Sat 26 & Sun 27 Sept 2015 - Start of Labour Conference

[frightful_oik]

Chris Leslie...shut up!

If you do not like the party leadership and the policies then piss off. If you cannot say anything useful then stay off the camera....you have said nothing, added nothing and answered nothing

And we lost the last election because of twats like you - you lost, lost and lost it for us

I am fuming about this disloyalty

What did he say?

[howsillyofme1]

Chris Leslie...shut up!

If you do not like the party leadership and the policies then piss off. If you cannot say anything useful then stay off the camera....you have said nothing, added nothing and answered nothing

And we lost the last election because of twats like you - you lost, lost and lost it for us

I am fuming about this disloyalty

What did he say?

He said nothing and contributed nothing to the debate - the contrast with Corbyn was marked

The problem was he said nothing when asked on supporting the democratically elected leadership - just the normal New Labour lack of direct reponsess

Prescott is a miserable old bugger and as cantankerous as ever but far better at responding to Neil....he is not the most articulate but no one can doubt his passion and loyalty to the party......

[rebeccariots2]

Chris Leslie...shut up!

If you do not like the party leadership and the policies then piss off. If you cannot say anything useful then stay off the camera....you have said nothing, added nothing and answered nothing

And we lost the last election because of twats like you - you lost, lost and lost it for us

I am fuming about this disloyalty

What did he say?

He said nothing and contributed nothing to the debate - the contrast with Corbyn was marked

The problem was he said nothing when asked on supporting the democratically elected leadership - just the normal New Labour lack of direct reponsess

Prescott is a miserable old bugger and as cantankerous as ever but far better at responding to Neil....he is not the most articulate but no one can doubt his passion and loyalty to the party......

I've just seen a tweet describing Prezza as 'metaphorically decking Andrew Neil'.

[howsillyofme1]

What did he say?

He said nothing and contributed nothing to the debate - the contrast with Corbyn was marked

The problem was he said nothing when asked on supporting the democratically elected leadership - just the normal New Labour lack of direct reponsess

Prescott is a miserable old bugger and as cantankerous as ever but far better at responding to Neil....he is not the most articulate but no one can doubt his passion and loyalty to the party......

I've just seen a tweet describing Prezza as 'metaphorically decking Andrew Neil'.

Lol....he essentially shouted back at him in Prescott's normal fashion - inarticulate, grumpy but put Neil on the back foot and he didn't defer to him at all. It was similar with Corbyn but a completely different approach.

I personally think Neil is one of the better political correspondents out there......he is a Tory and a Murdochian but he has a certain irreverence and humour as well. He wasn't phased either and took it all on the chin

[AnatolyKasparov]

Chris Leslie...shut up!

If you do not like the party leadership and the policies then piss off. If you cannot say anything useful then stay off the camera....you have said nothing, added nothing and answered nothing

And we lost the last election because of twats like you - you lost, lost and lost it for us

I am fuming about this disloyalty

He was utterly, unbelievably appalling as SC as well - if I was him I would be maintaining an embarrassed silence

One of those almost cancerous types who genuinely believes in absolutely nothing save that they should be a minister. Clear those out in the coming parliament, ta.

[howsillyofme1]

Chris Leslie...shut up!

If you do not like the party leadership and the policies then piss off. If you cannot say anything useful then stay off the camera....you have said nothing, added nothing and answered nothing

And we lost the last election because of twats like you - you lost, lost and lost it for us

I am fuming about this disloyalty

He was utterly, unbelievably appalling as SC as well - if I was him I would be maintaining an embarrassed silence

One of those almost cancerous types who genuinely believes in absolutely nothing save that they should be a minister. Clear those out in the coming parliament, ta.

That articulates what I was thinking

I watched the interview and was just incredulous at the lack of intellectual input...he is essentially a man who seems to not have any opinions of his own and wants to sway to the way that he perceives he will gain most out of personally

I am not saying that Corbyn is right on everything, clearly he is not, but it needs people like Cooper to give a robust challenge internally not this non-entity. He just allowed himself be used to do the Tory job for them and Neil ate him for breakfast

Prescott was entertaining at least and is the man you knowwho will be working his socks off to ensure the party stays together.

[rebeccariots2]

From Andrew Sparrow's blog.

The Conservatives have issued a response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview. This is from Sajid Javid, the business secretary.

The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people’s homes.

This shows the Labour party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.

Oh dear. It's already a tired refrain.

[RogerOThornhill]

From AS.

The Conservatives have issued a response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview. This is from Sajid Javid, the business secretary.

The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people’s homes.

This shows the Labour party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.

Parp!
Parp!
Parp!

A comment from Javid without any point to it whatsoever like all the rest of them.

[rebeccariots2]

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 32m32 minutes ago
Labour MPs offered safe seats and ministerial jobs "within six months" if they defect to the Tories: http://www.sunnation.co.uk/shower-power-for-johnny/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

That should restore public faith in politics, eh.

