Tuesday 13th October 2015

Post by **refitman** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 7:10 am

Morning all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 7:42 am

Morning.

Am trying to ignore the 'McDonnell U turn' at the moment, it'll be interesting to hear people's views later and when maybe there's more clarity about what/why.

Just looked at Peter Juke's Twitter and this exchange about Leon Brittan is revealing.
Can Boulton really mean what it seems he means ?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 8:14 am

Reposting from last night.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... p#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kinship carers at risk of poverty and debt due to welfare cuts, says charity

Quite clear to me that a worrying amount of people are very willing to pay more to satisfy their overblown sense of superiority or maybe just so stupid not to realise the obvious.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 9:26 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Am trying to ignore the 'McDonnell U turn' at the moment, it'll be interesting to hear people's views later and when maybe there's more clarity about what/why.

Just looked at Peter Juke's Twitter and this exchange about Leon Brittan is revealing.
Can Boulton really mean what it seems he means ?

Yes. They're not going to touch this with a bargepole.

I've seen all this before. Rightwing politician gets away with something essentially on a technicality. They and/or their supporters proceed to howl and bellow about persecution and witchhunts. Not worth the media's time to challenge.

I'm totally depressed by the state of things at the moment. That article posted last night about Corbyn and the media nails it, in my view, but the title is misleading - it demonstrates why Ed Miliband never had a fair chance, and why any Labour leader even slightly to the left of 'mainstream' Blairism won't get a hearing. It depresses me even more that many on the left seek to blame Corbyn for not judt going along with it.

Edit: and as if to prove my point, two stories about Labour on the Guardian website front page today 'MPs complain of 'shambles'' and 'Corbyn has blown his chances of reviving Labour in Scotland'

Well to be fair it is a complete shambles. Privy council - shambles, McDonnell U turn - shambles, Trident - shambles.

Really hard to see beyond that, Dianne Abbott doesn't help either.

The media can be beaten but you have to bring your A game. What we have here looks like amateur hour.

I doubt however McDonnell has had any impact on Labour in Scotland, that now requires the SNP to screw up, which eventually they will.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 9:40 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Am trying to ignore the 'McDonnell U turn' at the moment, it'll be interesting to hear people's views later and when maybe there's more clarity about what/why.

Just looked at Peter Juke's Twitter and this exchange about Leon Brittan is revealing.
Can Boulton really mean what it seems he means ?

Yes. They're not going to touch this with a bargepole.

I've seen all this before. Rightwing politician gets away with something essentially on a technicality. They and/or their supporters proceed to howl and bellow about persecution and witchhunts. Not worth the media's time to challenge.

I'm totally depressed by the state of things at the moment. That article posted last night about Corbyn and the media nails it, in my view, but the title is misleading - it demonstrates why Ed Miliband never had a fair chance, and why any Labour leader even slightly to the left of 'mainstream' Blairism won't get a hearing. It depresses me even more that many on the left seek to blame Corbyn for not judt going along with it.

Edit: and as if to prove my point, two stories about Labour on the Guardian website front page today 'MPs complain of 'shambles'' and 'Corbyn has blown his chances of reviving Labour in Scotland'
Well to be fair it is a complete shambles. Privy council - shambles, McDonnell U turn - shambles, Trident - shambles.

Really hard to see beyond that, Dianne Abbott doesn't help either.

The media can be beaten but you have to bring your A game. What we have here looks like amateur hour.

I doubt however McDonnell has had any impact on Labour in Scotland, that now requires the SNP to screw up, which eventually they will.

Can you explain how each of these is a shambles? I enjoy your postings but hyperbole doesn’t add to the lively discussion on these boards.
Morning all btw, and let's just reflect on how a Corbyn and Bradshaw pairing would be getting on at the moment!

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 9:53 am

Perhaps someone can ask Chris Leslie what he means about Going from one extreme to another. Just a thought...

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 9:58 am

StephenDolan wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Yes. They're not going to touch this with a bargepole.

I've seen all this before. Rightwing politician gets away with something essentially on a technicality. They and/or their supporters proceed to howl and bellow about persecution and witchhunts. Not worth the media's time to challenge.

I'm totally depressed by the state of things at the moment. That article posted last night about Corbyn and the media nails it, in my view, but the title is misleading - it demonstrates why Ed Miliband never had a fair chance, and why any Labour leader even slightly to the left of 'mainstream' Blairism won't get a hearing. It depresses me even more that many on the left seek to blame Corbyn for not judt going along with it.

Edit: and as if to prove my point, two stories about Labour on the Guardian website front page today 'MPs complain of 'shambles'' and 'Corbyn has blown his chances of reviving Labour in Scotland'
Well to be fair it is a complete shambles. Privy council - shambles, McDonnell U turn - shambles, Trident - shambles.

Really hard to see beyond that, Dianne Abbott doesn't help either.

The media can be beaten but you have to bring your A game. What we have here looks like amateur hour.

I doubt however McDonnell has had any impact on Labour in Scotland, that now requires the SNP to screw up, which eventually they will.
Can you explain how each of these is a shambles? I enjoy your postings but hyperbole doesn’t add to the lively discussion on these boards.
Morning all btw, and let's just reflect on how a Corbyn and Bradshaw pairing would be getting on at the moment!

How are they a shambles? Well Corbyn knows that the press are gunning for him, as they did for Ed, so one would have thought that he would limit the opportunities for them to do so; given the fuss over his avowed republicanism a few weeks back the Privy Council refusal was a massive own goal, especially given that membership of the PC allows him vital access to security briefings; McDonnell's U-turn (and I think McDonnell's appointment was one of JC's better ideas *) could have been avoided if they hadn't made commitments a couple of weeks ago before policy was more properly formulated; and Trident was, in a similar way to the PC faux pas, a case of his principles over-ruling real politik - I know part of his appeal is that he is his own man, but that doesn't mean he can totally ignore the rules of the game.

