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.
Hmm.
If the government wanted house prices to come down, they could build in places where building isn't currently permitted, or let others do so. However, high house prices help their supporters, who tend to be older and wealthy not struggling young house-buyers. Blaming the foreigners for tying up the country's wealth is so old-fashioned.
Well, that too suggests Britain is more like Spain and France.
To an extent. But the key difference is that it has never actually been illegal to be a member of another religion in Britain since the seventeenth century. True, many religious denominations were discriminated against - Catholic Emancipation was achieved only after a most bitter struggle, and the Test and Corporation Acts lasted even longer. It was 1865 before a practising Jew was able to sit in Parliament (and the first avowedly atheist member, Charles Bradlaugh, didn't arrive until 1880).
But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists, but to a lesser extent the Baptists and the Jews as well. In France and Spain, that tradition comes from outright opposition to religion, which is seen as a tool of oppression. Therefore, a lot of the softer, kindlier edge (e.g. the fact the British left must surely be one of the least violent in the world) was rather lost in those countries.
It is also I think fair to say that the Church of England has behaved with much more restraint, tact and common sense over the last three hundred years than the Catholic churches of Spain and France.
Corbyn and hard left in general expect Labour to lose GE2020 and would not mind that if they can take control of the party and win when the tide turns against the Tories perhaps in GE2025.
However where I think he could be in danger is the time not covered in the article - quite correctly because it is too early and much can happen by 2018 and 2019. But it could be that PLP realize Labour is not only going to lose in GE2020 but to lose by a wide margin and therefore may strike against Corbyn with a view to imposing/coronating a candidate acceptable to Left and Right who would probably still lose in GE2020 but by a respectable margin.
Miliband thought he could meddle with capitalism and voters would rally to him, but most voters agree with capitalism and they thought his meddling betrayed pettifogging incompetence. Now LEAVE think they can meddle with capitalism and voters will rally to them.
Corbyn and hard left in general expect Labour to lose GE2020 and would not mind that if they can take control of the party and win when the tide turns against the Tories perhaps in GE2025.
However where I think he could be in danger is the time not covered in the article - quite correctly because it is too early and much can happen by 2018 and 2019. But it could be that PLP realize Labour is not only going to lose in GE2020 but to lose by a wide margin and therefore may strike against Corbyn with a view to imposing/coronating a candidate acceptable to Left and Right who would probably still lose in GE2020 but by a respectable margin.
Welcome, Peter! Just for clarification, are you by any chance a punter, or from Putney?
"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?
If you want to borrow money from people then, yes, you need to ensure they are happy to lend to you
If, as a government, you are happy just to print money and hang the consequence then you don't need access to the capital markets and they have no power over you
Mr. EPG, leaving the EU doesn't mean forbidding all other people from ever finding work in the UK, nor vice versa.
The world will keep spinning on its axis, despite the banshee shrieking of doom-mongers.
No, it doesn't. I think immigration would largely continue as before. All I am saying is that the more LEAVE bashes businesses, the more unlikely LEAVE becomes, because we know that most British people see their interests as being aligned to the success of British businesses. This, a PB article of faith when discussing Miliband, suddenly becomes heresy when discussing LEAVE!
Well, that too suggests Britain is more like Spain and France.
To an extent. But the key difference is that it has never actually been illegal to be a member of another religion in Britain since the seventeenth century. True, many religious denominations were discriminated against - Catholic Emancipation was achieved only after a most bitter struggle, and the Test and Corporation Acts lasted even longer. It was 1865 before a practising Jew was able to sit in Parliament (and the first avowedly atheist member, Charles Bradlaugh, didn't arrive until 1880).
But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists, but to a lesser extent the Baptists and the Jews as well. In France and Spain, that tradition comes from outright opposition to religion, which is seen as a tool of oppression. Therefore, a lot of the softer, kindlier edge (e.g. the fact the British left must surely be one of the least violent in the world) was rather lost in those countries.
It is also I think fair to say that the Church of England has behaved with much more restraint, tact and common sense over the last three hundred years than the Catholic churches of Spain and France.
I don't think that's necessarily true of the Catholic Church in France post the Revolution. And Irish Catholics might not agree with your rather rosy view of English kindly tolerance!
"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?
If you want to borrow money from people then, yes, you need to ensure they are happy to lend to you
If, as a government, you are happy just to print money and hang the consequence then you don't need access to the capital markets and they have no power over you
Maybe if BITCOIN goes mainstream central banks will not have the same influence.
Mr. EPG, I did mention earlier (perhaps before you arrived today) that we might see a Big/Small Business split on the matter of whether we should stay. If SMEs tend towards Out and large business towards In, it would be interesting to see how that plays with the public.
I don't think that's necessarily true of the Catholic Church in France post the Revolution. And Irish Catholics might not agree with your rather rosy view of English kindly tolerance!
The Church of Ireland was not the Church of England until 1801, and was split off again in 1869! And I did point out that Catholic Emancipation took a while to come around (1829 for Ireland).
As for the Catholic Church in France, while it was often more sinned against than sinning in the nineteenth century, when it was blamed for just about every social ill, the damage had been done by its behaviour prior to 1789. And it still remains.
EDIT - just a thought, but to develop and perhaps slightly contradict my last point, can anyone put forward a scenario where the Church of England would have done the following: supported a military coup, led by a foreign adventurer, who had previously made two attempts to overthrow the government backed by the Church, who was openly living with his mistress, and had fathered at least two illegitimate children, and who was related to one of the most reviled men in Europe - merely in the hope of getting a few soldiers for its own purposes? Because that's what the Catholic Church in France did in 1852.
On the other hand, it remains a blot upon the French left that a man who had spent his life organising charity for the poor, who had stayed in Paris throughout a long siege, and who had never hurt a fly in his life, was shot for being Archbishop of Paris in 1871.
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.
No its naive to attack business leaders of places like M&S as seen in the election when business leaders come out in favour of Conservative policy that is a boost to the Conservatives as much as Labourites respond with "well they would say that wouldn't they".
Pick your battles, don't fight on your opponents strengths.
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.