How desperate does that make the Tories look ...

(I haven't looked at the actual 'story' on the Sun btw. It just might not be completely true ...)

[RogerOThornhill]

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 32m32 minutes ago
Labour MPs offered safe seats and ministerial jobs "within six months" if they defect to the Tories: http://www.sunnation.co.uk/shower-power-for-johnny/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

That should restore public faith in politics, eh.

How desperate does that make the Tories look ...

(I haven't looked at the actual 'story' on the Sun btw. It just might not be completely true ...)

Safe seats?

So who are they going to persuade to fall on their sword? Bet that will go down well...

[citizenJA]

@ citizenJA

Have you seen this?

UK tried to block tougher EU car emission tests

Environment department has urged British MEPs to vote against on-road inspections of vehicles in wake of VW emissions scandal (Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ions-tests

Yes.

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon.

[rebeccariots2]

Sorry to hark back to last week's news but ...

I've just been told about the tweeted cartoon that my brother in law sent to my sis who is not well at the moment.

It's a delightful scene from Winnie the Pooh with Pooh bear walking with Piglet in the woods. Pooh says to Piglet 'what's wrong Piglet - you seem worried, not your usual self?' And Piglet says 'Well, I've just received an invitation from No 10 ...'

It got a really big laugh from my sis. Glad Cameron is good for something these days.

[citizenJA]

Jeremy Corbyn moves to a more humble office because his grand leader's one is too big

Labour's leader says he feels like a 'prisoner' in his sprawling base so he'll use it as a meeting room

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/je ... le-6519149

Sorry, but I like him more and more.

Nothing to be sorry for.
I like him more too.

[citizenJA]

Chris Ship ‏@chrisshipitv 2m2 minutes ago
Corbyn poses big question: is it so 'disastrous' if politicians at top of same party disagree? Is collective responsibility such a good idea

Best news I've read in days.
No, it doesn't matter if politicians disagree.
What does matter is continuing to communicate to reach resolution.
It's not complicated; it's not easy.

[citizenJA]

@yahyah The moon thing is tonight (or around 3am) - and it's going to be chilly.

Exciting time
Awe-inspiring
Transformative

[PorFavor]

From Andrew Sparrow's blog.

The Conservatives have issued a response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview. This is from Sajid Javid, the business secretary.

The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people’s homes.

This shows the Labour party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.

Oh dear. It's already a tired refrain.

I've just watched the interview on BBC i-player. Jeremy Corbyn didn't say any of the things attributed to him by Sajid David.

Oh - I'm pleased to report that the "t" is back in "party".

[ohsocynical]

Labour draw up plan to stop people falling off the electoral register

http://labourlist.org/2015/09/labour-dr ... -register/

[citizenJA]

I would just like to inform you that it has been an excellent year for Rhubarb (the fruit) here.
I have just gathered my final crop for this year and in a couple of months I will be splitting the crowns which have bloomed fantastically.

Now I am trying to find a way to spin/blame all this on Jeremy Corbyn and how it will all ultimately cause the end for the Labour Party.
Good morning.

I love rhubarb.

[citizenJA]

From Andrew Sparrow's blog.

The Conservatives have issued a response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview. This is from Sajid Javid, the business secretary.

The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people’s homes.

This shows the Labour party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.

Oh dear. It's already a tired refrain.

I've just watched the interview on BBC i-player. Jeremy Corbyn didn't say any of the things attributed to him by Sajid David.

Oh - I'm pleased to report that the "t" is back in "party".

(my bold)

I'm not surprised.
What can anyone do with liars?
There's no possible way forward with them.
Can't trust them.
We know the value of the word of known liars.
None.

[refitman]

For those asking about Leslie, AS has some quotes on his blog:

On the Sunday Politics this morning Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, said he thought his successor, John McDonnell, should “tone down” some of his anti-business “aggressive rhetoric”.

I have issues I don’t agree with John McDonnell on, and I would make a plea to John McDonnell and the rest of the new frontbench treasury team, there are certain things we have to do in order to persuade the public that we can be elected again. I think we have got to tone down some of the aggressive rhetoric, for example about sequestering assets without compensation, I don’t think threats of capital controls and boycotting business events, even at Labour party conferences, are the right way to go.

Asked if he thought McDonnell would make a good chancellor, he replied:

I think that’s for the public to decide. I think the election is now four and a half years away. Let’s see if they can convince the general public to get elected.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've just watched the interview on BBC i-player. Jeremy Corbyn didn't say any of the things attributed to him by Sajid David.

.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 32m32 minutes ago
Labour MPs offered safe seats and ministerial jobs "within six months" if they defect to the Tories: http://www.sunnation.co.uk/shower-power-for-johnny/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

That should restore public faith in politics, eh.