It is PMQs tomorrow, and he has promised a repeat of last time. I hope he leaves himself room for maneuver, space to respond to OGRFG's jibes rather than just laying out his own questions; I'm not as convinced as many here that last time around was that effective, I think it gave Cameron too much room to grandstand.

* Whereas Ms Abbott wsa a really, really bad idea.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:06 am

Re the McDonnell thing.

The bit I'm confused about is why there is a vote on fiscal responsibility at all. I thought Osborne already had one at the beginning of the year, that Labour supported because it only aimed to balance the current budget. How many laws does Osborne have to pass to remind him of his manifesto responsibilities anyway? I think McDonnell should have opposed it from the start on the grounds that he doesn't need to pass a law just to fulfil his manifesto commitments and if Osborne wants a surplus he should just get on and create one and stop wasting parliamentary time.

My concern re McDonnell is that he either originally supported making an overall surplus in good times a legal requirement, which goes much further than anything Labour was willing to support under Ed, and then changed his mind, showing huge inconsistency or he originally suggested he would support it, without knowing the detail of what was in it, which shows huge unprofessionalism. I'm not sure which is worse. This has been in the papers since May as an Osborne strategy to stuff Labour. It hasn't come as a surprise and it's still wrongfooted McDonnell big time. I can't think of any excuses for this u-turn, it's poor. The only consolation is Labour is doing so poorly anyway, it is unlikely to make things worse. The only get out is if the final draft of the bill is different from what was being proposed a month ago, but frankly I was surprised McDonnell ever supported it, given how undemocratic it is to try to limit the fiscal options of future governments on ideological lines.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:07 am

Worth pointing out that the Charter for Budget responsibility was only in the HoC library on 18th September i.e. after parliament rose for the conference season.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN05657" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important bit is really that the Chancellor seems to have handed responsibility for the economy over to the OBR given that it is the OBR who decides what are 'normal times' and what are not.

From page 10

The fiscal mandate will be replaced with a target for the public sector budget to be in surplus by the end of 2019/20. Once a surplus has been achieved the mandate requires a surplus in each subsequent year.

The supplementary target will also be revised. The new target is for public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to fall each year to 2019/20.

The new targets will apply during ‘normal times’. If annual real growth in the UK economy is less than 1% the OBR will judge there to have been a significant negative shock, and the economy will be out of normal times.

So it's the OBR who decide whether the government can run a surplus or not. Maybe McDonnell and co have only just seen this and are objecting to this extension of the OBR's role?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:32 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Worth pointing out that the Charter for Budget responsibility was only in the HoC library on 18th September i.e. after parliament rose for the conference season.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN05657" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important bit is really that the Chancellor seems to have handed responsibility for the economy over to the OBR given that it is the OBR who decides what are 'normal times' and what are not.

From page 10
The fiscal mandate will be replaced with a target for the public sector budget to be in surplus by the end of 2019/20. Once a surplus has been achieved the mandate requires a surplus in each subsequent year.

The supplementary target will also be revised. The new target is for public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to fall each year to 2019/20.

The new targets will apply during ‘normal times’. If annual real growth in the UK economy is less than 1% the OBR will judge there to have been a significant negative shock, and the economy will be out of normal times.
So it's the OBR who decide whether the government can run a surplus or not. Maybe McDonnell and co have only just seen this and are objecting to this extension of the OBR's role?

Thanks for the details. Osborne already had a vote at the beginning of the year commiting government to trying to balance the current budget so any new law would clearly go beyond that and therefore would be unacceptable to anyone opposed to ideological austerity. I still can't fathom why McDonnell ever said Labour would support it. I agree with his current stance of opposing and maybe voters will mostly be oblivious anyway, but this clumsy u-turn will have repercussions within the parliamentary party. I don't share others criticism of Diane Abbott, she has been measured, calm and generally an effective spokesman for the left of the party since Corbyn became leader. Her experience shows, while Corbyn and McDonnell's lack of experience becomes more and more apparent. It would be nice to think principles and passion would be enough, but right now it's not looking very hopeful.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:35 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Worth pointing out that the Charter for Budget responsibility was only in the HoC library on 18th September i.e. after parliament rose for the conference season.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN05657" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important bit is really that the Chancellor seems to have handed responsibility for the economy over to the OBR given that it is the OBR who decides what are 'normal times' and what are not.

From page 10
The fiscal mandate will be replaced with a target for the public sector budget to be in surplus by the end of 2019/20. Once a surplus has been achieved the mandate requires a surplus in each subsequent year.

The supplementary target will also be revised. The new target is for public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP to fall each year to 2019/20.

The new targets will apply during ‘normal times’. If annual real growth in the UK economy is less than 1% the OBR will judge there to have been a significant negative shock, and the economy will be out of normal times.
So it's the OBR who decide whether the government can run a surplus or not. Maybe McDonnell and co have only just seen this and are objecting to this extension of the OBR's role?

Not sure how, or how quickly, OBR would react to events such as Banking crisis, if the 'fiscal mandate' had been in force, would it have been possible to bail out the banks?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:40 am

tinybgoat wrote: Not sure how, or how quickly, OBR would react to events such as Banking crisis, if the 'fiscal mandate' had been in force, would it have been possible to bail out the banks?

From memory, the money used to bailout the banks wasn't included in the deficit and debt numbers...but I take your point. There was obviously a point where darling decided to bring forward capital investment to try and stave off the worst effects of the looming recession that wasn't indicated by any of the official forecasts.

Forecasters don't normally forecast for a recession since (i) they can't normally spot one coming and (ii) it would probably hasten one on if they did forecast it.

Incidentally I notice that it was put on the HoC library website on Friday 18th September.

Parliamentary recess started...17th September.

Could it be that nobody actually noticed that it was there since they'd packed up for the conference season a couple of days before?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:50 am

Bloody hell, we're in negative inflation!

McDonnell's off the hook. Who gives a stuff about opposition squabbles over the precise line to take on nonsense fiscal laws, when the actual Chancellor is blowing it bigtime. Deflation is the kiss of death because it's sticky. Osborne's a good political strategist but a very poor economist and even a good economist would struggle to combat deflation with so few tools available. Reducing interests rates, the usual response to falling inflation, would be likely ineffective as they are already so low.

