Wednesday 20th July 2016

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 1:53 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:Question: how is a former lobbyist for multinational companies going to connect with the working classes who were abandoned by Labour and have abandoned them back?

How does the PLP think that this is going to get represented by our glorious free press if and when Smith beats Corbyn?

Two basic questions you'd think the PLP would have asked themselves before picking Smith as their sole candidate. Noddy mistake in a litany of them throughout this entire bloody shambles.

How is Corbyn going to reach out to remain voters and win their support? He may appeal to left wing Eurosceptics but this isn't a big group. Most Brexiters are right wing and unreachable by a progressive, multi-ethnic Labour party, not least because they are already represented by the current Tory government. I can't see Corbyn improving Labour support without appealing to remain voters as well and he has an awful lot of work to do. Owen Smith may face challenges with certain demographics, but so does Corbyn.

minch · Post by **minch** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 1:53 pm

Has Owen Smith ever said what things he was trying to push when he was a lobbyist? He has said what he wasn't but he must have be paid for something.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 1:59 pm

As of 09:00hrs today, more than 100,000 people have registered as Labour supporters for £25.

That's £2.5 Million.

On top of the estimated £4 Million in subscriptions since the 2015 GE.

Given that all this money has come from people who support Labour - whichever camp/faction/whatever they belong to, I hope the party spends it wisely.

And I really hope that whoever wins the contest in the end bangs a few heads together and gets a united party to fight the Tories.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 1:59 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:People on both sides should stay whoever wins - if JC wins he is going to have to make concessions to the PLP (not the Bitterites, but the Nandys and Starmers and Champions) if OS does he is going to have to accept that he has a left leaning membership that is not prepared to compromise on certain things and cannot be ignored.

At least that is assuming, as - ever the optimist - I do, that both men have their heads screwed on to at least some degree.

Still think that maybe the worst was averted last week

No. Sorry. If Smith gets in, then Labour isn't going to take a new direction and start looking after the people that need it.
I left Labour after Blair started messing around with the NHS and Iraq. I hoped for better from the LibDems, more fool me.
Hoped for better from Labour when Ed got in. More fool me again.

It'll be more of the same if Smith gets in. I'll not be part of it.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:18 pm

: 13781723_1109136222496170_418266843296988433_n.jpg (30.66 KiB) Viewed 6567 times

I saw this last night and downloaded it but can't be bothered to/won't look up who posted it as I don't want to use the relative anonymity of my 'Sputnikkers' identity to appear to make personal remarks or questions about the poster rather than the sentiment portrayed. Anyway, I am more than happy to see Clem Attlee mythologised in this way but I think we need to also be careful with what we put in and what we take away from such things. As, from memory, I think that it was posted without comment I was unsure if it was done with a degree of irony. Perhaps, this is because I myself, as someone with a relatively poor knowledge of history, needed to do research back after the Financial Crash 2008 - 2010, to compare historic responses to different kinds of debt problems. Attlee was one of the figures that I examined a little more closely for political motivation.

So for a little context:

Attlee actually presided over (successful rather than Osborne's failed) austerity budgets that actually produced budget surpluses in the first four years after the war. Whoops! - not the kind of success by a mythological figure to base the 'reactionary' (in the derivative sense) message of an unnuanced 'anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity' political movement on? - context! context! context!

With Attlee as PM (he'd overcome his naturally pacifist, non-interventionist temperament years before), Labour decided to go ahead with our independent nuclear deterrent (- so 'our hero' was willing 'to murder innocent people'?), were instrumental in the formation of NATO in 1949 and encouraged US involvement both in the Marshall Plan and actively to oppose Communist expansion into Europe. Once bitten by Stalin, he was twice shy!

Throw in the fact that he was (probably from memory?) still a bit of an imperialist - and did intervene militarily in Malaya - and sent troops into Korea as part of a (geopolitically ideologically motivated?) war against Communism - one that is still technically unresolved today.

While overall very successful in terms of outcomes for the UK and Europe (so far for decades, fingers crossed?), it hardly seems like his enacted policies would receive a 'mandate' from the present anti-american, anti-nuclear, anti-war sentiments of the present Labour selectorate? Of course, it would be totally unfair to present him just as an interventionist, warmongering, nuke-loving, austerian member of the elite without context?

If the relevance of the photo is supposed to be mainly the part about 'electability' and that both Attlee and Corbyn are both widely acknowledged as being pretty crap at engaging while public speaking then again remember the context of how a National, representative democracy operated at that time. I don't believe there were any doubts about Attlee's 'competence' as a leader amongst his MPs - but as I said I am not much of an historian so apologies if there were.