How desperate does that make the Tories look ...

(I haven't looked at the actual 'story' on the Sun btw. It just might not be completely true ...)

Safe seats?

So who are they going to persuade to fall on their sword? Bet that will go down well...

Usual way is late retirements, isn't it?

To Miliband's credit, he didn't do that.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see Gilligan's been putting the boot in to people around Corbyn in the DT.

My favourite bit is this:

The Sunday Telegraph has also uncovered evidence of how other key figures around Mr Corbyn, including his chief of staff, Simon Fletcher, as well as Mr Ross are or were members of a tiny, secretive Trotskyite sect, Socialist Action, which seeks a communist revolution and believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a “tragedy for humanity”.

Yes, they're so secretive that the DT obligingly links to their website, and they even have their own wikipedia page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Action_(UK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Look down at the references of that page and you discover that they're not really that secret given there's been articles mentioning them at the time in the Times and ES.

This is rehashing rubbish about Ken Livingstone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Action_(UK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Ken_Livingstone

[Tubby Isaacs]

]

At the moment he doesn't have any sort of economic policy, other than vague sound bites. Which right now is absolutely fine because the election is years away. I do think agreeing to Osbornes framework is wrong though, not least because it is unnecessary and leads to brand confusion. Caroline Lucas being quick to attack from the left in a likely doomed attempt to hang on to her left wing voters.

My problem with it is that while the broad framework might stack up with some fairly hefty tax rises, it won't without them. Worse when all the other inevitable promises are made (nationalising energy for example) the bill will spiral by tens of billions and the plans will just be torn to pieces and seen as impractical by the electorate.

Politics is the art of the possible, which in this country - at the moment - is targeting a limited tax base efficiently ( which it isn't now) and expanding it incrementally to get the super rich. Going beyond this might be possible in power, but it isn't in opposition.

I think agreeing to the charter was right- it was reasonable enough, allowing unlimited investment. If you can't stimulate the economy with investment, you're not much good. There's 5 years to get the investment plans together.

I'd like to abolish the benefit cap stuff though.

As you say, there's no economic policy at the moment- it's lots of extra tax paid by someone else and people's QE. I always said we'd need middle class tax rises. Osborne will throw out all the middle class tax cuts he can to make them even more difficult.

[howsillyofme1]

]

At the moment he doesn't have any sort of economic policy, other than vague sound bites. Which right now is absolutely fine because the election is years away. I do think agreeing to Osbornes framework is wrong though, not least because it is unnecessary and leads to brand confusion. Caroline Lucas being quick to attack from the left in a likely doomed attempt to hang on to her left wing voters.

My problem with it is that while the broad framework might stack up with some fairly hefty tax rises, it won't without them. Worse when all the other inevitable promises are made (nationalising energy for example) the bill will spiral by tens of billions and the plans will just be torn to pieces and seen as impractical by the electorate.

Politics is the art of the possible, which in this country - at the moment - is targeting a limited tax base efficiently ( which it isn't now) and expanding it incrementally to get the super rich. Going beyond this might be possible in power, but it isn't in opposition.

I think agreeing to the charter was right- it was reasonable enough, allowing unlimited investment. If you can't stimulate the economy with investment, you're not much good. There's 5 years to get the investment plans together.

I'd like to abolish the benefit cap stuff though.

As you say, there's no economic policy at the moment- it's lots of extra tax paid by someone else and people's QE. I always said we'd need middle class tax rises. Osborne will throw out all the middle class tax cuts he can to make them even more difficult.

He has been in the job 2 weeks and the election iOS 5 years away - what economic policies do you want him to have by this time? Did Blair have all his policies set out two weeks after he took over from Smith?

As to what Osborne may/may not do - we know that his recipe for the economy only leads to disaster and if he decides that the best way of organising the economy is to do it on the basis of what is the best approach 'politically' then he should be damned for doing so

[frightful_oik]

Don'chya just love it when our completely impartial state broadcaster does its vox pops and finds only people who support the "official" narrative?

[Willow904]

]

At the moment he doesn't have any sort of economic policy, other than vague sound bites. Which right now is absolutely fine because the election is years away. I do think agreeing to Osbornes framework is wrong though, not least because it is unnecessary and leads to brand confusion. Caroline Lucas being quick to attack from the left in a likely doomed attempt to hang on to her left wing voters.

My problem with it is that while the broad framework might stack up with some fairly hefty tax rises, it won't without them. Worse when all the other inevitable promises are made (nationalising energy for example) the bill will spiral by tens of billions and the plans will just be torn to pieces and seen as impractical by the electorate.

Politics is the art of the possible, which in this country - at the moment - is targeting a limited tax base efficiently ( which it isn't now) and expanding it incrementally to get the super rich. Going beyond this might be possible in power, but it isn't in opposition.