The only talk of a "coup" I've seen was people over-reating to the threat of low morale and resignations across the board...
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.
Tom Watson is the most culpable. Not only was he stupid to unquestioningly believe those who accused Lord Brittan of various horrors, but he is also so cowardly that he will not admit his mistake and make a full apology to the Brittan family.
It is interesting that Watson is an enthusiastic supporter of the Hacked Off campaign, which would stifle press freedom. For the fact is that no responsible newspaper would have published the kind of damaging allegations which Watson made so carelessly and callously about the Tory peer without strong supporting evidence.
Now is the moment for Labours next leader to step forward...no matter who that person may be.they must seize the moment..form the breakaway..now..and forget the old team..There is no point waiting until the Burnhams and co decide the moment is right....their judgement is suspect..no point waiting until Corbyn and co slip on their own shit..The time to strike is now...just do it...or get another job.
I am not from Putney and I do punt on just 2 subjects - Club Football (sorry not really interested in internationals) and Politics. I was completely wrong on GE2015 thinking Conservatives would have most seats but no majority.
I shall be betting on Holyrood 2016 and on any Westminster byelection that should come about but I do not wish to wish misfortune on any sitting MP.
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
Yes, and particularly, a lot of them were foundations for the building society movement which became a vital source of credit later on.
With industrialists, it tended to vary - some were avowedly nonconformist (the Cadburys, Barclays, Rothschilds) but other sometimes mysteriously became Anglican when they had made enough and developed political ambitions, the aforesaid Test and Corporation Acts being a stumbling-block to nonconformist politics (or indeed, university education - the university of London was I think the first one that did not require undergraduates to recite the Nicene Creed).
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.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
Tom Watson is the most culpable. Not only was he stupid to unquestioningly believe those who accused Lord Brittan of various horrors, but he is also so cowardly that he will not admit his mistake and make a full apology to the Brittan family.
It is interesting that Watson is an enthusiastic supporter of the Hacked Off campaign, which would stifle press freedom. For the fact is that no responsible newspaper would have published the kind of damaging allegations which Watson made so carelessly and callously about the Tory peer without strong supporting evidence.
Unspoofable. Though fair play to the Express if they are admitting to not being a 'responsible newspaper'.
'Former Home Secretary Leon Brittan 'questioned by police over alleged rape' A MAN reported to be former Home Secretary Leon Brittan has been questioned by police over the alleged rape of a 19-year-old student.'
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.
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.
Hopefully not , Labour are unprincipled but Libdems take the biscuit, be better with the Mafia than them.
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.
F1: Gary Anderson, technical expert who was let go by the BBC for reasons of stupidity on the organisation's part, has contacted Benson, of the BBC, to say that the car going under the barrier can hardly be unexpected given the new, very low noses (to minimise car-to-car collision dangers). He suggested raising them a bit to diminish the risk of 'submarining'.
As soon as I saw the term 'hard left' I stopped reading. The author has totally missed the point.
Valleyboy,
Please can you expand, I genuinely what to hear a full counter argument? to me the article seems, logical, and reflective of the situation. If you think 'hard left' is an inaccurate adjective, then what should we be using to describe the currant labour leadership?
Unspoofable. Though fair play to the Express if they are admitting to not being a 'responsible newspaper'.
'Former Home Secretary Leon Brittan 'questioned by police over alleged rape' A MAN reported to be former Home Secretary Leon Brittan has been questioned by police over the alleged rape of a 19-year-old student.'
It would be remarkably self-aware of them to admit that, although I think most of us knew it already - after all, this was a paper that supported Tony Blair
With that, I am off. Have a good weekend everyone.
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
Yes, and particularly, a lot of them were foundations for the building society movement which became a vital source of credit later on.
With industrialists, it tended to vary - some were avowedly nonconformist (the Cadburys, Barclays, Rothschilds) but other sometimes mysteriously became Anglican when they had made enough and developed political ambitions, the aforesaid Test and Corporation Acts being a stumbling-block to nonconformist politics (or indeed, university education - the university of London was I think the first one that did not require undergraduates to recite the Nicene Creed).
Thank you for the kind words.
Interesting that the non-conformists created the "management class", the "financiers" and the organised labour movement in reaction. The CofE types just sat back and watched it happen (taking more than their profits, no doubt).
Mind you, there does seem to be a bit of a religious divide amongst the non-conformists. The quakers seem to be very well represented amongst the management and financiers, the methodists less so. Maybe my view is just clouded by the period; after all methodism was just getting going when the Quakers were founding their banks and setting up their iron works etc..
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.
That's Tories for you
That's Owen Jones for you - he's the one who called it a coup.
As I say, the "threat" was low morale and mass resignations... nothing like a coup.
F1: Gary Anderson, technical expert who was let go by the BBC for reasons of stupidity on the organisation's part, has contacted Benson, of the BBC, to say that the car going under the barrier can hardly be unexpected given the new, very low noses (to minimise car-to-car collision dangers). He suggested raising them a bit to diminish the risk of 'submarining'.
If I recall correctly, it was the nose of his car going under the barriers that caused Martin Donnelly's injuries at Jerez a couple of decades ago. The nose went under the barrier, but as the impact was not head on, momentum broke the front of the car off at his knees and sent the rest of the car back out onto the circuit.
I'm still amazed he lived, yet alone did not lose his legs.
Mr. EPG, leaving the EU doesn't mean forbidding all other people from ever finding work in the UK, nor vice versa.
The world will keep spinning on its axis, despite the banshee shrieking of doom-mongers.
No, it doesn't. I think immigration would largely continue as before. All I am saying is that the more LEAVE bashes businesses, the more unlikely LEAVE becomes, because we know that most British people see their interests as being aligned to the success of British businesses. This, a PB article of faith when discussing Miliband, suddenly becomes heresy when discussing LEAVE!
I'm not at all sure that capitalism is popular in this country. At best, it's seen as a necessary evil.
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.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
You think they've deliberately picked someone to troll the working class?!
Not all mainstream people like to see those not born into wealth downtrodden... It might backfire
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.
