (3 times) and Wilson.
Last year I accurately called Peak Kipper after the Euroelections. I think that we may well already have seen peak SNPper.
He was touted by admiring scribes as
1. the man who REALLY controls labour.
2. the man to succeed when Corbyn stumbles.
He is damaged now, surely.
Labour have got themselves into a truly unholy mess.
Incidentally, may I say for the record that @Roger's first post was a rare occasion where I totally agreed with him?
In short, they both fit the political niche of bat-shit crazy.
In fact, the troubles Labour find themselves in can, to a large degree, be placed at his door. He led to the successful Blair being dethroned in favour of the incompetent Brown; and then he was firmly involved with the Falkirk scandal, which played a large part in Labour's Scottish demolition.
Yet Labour seem to think he will be a good deputy leader ...
But they are an awful lot higher than UKIP were when they peaked!
I see no alternative for the Labour Party other than a bloody and very messy coup...effin get on with it.
I suppose that depends on an individual's definition of far right and far left, but there seem many more leftist groups than rightist ones - from the various Communist splinters to the myriad socialist groups.
"Stuart Rose: Businessman who backed immigration for cutting wages to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU
A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stuart-rose-businessman-who-backed-immigration-for-cutting-wages-to-lead-campaign-to-keep-britain-in-a6688561.html
At the time we had 3% of the vote and no MPs... Both are higher now
The polling at that time was not the highest it ever got to either
Nothing personal, please let's not have a petty argument, but just wondered how you came to that conclusion
And have you got a paddy power account?
A week is a long time in politics but there are 55 months between now and the next election so a lot can happen in that time. If there were on average a quarter percentage point per month going from Labour to the Lib Dems between now and the next election then there would be crossover.
Anyway, I think my point still stands. I enjoyed antifrank's article, but don't think the Hard Left's strategy, if such it is, is realistic even on its own terms. It reminds me of countless fantasies I've heard at university (though never, incidentally, from economics students). As a strategy for anything more than the first few weeks of a government, it is Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Very odd choice. I can see why someone who has only profited from mass immigration, and never suffered the negative effects, may want to stay with the EU (and unlimited migration).
It's not so clear why anyone thinks he's as good choice to lead IN though, given that baggage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34495161
That line of attack is pretty obvious, though. It'll be interesting if we could get a Big Business In, Small Business Out split.
We need a non-Tory party to replace Labour as the non-Tory party in England and Wales. Plaid Cymru are not doing it in Wales and like the SNP are not standing in England. UKIP are even less likely than the LDs IMO.
The Labour Party don't stand in Northern Ireland and may as well not stand in Scotland. For the party to finally die means they need to be replaced in England and Wales too. The LDs could do that.
I think in Holyrood 2016 the SNP will almost certainly record gains - though I think as you might mean that will be playing catch up to the growth they've already has since 2011.
The other possible exception is Poland, but I think there's more than devout Catholicism behind Poland's suspicion of the left. A gentleman named Jaruzelski probably had more to do with it.
EDIT - I hadn't thought of Ireland, but Ireland and Austria do not represent 20% of the countries of Europe - more like 10%.
Edited extra bit: no replay yet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
So, a sobering and thought provoking piece from Antifrank
The first debate is Oct. 13, 2015, 6 p.m. PDT
Edit - Added. Those aged under about 45 have only experienced the hard right swing of the pendulum and think it is the natural order of things.
Most moderate Tories I know are very comfortable in the 35-40% range; it's only the purist who want to get to 35% and below.
I suspect it had more to do with the corruption and depravity of the Papal States prior to the Risorgimento than to hard-won principles, but it was definitely there.
The Catholic Church was also instrumental in defeating the Communist party in elections in the 1940s, because it feared the Lateran Treaty would be revoked by a Communist government.
http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/do-you-know-how-big-psbr-is.html
Feb 2008 comment:
"that's forty billion pounds in the 'good times'... what happens if we do hit a recession?
Forty billion can turn into one hundred and fifty billion very very quickly "
Huh? Explanation for that please.
For people like Ed and Decrepit to pretend still that there was no overspend is not intellectual but delusional. Admit your mistake and move on is the way to move on.
On the left, however, as there is this belief that the left is somehow about helping people to live better lives, there is more room to manoeuvre - you can say that you want to take over businesses, and schools, and political instruction but it's OK because it's not for personal aggrandisement or wealth. Therefore, there are more people willing to be openly on left, and have no objection to being considered 'pro-Communist' as that can be seen, by them, as a compliment.
Of course, it is also helped by the fact that Britain fought against the Nazis, but with the Communists (as Richard Overy noted, the real irony of WWII was that it was fought against tyranny in company with one of the world's most tyrannical states) and people still have a somewhat rosy view of the former Soviet Union as comparatively little is known about it in this country. So the fact that it was actually a very bad way of running a country, that guaranteed greater poverty for everyone except a few greedy elites (Brezhnev) is often overlooked.
Simon Fletcher, Chief of staff.
Anneliese Midgley, Deputy chief of staff.
Neale Coleman, Director of policy and rebuttal. Stayed on to work for Boris.
1 and 3 are competent. I don't know about Midgeley.
Others are from the political ranks of various union leaderships.
If Labour had been running a surplus when the country went into recession, as happened historically with the last recession, then the finances would have been manageable. Unfortunately instead of having a surplus like we did historically we had a major and growing deficit.
If your plan is to run finances that work if there are no recessions then your plan is fundamentally flawed.
They won a seat in an STV byelection. The nominal Hold/Gain position is almost impossible to apply to STV byelections where the entire electorate goes from electing 4 representatives to electing 1 (including 52% of the voters from 2012 who DID NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE of their previous first preference allegiance standing).
In 2012 the constituency returned 2 Independents, 1 SNP and 1 Liberal after a fight between the Liberals and SNP for the 4th slot that the Liberals won fairly easily.
In 2017, based on this byelection, the constituency will return 2 Independents, 1 SNP and a battle between Liberals and SNP for the 4th slot which will be closer than 2012.
Spain and France have been unified countries for centuries, with Catholic absolute monarchs and Catholicism established as the national religion (including heavy penalties for Protestants, Jews and atheists and actual wars fought to impose it in France). Therefore, there has been a tendency on the left to identify the church with the government and see it as an enemy.
In Ireland, Malta and Poland, they have been under foreign rule for centuries, and the only major national institutions to survive that occupation, due to size and support, was the Church, which continued to oppose the government. Therefore, the Church, especially in Ireland and Poland, has tended to be identified as on the side of the ordinary people and a Good Thing by the left.
In Italy, liberalism with its anticlerical overtones and links to Freemasonry, was rapidly discredited and the Church emerged as a strong, stabilising force in the chaotic years that followed, particularly a bulwark against the more sinister elements of Communism and gangsterism. It was also not seen as on the side of the government, but nor was it an enemy of the state (my Socialist schoolteacher, who would make Jeremy Corbyn look like Iain Duncan Smith, said that Mussolini's only lasting and worthwhile achievement was the Lateran Treaty).
I don't have enough evidence to prove that one way or another - or I'd have to write a book on it! - but I suggest that's a more profitable line of research.
The argument would be that certain businesses increased their profits at the expense of British workers. At the expense of needless cultural changes. And at the expense of pushing house prices out of reach for millions of people. Many do not want that to continue.
The shops will continue to exist after a Leave event.
Miliband lost for other reasons.
Hmm.