Anyone here with better knowledge than me know how McDonnell's proposal of people's QE would play in a negative inflation scenario? It seems to me something quite radical to inject money into the economy may become necessary and people's QE could be just the ticket.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:54 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
tinybgoat wrote: Not sure how, or how quickly, OBR would react to events such as Banking crisis, if the 'fiscal mandate' had been in force, would it have been possible to bail out the banks?
From memory, the money used to bailout the banks wasn't included in the deficit and debt numbers...but I take your point. There was obviously a point where darling decided to bring forward capital investment to try and stave off the worst effects of the looming recession that wasn't indicated by any of the official forecasts.

Forecasters don't normally forecast for a recession since (i) they can't normally spot one coming and (ii) it would probably hasten one on if they did forecast it.

Incidentally I notice that it was put on the HoC library website on Friday 18th September.

Parliamentary recess started...17th September.

Could it be that nobody actually noticed that it was there since they'd packed up for the conference season a couple of days before?

Thankyou, that was my point
& you explained it far more eloquently than wot I ever could

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:58 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Well to be fair it is a complete shambles. Privy council - shambles, McDonnell U turn - shambles, Trident - shambles.

Really hard to see beyond that, Dianne Abbott doesn't help either.

The media can be beaten but you have to bring your A game. What we have here looks like amateur hour.

I doubt however McDonnell has had any impact on Labour in Scotland, that now requires the SNP to screw up, which eventually they will.
Can you explain how each of these is a shambles? I enjoy your postings but hyperbole doesn’t add to the lively discussion on these boards.
Morning all btw, and let's just reflect on how a Corbyn and Bradshaw pairing would be getting on at the moment!
How are they a shambles? Well Corbyn knows that the press are gunning for him, as they did for Ed, so one would have thought that he would limit the opportunities for them to do so; given the fuss over his avowed republicanism a few weeks back the Privy Council refusal was a massive own goal, especially given that membership of the PC allows him vital access to security briefings; McDonnell's U-turn (and I think McDonnell's appointment was one of JC's better ideas *) could have been avoided if they hadn't made commitments a couple of weeks ago before policy was more properly formulated; and Trident was, in a similar way to the PC faux pas, a case of his principles over-ruling real politik - I know part of his appeal is that he is his own man, but that doesn't mean he can totally ignore the rules of the game.

It is PMQs tomorrow, and he has promised a repeat of last time. I hope he leaves himself room for maneuver, space to respond to OGRFG's jibes rather than just laying out his own questions; I'm not as convinced as many here that last time around was that effective, I think it gave Cameron too much room to grandstand.

* Whereas Ms Abbott wsa a really, really bad idea.

Not much to add to that really.

Much as I dislike the royal parasites, and I really do dislike them, they exist, and for some reason are popular. Therefore as leader of HM's Loyal Opposition you have to suck it up with good grace. Snubbing the Queen because you are on holiday wins points for style from me but won't be popular. Incidentally if he becomes PM is he going to refuse to be appointed by the Queen?

As for Trident as above,

Corbyn gives the appearance of fighting pointless battles badly on all fronts. While the main event (austerity and the NHS disaster) rumbles on unopposed. Quite a lot of this is press stirring, much pointing at squirrels, but his party management skills don't help.

McDonnell regardless of rights and wrongs of policy has flipped the party 180 and then another 180 degrees on the key issue within a fortnight. If we were a football crowd we would be chanting - you don't know what you're doing - however unfair that might be given his other initiatives. Credibility killer unfortunately.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 10:59 am

September’s inflation rate is used to calculate a range of benefits payments in the UK.

Consumer expert Paul Lewis reports that these payments will now be frozen, as will other payments linked to the headline inflation rate.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/liv ... 4a06987add" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Osborne can talk it up all he likes. This inflation figure is not good news for people dependent on pensions or benefits and will eventually drag down pay settlements meaning incomes will get tighter and if people fear low wage rises going forward, they will be more reluctant to borrow as well. Throw in Osborne's tax credit cuts and it's hard to see where growth is going to come from next year. It may not be all out deflation, but it's definitely stagnation.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:02 am

I genuinely fail to see what the "shambles" over the PC is.

Corbyn did not take the first possible opportunity to join because he had a prior appointment. Just like Cameron back in the day. Genuinely nothing to see here.

I must admit the "u turn" over the charter surprised me somewhat, but a possible explanation has already been posited above - wouldn't be the first time Osborne had indulged in such sophistry after all. There is a cynical explanation - that it was to stop constant Tory "deficit denier" attacks during their conference - which if true would at least show that JC and JMcD are capable of low politics, something that had been doubted by some

Meanwhile, party membership is still increasing and the Tory lead in the polls is shrinking (despite DFH's definitive pronouncement last week that "Cameron has closed down the Labour party") And the previously "invulnerable" SNP are facing challenges on several fronts, making that Graun headline referred to above even sillier.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:06 am

[quote="AnatolyKasparov"]
despite DFH's definitive pronouncement last week that "Cameron has closed down the Labour party"

I see his latest effort is "That IDS is such a nice man doing wonderful things and I think I'm a Tory now".

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:09 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: despite DFH's definitive pronouncement last week that "Cameron has closed down the Labour party"

I see his latest effort is "That IDS is such a nice man doing wonderful things and I think I'm a Tory now".

The formal jumping ship cannot be far off now - though that does raise the question of what his USP will be when he's just another predictable Tory hack?

.......and how will he tell mummy??