If electability is about being 'left' enough, I do remember a nice (apocryphal?) story about how he perceived himself, according to Edward du Cann, with respect to the 'hard left' of the time, with unfortunate echoes to the present. While sitting waiting with Edward du Cann for his constituency result in 1951 du Cann noticed some of the returns:

there were fifty or sixty spoiled papers, some mutilated, some with crosses in the wrong place, one or two with obscene messages and a dozen with the word 'socialism' written across them.
'What does that mean?' I asked Mr Attlee.
'They think I'm not socialist enough,' he replied. 'I know them of old.'

edited half a dozen embarrassing spelling mistakes (going to have to leave any more?

)

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:19 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
HindleA wrote:Personally,I don't give a shit if he is the most duplicituous man a on earth and a compulsive liar it is hardly a barrier to becoming PM,an asset in fact
Seriously??

It works for the Tories and LibDems. It enables them to ditch their manifesto when it becomes inconvenient, and make manifesto pledges they have no intention of keeping.

Labour must be better than that or what's the point?

Agree, although I wish Corbyn, and Ed before him, had been much more assertive at tackling the shameless lies coming from the Tories and LibDems. Of course it's not easy against a media which is at least 80% biased against Labour. Perhaps all the more reason to keep banging on about the lies. Mandelson (undeniably a very shrewd man whatever else one might think of him),said it was only after you got heartily sick of repeating the same thing over and over that the message started to sink in.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:30 pm

I thought it was Alistair Campbell who said that? Lot of truth in it though (and post 2010 the coalition did it much better than Labour)

nickyinnorfolk · Post by **nickyinnorfolk** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:47 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I thought it was Alistair Campbell who said that? Lot of truth in it though (and post 2010 the coalition did it much better than Labour)

You're probably right Anatoly. Peter Hitchens used to often use that quote and attribute it to Mandy. But he also maintained that Cameron was 'left wing'.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:49 pm

Thanks for the post Sputnikkers.

There's also a big difference between 1945 and now. The Second World War.
That sort of upheaval pushes social change at breakneck speed. According to my now dead father-in-law a lot of people saw it as a chance to get back at the Tories for what they did in the 30's.
Working together, things nationalised for the war effort etc all helped towards a Labour win.
What is significant is what happened later to Labour.

Now, individualism, consumerism, and social media sloganising is the way.
It would take a unique individual to counter such.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 2:56 pm

Willow904 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Question: how is a former lobbyist for multinational companies going to connect with the working classes who were abandoned by Labour and have abandoned them back?

How does the PLP think that this is going to get represented by our glorious free press if and when Smith beats Corbyn?

Two basic questions you'd think the PLP would have asked themselves before picking Smith as their sole candidate. Noddy mistake in a litany of them throughout this entire bloody shambles.
How is Corbyn going to reach out to remain voters and win their support? He may appeal to left wing Eurosceptics but this isn't a big group. Most Brexiters are right wing and unreachable by a progressive, multi-ethnic Labour party, not least because they are already represented by the current Tory government. I can't see Corbyn improving Labour support without appealing to remain voters as well and he has an awful lot of work to do. Owen Smith may face challenges with certain demographics, but so does Corbyn.

I was a Remain voter. Many people I know were Remain voters. It's not a big or insurmountable problem to them.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:00 pm

Though there are signs, post-2008, of some forms of collectivism making a comeback.

One is joining political parties - Labour's recent surge has been much commented on but almost all major parties have increased membership recently. This maybe points to a bit of a decline in the "consumerist" mentality of "I'm not interested unless its exactly what *I* want" - instead the value of people joining together is a bit more appreciated?

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:00 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
In October 2005, commenting on a Pfizer-backed report into offering patients a choice between NHS services and private-sector healthcare providers, Mr Smith said: ‘We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda.’
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ ... -rlvc33mhl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think choice is OK as long as it doesn't undermine the NHS. Does that work here?