That's Tories for you
Be fair Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Other (delete as to how you are identifying this morning) G.. The only people who I have seen mentioning the silly idea of a military coup as a possibility have been supporters of the Labour Party's point of view. Perhaps it bigs up their idea of who they are - that the "Establishment" are so frightened of them. All complete tosh of course.
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
Yes, and particularly, a lot of them were foundations for the building society movement which became a vital source of credit later on.
With industrialists, it tended to vary - some were avowedly nonconformist (the Cadburys, Barclays, Rothschilds) but other sometimes mysteriously became Anglican when they had made enough and developed political ambitions, the aforesaid Test and Corporation Acts being a stumbling-block to nonconformist politics (or indeed, university education - the university of London was I think the first one that did not require undergraduates to recite the Nicene Creed).
Thank you for the kind words.
Interesting that the non-conformists created the "management class", the "financiers" and the organised labour movement in reaction. The CofE types just sat back and watched it happen (taking more than their profits, no doubt).
Mind you, there does seem to be a bit of a religious divide amongst the non-conformists. The quakers seem to be very well represented amongst the management and financiers, the methodists less so. Maybe my view is just clouded by the period; after all methodism was just getting going when the Quakers were founding their banks and setting up their iron works etc..
The Methodist Church was (and is) very Left (although John Wesley wasn't). Anglicans have always been to the Right of the population as a whole, although that's clearly no longer true of the clergy.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
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.
Which is a total different point.
Perhaps you could respond to my correction of your error?
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Corbyn won 60% in a four-way contest, and new joiners are likely also to be left-wing.
Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband.
On the European immigration crisis, another board I post on is pretty left wing and over the last few weeks the general sense has been outright support of the German position to scepticism and now being against it openly. Posters who previously said they were in favour are now very much against it.
I get a sense that this is happening across all of Europe, this idea of a solidarity tax on Petrol or 1% on VAT across the EU to pay for it is only going to inflame the sense of injustice that many, many people are currently feeling. If this solidarity tax happens (thankfully we have our opt-out - well done Dave) I could see anti-EU parties really pushing ahead.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
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.
That's Tories for you
Be fair Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Other (delete as to how you are identifying this morning) G.. The only people who I have seen mentioning the silly idea of a military coup as a possibility have been supporters of the Labour Party's point of view. Perhaps it bigs up their idea of who they are - that the "Establishment" are so frightened of them. All complete tosh of course.
Morning M(r)(s) Hurst , I just could not resist it, juvenile but it is Saturday. The perpetrator is most likely not the full shilling.
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
Mr. J., Glad I caught you. You asked on here the other day about the failure rate of Western cruise missiles (Tomahawks). I have looked through my notes and see that the rate a few years ago was about 5% (which is why putting Nukes on them as the Lib Dems floated was such a bloody silly idea).
To find how that compares the failure of the Russian missiles we need to know how many were fired. I recall reading that the figure was 24, though I cannot know find that source. If we assume that my memory hasn't failed me and the source was accurate and that 4 crashed in Iran. Well, then the failure rate is about three times that of the Tomahawk.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
IDS won 60% vs Ken Clark, a Europhile. Had one MP switched from IDS to Portillo then Portillo would have won with 60% of the vote. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the Tory leadership election and the Labour one. IDS wasn't as bad a Corbyn either.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
Yes, he's started out so well that 22% of Labour's current VI think he is a terrorist sympathiser.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Corbyn won 60% in a four-way contest, and new joiners are likely also to be left-wing.
Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband.
New joiners were also right-wing under IDS and virtually all Corbyn's potential backers voted for him as first preference. Hague lost Romsey to the LDs in a by election and was not replaced, Ed Miliband did not lose any by elections other than one to Galloway but after two years of IDS Tories had lost patience and I expect the same to be true of Labour under Corbyn
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
Their voteshare hasn't declined since the euros and as they didn't have any seats then and have one now, that isn't a decline either
As for the future, lets see... The last poll had them in 17%
There is a nice bet to be had I think w pp I'll email you
Whoever takes over at Labour has got to be a new kid..no old failures..like the ones who surround Corbyn now..it is surely the Shadow Cabinet of the useless...If the moment is not seized soon then it will have spun off into history and Labour as a political force will die. Listening to the likes of Mandy and the old school labourites is a total waste of time..They are complete losers...mainly because they allowed the travesty that is Corbyn to take over.. A completely new party is needed and quickly.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Corbyn won 60% in a four-way contest, and new joiners are likely also to be left-wing.
Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband.
They only really started getting awful byelections in the second half of 2014, by which point it was too late to replace him. I think if the events then had happened a year earlier, he would've been ousted.
Further to my point before about Germany, this is an example of a post from someone I would describe as extreme left, and he describes himself as very left wing:
"In this European migration crisis it means that you promote the idea that the immigrants are allowed to stick to their beliefs and traditions, and even legislation. Such as
- Women are not equal and need to obey their men - Homosexuality is a sin that is punished by death - Marriages between religions are not allowed - Apostasy is punishable by death
If you support multiculturalism, by definition you maintain that the immigrants must be allowed to maintain their own culture in their new country, instead of socially integrating them to the value system of their new country.
Is being against that racist?"
A few weeks ago I was being criticised by this very person for having a similar view. It has just dawned on them that 2 million refugees/immigrants from the middle east is going to massively change the country, especially since the birth rate of Germans is around 1.6 vs a birth rate among the new group of around 3.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
What is so devastating for Labour under Corbyn is the Tories won't need to resort to anything other than a straight vanilla retelling of Corbyn's past - and of his current juvenile antics on the Privy Council for example.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
Yes, he's started out so well that 22% of Labour's current VI think he is a terrorist sympathiser.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
Not sure whether Corbyn`s stand on terrorism will shift a single vote.
Offence is the best form of defence and there was an open goal with all the hot air that came out of the Tory conference.
Further to my point before about Germany, this is an example of a post from someone I would describe as extreme left, and he describes himself as very left wing:
"In this European migration crisis it means that you promote the idea that the immigrants are allowed to stick to their beliefs and traditions, and even legislation. Such as
- Women are not equal and need to obey their men - Homosexuality is a sin that is punished by death - Marriages between religions are not allowed - Apostasy is punishable by death
If you support multiculturalism, by definition you maintain that the immigrants must be allowed to maintain their own culture in their new country, instead of socially integrating them to the value system of their new country.