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:13 am

Why is the media intent on discussing a PLP meeting, which in all probability would never have been easy, even given the so called u-turn, rather than looking at the negative inflation situation, rather than just taking osbournes explanation that this is a good thing for people. It isn't, it shows our economy is doing sod all, we aren't Japan, we have next to non manufacturing product, and no flexibility in how we spend because there's so little money in the system now. But we have the PLP having 'shambolic' meetings in which they are shouting media constructed negatives at each other. Why aren't they attacking the government instead? I'm utterly tired of hearing the privy council nonsense, it's making something out of nothing, and there's enough confusion on. The economy anyway, and what has obviously happened is that after some differences of opinion some kind of consensus has been arrived at, why is that message not being put about? And arguments on Twitter between MPs and 'corbynistas' is not the same as MPs and Corbyn. They are allowing the media to set the narrative, and then railing at the new leadership. It was always clear that they'd make things difficult, our right leaning people, and they are doing. And giving the media exactly what they are looking for. And believe me I didn't vote at all on this, have been extremely sceptical about the leadership election in every way. It was my feeling that Watson would be an utter liability, couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the leadership candidates, and am still sick with disgust that the LP did not rally round Ed and insist on keeping him. And there are plenty out there who would agree. But I don't dislike Corbyn, and actually like John McDonnell and believe both are good people, principled and what the party needs. They are only a whisker away from Ed in what they want, and what is really shambolic is that the media line is being used by our own MPs, go and look at the accounts of the meeting if you don't believe me, and see how MP statements echo recent media opinion rather than the other way round. And carry on letting Osbourne get away with it. It just seems par for the course. Ignore the media when it suits and slavishly follow them when it suits. But bring very little analysis to what individual people are known to have said. They WANT Corbyn to fail, all the anti corbynites, and the media want Labour to fail. Even worse Cameron is heading our country towards being a one party nation, and we are, it seems, tripping over our feet to help him achieve that.

Rowson got it right last week, when he showed exactly how the middle ground stands. It's why I so rarely comment anymore. As a nation we have eaten our own foundations, and continue to do so, while the people who at least have some answers to why we should stop doing that are ripped apart for daring to start discussing the real issues.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:25 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
I'm getting sick of all the disloyalty from so-called Labour people. If Corbyn fails it will be in large measure the fault of those who refused to give him a chance. The PLP needs to get in line with the membership. The LibDem parliamentary party got away from the membership and they ended up losing most of their members and most of their seats.

I regularly used to take a kicking, mainly Over There but also here on occasion, for my supposed blind loyalty to Miliband; but in comparison to the almost messianic fervor Corbyn has inspired in so many I now look like one of Ed's critics. RS, are you genuinely suggesting that it is disloyal to say that Corbyn and his team have stumbled a few times? I've not posted much recently partly because of access issues, but also because of the flaming if one dares to be less than ecstatic about JC.

So you don't give a shit about the PC, Trident, the fiscal thing? Frankly neither do I, but they were errors in judgment as they gave his critics easy ammo. If we continue to ignore these easy own goals then Labour are dead in the water.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:26 am

seeingclearly wrote:Why is the media intent on discussing a PLP meeting, which in all probability would never have been easy, even given the so called u-turn, rather than looking at the negative inflation situation, rather than just taking osbournes explanation that this is a good thing for people. It isn't, it shows our economy is doing sod all, we aren't Japan, we have next to non manufacturing product, and no flexibility in how we spend because there's so little money in the system now. But we have the PLP having 'shambolic' meetings in which they are shouting media constructed negatives at each other. Why aren't they attacking the government instead? I'm utterly tired of hearing the privy council nonsense, it's making something out of nothing, and there's enough confusion on. The economy anyway, and what has obviously happened is that after some differences of opinion some kind of consensus has been arrived at, why is that message not being put about? And arguments on Twitter between MPs and 'corbynistas' is not the same as MPs and Corbyn. They are allowing the media to set the narrative, and then railing at the new leadership. It was always clear that they'd make things difficult, our right leaning people, and they are doing. And giving the media exactly what they are looking for. And believe me I didn't vote at all on this, have been extremely sceptical about the leadership election in every way. It was my feeling that Watson would be an utter liability, couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the leadership candidates, and am still sick with disgust that the LP did not rally round Ed and insist on keeping him. And there are plenty out there who would agree. But I don't dislike Corbyn, and actually like John McDonnell and believe both are good people, principled and what the party needs. They are only a whisker away from Ed in what they want, and what is really shambolic is that the media line is being used by our own MPs, go and look at the accounts of the meeting if you don't believe me, and see how MP statements echo recent media opinion rather than the other way round. And carry on letting Osbourne get away with it. It just seems par for the course. Ignore the media when it suits and slavishly follow them when it suits. But bring very little analysis to what individual people are known to have said. They WANT Corbyn to fail, all the anti corbynites, and the media want Labour to fail. Even worse Cameron is heading our country towards being a one party nation, and we are, it seems, tripping over our feet to help him achieve that.

Rowson got it right last week, when he showed exactly how the middle ground stands. It's why I so rarely comment anymore. As a nation we have eaten our own foundations, and continue to do so, while the people who at least have some answers to why we should stop doing that are ripped apart for daring to start discussing the real issues.

Well said. I think you are right. There are some stupid people about that's for sure.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:31 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
I'm getting sick of all the disloyalty from so-called Labour people. If Corbyn fails it will be in large measure the fault of those who refused to give him a chance. The PLP needs to get in line with the membership. The LibDem parliamentary party got away from the membership and they ended up losing most of their members and most of their seats.
I regularly used to take a kicking, mainly Over There but also here on occasion, for my supposed blind loyalty to Miliband; but in comparison to the almost messianic fervor Corbyn has inspired in so many I now look like one of Ed's critics. RS, are you genuinely suggesting that it is disloyal to say that Corbyn and his team have stumbled a few times? I've not posted much recently partly because of access issues, but also because of the flaming if one dares to be less than ecstatic about JC.

So you don't give a shit about the PC, Trident, the fiscal thing? Frankly neither do I, but they were errors in judgment as they gave his critics easy ammo. If we continue to ignore these easy own goals then Labour are dead in the water.

Whatever is said will be used as ammo. Are you suggesting that no one says anything? (Tongue only half in cheek.)