'Choice' seems to actually slow things down. It involves an extra appointment (complete with waiting time) to 'choose' where you will be referred to. Plus the extra appointment meant extra taxi fare, pre-choice they would just have referred me to the nearest one so that would have been one appointment less. My choice for my last shoulder op was 2 NHS hospitals, or 3 private clinics (that presumably charge the NHS more to make profit) I chose one of the NHS ones.
I didn't get a choice for my shoulder scan though - that's all been outsourced (though done in an NHS hospital) - I only know because the physio was saying how much longer it took to get the scan results back from them, compared to when it was done before they outsourced it.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:11 pm

sputnikkers wrote:
13781723_1109136222496170_418266843296988433_n.jpg
I saw this last night and downloaded it but can't be bothered to/won't look up who posted it as I don't want to use the relative anonymity of my 'Sputnikkers' identity to appear to make personal remarks or questions about the poster rather than the sentiment portrayed. Anyway, I am more than happy to see Clem Attlee mythologised in this way but I think we need to also be careful with what we put in and what we take away from such things. As, from memory, I think that it was posted without comment I was unsure if it was done with a degree of irony. Perhaps, this is because I myself, as someone with a relatively poor knowledge of history, needed to do research back after the Financial Crash 2008 - 2010, to compare historic responses to different kinds of debt problems. Attlee was one of the figures that I examined a little more closely for political motivation.

So for a little context:

Attlee actually presided over (successful rather than Osborne's failed) austerity budgets that actually produced budget surpluses in the first four years after the war. Whoops! - not the kind of success by a mythological figure to base the 'reactionary' (in the derivative sense) message of an unnuanced 'anti-austerity, anti-austerity, anti-austerity' political movement on? - context! context! context!

With Attlee as PM (he'd overcome his naturally pacifist, non-interventionist temperament years before), Labour decided to go ahead with our independent nuclear deterrent (- so 'our hero' was willing 'to murder innocent people'?), were instrumental in the formation of NATO in 1949 and encouraged US involvement both in the Marshall Plan and actively to oppose Communist expansion into Europe. Once bitten by Stalin, he was twice shy!

Throw in the fact that he was (probably from memory?) still a bit of an imperialist - and did intervene militarily in Malaya - and sent troops into Korea as part of a (geopolitically ideologically motivated?) war against Communism - one that is still technically unresolved today.

While overall very successful in terms of outcomes for the UK and Europe (so far for decades, fingers crossed?), it hardly seems like his enacted policies would receive a 'mandate' from the present anti-american, anti-nuclear, anti-war sentiments of the present Labour selectorate? Of course, it would be totally unfair to present him just as an interventionist, warmongering, nuke-loving, austerian member of the elite without context?

If the relevance of the photo is supposed to be mainly the part about 'electability' and that both Attlee and Corbyn are both widely acknowledged as being pretty crap at engaging while public speaking then again remember the context of how a National, representative democracy operated at that time. I don't believe there were any doubts about Attlee's 'competence' as a leader amongst his MPs - but as I said I am not much of an historian so apologies if there were.

If electability is about being 'left' enough, I do remember a nice (apocryphal?) story about how he perceived himself, according to Edward du Cann, with respect to the 'hard left' of the time, with unfortunate echoes to the present. While sitting waiting with Edward du Cann for his constituency result in 1951 du Cann noticed some of the returns:
there were fifty or sixty spoiled papers, some mutilated, some with crosses in the wrong place, one or two with obscene messages and a dozen with the word 'socialism' written across them.
'What does that mean?' I asked Mr Attlee.
'They think I'm not socialist enough,' he replied. 'I know them of old.'
edited half a dozen embarrassing spelling mistakes (going to have to leave any more? )

It was me. Do you have a problem with it?

I post links, I post images. I sometimes give an opinion. Sometimes not. I sometimes make a comment. Sometimes not.
It came from an official Labour party site. They thought members would be interested in it. They were. It raised debate. Some agree some don't. It produced anecdotes about the Atlee's. Interesting stuff I thought but I've evidently posted it in the wrong place.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:30 pm

: Cg4vfuQWgAANpss.jpg (94.48 KiB) Viewed 6468 times

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:38 pm

FWIW I think that most of the arguments being made, from all sides, are made from honest beliefs about where the Labour party should go/ be.

I disagree with those who think that pulling or pushing a more left wing membership to the right is the only way forward. I don't think we're reliving the disagreements of the 1970/80 or 90s I think we are trying to come up with ways of dealing with globalised, rapacious capitalism. I see social justice and rights and economic rights across society as essential to what comes next and I'm not convinced that we have strong enough democratic systems to ensure them.

I accept that my preferred way forward, via a more representative and active Labour movement, is not how some think power can be achieved. My main problem is wondering what power, that doesn't appear to critique the existing economic model in any realistic way, is meant to change.