Is being against that racist?"
A few weeks ago I was being criticised by this very person for having a similar view. It has just dawned on them that 2 million refugees/immigrants from the middle east is going to massively change the country, especially since the birth rate of Germans is around 1.6 vs a birth rate among the new group of around 3.
I remember arguing that 24 years ago when I was... Eeurgh much much younger
Whoever takes over at Labour has got to be a new kid..no old failures..like the ones who surround Corbyn now..it is surely the Shadow Cabinet of the useless...If the moment is not seized soon then it will have spun off into history and Labour as a political force will die. Listening to the likes of Mandy and the old school labourites is a total waste of time..They are complete losers...mainly because they allowed the travesty that is Corbyn to take over.. A completely new party is needed and quickly.
Howard was an experienced hand when he replaced IDS Benn would be the same
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
Their voteshare hasn't declined since the euros and as they didn't have any seats then and have one now, that isn't a decline either
As for the future, lets see... The last poll had them in 17%
There is a nice bet to be had I think w pp I'll email you
Indyref gave the SNP momentum as EU ref could UKIP
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
What is so devastating for Labour under Corbyn is the Tories won't need to resort to anything other than a straight vanilla retelling of Corbyn's past - and of his current juvenile antics on the Privy Council for example.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Bit unfair to John Redwood. He's a respected academic with his head screwed on.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
That's still a step above Osborne and his "hemorrhoids posture".
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
I would expect UKIP to come first in the next set of Euro elections.
UKIP started the last Parliament at around 4% in polls. They start this one at around 13%.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
Yes, he's started out so well that 22% of Labour's current VI think he is a terrorist sympathiser.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
Not sure whether Corbyn`s stand on terrorism will shift a single vote.
Offence is the best form of defence and there was an open goal with all the hot air that came out of the Tory conference.
What gives you that impression? Just because you say things doesn't make them true. You want to read more posts from Southam and other people on the left who understand why the nation voted the way it did in May. It might help you understand why under Corbyn Labour will go backwards.
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
Yes, and particularly, a lot of them were foundations for the building society movement which became a vital source of credit later on.
With industrialists, it tended to vary - some were avowedly nonconformist (the Cadburys, Barclays, Rothschilds) but other sometimes mysteriously became Anglican when they had made enough and developed political ambitions, the aforesaid Test and Corporation Acts being a stumbling-block to nonconformist politics (or indeed, university education - the university of London was I think the first one that did not require undergraduates to recite the Nicene Creed).
Thank you for the kind words.
Interesting that the non-conformists created the "management class", the "financiers" and the organised labour movement in reaction. The CofE types just sat back and watched it happen (taking more than their profits, no doubt).
Mind you, there does seem to be a bit of a religious divide amongst the non-conformists. The quakers seem to be very well represented amongst the management and financiers, the methodists less so. Maybe my view is just clouded by the period; after all methodism was just getting going when the Quakers were founding their banks and setting up their iron works etc..
The Methodist Church was (and is) very Left (although John Wesley wasn't). Anglicans have always been to the Right of the population as a whole, although that's clearly no longer true of the clergy.
"Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband."
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14 20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14 9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14 9 October 2014 Douglas Carswell (UK Independence Party Win)
Newark Resignation of Patrick Mercer 30.04.14 5 June 2014 Robert Jenrick (Conservative Win)
Wythenshawe and Sale East Death of Paul Goggins 07.01.14 13 February 2014 Michael Kane (Labour Hold)
South Shields Resignation of David Miliband15.04.13 2 May 2013 Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour Hold)
Eastleigh Resignation of Chris Huhne 05.02.13 28 February 2013 Mike Thornton (Lib Dem Hold)
Mid-Ulster Resignation of Martin McGuiness 02.01.13 7 March 2013 Francie Molloy (Sinn Fein Hold)
Rotherham Resignation of Rt Hon Denis MacShane 05.11.12 29 November 2012 Sarah Champion (Labour Hold)
Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12 29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12 29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12 15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12 29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11 15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns 09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11 5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11 3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11 9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10 13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
Mr. EPG, leaving the EU doesn't mean forbidding all other people from ever finding work in the UK, nor vice versa.
The world will keep spinning on its axis, despite the banshee shrieking of doom-mongers.
No, it doesn't. I think immigration would largely continue as before. All I am saying is that the more LEAVE bashes businesses, the more unlikely LEAVE becomes, because we know that most British people see their interests as being aligned to the success of British businesses. This, a PB article of faith when discussing Miliband, suddenly becomes heresy when discussing LEAVE!
I'm not at all sure that capitalism is popular in this country. At best, it's seen as a necessary evil.
However, socialism is seen as incredible.
Depends how you phrase it: "capitalism" implies big business and banks to most.
If you frame it as consumer choice, and small family business, you get a very different answer.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
Yes, he's started out so well that 22% of Labour's current VI think he is a terrorist sympathiser.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
Not sure whether Corbyn`s stand on terrorism will shift a single vote.
Offence is the best form of defence and there was an open goal with all the hot air that came out of the Tory conference.
I agree . Corbyn's stand on terrorism (wave a white flag and surrender) is unlikely to change a voter's mind..... BY ITSELF.
But add in his stand on the monarchy (80% support), Trident, the Armed Forces, Ireland, the Falklands... etc and he is way outside what people consider the norm. Then add in his "friends" like Iran and what he has said and it's oh so easy to paint it him a nutter... which he is - compared to the norm..
As for offence after the Tory conference, as someone remarked last night of the News Quiz.. "protestors complaining about starvation after welfare cuts threw eggs and flour at Tories attending the conference".. :-)
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
Yes, he's started out so well that 22% of Labour's current VI think he is a terrorist sympathiser.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
Not sure whether Corbyn`s stand on terrorism will shift a single vote.
Offence is the best form of defence and there was an open goal with all the hot air that came out of the Tory conference.