I think agreeing to the charter was right- it was reasonable enough, allowing unlimited investment. If you can't stimulate the economy with investment, you're not much good. There's 5 years to get the investment plans together.

I'd like to abolish the benefit cap stuff though.

As you say, there's no economic policy at the moment- it's lots of extra tax paid by someone else and people's QE. I always said we'd need middle class tax rises. Osborne will throw out all the middle class tax cuts he can to make them even more difficult.

I fear you're right. It's the same with corporation tax. It's very easy to keep it at 28% (and should have been) but now Osborne has dropped it (to 20%? 18%?) a perfectly reasonable corporation tax level of 28% becomes an enormous and noticeable tax hike with all the squealing of "tax and spend" from the media that comes with it. All just going to show that the Tories always win because their fundamental aim of slash and burn is easy to achieve, while Labour's aim of build and grow isn't. Do we really have to wait until hospitals start shutting and schools start crumbling again, before voters are willing to start paying tax to invest in the fundamentals of an advanced, civilised society again?

[citizenJA]

Don'chya just love it when our completely impartial state broadcaster does its vox pops and finds only people who support the "official" narrative?

No, I don't like them at all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

He has been in the job 2 weeks and the election iOS 5 years away - what economic policies do you want him to have by this time? Did Blair have all his policies set out two weeks after he took over from Smith?

As to what Osborne may/may not do - we know that his recipe for the economy only leads to disaster and if he decides that the best way of organising the economy is to do it on the basis of what is the best approach 'politically' then he should be damned for doing so

Fair point- he's certainly got time.

But he comes to it from much further away than new leaders usually do. There's evidence in for instance his U-turn on EU membership that his positions haven't passed the "senior civil servant test"- have you thought about this, Minister?

He's got lots of work to do, if he's not going to end up being basically Miliband with better messaging. I'd be delighted if he did become that, but lots of people want much more from him. And whatever he does, I'll support him (insofar as it matters).

[AnatolyKasparov]

Don'chya just love it when our completely impartial state broadcaster does its vox pops and finds only people who support the "official" narrative?

Also notable that the Beeb are far worse for this (suspiciously one sided vox pops) than either Sky or ITV.

[Tubby Isaacs]

]

At the moment he doesn't have any sort of economic policy, other than vague sound bites. Which right now is absolutely fine because the election is years away. I do think agreeing to Osbornes framework is wrong though, not least because it is unnecessary and leads to brand confusion. Caroline Lucas being quick to attack from the left in a likely doomed attempt to hang on to her left wing voters.

My problem with it is that while the broad framework might stack up with some fairly hefty tax rises, it won't without them. Worse when all the other inevitable promises are made (nationalising energy for example) the bill will spiral by tens of billions and the plans will just be torn to pieces and seen as impractical by the electorate.

Politics is the art of the possible, which in this country - at the moment - is targeting a limited tax base efficiently ( which it isn't now) and expanding it incrementally to get the super rich. Going beyond this might be possible in power, but it isn't in opposition.

I think agreeing to the charter was right- it was reasonable enough, allowing unlimited investment. If you can't stimulate the economy with investment, you're not much good. There's 5 years to get the investment plans together.

I'd like to abolish the benefit cap stuff though.

As you say, there's no economic policy at the moment- it's lots of extra tax paid by someone else and people's QE. I always said we'd need middle class tax rises. Osborne will throw out all the middle class tax cuts he can to make them even more difficult.

I fear you're right. It's the same with corporation tax. It's very easy to keep it at 28% (and should have been) but now Osborne has dropped it (to 20%? 18%?) a perfectly reasonable corporation tax level of 28% becomes an enormous and noticeable tax hike with all the squealing of "tax and spend" from the media that comes with it. All just going to show that the Tories always win because their fundamental aim of slash and burn is easy to achieve, while Labour's aim of build and grow isn't. Do we really have to wait until hospitals start shutting and schools start crumbling again, before voters are willing to start paying tax to invest in the fundamentals of an advanced, civilised society again?

Yep. I was thinking more of the personal income tax threshold (Cameron once very prominently said £10k wasn't affordable) but it does apply to Corporation Tax too, you're right. Maybe more so.

Some wondered whether Labour should have gone for a middle class NI rise last time. I think something like that is going to be necessary.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Don'chya just love it when our completely impartial state broadcaster does its vox pops and finds only people who support the "official" narrative?

Also notable that the Beeb are far worse for this (suspiciously one sided vox pops) than either Sky or ITV.

ITV have impressed me a couple of times lately. Basically tabloid news, but reasonably fair minded. There's a market for that, I reckon.

[LadyCentauria]

From Andrew Sparrow's blog.

The Conservatives have issued a response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview. This is from Sajid Javid, the business secretary.

The Labour leader confirmed that he would weaken our defences by scrapping our independent nuclear deterrent and that he would damage our economy by putting up taxes on jobs, earnings, investment and people’s homes.