I'm at the bottom of the heap, live in a council house, exist as a pension credit (thankfully because otherwise I'd just be an unemployed 63 year old whose government stole my pension). I worked in the private, public and voluntary sectors over the years and loved my jobs when I thought they made a difference but I'm not an economic unit. Sometimes I was hard working, sometimes not, cos I'm a human being and that's what we do. I used to live in a country where people like me had rights as well as responsibilities. I want that country for my children and grandchildren. Not this one where my pension credit status and my daughter's low paid job turn me into a freebie economic support of a low wage economy.

If, as seems to be one of the arguments put forward by some of the more right wing Labour people, Ed's economic arguments were too left wing for the voters to accept and that's why Labour lost the election (not an argument I agree with by the way), then where will the politics I believe are needed come from?

I suppose I'm saying that if whoever wins the Labour party leadership offers me anything that might lead to what I believe people are entitled to expect, decent living standards as a catch all for equality and a recognition of social as well as economic rghts, then I'll be happy to stay with it. So far Corbyn seems closer to this. If not I'm back to being an activist in search of a home or just giving up altogether, which I find a sad indictment of the system in which I live (or more realistically, tough).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:39 pm

Let's all join the Tory party and change it from what it is now into a democratic socialist organisation successfully representing country and all people. Who's with me?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:40 pm

Got Countdown on in the background and am sure someone gave Nick Hewer an 8 out of 10 Cats puzzler.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:43 pm

Stop it, гражданка, you wouldn't believe what goes on behind closed doors.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:46 pm

Universal Credit Progress review: We're trying to get employers to change their payment times (UC is monthly, messed up by employers paying 4 weekly) or is it the other way round, have got myself confused a bit.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 3:55 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Stop it, гражданка, you wouldn't believe what goes on behind closed doors.

Okay. Accessing the Tory party in order to change it hadn't been suggested (to my knowledge) and thought I'd throw it out there.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:03 pm

citizenJA wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:Stop it, гражданка, you wouldn't believe what goes on behind closed doors.
Okay. Accessing the Tory party in order to change it hadn't been suggested (to my knowledge) and thought I'd throw it out there.

On the surface, it's a reasonable response to an otherwise impossible situation. In practice, it fails on the assumption that the party membership has anything to do with how the party is run. Besides, you wouldn't get further than providing cucumber sandwiches for the men. White bread, of course.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:07 pm

It was, of course, suggested by George Jones at the conclusion of The Absence Of War

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:08 pm

Willow904 wrote:Someone with the kind of career outside politics that he has had is surely going to be their own person with their own convictions. Whether they are convictions I or anyone else in Labour can get behind, it's too early to tell, but I immediately find him much more relatable than Corbyn.

I'd be amazed if he didn't come across well. He carved out a very successful career indeed in PR and lobbying, first for Pfizer as head of policy and government relations, then as corporate affairs/PR director for another large drugs company at a point when it was in severe and expensive PR difficulty over one of its less than perfect products.

His successful professional career pre-parliament has been convincing people that "My personal convictions are..... (until my employer tells me otherwise)"

Is he a Blairite? Don't know. What I do know is that his Wikipedia page is very up to date and currently portrays him as a "democratic socialist" who wants to ameliorate capitalism with a bunch of positions clearly intended to portray him as on the Labour left. Which sits ill with, amongst other things, his previous lobbying for more private sector money-skimming from the NHS and voting with Cameron to bomb Syria in 2011.

And with the backing he's getting from people who are anything but Labour left.

Sorry, I simply don't trust PR people or anyone else who will fiercely argue for a position they don't hold themselves, and will equally happily argue for its opposite if that's advantageous. Such people also make very bad managers indeed. In middle roles they easily become yes-people to their higher-ups and sod the workers or what the organisation is supposed to achieve. In senior positions where they set policy they can all too often be deceptive, ambitious opportunists heading a culture of bullying, face-fitting, lies and dirty tricks.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:28 pm

ephemerid wrote:I think, despite having the Mother of Parliaments and hundreds of years of experience at this democracy lark, we're not very good at it.

Hundreds of years? Not quite. Rotten boroughs and tiny electorate until 1832, most men not getting the vote until 1864, women not getting the vote until 100 years ago, or less if you're a woman under 30. An unelected second chamber dominated by aristocratic heredity until quite recently. Every advance towards democracy for the masses being strongly opposed by those who thought it might threaten their interests.

If anyone can make the claim to be the first "modern" democracy it's a toss-up between Switzerland, France (though the process was anything but smooth) and the USA.

