politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The worry for LAB is that last night’s PLP could be a foret

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm disappointed Emily Thornberry didn't tweet Image from PLP meeting.

When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect.

TGOHF said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

JEO said:

This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.

Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.

I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.

Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.

Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.

But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.

Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.

Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?

Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.

Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.

JEO said:

I see Mr Corbyn is now complaining he's not in the Privy Council yet:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11927084/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-demand-to-be-made-a-member-of-Privy-Council-ahead-of-a-Syria-vote.html

Perhaps he should have thought of this when he was too busy to join as he was off hiking?

JEO said:

Cyclefree said:

blackburn63 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I like Diane Abbot. Can't explain why. Maybe it's something I should see a doctor about.

I don't dislike her as a person but I can't take her seriously as a politician

She is risible as a politician (apart from her speech opposing detention without trial) and, I have heard, quite rude and dislikeable as a person.

And a racist.

flightpath01 said:

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?

Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.

Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.

Was it not effectively given away though?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flightpath, only Cooper can stand down, given Balls' ousting at the last election.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Charles, I understood little bits of that (my German's dodgier than Corbyn's grasp of reality).

watford30 said:

TGOHF said:

I see the BBC wonk that screwed up Top Gear has been canned by Auntie.

Danny Cohen going? Shame. Not.

weejonnie said:

Am just wondering what the press would be doing if the conservative party had become as extreme right-wing as labour are now left-wing (OK - I know the press never use the phrase 'far-left' or 'extreme-left' and over-use 'far-right' and 'extreme-right', but you know what I mean)

Luckyguy1983 said:

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?

Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.

Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.

I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.

GIN1138 said:

Corbyn's Labour already giving us some fantastic entertainment, eh?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, keeping the Labour tag is a double-edged sword. If 'lenders' suddenly called in all their debts, Labour would be in deep trouble. If a Second Labour Party existed, the lenders could do that without fearing they were destroying the only alternative to the Conservatives.

Richard_Nabavi said:

I agree with those who say that Osborne's fiscal charter law is a meaningless gimmick, but (not for the first time) events seems to have vindicated him. Yes, it's a meaningless gimmick, but it seems to have been a jolly effective meaningless gimmick in terms of its aim of sowing chaos and confusion in Her Majesty's Disloyal Opposition.

I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?

MattW said:

Hmmmm.

What would happen if the Cooperative Party voted to dissolve their 1927 Electoral Pact with Labour?

How would that come about? - I don't know all the ins and outs, but Coop figures are a substantial minority in the Commons, the Lords and Welsh / Scot devolved Parliaments. And they don't look like groups of Corbynites.

It is a full legal political party with everything in place already, and an interestingly different political base and viewpoint.

Also some interesting politicians such as Stella and Kezia. And Mike Gapes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Party

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, keeping the Labour tag is a double-edged sword. If 'lenders' suddenly called in all their debts, Labour would be in deep trouble. If a Second Labour Party existed, the lenders could do that without fearing they were destroying the only alternative to the Conservatives.

Any breakaway party would need funds in place. A couple of private donors and some Short money would do for starters. Would it be possible I wonder, given the changes in the Labour constitution and the forthcoming legislation, to get a couple of the more moderate private-sector unions on board with the new party..?

Alanbrooke said:

Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.

Pulpstar said:

Lol http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/12/great-british-bake-off-bbc-mel-giedroyc-sue-perkins

Seems that Sky own 70% of "Love productions" who own the GBBO. I'd have thought that as the BBC were taking a punt on the program they'd have bought some equity possibly in the production company... especially as noone else wanted to show it...

So the BBC take all the risk, and smart Sky get all (Well a large slice of the cake) reward. Some blue sky thinking from the BBC there !

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

Alanbrooke said:

Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.

They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.

No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.

So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.

Luckyguy1983 said:

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?

Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.

Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.

I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.

If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.

Bollocks. It had a full year to attract people - if it was worth seeing there would have been word of mouth.

TGOHF said:

JosiasJessop said:

I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.

However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.

It's short-termist, but still required.

So do both no ?

Luckyguy1983 said:

OldKingCole said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?

Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.

Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.

I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.

If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.

Bollocks. It had a full year to attract people - if it was worth seeing there would have been word of mouth.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).

As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.

taffys said:

''When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect. ''

One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.

A name to watch in the future?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).

As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.

As he [Watson] left home earlier he was asked about Labour’s U-turn on the fiscal charter. Asked if he was happy about it, he said: “Yes, absolutely.”

Asked why John McDonnell changed his mind, he replied: "He’s a very wise and judicious shadow chancellor."

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).

As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.

But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.

Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.

There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.

Sean_F said:

An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.

MarqueeMark said:

Sean_F said:

An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.

As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....

Richard_Nabavi said:

I can't for the life of me see why Labour have made such a pig's ear of this, even allowing for the fact that the party appears to be led by half-wits. How hard would it have been to agree on the line 'It's a meaningless gimmick which does nothing to ensure fiscal responsbility, so we will abstain'?

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).

As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.

But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.

Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.

There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.

Plato_Says said:

Believe it or not >> http://labourlist.org/2015/10/full-text-mcdonnells-letter-to-labour-mps-on-opposing-fiscal-charter/

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

isam said:

Wise words from Dougie

https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/653860801690906624

There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.

They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.

Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature

Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration

But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then

philiph said:

Who could fund a new sane Labour Party?

Tony Blair?

Sean_F said:

JohnO said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.

Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).

As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.

But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.

Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.

There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.

The notion that the LibDems were always going to be toast in terms of seats is the wisdom of hindsight. In the event, the political strategy pursued by Cameron and Osborne was wholly vindicated and the unrelenting critique of UKIP (whose intention remains to supplant the Conservatives...they are not somehow our brothers in spirit) was an important component in making the party more attractive to centrist leaning voters.

Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.

The Lib Dems were in trouble from day 1, but like most people, I thought their MPs' personal votes would be sufficient to retain a decent number of seats.

As it happens, their MPs' did retain a significant personal vote, but it couldn't offset the big drop in overall support. And, where sitting MPs stood down, Lib Dem support just collapsed.