This shows the Labour party are a serious risk to our national security, our economic security and to the security of all working people.

Oh dear. It's already a tired refrain.

So Sajid Javid didn't listen to the interview, just altered the tense and the (um is it) operative verb in the stock script he and his colleagues were given by CCHQ to use upon any mention of Jeremy Corbyn. Ie., "confirmed" in place of "risks" - and swapping "Labour party"/"Labour leader" for "Jeremy Corbyn."

[howsillyofme1]

]

At the moment he doesn't have any sort of economic policy, other than vague sound bites. Which right now is absolutely fine because the election is years away. I do think agreeing to Osbornes framework is wrong though, not least because it is unnecessary and leads to brand confusion. Caroline Lucas being quick to attack from the left in a likely doomed attempt to hang on to her left wing voters.

My problem with it is that while the broad framework might stack up with some fairly hefty tax rises, it won't without them. Worse when all the other inevitable promises are made (nationalising energy for example) the bill will spiral by tens of billions and the plans will just be torn to pieces and seen as impractical by the electorate.

Politics is the art of the possible, which in this country - at the moment - is targeting a limited tax base efficiently ( which it isn't now) and expanding it incrementally to get the super rich. Going beyond this might be possible in power, but it isn't in opposition.

I think agreeing to the charter was right- it was reasonable enough, allowing unlimited investment. If you can't stimulate the economy with investment, you're not much good. There's 5 years to get the investment plans together.

I'd like to abolish the benefit cap stuff though.

As you say, there's no economic policy at the moment- it's lots of extra tax paid by someone else and people's QE. I always said we'd need middle class tax rises. Osborne will throw out all the middle class tax cuts he can to make them even more difficult.

I fear you're right. It's the same with corporation tax. It's very easy to keep it at 28% (and should have been) but now Osborne has dropped it (to 20%? 18%?) a perfectly reasonable corporation tax level of 28% becomes an enormous and noticeable tax hike with all the squealing of "tax and spend" from the media that comes with it. All just going to show that the Tories always win because their fundamental aim of slash and burn is easy to achieve, while Labour's aim of build and grow isn't. Do we really have to wait until hospitals start shutting and schools start crumbling again, before voters are willing to start paying tax to invest in the fundamentals of an advanced, civilised society again?

My wish is that the British people could see the big picture and see how the Osborne narrative and way of doing things is completely flawed. I doubt we can bet on that, even with reasoned information. It was what happened int he run up to this year's election and if the status quo is maintained the Tories will win in 2020 in spite of whatever illogical path they follow. The outcome is what determines how people vote and, if by some miracle, a large minority of the people of this country still see a positive outcome then that will lead to the Tories winning

What can happen to change this though is that Labour are far more aggressive (and this is where Leslie was completely off earlier today in his interview) in exposing the intellectual vacuum behind the Osborne austerity rhetoric.

One way to do this is to have the anti-austerity economists out there clearly saying this and the advisory panel announced containing some very eminent academics is a good step forward

Another way is to be out there pointing out that Osborne actually backtracks to Labour policy in reality - one great mistake from the last Parliament was to allow him to backtrack on all that he said without calling him out on it. In the end it is the right approach economically to cut back on austerity but he didn't get punished for it politically. This needs to stop and I would challenge any media pundit who makes some comments about 'credibility' on looking at the figures and pointing out the failures in all the predictions coming from the OBR and the Treasury since 2010

The final point is the one of luck. Cameron was lucky that the crisis in 2008 happened - without that he may not have got close to No. 10 (it may have been a Lib LD coalition instead at worst). Another crisis is not out of the realms of possibility and when it happens Labour must be there aggressively pointing out the Tory culpability. They cannot let the Tories try to frame it in harking back to 2008 and that starts with discipline from those in the party who are too keen on joining with the 'overspending' nonsense.

In summary; Labour has to aggressively reset the argument on austerity, and already they are putting in place a better foundation for that than was the case following 2010.

They also have to get themselves ready to take advantage of any crisis in the same way that the Tories did in 2008 - point out some of the truths i.e. private debt is expanding, the rise in inequality, the abject productivity and balance of payment situation. Talks about this now and if (or when) it happens the Tories can take the blame they deserve. If we don't prepare for this now then the right-wing media will frame the argument for us and it will be all harking back to 2008; overspending and Brown

The right of the party have proven themselves unable to articulate this - it is time for the left to step up to the plate now. Avoid extremist policies, sound sensible, do not allow the media to set the tone etc.

Corbin did better this morning in dealing with the media than I have seen anyone else from Labour since before 2010 - that is more important now than having any detailed policies which will either be stolen, give a focus for media attacks and will be out of date within the year. Policies for 2018....counterattack against the Tories until then

[howsillyofme1]

He has been in the job 2 weeks and the election iOS 5 years away - what economic policies do you want him to have by this time? Did Blair have all his policies set out two weeks after he took over from Smith?