As for left-wing anti-EU positions, I don't think there is a single coherent whole. 20-30 years ago the criticism centred mostly around economics and the economic policy requirements a member state had to meet such as the tight restriction on expenditure vs. GDP that would have the effect of deepening a recession. Nowadays it mostly seems based on rehashing the economics without noticing that the times and rules have changed, "getting our country back" as if it's being in the EU that has trashed the lives of ordinary Britons not a succession of governments rolling back the 1945-1979 gains, the ECB imposing policies on Greece, Spain etc. and Tony Benn's arguments about democracy.

What Tony always seemed to gloss over was that while the EU might be an obstacle to democracy in some ways, there is no assurance that a progressive government's achievements won't be simply removed by a regressive government later on. As we have seen since 1979. The EU and ECHR, maybe ironically, offers some protection against that because changing a treaty obligation is far harder than a majority government passing legislation through Parliament. Whether the manifesto policies of an elected national government should always be allowed to be implemented unopposed is another question Tony answered practically (by assuming opposiiton to govenrment is legitimate) but not theoretically. Absolute and binding democracy is fine until it results in the tyranny of the majority, and a right-wing demagogue can attract quite a bit of media and so voter support.

There are problems with the EU, no two ways about it, but I don't regard them as outweighing the advantages of being in the EU at the moment. They might if, for example, a progressive UK government was blocked from certain policies by the EU, but we can deal with that should we encounter it.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:32 pm

“Alice’s husband (51 years old) was on ESA as he previously had
a stroke and an epileptic fit. A few weeks ago he was told he was fit for work and he should sign on for JSA. As a result of this he was sent on a work programme to college in Ellesmere Port, had another stroke and epileptic fit at college and was taken to hospital where the doctors said he wasn't fit for work.

https://westcheshire.foodbank.org.uk/wp ... hungry.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:41 pm

thatchersorphan wrote:Universal Credit Progress review: We're trying to get employers to change their payment times (UC is monthly, messed up by employers paying 4 weekly) or is it the other way round, have got myself confused a bit.

Information arrived today with other Stoke-on-Trent City Council e-mails I receive regularly.
It's sent out to everyone on the Stoke Council e-mail notification list, not just to landlords and tenants.
I've not read the entire document. Note the dates.

Are you ready for Universal Credit?
A checklist for landlords

Universal Credit is a new benefit that replaces six separate benefits rolled into one monthly payment; Income Support, income-based
Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-related Employment & Support Allowance, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credits & Working Tax Credits.

Universal Credit works differently from the benefits it replaces and the main differences are that:
- most people will be paid once a month directly into their chosen bank account
- they will get a single payment for their household
- if the Universal Credit payment includes rent, this will be paid to the tenant
- it can only be claimed online at http://www.gov.uk/apply-universal-credit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Universal Credit was recently introduced in Stoke-on-Trent, but only for new claimants who are jobseekers and do not have dependent children.
This means that the number of claimants on Universal Credit within the city is still fairly low. However, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
is planning to extend Universal Credit to cover all new claimants by 2018 and all Stoke-on-Trent claimants by 2021.

http://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/uploadedfil ... cklist.pdf

(my emphasis)

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:45 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:From September 2015, from someone who knows the lobbying "business" very well: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issu ... g-business" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Well indeed. And think in particular about the arms and nuclear power lobbyists! Corbin is their nightmare.

Owen Smith did attend that infamous arms dealers dinner btw, but was hosted by Airbus rather than the more obviously belligerent companies.

Airbus have had a defence/military section or subsidiary for as long as there's neen Airbus. Tracking through the remarkable number of complicated mergers between companies under the Airbus (or European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company as it was called until not too long ago) and name-changes is mind-boggling

Their main involvement in defence seems to be transport aircraft (for which they are apparently currently demanding subsidies or they'll abandon a project several governments are committed to) and "security and electronics" which can mean almost anything, but includes missile systems, communications, satellites and helicopters.

Airbus are no more a "civil aviation" company than is Boeing, who along with their famous airliners also produced the B47 and B52 bombers to name but two of their very many military products.

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 4:47 pm

Was depressed. After this I am annoyed again. Annoyed is better.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46151.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:00 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
He said he would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike. Asked if he would pull the nuclear button, he replied:
Yes is the unfortunate answer to that because, if you are serious about defence and serious about having a nuclear deterrent, then you have to be prepared to do that.
Great. Another psychopath running for a leadership position.