What gives you that impression? Just because you say things doesn't make them true. You want to read more posts from Southam and other people on the left who understand why the nation voted the way it did in May. It might help you understand why under Corbyn Labour will go backwards.
Labour might well lose under Corbyn.But it doesn`t mean any obvious attacks will not have some effect on the Tories.
"Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband."
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14 20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14 9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14 9 October 2014 Douglas Carswell (UK Independence Party Win)
Newark Resignation of Patrick Mercer 30.04.14 5 June 2014 Robert Jenrick (Conservative Win)
Wythenshawe and Sale East Death of Paul Goggins 07.01.14 13 February 2014 Michael Kane (Labour Hold)
South Shields Resignation of David Miliband15.04.13 2 May 2013 Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour Hold)
Eastleigh Resignation of Chris Huhne 05.02.13 28 February 2013 Mike Thornton (Lib Dem Hold)
Mid-Ulster Resignation of Martin McGuiness 02.01.13 7 March 2013 Francie Molloy (Sinn Fein Hold)
Rotherham Resignation of Rt Hon Denis MacShane 05.11.12 29 November 2012 Sarah Champion (Labour Hold)
Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12 29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12 29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12 15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12 29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11 15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns 09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11 5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11 3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11 9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10 13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
After 2012, Labour were regularly losing vote share, which the Opposition shouldn't be.
Lots of delicious material to hammer Stuart Rose with. Just had this from Vote Leave:
"You may have seen in the news this morning that former M&S boss Stuart Rose will chair the 'In' campaign. In a statement he warned that leaving the EU would be 'risking our prosperity' and a 'leap into the unknown'. That's odd, because it was only back in April when he said that such concerns were 'ridiculous', 'scaremongering' and a 'red herring'. Even he can see the holes in the 'In' campaign's argument."
Whoever takes over at Labour has got to be a new kid..no old failures..like the ones who surround Corbyn now..it is surely the Shadow Cabinet of the useless...If the moment is not seized soon then it will have spun off into history and Labour as a political force will die. Listening to the likes of Mandy and the old school labourites is a total waste of time..They are complete losers...mainly because they allowed the travesty that is Corbyn to take over.. A completely new party is needed and quickly.
That is by no means imposssible.. an alliancewith the LD'ss into a new centrist SDP. I strongly feel that a Corbyn type Govt will never be elected in the UK.
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
LOL, considering they have almost 100% of the seats , a one year old could forecast that.
If I'm right in my proposition, what should the Labour right do next?
I still don't think they've realised just how completely they're screwed after the leadership election result.
Agree with that. Three things they need to do:-
On the one hand you talk about rational argument, but then you talk about poison and images of vampires.
I think the way to defeat bad ideas is to provide better ones. I do think Corbyn's ideas are poisonous and that they need to be utterly defeated.
Passion about good ideas is not incompatible with reason. You need to make people feel why your ideas are better. And the English language is a language of metaphors and images.
And the Tories have some work to do there. They assume that everyone will realise how awful Corbyn's ideas are.
Many will, but not all. Or at least: as not as many as could realise it to build the strongest possible centre-right movement for the 21st C. The Tories need to defend and advocate Conservative values in opposition to Corbyn as the better solution, and explain why.
Also, the Conservative Party membership remains extremely hollowed out after the first five years of government. There are barely a hundred thousand members left in it. So many activists left or resigned over gay marriage - I expect some pb Tories will be pleased at that, but I think they were dealt with dismissively and arrogantly. Cameron failed to sell his reforms to his own party. In fact, apart from a speech or two, he didn't even really bother. He really has left a terrible legacy here.
It was compensated for by the air battle during the election, backed with vast amounts of money, but the party in the country is slowly dying, and Labour now have three times the ground troops. Possible more.
Further to my point before about Germany, this is an example of a post from someone I would describe as extreme left, and he describes himself as very left wing:
"In this European migration crisis it means that you promote the idea that the immigrants are allowed to stick to their beliefs and traditions, and even legislation. Such as
- Women are not equal and need to obey their men - Homosexuality is a sin that is punished by death - Marriages between religions are not allowed - Apostasy is punishable by death
If you support multiculturalism, by definition you maintain that the immigrants must be allowed to maintain their own culture in their new country, instead of socially integrating them to the value system of their new country.
Is being against that racist?"
A few weeks ago I was being criticised by this very person for having a similar view. It has just dawned on them that 2 million refugees/immigrants from the middle east is going to massively change the country, especially since the birth rate of Germans is around 1.6 vs a birth rate among the new group of around 3.
Max, I chat to some Germans too and they have become increasingly more cross. As one of the said the other evening, "They run from their shithole of a country, we take them in, and now they want us to change so that we become more like the shithole they left". Mind you, there was a Maltese chap in the conversation and what he said I couldn't repeat on this site - suffice to say he thought that his country's willingness to offer a helping hand to those in trouble was being abused.
"Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband."
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14 20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14 9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14 9 October 2014 Douglas Carswell (UK Independence Party Win)
Newark Resignation of Patrick Mercer 30.04.14 5 June 2014 Robert Jenrick (Conservative Win)
Wythenshawe and Sale East Death of Paul Goggins 07.01.14 13 February 2014 Michael Kane (Labour Hold)
South Shields Resignation of David Miliband15.04.13 2 May 2013 Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour Hold)
Eastleigh Resignation of Chris Huhne 05.02.13 28 February 2013 Mike Thornton (Lib Dem Hold)
Mid-Ulster Resignation of Martin McGuiness 02.01.13 7 March 2013 Francie Molloy (Sinn Fein Hold)
Rotherham Resignation of Rt Hon Denis MacShane 05.11.12 29 November 2012 Sarah Champion (Labour Hold)
Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12 29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12 29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12 15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12 29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11 15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns 09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11 5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11 3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11 9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10 13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
After 2012, Labour were regularly losing vote share, which the Opposition shouldn't be.
I agree, but they had no disastrous or awful results that would have precipitated action. Newark should have been alarm bells, and I'd be interested to go back and see how Labour types spun that, given what we know now.
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.
Everyone benefits from immigration.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
You think they've deliberately picked someone to troll the working class?!