As to what Osborne may/may not do - we know that his recipe for the economy only leads to disaster and if he decides that the best way of organising the economy is to do it on the basis of what is the best approach 'politically' then he should be damned for doing so

Fair point- he's certainly got time.

But he comes to it from much further away than new leaders usually do. There's evidence in for instance his U-turn on EU membership that his positions haven't passed the "senior civil servant test"- have you thought about this, Minister?

He's got lots of work to do, if he's not going to end up being basically Miliband with better messaging. I'd be delighted if he did become that, but lots of people want much more from him. And whatever he does, I'll support him (insofar as it matters).

But it is people of your mind who insisted on the EU u-turn. He was probably a bit naïve but got bounced into it by the Shadow Cabinet - if he hadn't then he probably would' have got any members from the right

I think this was a poor political decision as there are very few votes in overt pro-EUism. It would make more sense to wait until Cameron presented his feeble attempts at renegotiation, mock him for being so ineffective and then come out and say that the Labour Party will campaign for an 'In' (perhaps with some leeway for dissenters) but on a framework of a more balanced EU - use the access to the single market but also prevent firms playing off different tax regimes and watering down social legislation

Why I worry is that we could see some diluting down of the social side of the EU to appease the Tory right - and it may be acceptable to the right-wing Government in Germany (and a Sarko led one in France) - in that case Labour should adapt its message on the referendum - perhaps not an 'Out' but a reluctant 'In'

It has be ensured that Cameron is the one who is at the centre of the referendum not Labour - and there are some of the right of the party who don't seem to have learnt this lesson from the Scottish referendum

I actually think the most politically naïve in the party are those who 'lost' the leadership election and yet they still see themselves as gurus. Mandelson being one of the main culprits

[citizenJA]

Come on, Labour, get over the 90s and join in Jeremy Corbyn’s debate
We need to stop obsessing about Blair’s legacy, acknowledge the limits of markets, and admit our economic model is bust

by Tristram Hunt
Labour MP
Stoke-on-Trent Central

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... byn-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, Hunty.

[citizenJA]

From Tristram Hunt:

"When the British chancellor flies to Beijing to offer government securities to Chinese investors to support the French state in building a UK nuclear power station, our economic model is bust. On housing, asset inflation, pension and mortgage policies for the self-employed, land tax rates and even basic income guarantees, there are radical options to explore.

But what we also found out at the general election is that even if Labour is asking the right questions – about inequality, labour market reform, the squeezed middle – we will not be trusted to deliver the answers if we fail to convince on the economy, welfare and immigration.

To be radical, you first need to be credible. If the Labour party doesn’t rid itself of its morbid symptoms and start to convince the public it is interested in government, then we could see something else Gramsci was familiar with: the grisly spectre of Conservative hegemony. And it will be the trade union members and working poor who will suffer most."

[Tubby Isaacs]

But it is people of your mind who insisted on the EU u-turn. He was probably a bit naïve but got bounced into it by the Shadow Cabinet - if he hadn't then he probably would' have got any members from the right

I think this was a poor political decision as there are very few votes in overt pro-EUism. It would make more sense to wait until Cameron presented his feeble attempts at renegotiation, mock him for being so ineffective and then come out and say that the Labour Party will campaign for an 'In' (perhaps with some leeway for dissenters) but on a framework of a more balanced EU - use the access to the single market but also prevent firms playing off different tax regimes and watering down social legislation

Why I worry is that we could see some diluting down of the social side of the EU to appease the Tory right - and it may be acceptable to the right-wing Government in Germany (and a Sarko led one in France) - in that case Labour should adapt its message on the referendum - perhaps not an 'Out' but a reluctant 'In'

It has be ensured that Cameron is the one who is at the centre of the referendum not Labour - and there are some of the right of the party who don't seem to have learnt this lesson from the Scottish referendum

I actually think the most politically naïve in the party are those who 'lost' the leadership election and yet they still see themselves as gurus. Mandelson being one of the main culprits

It doesn't matter what difficulties a referendum might present- it's the right decision to stay in the EU. You just vow to scrap Cameron's rubbish when you win next time. That's what Blair did with Major's social chapter opt-out.

The referendum is going to be a year of xenophobic bullshit, and it was always going to be. Corbyn ought never to have supported it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

From Tristram Hunt:

"When the British chancellor flies to Beijing to offer government securities to Chinese investors to support the French state in building a UK nuclear power station, our economic model is bust. On housing, asset inflation, pension and mortgage policies for the self-employed, land tax rates and even basic income guarantees, there are radical options to explore.

But what we also found out at the general election is that even if Labour is asking the right questions – about inequality, labour market reform, the squeezed middle – we will not be trusted to deliver the answers if we fail to convince on the economy, welfare and immigration.