There are ways of answering this question that can be used to avoid admitting you are willing to mass murder:

1. The Corbyn approach of 'No, I wouldn't be willing to do it.' (Thank Christ, we don't have a mass murderer in the making in power)
2. The political approach (and most sensible one if you are pro-nuclear weapons) of, 'because we have the nuclear deterrent, that is actually something I will thankfully never, ever have to do. It's the sole reason I support keeping our nuclear arsenal, their mere existence means we will never be attacked so I will never have to push that button, we will never have to defend our shores against invasion, we will never have to face another world war'
3. The May and Smith approach of, 'yes, I will willingly murder millions of people just for the hell of it. Feeling safe with me at the helm, are you? [No, no I bloody well am not]'

4. Whether I would or would not use Trident is a hypothetical question. Firstly because it would depend on the specific circumstances at the time. Secondly because as a system it is reaching the end of its life. The country is still recovering from the 2008 global financial crash thanks to the disastrous policies of governments from 2010 onwards. Those governments have borrowed record amounts of money while failing at every economic policy they have tried. Replacing Trident as a system is something where I do not think any hypothetical possible benefits it might give the UK, in case a hypothetical situation no-one regards as remotely likely comes about, justify the cost.

If you do think the cost of a full-blown nuclear weapons system is justified, please tell me which hospitals you wish me to close to pay for it, how much the state pension should be cut to pay for it, how much money should be taken off the disabled to pay for it, what parts of our national infrastructure such as roads and schools should be allowed to deteriorate to pay for it.

Your move.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:02 pm

Like it. Of course, the media would print no 1 under your name, no matter what you said. And you'd be Looney TR's Ghost for the rest of your natural.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:10 pm

Willow904 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Question: how is a former lobbyist for multinational companies going to connect with the working classes who were abandoned by Labour and have abandoned them back?

How does the PLP think that this is going to get represented by our glorious free press if and when Smith beats Corbyn?

Two basic questions you'd think the PLP would have asked themselves before picking Smith as their sole candidate. Noddy mistake in a litany of them throughout this entire bloody shambles.
How is Corbyn going to reach out to remain voters and win their support? He may appeal to left wing Eurosceptics but this isn't a big group. Most Brexiters are right wing and unreachable by a progressive, multi-ethnic Labour party, not least because they are already represented by the current Tory government. I can't see Corbyn improving Labour support without appealing to remain voters as well and he has an awful lot of work to do. Owen Smith may face challenges with certain demographics, but so does Corbyn.

A fair point but you've entirely missed mine. Why has this election been reduced down to a choice between two bad options? Smith is not in any way, shape or form the solution to what ails the Labour Party. In many respects he's the epitome of everything that's wrong with it. Like Corbyn, except in near diametrically opposite ways. Despite what you may think about Corbyn as a leader, the direction the Party has headed in the past 9 months is significantly better than anything that preceded it. Miliband was half and half. Smith does not fill me with any confidence at all that he realises this and will continue with taking the Party back to where it needs to be. None. Conversely, Corbyn doesn't fill me with any confidence that he can execute what needs to happen once it gets there.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:12 pm

Here's the confirmation of the story about an academy trust in Kent which only opened 4 new schools in September (!) is being broken up. But there's two twists...

Academy trust that provided advisers for RSCs to hand over its schools to new sponsors

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/academy-trust- ... -sponsors/

An academy chain whose founders have a government contract to provide advisers to help regional schools commissioners judge the quality of struggling schools is to have its nine schools handed to other trusts.

The Lilac Sky Schools Academy Trust (LSSAT) has been told by regional schools commissioner Dominic Herrington (pictured above) to hand over its nine primary schools to other trusts – five of which the trust reportedly only took on in September.

Yes, the trust which can't even manage 9 schools supplies advisors to the RSCs! very reassuring...

and

Companies House shows Averre-Beeson and Fielding are the shareholders of a consultancy firm called Lilac Sky Schools Ltd, which provides services to LSSAT. In 2013-14 alone, the school paid more than £800,000 to the firm.

That was made up of £410,231 for central services provided by the firm, £112,500 for support and leadership services and £286,992 for the supply of senior staff.

Accounts state the transactions were all conducted at arm’s length and at cost, adding “Lilac Sky Ltd provide a unique service to schools, as a consequence a tendering process was not required”.

Shocked etc.

And they want every school to be part of an academy trust? They can't even control the ones they have now!

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:15 pm

citizenJA wrote:...the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
is planning to extend Universal Credit to cover all new claimants by 2018 and all Stoke-on-Trent claimants by 2021[/b].
(my emphasis)

In IDS world this is no doubt ahead of schedule.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Though there are signs, post-2008, of some forms of collectivism making a comeback.