Not all mainstream people like to see those not born into wealth downtrodden... It might backfire
Not *someone*. But I could see them being cute with their campaign message.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
IDS won 60% vs Ken Clark, a Europhile. Had one MP switched from IDS to Portillo then Portillo would have won with 60% of the vote. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the Tory leadership election and the Labour one. IDS wasn't as bad a Corbyn either.
That is a matter of opinion. Corbyn is not yet a proven failure, unlike the resounding failure that IDS is.
Corbyn will have two years to make an impact with the public before there is a challenge as IDS did and remember IDS also won 60% of Tory members. It was the Tories coming third in the Brent East by election which did for him and it would likely be Labour coming third in a by election behind UKIP which will do for Corbyn if he does not have a clear poll lead by mid 2017, EU ref year. McConnell may not be a viable replacement but Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn certainly is and he will be the Michael Howard figure if needed. The Labour moderates will not wait 15 years in opposition under the hard left for the off chance of victory and will not want to have to form an SDP two as under FPTP it has little chance of replacing Labour so they will wait, as Mandelson has said they must give Corbyn enough rope to hang himself first and then strike but for now keep their powder dry
Generally I'd agree, but there is a flaw in your comparison with IDS. I don't recall huge waves of enthusiasm for him in the Tory membership as has been the case with Jezwecan. They were given two candidates to choose from - Clarke and IDS. They definitely didn't want Ken because of EU issues.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
What is so devastating for Labour under Corbyn is the Tories won't need to resort to anything other than a straight vanilla retelling of Corbyn's past - and of his current juvenile antics on the Privy Council for example.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Bit unfair to John Redwood. He's a respected academic with his head screwed on.
Redwood is a brilliantly forensic politician - but one who should be kept in a locked trunk in the basement. He just comes across so very badly when in contact with the public.
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 wel!
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
And have you got a paddy power account?
The Kippers came top in that election, and their voteshare has declined since. They failed to get any seats at the GE (except the semi-detached Carswell on a much diminished majority). The Tories have now shot their fox with tbe euro-ref.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
Their voteshare hasn't declined since the euros and as they didn't have any seats then and have one now, that isn't a decline either
As for the future, lets see... The last poll had them in 17%
There is a nice bet to be had I think w pp I'll email you
I think polling at this point in the electoral cycle is pretty meaningless even before we get to arguing about its accuracy just before elections.
There will be by elections and next year we have the Scottish, Welsh and London elections on top of the councils, but until then it is hard to say how far the tide is ebbing against the kippers.
I am up for an interesting bet on PP though, my email is foxinsoxuk at gmail.com
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.
Which is a total different point.
Perhaps you could respond to my correction of your error?
By pointing out you have forgotten the global financial crisis? If you look over the past few decades, public spending has been around 40 per cent. Some posters on this thread want to cherry pick lows, like 2000 which oddly enough was under Labour, or highs that were due to the global financial crisis. Smooth that out and, under governments of both colours, there is not a lot in it.
Corbyn has started out well targeting the Tories on `spin` something Ed Miliband failed to do.Once the tag sticks,nothing the Tories do will matter as Tony Blair knows!
What is so devastating for Labour under Corbyn is the Tories won't need to resort to anything other than a straight vanilla retelling of Corbyn's past - and of his current juvenile antics on the Privy Council for example.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Bit unfair to John Redwood. He's a respected academic with his head screwed on.
Redwood is a brilliantly forensic politician - but one who should be kept in a locked trunk in the basement. He just comes across so very badly when in contact with the public.
I really don't agree with that. I know people who've met him who live in his constituency and one or two worked with him in the same. I've also watched him in several debates on BBC Parliament, where I found him impressive.
He's diffident, cerebral, weird looking and a bit other-worldy, but he's also decent, intelligent, articulate and well-respected for that.
Would I make him party leader?
Of course not, but he doesn't have the voter repellence of Corbyn. In fact, if push came to shove and he was Tory PM up against him, I think he'd beat him.
"Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband."
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14 20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14 9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14 9 October 2014 Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12 15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12 29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12 29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12 15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12 29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11 15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns 09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11 5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11 3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11 9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10 13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
After 2012, Labour were regularly losing vote share, which the Opposition shouldn't be.
I agree, but they had no disastrous or awful results that would have precipitated action. Newark should have been alarm bells, and I'd be interested to go back and see how Labour types spun that, given what we know now.
They could all be spun on the basis that UKIP were getting protest votes.
But by-elections were really saying the same thing as opinion polls, as the second half of the Parliament wore on. Unhappy voters were switching to UKIP, not Labour. But Labour thought they only needed to win 34% of the vote, to be back in government.
Comments
But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists, but to a lesser extent the Baptists and the Jews as well. In France and Spain, that tradition comes from outright opposition to religion, which is seen as a tool of oppression. Therefore, a lot of the softer, kindlier edge (e.g. the fact the British left must surely be one of the least violent in the world) was rather lost in those countries.
It is also I think fair to say that the Church of England has behaved with much more restraint, tact and common sense over the last three hundred years than the Catholic churches of Spain and France.
Corbyn and hard left in general expect Labour to lose GE2020 and would not mind that if they can take control of the party and win when the tide turns against the Tories perhaps in GE2025.
However where I think he could be in danger is the time not covered in the article - quite correctly because it is too early and much can happen by 2018 and 2019. But it could be that PLP realize Labour is not only going to lose in GE2020 but to lose by a wide margin and therefore may strike against Corbyn with a view to imposing/coronating a candidate acceptable to Left and Right who would probably still lose in GE2020 but by a respectable margin.
The world will keep spinning on its axis, despite the banshee shrieking of doom-mongers.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/russia-pre-qualifying.html
If, as a government, you are happy just to print money and hang the consequence then you don't need access to the capital markets and they have no power over you
Certainly get a differing perspective to our MSM.
As for the Catholic Church in France, while it was often more sinned against than sinning in the nineteenth century, when it was blamed for just about every social ill, the damage had been done by its behaviour prior to 1789. And it still remains.