The 'own goals' are only seen by those setting the narrative. Once they've been set then everyone has 'seen' them.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:39 am

I share your exasperation Robert, but I hope you are back here soon.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 11:55 am

Morning.
Mrs Ohso,seeing clearly and Mr Snozers,I couldn't agree more.
What a dreary bunch of people.Instead of trying to ensure Labour succeed they are doing their utmost to take a hatchet to Corbyn.
When do we hear the opinion of these naysayers on the thousands of people joining Labour since Corbyn WON the leadership election?
What have they got to say about the thousands of people waiting outside to hear him talk?
Who do they think would be doing better?Shame on the lot of them.
Even ftn has become a miserable and predictable place.
I am very cross.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:07 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
I'm getting sick of all the disloyalty from so-called Labour people. If Corbyn fails it will be in large measure the fault of those who refused to give him a chance. The PLP needs to get in line with the membership. The LibDem parliamentary party got away from the membership and they ended up losing most of their members and most of their seats.
I regularly used to take a kicking, mainly Over There but also here on occasion, for my supposed blind loyalty to Miliband; but in comparison to the almost messianic fervor Corbyn has inspired in so many I now look like one of Ed's critics. RS, are you genuinely suggesting that it is disloyal to say that Corbyn and his team have stumbled a few times? I've not posted much recently partly because of access issues, but also because of the flaming if one dares to be less than ecstatic about JC.

So you don't give a shit about the PC, Trident, the fiscal thing? Frankly neither do I, but they were errors in judgment as they gave his critics easy ammo. If we continue to ignore these easy own goals then Labour are dead in the water.
Whatever is said will be used as ammo. Are you suggesting that no one says anything? (Tongue only half in cheek.)

The 'own goals' are only seen by those setting the narrative. Once they've been set then everyone has 'seen' them.

Of course I'm not suggesting that, just suggesting that maybe a little forethought and prudence could be in order; we all saw the monstering Ed got, especially over that damned sandwich. Yes, I agree that others are setting the narrative, but Corbyn doesn't need to make it quite so easy for them.

I do, rather gingerly, have to ask you a similar question; are you suggesting that we should not be raising concerns about Corbyn's leadership style? I appreciate it is early days, but his footing has been far from sure and my concerns about Watson and Abbott seem increasingly warranted.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:12 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
I'm getting sick of all the disloyalty from so-called Labour people. If Corbyn fails it will be in large measure the fault of those who refused to give him a chance. The PLP needs to get in line with the membership. The LibDem parliamentary party got away from the membership and they ended up losing most of their members and most of their seats.
I regularly used to take a kicking, mainly Over There but also here on occasion, for my supposed blind loyalty to Miliband; but in comparison to the almost messianic fervor Corbyn has inspired in so many I now look like one of Ed's critics. RS, are you genuinely suggesting that it is disloyal to say that Corbyn and his team have stumbled a few times? I've not posted much recently partly because of access issues, but also because of the flaming if one dares to be less than ecstatic about JC.

So you don't give a shit about the PC, Trident, the fiscal thing? Frankly neither do I, but they were errors in judgment as they gave his critics easy ammo. If we continue to ignore these easy own goals then Labour are dead in the water.
This seems to be one of the problems about Corbyn. Everyone who supports him suffering from 'messianic fervour', everyone who opposes him is simply being a realist. (And I say that as someone who took a kicking for saying nice things about Burnham and Kendall at various times, and not necessarily from Corbyn supporters). And there is a lot of disloyalty. Corbyn is a new leader elected with huge support from the party. Anyone who joins in with the criticism now is giving the right ammunition. At least see how he does for six months before laying into him. Most leaders get some sort of honeymoon period to get themselves sorted. Corbyn was always going to come under sustained and vicious attack from the right. He deserves a bit of support from the left right now. If things go down the pan later on, well, then so be it.

The PC, Trident, fiscal things were trivial. If it weren't for those it would be something else. Cameron has in recent weeks shrugged off allegations of lying about a senior Tory's tax status and ignoring serious warnings about Andy Coulson (and then lying about those). He failed to mention the deficit in his conference speech, something Ed Milband was figuratively put through a woodchipper for. He had the brass neck to make a speech about eradicating poverty just as policies are about to come into force that all the independent evidence says will increase poverty. He's made more mistakes in a month than Corbyn has in a year, but virtually nothing is made of them because the media and the establishment knows which side its bread is buttered.

It's not just this place that's annoying me, it's the whole nature of political discourse at the moment. The way I see it, we have a bit of a chance at something different to choosing which flavour of neoliberalism we dislike least. And instead of embracing it, a lot of people are attacking it for not having New Labour's focus on media management. Frankly that gives me the urge to self-harm more than at any point in the last ten years, the GE included, because we're going to be stuck with it forever. Don't people understand? We're not even going to get anything as good as a Blair government again because everything has shifted to the right. The one hint of a proper leftwing revival and just about everyone who isn't suffering from 'messianic zeal' or 'religious fervour', or whatever the latest insult is, is trying to smother it in its cradle.

I'm going to have to go because it's affecting my health. Media management? I lived it for too long. It's nothing but dust. It'll choke you. Christ. Media management. Like staring at a molehill at the foot of Mont Blanc. Part of the problem. Nothing. Everything is about nothing. Dead. Just a lake of dust for as far as the eye can see.

"Everyone"?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:28 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:"Everyone"?

That's it? That's what you took away from the post?

There's a difference between 'stumbled' and 'a shambles'.

I must be writing in some sort of Finno-Ugric this morning, clearly unable to communicate.

Fine.[/quote]

Pretty much. As I suggested earlier it appears that any criticism of JC is perceived as evidence of craven disloyalty, rather than legitimate concern. Fair enough. I remember why I hadn't been posting, even looking in here, overmuch; seems I was right to do so, wrong to bother trying again.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:29 pm

Mann or Danczuk, who is winning the media appearance count? Tiresome.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:36 pm

Meanwhile, back in the real political world, Andy Slaughter wants to highlight divisions in the cabinet...