One is joining political parties - Labour's recent surge has been much commented on but almost all major parties have increased membership recently. This maybe points to a bit of a decline in the "consumerist" mentality of "I'm not interested unless its exactly what *I* want" - instead the value of people joining together is a bit more appreciated?

I think this has been underpinning a lot of activity for a while (collectivism) but one of the problems has been that community action had to a great extent been incorporated(forced) into service delivery via funding mechanisms. I think that's why I've found the post 2008 collective action, such as Occupy, more hopeful.

I think it was Ohso who provided the link to a good article about current political activism earlier in the week (sorry can't find it now) and I think it would be a real shame if this kind of action was lost to the Labour movement.

I reckon people are political but there are few routes in that offer the learning curves that can help translate passion into policies that make a difference. With the Scottish referendum, followed by the EU ref it seems to me there has been far less focus on the decisions that are being made than on what people care passionately about and what to change and there is a crying need for both.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:17 pm

Memo to FTN: I never suggested anyone should do or not do anything. I was merely observing, doing some backreading, something to be the case.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:18 pm

Maeght wrote: But I am concerned abut somebody actually choosing to be a lobbyist.

yes.

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:21 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Wasn't New deal workfare?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:22 pm

Meanwhile

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46526.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tories open 11-point poll lead over Labour as assured Theresa May attacks Jeremy Corbyn in first PMQs

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:24 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
I'm cantankerous ... It's taken me years to achieve.

I'll bet you twenty notes (but not really in case it's illegal) that I'm more cantankerous.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:28 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
Maeght wrote: But I am concerned abut somebody actually choosing to be a lobbyist.

yes.

Well, up to a point...every major company wants legislation and trading conditions favourable to their firm and/or industry.

It doesn't automatically make them bad people - I knew the counterpart to Smith in our company and she was (sadly departed now after a fall) recognised as one of the leading experts of the global market we were in as well as being very knowledgeable as to who the major people were in govt departments and Brussels to contact and meet.

And because we were regulated by EU legislation it meant that she had to be in constant contact with government officials and ministers.

I can't get too hung up about his career choice...

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:32 pm

Willow904 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Question: how is a former lobbyist for multinational companies going to connect with the working classes who were abandoned by Labour and have abandoned them back?

How does the PLP think that this is going to get represented by our glorious free press if and when Smith beats Corbyn?

Two basic questions you'd think the PLP would have asked themselves before picking Smith as their sole candidate. Noddy mistake in a litany of them throughout this entire bloody shambles.
How is Corbyn going to reach out to remain voters and win their support? He may appeal to left wing Eurosceptics but this isn't a big group. Most Brexiters are right wing and unreachable by a progressive, multi-ethnic Labour party, not least because they are already represented by the current Tory government. I can't see Corbyn improving Labour support without appealing to remain voters as well and he has an awful lot of work to do. Owen Smith may face challenges with certain demographics, but so does Corbyn.

Most Labour supporters I know support Corbyn, even a couple who originally didn't now do as a result of the coup fiasco.

Only one or two of the Corbyn supporters voted to leave the EU. Corbyn himself campaigned for a remain vote. To say Corbyn has no appeal to "remain" voters simply is not true. Almost the same proportion of Labour voters voted "remain" as did LibDem voters.

20 years ago I agreed with Corbyn's "leave" position. In June I voted "remain" because the times and situation are different now to then. By your reckoning it seems my recent "remain" vote is much more than negated by my historical "leave" position in different times and circumstances.

It seems to me that attacking people based on their opinion years ago, which they clearly state they no longer hold to, is counter-productive. Likewise your demand that A50 is never triggered, yet lack of any explanation as to how you think that could be achieved without very seriously upsetting many millions of people and providing a further impetus and legitimacy to UKIP and those to their right is unhelpful.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:35 pm

Greg Hadfield
‏@GregHadfield

This is now darkly worrying: Wallasey - Angela Eagle's CLP - suspended: http://bit.ly/2atTts9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Solidarity from #Brighton #Hove socialists.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:36 pm

minch wrote:Has Owen Smith ever said what things he was trying to push when he was a lobbyist? He has said what he wasn't but he must have be paid for something.

Not directly, but he wouldn't, would he.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -762m-fine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... wen-smith/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/polit ... ng-2338066" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press ... it-reality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph of the last link is a direct Smith quotation.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:37 pm

Not sure who it was, maybe someone heard it and can enlighten me, Radio 4 interviewed an older Welsh Labour person earlier.

Someone who knows Smith, they said he was soft left, definitely not on the right wing.