EDIT - just a thought, but to develop and perhaps slightly contradict my last point, can anyone put forward a scenario where the Church of England would have done the following: supported a military coup, led by a foreign adventurer, who had previously made two attempts to overthrow the government backed by the Church, who was openly living with his mistress, and had fathered at least two illegitimate children, and who was related to one of the most reviled men in Europe - merely in the hope of getting a few soldiers for its own purposes? Because that's what the Catholic Church in France did in 1852.
On the other hand, it remains a blot upon the French left that a man who had spent his life organising charity for the poor, who had stayed in Paris throughout a long siege, and who had never hurt a fly in his life, was shot for being Archbishop of Paris in 1871.
Pick your battles, don't fight on your opponents strengths.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/notions-military-revolt-jeremy-corbyn-became-pm-far-fetched
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/611169/Tom-Watson-apology-Loto-new-rules-walking-gran
Tom Watson is the most culpable. Not only was he stupid to unquestioningly believe those who accused Lord Brittan of various horrors, but he is also so cowardly that he will not admit his mistake and make a full apology to the Brittan family.
It is interesting that Watson is an enthusiastic supporter of the Hacked Off campaign, which would stifle press freedom. For the fact is that no responsible newspaper would have published the kind of damaging allegations which Watson made so carelessly and callously about the Tory peer without strong supporting evidence.
I am not from Putney and I do punt on just 2 subjects - Club Football (sorry not really interested in internationals) and Politics. I was completely wrong on GE2015 thinking Conservatives would have most seats but no majority.
I shall be betting on Holyrood 2016 and on any Westminster byelection that should come about but I do not wish to wish misfortune on any sitting MP.
Some really good posts from you this morning, Doc (as always). This particulalr caught my eye:
"But there were thriving Protestant organisations independent of the Church of England, and that is where we actually get most of our radical left-wing tradition based on equity, hard work and firm morals from - particularly from the Methodists,"
Those non-conformist traditions may well be where we get our radical left-wing traditions. However, were they not also the source of the finance houses and many of the industrialists that brought about the industrial revolution and thus the industrialisation that gave rise to the need for what became the Labour movement?
With industrialists, it tended to vary - some were avowedly nonconformist (the Cadburys, Barclays, Rothschilds) but other sometimes mysteriously became Anglican when they had made enough and developed political ambitions, the aforesaid Test and Corporation Acts being a stumbling-block to nonconformist politics (or indeed, university education - the university of London was I think the first one that did not require undergraduates to recite the Nicene Creed).
Thank you for the kind words.
But there is a significant cost as well for most people.
For a large percentage of the population the costs outweigh the benefits.
But I think this approach from the In campaign is to try and get the Leave campaign to focus on immigration and encourage the nastier elements of the Leave side and hence repel the mainstream.
Though fair play to the Express if they are admitting to not being a 'responsible newspaper'.
'Former Home Secretary Leon Brittan 'questioned by police over alleged rape'
A MAN reported to be former Home Secretary Leon Brittan has been questioned by police over the alleged rape of a 19-year-old student.'
http://tinyurl.com/nq3hm4a
"Leon Brittan 'attended paedophile parties in notorious brothel'"
http://tinyurl.com/n7bjo3n
Please can you expand, I genuinely what to hear a full counter argument? to me the article seems, logical, and reflective of the situation. If you think 'hard left' is an inaccurate adjective, then what should we be using to describe the currant labour leadership?
With that, I am off. Have a good weekend everyone.
Mind you, there does seem to be a bit of a religious divide amongst the non-conformists. The quakers seem to be very well represented amongst the management and financiers, the methodists less so. Maybe my view is just clouded by the period; after all methodism was just getting going when the Quakers were founding their banks and setting up their iron works etc..
As I say, the "threat" was low morale and mass resignations... nothing like a coup.
I'm still amazed he lived, yet alone did not lose his legs.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/01/16/martin-donnelly-on-the-crash-that-almost-killed-him-autosport-international/
Video at the bottom. I still remember a quote from a marshal: "I walked, and did not run, for I knew he was dead."
I think that was also the last F1 crash where the survival cell disintegrated. Safety's come a long way.
However, socialism is seen as incredible.
Not all mainstream people like to see those not born into wealth downtrodden... It might backfire
Perhaps you could respond to my correction of your error?
Labour had some awful by-elections in the last Parliament, without replacing Milliband.
I get a sense that this is happening across all of Europe, this idea of a solidarity tax on Petrol or 1% on VAT across the EU to pay for it is only going to inflame the sense of injustice that many, many people are currently feeling. If this solidarity tax happens (thankfully we have our opt-out - well done Dave) I could see anti-EU parties really pushing ahead.
In terms of peak Nat, I think that came in May 2015. Holyrood 2016 is likely to see some gains because of the latency since 2011, but are now on an ebbing tide.
BTW: I do have a PP account. Why do you ask?
Mr. J., Glad I caught you. You asked on here the other day about the failure rate of Western cruise missiles (Tomahawks). I have looked through my notes and see that the rate a few years ago was about 5% (which is why putting Nukes on them as the Lib Dems floated was such a bloody silly idea).
To find how that compares the failure of the Russian missiles we need to know how many were fired. I recall reading that the figure was 24, though I cannot know find that source. If we assume that my memory hasn't failed me and the source was accurate and that 4 crashed in Iran. Well, then the failure rate is about three times that of the Tomahawk.
One would have thought you would learn from the heavy defeat in May, alas we are heading for another 5 years of you posting rubbish and compouter back with basil at some point.
The author any many like him just throw the term about.
For example is hard left anyone who agrees with re- national-isation of the railways.
Or not supporting the re -newal of trident .
Anyways the latter would make the SNP hard left and it does not ring true to me.
As for the future, lets see... The last poll had them in 17%
There is a nice bet to be had I think w pp I'll email you
"In this European migration crisis it means that you promote the idea that the immigrants are allowed to stick to their beliefs and traditions, and even legislation. Such as
- Women are not equal and need to obey their men
- Homosexuality is a sin that is punished by death
- Marriages between religions are not allowed
- Apostasy is punishable by death
If you support multiculturalism, by definition you maintain that the immigrants must be allowed to maintain their own culture in their new country, instead of socially integrating them to the value system of their new country.