Labour Whips ✔ @labourwhips
UQ granted circa 1.15pm to @hammersmithandy to ask Gove whether he'll withdraw from Saudi penal systems contract
11:12 AM - 13 Oct 2015

According to the Times, Gove wants to withdraw. Hammond says he is being naive. Cameron wants the contract to continue.

It'll be interesting to see how Gove plays this without being disloyal to his boss...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:42 pm

Good morfternoon.

Cameron cancels prison contract with Saudi Arabia

My colleagues Nick Watt and Patrick Wintour are reporting that David Cameron has decided to cancel the controversial £5.9m prisons deal with Saudi (Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited

Brackets

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:44 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: I regularly used to take a kicking, mainly Over There but also here on occasion, for my supposed blind loyalty to Miliband; but in comparison to the almost messianic fervor Corbyn has inspired in so many I now look like one of Ed's critics. RS, are you genuinely suggesting that it is disloyal to say that Corbyn and his team have stumbled a few times? I've not posted much recently partly because of access issues, but also because of the flaming if one dares to be less than ecstatic about JC.

So you don't give a shit about the PC, Trident, the fiscal thing? Frankly neither do I, but they were errors in judgment as they gave his critics easy ammo. If we continue to ignore these easy own goals then Labour are dead in the water.
Whatever is said will be used as ammo. Are you suggesting that no one says anything? (Tongue only half in cheek.)

The 'own goals' are only seen by those setting the narrative. Once they've been set then everyone has 'seen' them.
Of course I'm not suggesting that, just suggesting that maybe a little forethought and prudence could be in order; we all saw the monstering Ed got, especially over that damned sandwich. Yes, I agree that others are setting the narrative, but Corbyn doesn't need to make it quite so easy for them.

I do, rather gingerly, have to ask you a similar question; are you suggesting that we should not be raising concerns about Corbyn's leadership style? I appreciate it is early days, but his footing has been far from sure and my concerns about Watson and Abbott seem increasingly warranted.

Absolutely we should be asking questions, but in an open hearted way. It's going to take a lot to swing things around to some kind of consensual way of doing politics, instead of the heirarchical model propped up by media narratives that we are used to. For instance, we are going to have to ask ourselves what narratives would suit us better as a nation, and how do we marry a different vision of democracy with new narratives to move to a politics in which we again have some kind of future rather than being stuck in an endlessly repetive unreal present. It can be done, but it means we need to frame things differently. Corbyns win means that a lot of us want that. I've moved from a position of extreme scepticism (largely because most of what I was seeing was more knee jerk reaction, very similar to the cyber at stuff) to one of cautious optimism that a process has been started that is what many people want. (I base this on some very unexpected people of my acquaintance having come out on Corbyns side.) it made me reappraise my own thinking, and take a much harder look, and I have to agree with what Rebecca just posted. It's also what has brought me out of hiding and lurking and to posting again.

You need not ask gingerly, I'm not for biting off people's heads, I'm just weary with the constant bickering over procedural matters when we should be framing things in terms of the common good. In this respect debate, even heated debate, is good, it gets away from the personality politics that we are pushed towards, and helps everyone understand what the issues are. Would people be looking further at what osbournes content is without this disagreement? My guess is it would have been barely noticed and most would be none the wiser. So the narrative should not be based on internal hostilities or media representations, but how we get past them.

We've got a government intent on some kind of reverse alchemy (turning everything good to shit). While stuffing their pockets. I'm tired of seeing everything good about us being dismantled, and believe there is considerable consensus on that. Infighting using Tory thinking doesn't help. We need to change the way WE frame things. Otherwise we are playing them at their game, and they will always win, because they have a stomach for it. The glory fest we've just witnessed bears testament to that, and the expressions of disgust I've heard from such a wide range of people says that their antics are far from popular. It's the absence of good politics and policies that has hollowed out our middle ground, so we need not just to oppose but to propose as well. This I believe is what Corbyn and co have already started. Reasserting what kind of society we want to belong to is a good start. We've got to beat them on our (the people) terms.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:45 pm

@RobertSnozers

The Privy Council thing is a perfect example of how Labour can't manage a hostile media. Corbyn did nothing wrong but got attacked anyway.

The Trident thing is a different problem. Some people will now not vote Labour because of it. The media is not the issue, the policy is. If you agree with Corbyn, like I do, this is an acceptable headache. He needs to argue his point and win.

The fiscal budget thing, however, is different. Having run on an anti-austerity platform, one would hope Corbyn and McDonnell had a good idea of what they agree with fiscally and what they don't and agreeing to Osborne's fiscal law one minute and not the next doesn't engender a great deal of confidence. If McDonnell suggested to the media he would support Osborne's fiscal charter without knowing exactly what was going to be in it, that doesn't engender much confidence either. The change of position without informing the PLP first is bound to upset MPs. These are party management issues rather than media management issues. I'm all for giving Corbyn a chance, but I don't think suggesting mistakes like these need to be avoided is unfair.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:50 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Cameron cancels prison contract with Saudi Arabia

My colleagues Nick Watt and Patrick Wintour are reporting that David Cameron has decided to cancel the controversial £5.9m prisons deal with Saudi (Politics Live, Guardian)
Edited

Brackets

Wow, that was quick work - gives Gove an easy answer to the UQ and gives Slaughter an opportunity to give Cameron and Hammond a good kicking.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:50 pm

The BBC TV news is reporting on the Saudi Arabia Karl Andree case - but no mention, so far, of the cancellation of the prisons contract.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:51 pm

I come here because it's the only place where I can be sure there are people sharing my despair at the current and last government.

The media are fiddling while Rome burns, and RS despairs because many Labour supporters, & MPs, want more fiddling.

I hope that isn't a misrepresentation of his views.

Seeingclearly and RS are right, have we learnt nothing from Ed's experience? It doesn't matter what Corbyn and McDonnell say, the MSM will find a way to use it against them.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 12:54 pm

gilsey wrote:I come here because it's the only place where I can be sure there are people sharing my despair at the current and last government.