But what does someone who knows Smith know ?
Thousands of Facebook entries must be right and he really is a Blairite

It really is war out there. Swap 'He loves Hamas' for 'He worked in PR and as a lobbyist', not much difference to the way Corbyn is treated.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:40 pm

I guess my thinking is (though it's unclear, even to me) that we cannot wait for Labour (what/whoever it/we might be by then) to "get in" in order to change things. Our version of democracy isn't. Our fellow citizens blow with the wind (Theresa May is brilliant all of a sudden, for example). I don't see this being solved by photoshopping Labour into some version that our naturally Tory electorate will find palatable.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:50 pm

TR'sGhost wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Someone with the kind of career outside politics that he has had is surely going to be their own person with their own convictions. Whether they are convictions I or anyone else in Labour can get behind, it's too early to tell, but I immediately find him much more relatable than Corbyn.
I'd be amazed if he didn't come across well. He carved out a very successful career indeed in PR and lobbying, first for Pfizer as head of policy and government relations, then as corporate affairs/PR director for another large drugs company at a point when it was in severe and expensive PR difficulty over one of its less than perfect products.

His successful professional career pre-parliament has been convincing people that "My personal convictions are..... (until my employer tells me otherwise)"

Is he a Blairite? Don't know. What I do know is that his Wikipedia page is very up to date and currently portrays him as a "democratic socialist" who wants to ameliorate capitalism with a bunch of positions clearly intended to portray him as on the Labour left. Which sits ill with, amongst other things, his previous lobbying for more private sector money-skimming from the NHS and voting with Cameron to bomb Syria in 2011.

And with the backing he's getting from people who are anything but Labour left.

Sorry, I simply don't trust PR people or anyone else who will fiercely argue for a position they don't hold themselves, and will equally happily argue for its opposite if that's advantageous. Such people also make very bad managers indeed. In middle roles they easily become yes-people to their higher-ups and sod the workers or what the organisation is supposed to achieve. In senior positions where they set policy they can all too often be deceptive, ambitious opportunists heading a culture of bullying, face-fitting, lies and dirty tricks.

Not that lie/misinformation again.

Owen Smith voted against, same as Corbyn. He did not vote with Eagle & the others with the Tories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But thousands of frothing Facebook pages say he did, so hey, that's the truth ?
No one cares about reality. It's all getting very Iain Duncan Smith 'I believe he voted for bombing, he must be a Blairite, therefore it is true'.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:51 pm

I like straw men. Don't see why they should be discriminated against.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:55 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
I'm cantankerous ... It's taken me years to achieve.
I'll bet you twenty notes (but not really in case it's illegal) that I'm more cantankerous.

But you are also cute.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:57 pm

I'll post it separately. Am tempted to do a Kipper and put it IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Smith voted against bombing in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34987921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 20 Jul, 2016 5:59 pm

fedup59 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Though there are signs, post-2008, of some forms of collectivism making a comeback.

One is joining political parties - Labour's recent surge has been much commented on but almost all major parties have increased membership recently. This maybe points to a bit of a decline in the "consumerist" mentality of "I'm not interested unless its exactly what *I* want" - instead the value of people joining together is a bit more appreciated?
I think this has been underpinning a lot of activity for a while (collectivism) but one of the problems has been that community action had to a great extent been incorporated(forced) into service delivery via funding mechanisms. I think that's why I've found the post 2008 collective action, such as Occupy, more hopeful.

I think it was Ohso who provided the link to a good article about current political activism earlier in the week (sorry can't find it now) and I think it would be a real shame if this kind of action was lost to the Labour movement.

I reckon people are political but there are few routes in that offer the learning curves that can help translate passion into policies that make a difference. With the Scottish referendum, followed by the EU ref it seems to me there has been far less focus on the decisions that are being made than on what people care passionately about and what to change and there is a crying need for both.

I doubt we can ever go back completely. The Labour party was very much more 'communal' than it is now. But that was by virtue of having two or three generations of the same families living in the street if not the same house.
We had Jim Butcher, Labour's main mover and shaker councillor who lived in a posher [3 bedroom semi] house five minutes away and his door was always open. He used to walk around rather than use his car and knew everyone by name. His main interest was the elderly, and he was behind the first housing association for building sheltered accommodation.
Another councillor lived in our street. His door was always open too.
My dad was asked to stand but mum wouldn't let him because she said your life was never your own and we did have some nosy parkers as well as salt of the earth living on the street.
On election days they used someone's front room. Even had a designated tea maker.
Our MP was Ian Mikado. His Wikipedia entry is interesting.