Is being against that racist?"
A few weeks ago I was being criticised by this very person for having a similar view. It has just dawned on them that 2 million refugees/immigrants from the middle east is going to massively change the country, especially since the birth rate of Germans is around 1.6 vs a birth rate among the new group of around 3.
He is the most noxious form of voter repellent ever put on the market. Imagine John Redwood simmering on a low heat for a month. We are talking THAT level of concentrated voter repellent....
Offence is the best form of defence and there was an open goal with all the hot air that came out of the Tory conference.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00989/3c1bf6e6-6d30-11e5-_989750b.jpg
UKIP started the last Parliament at around 4% in polls. They start this one at around 13%.
By-elections in the last parliament
Rochester and Strood Resignation of Mark Reckless 30.09.14
20 November 2014 Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party Win)
Heywood and Middleton Death of Jim Dobbin 07.09.14
9 October 2014 Liz McInnes (Labour Hold)
Clacton Resignation of Douglas Carswell 29.08.14
9 October 2014 Douglas Carswell (UK Independence Party Win)
Newark Resignation of Patrick Mercer 30.04.14
5 June 2014 Robert Jenrick (Conservative Win)
Wythenshawe and Sale East Death of Paul Goggins 07.01.14
13 February 2014 Michael Kane (Labour Hold)
South Shields Resignation of David Miliband15.04.13
2 May 2013 Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour Hold)
Eastleigh Resignation of Chris Huhne 05.02.13
28 February 2013 Mike Thornton (Lib Dem Hold)
Mid-Ulster Resignation of Martin McGuiness 02.01.13
7 March 2013 Francie Molloy (Sinn Fein Hold)
Rotherham Resignation of Rt Hon Denis MacShane 05.11.12
29 November 2012 Sarah Champion (Labour Hold)
Manchester Central Resignation of Tony Lloyd 22.10.12
15 November 2012 Lucy Powell (Labour Hold)
Cardiff South and Penarth Resignation of Rt Hon Alun Michael 22.10.12
15 November 2012 Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-op Hold)
Middlesbrough Death of Sir Stuart Bell 13.10.12
29 November 2012 Andy McDonald (Labour Hold)
Croydon North Death of Malcolm Wicks 29.09.12
29 November 2012 Steve Reed (Labour Hold)
Corby Resignation of Louise Mensch 29.08.12
15 November 2012 Andy Sawford (Labour/Co-op Win)
Bradford West Resignation of Marsha Singh 02.03.12
29 March 2012 George Galloway (Respect Win)
Feltham and Heston Death of Alan Keen 14.11.11
15 December 2011 Seema Malhotra (Labour Hold)
Inverclyde Death of David Cairns
09.05.11 30 June 2011 Iain McKenzie (Labour Hold)
Leicester South Resignation of Sir Peter Soulsby 01.04.11
5 May 2011 Jon Ashworth (Labour hold)
Barnsley Central Resignation of Eric Illsley 08.02.11
3 March 2011 Dan Jarvis (Labour hold)
Belfast West Resignation of Mr Gerry Adams26.01.11
9 June 2011Paul Maskey (Sinn Fein Hold)
Oldham East and Saddleworth Previous election declared void 05.11.10
13 January 2011 Debbie Abrahams (Labour hold)
They're all a bit no-change, aren't they? Anyway, Bradford was a disaster, Newark probably a warning of what was to come, Eastleigh possible the same - you'd have expected a stronger challenge from Labour - but the rest are ... pretty unspectacular.
If you frame it as consumer choice, and small family business, you get a very different answer.
Actually I think the issue is as much some of the people behind him, as the man himself.
But add in his stand on the monarchy (80% support), Trident, the Armed Forces, Ireland, the Falklands... etc and he is way outside what people consider the norm. Then add in his "friends" like Iran and what he has said and it's oh so easy to paint it him a nutter... which he is - compared to the norm..
As for offence after the Tory conference, as someone remarked last night of the News Quiz.. "protestors complaining about starvation after welfare cuts threw eggs and flour at Tories attending the conference".. :-)
"You may have seen in the news this morning that former M&S boss Stuart Rose will chair the 'In' campaign. In a statement he warned that leaving the EU would be 'risking our prosperity' and a 'leap into the unknown'. That's odd, because it was only back in April when he said that such concerns were 'ridiculous', 'scaremongering' and a 'red herring'. Even he can see the holes in the 'In' campaign's argument."
https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/media-packs/2015/murnaghan-interview-with-lord-levy,-labour-peer-and-lord-rose,-conservative-peer-190415
Many will, but not all. Or at least: as not as many as could realise it to build the strongest possible centre-right movement for the 21st C. The Tories need to defend and advocate Conservative values in opposition to Corbyn as the better solution, and explain why.
Also, the Conservative Party membership remains extremely hollowed out after the first five years of government. There are barely a hundred thousand members left in it. So many activists left or resigned over gay marriage - I expect some pb Tories will be pleased at that, but I think they were dealt with dismissively and arrogantly. Cameron failed to sell his reforms to his own party. In fact, apart from a speech or two, he didn't even really bother. He really has left a terrible legacy here.
It was compensated for by the air battle during the election, backed with vast amounts of money, but the party in the country is slowly dying, and Labour now have three times the ground troops. Possible more.
All anecdotes of course, straws in the wind.
But they didn't, and they came second, and that sort of wasn't so bad, really, so they muddled on.
There will be by elections and next year we have the Scottish, Welsh and London elections on top of the councils, but until then it is hard to say how far the tide is ebbing against the kippers.
I am up for an interesting bet on PP though, my email is foxinsoxuk at gmail.com
summary on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34495827
He's diffident, cerebral, weird looking and a bit other-worldy, but he's also decent, intelligent, articulate and well-respected for that.
Would I make him party leader?
Of course not, but he doesn't have the voter repellence of Corbyn. In fact, if push came to shove and he was Tory PM up against him, I think he'd beat him.
But by-elections were really saying the same thing as opinion polls, as the second half of the Parliament wore on. Unhappy voters were switching to UKIP, not Labour. But Labour thought they only needed to win 34% of the vote, to be back in government.