To be radical, you first need to be credible. If the Labour party doesn’t rid itself of its morbid symptoms and start to convince the public it is interested in government, then we could see something else Gramsci was familiar with: the grisly spectre of Conservative hegemony. And it will be the trade union members and working poor who will suffer most."

What does convincing on immigration involve? The same sort of polls that tell us people really agree with Corbyn on nationalization tell us that they also agree with Fargle on immigration.

[howsillyofme1]

But it is people of your mind who insisted on the EU u-turn. He was probably a bit naïve but got bounced into it by the Shadow Cabinet - if he hadn't then he probably would' have got any members from the right

I think this was a poor political decision as there are very few votes in overt pro-EUism. It would make more sense to wait until Cameron presented his feeble attempts at renegotiation, mock him for being so ineffective and then come out and say that the Labour Party will campaign for an 'In' (perhaps with some leeway for dissenters) but on a framework of a more balanced EU - use the access to the single market but also prevent firms playing off different tax regimes and watering down social legislation

Why I worry is that we could see some diluting down of the social side of the EU to appease the Tory right - and it may be acceptable to the right-wing Government in Germany (and a Sarko led one in France) - in that case Labour should adapt its message on the referendum - perhaps not an 'Out' but a reluctant 'In'

It has be ensured that Cameron is the one who is at the centre of the referendum not Labour - and there are some of the right of the party who don't seem to have learnt this lesson from the Scottish referendum

I actually think the most politically naïve in the party are those who 'lost' the leadership election and yet they still see themselves as gurus. Mandelson being one of the main culprits

It doesn't matter what difficulties a referendum might present- it's the right decision to stay in the EU. You just vow to scrap Cameron's rubbish when you win next time. That's what Blair did with Major's social chapter opt-out.

The referendum is going to be a year of xenophobic bullshit, and it was always going to be. Corbyn ought never to have supported it.

There are perfectly good reasons to be skeptical of the EU that are not linked to xenophobia

The EU has a tendency towards technocraticism and it is dominated by some big players who have also been moving to the right in recent years. The EU has to be better balanced

I am all for staying 'In' but politically being seen as committing too early is poor politics. Especially seeing Cameron still has to announce his 'concessions'. Labour can try to undo once in power but when will that be and what damage will be done by then.

We have to use the referendum to undermine the Tory chances of winning in 2020 - the Tories will want to use it in the same way as they did the referendum in Scotland. Vote to stay in but make sure those on the other side who are upset at the result blame Labour and not them

[Tubby Isaacs]

There are perfectly good reasons to be skeptical of the EU that are not linked to xenophobia

The EU has a tendency towards technocraticism and it is dominated by some big players who have also been moving to the right in recent years. The EU has to be better balanced

I am all for staying 'In' but politically being seen as committing too early is poor politics. Especially seeing Cameron still has to announce his 'concessions'. Labour can try to undo once in power but when will that be and what damage will be done by then.

We have to use the referendum to undermine the Tory chances of winning in 2020 - the Tories will want to use it in the same way as they did the referendum in Scotland. Vote to stay in but make sure those on the other side who are upset at the result blame Labour and not them

There aren't good reasons to support leaving the EU. If you're a non member you have to do what they want anyway. They're not going to let you sit alongside it doing only the bits you like. It's moved to the Right because the member governments have.

Anyway, I was talking about the referendum. It's going to be awful. Owen Jones and others might think they're going to get arguments about free trade etc into it, but they won't really.

It's bad politics to talk up Cameron as the epoch-making European statesman. He's flailing around, a laughing stock.

[ohsocynical]

Idly putting together a list of priorities if Labour gets in.

Rising rents.
The big rise in emergency accomodation and the longer time spent in it.
Not enough decent jobs.
Manufacturing slowing down.
Not enough income tax coming in.
Immigrants and refugees.
Rising resentment amongst some sections of society, which, if you're in emergency accomodation and an immigrant gets a home in front of you, is understandable.

The top of the list surely has to be social housing and build, build, build?

[howsillyofme1]

From Tristram Hunt:

"When the British chancellor flies to Beijing to offer government securities to Chinese investors to support the French state in building a UK nuclear power station, our economic model is bust. On housing, asset inflation, pension and mortgage policies for the self-employed, land tax rates and even basic income guarantees, there are radical options to explore.

But what we also found out at the general election is that even if Labour is asking the right questions – about inequality, labour market reform, the squeezed middle – we will not be trusted to deliver the answers if we fail to convince on the economy, welfare and immigration.

To be radical, you first need to be credible. If the Labour party doesn’t rid itself of its morbid symptoms and start to convince the public it is interested in government, then we could see something else Gramsci was familiar with: the grisly spectre of Conservative hegemony. And it will be the trade union members and working poor who will suffer most."