The media are fiddling while Rome burns, and RS despairs because many Labour supporters, & MPs, want more fiddling.

I hope that isn't a misrepresentation of his views.

Seeingclearly and RS are right, have we learnt nothing from Ed's experience? It doesn't matter what Corbyn and McDonnell say, the MSM will find a way to use it against them.

It matters to me what they say - motivated by wishing them (and by extension an awful lot of other people) well.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:06 pm

Good-afternoon.
Outstanding commentary from everyone this morning.
No one leave, please, we can't do without you.

We're left-wingers, we value each contribution, we disagree with each other, we cooperate, make sure no one falls, argue, leave the room for awhile, do some work, cool off, come back to the group because it's how we make society fit to live in for everyone.

I remain friends and love people I disagree with, even over matters of considerable significance. You all helped teach me that. Do you know how valuable you all are to me because you've taught me this? I can't purchase anywhere what you all have given me with your time and contributions. Your teaching is priceless. I'm involved too. I read your work and write something too. I've learned the value of humility, remaining open to ideas I may not like. You all help me daily. Hopefully, I help more often than I don't. If not, thank you for your continued patience with me and I'll keep working on being more of a help than anything else.

I'm not flattering anyone, that's of no use at all to anyone here.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:07 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: This seems to be one of the problems about Corbyn. Everyone who supports him suffering from 'messianic fervour', everyone who opposes him is simply being a realist. (And I say that as someone who took a kicking for saying nice things about Burnham and Kendall at various times, and not necessarily from Corbyn supporters). And there is a lot of disloyalty. Corbyn is a new leader elected with huge support from the party. Anyone who joins in with the criticism now is giving the right ammunition. At least see how he does for six months before laying into him. Most leaders get some sort of honeymoon period to get themselves sorted. Corbyn was always going to come under sustained and vicious attack from the right. He deserves a bit of support from the left right now. If things go down the pan later on, well, then so be it.

The PC, Trident, fiscal things were trivial. If it weren't for those it would be something else. Cameron has in recent weeks shrugged off allegations of lying about a senior Tory's tax status and ignoring serious warnings about Andy Coulson (and then lying about those). He failed to mention the deficit in his conference speech, something Ed Milband was figuratively put through a woodchipper for. He had the brass neck to make a speech about eradicating poverty just as policies are about to come into force that all the independent evidence says will increase poverty. He's made more mistakes in a month than Corbyn has in a year, but virtually nothing is made of them because the media and the establishment knows which side its bread is buttered.

It's not just this place that's annoying me, it's the whole nature of political discourse at the moment. The way I see it, we have a bit of a chance at something different to choosing which flavour of neoliberalism we dislike least. And instead of embracing it, a lot of people are attacking it for not having New Labour's focus on media management. Frankly that gives me the urge to self-harm more than at any point in the last ten years, the GE included, because we're going to be stuck with it forever. Don't people understand? We're not even going to get anything as good as a Blair government again because everything has shifted to the right. The one hint of a proper leftwing revival and just about everyone who isn't suffering from 'messianic zeal' or 'religious fervour', or whatever the latest insult is, is trying to smother it in its cradle.

I'm going to have to go because it's affecting my health. Media management? I lived it for too long. It's nothing but dust. It'll choke you. Christ. Media management. Like staring at a molehill at the foot of Mont Blanc. Part of the problem. Nothing. Everything is about nothing. Dead. Just a lake of dust for as far as the eye can see.
"Everyone"?
That's it? That's what you took away from the post?

There's a difference between 'stumbled' and 'a shambles'.

I must be writing in some sort of Finno-Ugric this morning, clearly unable to communicate.

Fine.

Nevertheless, please stay. You are communicating well. Stumbling is fine, their 'side' of the party, their view as it were of how things could be has been stamped on for so long, and turning things around if you prefer, turning the ideological ship around so that the portholes show a different view is going to take time and then you've got to persuade people to take a look and see that things are not what we've been told, we are not on the titanic in fact, but being robbed blind of our passage and right to a cabin. Yours is one of the voices of reason and I couldn't agree more about media management. The way that the Labour years have been rewritten is an example of that in action. Yes, mistakes were made, but what government doesn't make mistakes? And there were always good people working alongside the climbers (dust makers) who did make some pretty good stuff happen too. Today many of those good people are gone, their roles removed completely, and something very damaging has replaced them. The dust is now piling up to a distressing degree. So stay and help make that clearer, because there are still people who buy into a logical solution to it all when there is none. We can't win a bent game, and in fact shouldn't be viewing the running of a nation in those terms at all.

I've probably said enough.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:19 pm

@ TheGrimSqueaker

Please don't go, either one of you, you're both exceptional contributors.
If either of you don't write here we all lose.
TheGrimSqueaker, I ask you read RobertSnozers' post again, the depth of feeling is considerable.
Forgive me my presumption asking this favour from you.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:26 pm

Good to see Corbyn in the HoC for the UQ

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:27 pm

Just a thought at this point:

Of course there will be "missteps" and mistakes by any new leadership (there were actually quite a few in the early Blair years, you know) and all the more so with people as "untested" as Corbyn and his team are. Given that, what is arguably really noteworthy is that nothing has gone really badly wrong, thus leaving the MSM to inflate trivia out of all importance.

(I will agree that suddenly changing the "line" on the fiscal charter doesn't look good, and MPs have a legitimate reason to feel miffed there - but even this is a storm in a teacup really)

Think back to what was predicted by Very Serious People prior to Sept 12, shall we? Jez would be deposed within weeks, he would never be able to put a remotely sensible shadow team together, there would be high profile defections almost instantly, Cameron would eat him alive and spit him out at his first PMQs, conference would be a bloodbath, Labour would drop below 30 per cent (some even said 20 per cent) in the polls. And so on and drearily on and on.