What does convincing on immigration involve? The same sort of polls that tell us people really agree with Corbyn on nationalization tell us that they also agree with Fargle on immigration.

Part of it is changing the rhetoric on immigration. There is too much falsehood out there. The mixing of migration with refugees is one particular insidious part and the lie that Britain is the preferred choice when the majority of refugees do not, or want to, come here! The concern of people is not immigrants per se I think (although there is an undercurrent of racism that is difficult to resolve) but the effect that has on their own personal circumstances.

The lack of housing, the stress on public services etc is easily being blamed on immigration when a large part of that is due to Government decisions on spending - again another case of smoke and mirrors started by the Government and supported by our contemptuous press

We can either pander to them and follow UKIP, or can try to educate and explain. The former is politically easier but is both morally and actually wrong or we can do the latter which is harder but will be for the benefit of the country in the long term. Saying this there needs to be some better immigration management and support and not all this may be pleasing to the liberal side of the party but is just a sensible management system

On nationalisation - it is how it is done. As we see in Hunt's comment piece above, our industries are nationalised. It is just other Government's that own them. Some of the industries need to be taken back under public control - our public. That principle to me is fine and I have no problems supporting it. let us see what the proposals are for doing it though before we pass judgement. Perhaps we can start by just letting the electorate know who own's our key utilities!

I think also there is the other side to this which is that monopolies or quasi-monopolies that do stay in the private sector do so with full competition and no special deals that allow them to profit from the taxpayer or tied-in consumer. Regulation yes but only on grounds of safety etc. Surely anything that is suitable for the private sector would have no need for price regulation as the market would do that for you?

I would be harsh here and say if, for example, Royal Mail is in the private sector then go for it - full competition. The universal service obligation should be scrapped and then we will see how people like it.

The last two paragraphs were tongue in cheek - i don't really think that but it does show how ridiculous some of these privitizations were!

[PorFavor]

George Eaton
✔
@georgeeaton

Chuka says politics would be improved by electoral reform and "more parties". #demoschuka
2:06 PM - 27 Sep 2015

4 4 Retweets
2

I presume he means political parties?

[howsillyofme1]

There are perfectly good reasons to be skeptical of the EU that are not linked to xenophobia

The EU has a tendency towards technocraticism and it is dominated by some big players who have also been moving to the right in recent years. The EU has to be better balanced

I am all for staying 'In' but politically being seen as committing too early is poor politics. Especially seeing Cameron still has to announce his 'concessions'. Labour can try to undo once in power but when will that be and what damage will be done by then.

We have to use the referendum to undermine the Tory chances of winning in 2020 - the Tories will want to use it in the same way as they did the referendum in Scotland. Vote to stay in but make sure those on the other side who are upset at the result blame Labour and not them

There aren't good reasons to support leaving the EU. If you're a non member you have to do what they want anyway. They're not going to let you sit alongside it doing only the bits you like. It's moved to the Right because the member governments have.


Anyway, I was talking about the referendum. It's going to be awful. Owen Jones and others might think they're going to get arguments about free trade etc into it, but they won't really.

It's bad politics to talk up Cameron as the epoch-making European statesman. He's flailing around, a laughing stock.

Cameron is going to go for the reluctant 'In' - the only way he can 'win' the referendum is by staying in and getting Labour as the fall guys for staying in

In that respect Labour should avoid being seen as that by the electorate and campaign for 'In' on a socially inclusive platform and a Europe for all not just business. Labour dos not have many who are ideologically leavers and those that are skeptical are for reasons of policy rather than instinctively. Corbyn is one of those and if, as appears to be the case, he decides on campaigning for 'In' then most of others who think like him will fall in line

Labour should be in a strong position in the referendum...and I do not think Corbyn has changed that in any way...a little bit of skepticism is probably advantageous politically.

The only risk is Cameron uses the vociferous pro-Europeans in Labour (and the Lib Dems) to hide the catastrophic divisions in his own party.

Labour need to allow this to be Cameron vs garage whilst campaigning for In on their own platform, probably with the Lib Dems and stay away from the Tories all together

This referendum is a key political event - it cannot just be seen in terms of Europe but it is also important Labour use it tactically to undermine the Tories prior to 2020

[ohsocynical]

Bonnie Greer ‏@Bonn1eGreer 7 mins7 minutes ago Ealing, London
#Labour - @GloriaDePiero- via @Puffles2010

Av. age Labour pre-GE2015 : 53.
Av. age today-: 42 .
UK avg age-40.

[howsillyofme1]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ey-policie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of these people need to take a good hard look at themselves!

[ohsocynical]

Corbyn's speech to the Ladies...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ohsocynical]

Chancellor George Osborne will adopt “Corbynomics” out of economic necessity by the next general election, according to Richard Murphy, the man credited as the architect of the Labour leader’s radical financial plans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68431.html