Most of the MSM deeply resented Ed being Labour leader, never mind Jeremy. They believed that once they had helped Labour to defeat at the last GE, the party and its new leader would do their bidding again. This having failed to happen in spectacular fashion, they are now almost crazed with bitterness and resentment (this is IMO the underlying reason why so many supposedly "left liberal" pundits hailed Cameron as the new social democratic messiah last week) If the Labour party will not bend to their will (and their horror at the influx of new members is part of the same thing) then it must be destroyed. Simples.

Yes, obvious own goals should be avoided. Beyond that and cultivating the few people in the media who are prepared to at least given them a hearing, however, there is little the present leadership can do. Or, many of us would argue, should do.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:39 pm

http://labourlist.org/2015/10/full-text ... l-charter/

There is a significant difference between the charter and the mandate which the Labour Party agreed to support in January in that the Government’s proposal to require a continuing surplus on public sector net borrowing constrains the ability to borrow for future capital investment, a key plank of Labour’s growth strategy and one supported by the great majority of mainstream economists.
......
At that stage, my approach was to show the inherent weaknesses of the Chancellor’s approach, the charter and its various get out clauses.
I suggested we vote for it nevertheless in support of the principle of tackling the deficit but to demonstrate that our approach would not involve austerity measures and we would seek to exclude capital investment from its severe and arbitrary constraints.
Because the debate on Wednesday is upon an order, we are unable to table a reasoned amendment to make that position clear. Indeed the initial clerk’s advice is that it may not be eligible even for publication.
I believe that since my initial reaction matters have moved on and we should now vote against the order.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:41 pm

Willow904 wrote:
September’s inflation rate is used to calculate a range of benefits payments in the UK.

Consumer expert Paul Lewis reports that these payments will now be frozen, as will other payments linked to the headline inflation rate.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/liv ... 4a06987add" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Osborne can talk it up all he likes. This inflation figure is not good news for people dependent on pensions or benefits and will eventually drag down pay settlements meaning incomes will get tighter and if people fear low wage rises going forward, they will be more reluctant to borrow as well. Throw in Osborne's tax credit cuts and it's hard to see where growth is going to come from next year. It may not be all out deflation, but it's definitely stagnation.

I might be misremembering but didn't Osborne, under the Conservative-led Coalition Government, detach Benefits Uprating from being tethered to the September inflation figures at the same time as they switched from an RPI to CPI measure? I can't remember whether or not it was ever made clear on what the new tether would be, mind...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:43 pm

The BBC is now saying (linked to an item on the Karl Andree issue) that David Cameron is "said to be thinking about" the prisons contract's possible cancellation. He's (DC) apparently written to the Saudi government re Karl Andree. What's the betting that, if he gets a "result", he'll say that the Saudis have demonstrated their reasonableness and humaneness and so it's business as usual?

Edited to add

I'm confused now! I'll go with the latest report over at Politics Live (Guardian). It is cancelled.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 1:54 pm

Good evening from Shanghai Airport on my way home after an interesting work trip to China

For all the obvious concerns over the rise of China, the people I have been with are warm, funny, generous and curious. They have little of the cynicism that pervades the west

If I was younger I would like to experience living there for a while to see what it is really like

On this discussion today, I would to ask all the contributors to count to 10 and not step away from the forum. In the whole we agree on things but the way to get there may differ a bit

The only cautionary note is to not to pander to the appallingness of the MSM in the UK at the moment. It is truly awful and we know why...it is due to the fact that Miliband and now Corbyn will not let them set the agenda for Labour any longer....the criticisms we see on them are truly staggering in their lack of intellectual rigour. They should be ignored, and when the chance arises their ownership exposed to the glare of the public and the law

The people I really am beginning to hate though are some of the MPs in the PLP who seem not to understand the change of the party direction. A lot have maintained their dignity in defeat and hopefully we shall see them return with renewed vigour to argue their cases both internally and externally

I think there are a few people who are now up for deselection...not because they oppose the leadership (that is fine and the party needs its dissenters) but in how they go about doing it by being the sycophantic tools of the press - we are not talking about many but we know who they are don't we?

Finally, on this point of the so-called U-turn. It is a mistake as has been talked about here - but from the sense that he never should have said it because we know both him and Corbyn oppose it in reality

In some ways it worked because there was some heat off this subject during Conference season -although there were enough other things for the moaners to moan about. I think Trident had less of a hook with the voters than the MSM believed

I do sympathise with him because there were enough people, including not a few on here, starting to say that him and Corbyn had to immediately make a statement on the economy as it was sooooo important to do so 5 years before the next election. I guess he thought he could do this because he only intends to try to balance the books on current account spending and exclude investment and he rushed to do in an attempt to appease the howls of the right. Done with good intentions but an error nonetheless. It does give him more space now to formulate a policy without being hemmed in by a Tory idea

Osborne is going to break his commitment in all likelihood and if he does then Labour will also be in a stronger position to attack him if they oppose this stupid political stunt

Again though we have the intellectual vacuum that is Leslie spout on about 'credibility' when this is an extreme ideological right-wing attack from Osborne on the public sector. Any person who supports Osborne and is on the Labour benches should leave now...if anyone defies the whip and supports the Tories on such a key piece of fundamental legislation like this should be chucked out of the PLP so they can go and sit on the Tory benches - with the inevitable loss of their seat in 2020

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 2:02 pm

@howsillyofme1

Safe journey. I hope you've brought us all back a stick of rock.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 2:08 pm

@LC some remain to be set by the CPI rate of inflation-DLA/AA/CA ,the support group component and related premiums in means tested benefits,therefore frozen.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 2:08 pm

PorFavor wrote:@howsillyofme1

Safe journey. I hope you've brought us all back a stick of rock.

Thanks PF.....I didn't bring rock but something squidgy and strange looking that was presented to me at a meal last night....I stuffed it in my bag thinking about you guys

It may be jellyfish but I cannot be sure!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Tue 13 Oct, 2015 2:10 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I share your exasperation Robert, but I hope you are back here soon.

Me too.