Weekend Edition - Saturday/Sunday 22nd/23rd August

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 1:32 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:For the EM groupies.

I know he said he wouldn't intervene in the leadership contest, but is that a slight Corbynesque beard he's sporting there?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 1:37 pm

That has been commented on

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 1:47 pm

@Willow904

Hello.

No - I can't say that I'm greatly fired up over any of the leadership contenders.

My original thinking was to vote for Yvette Cooper (as an Ed Miliband continuity\loyalty\competence leader). Andy Burnham wafts in the wind too much, lately, although he scores quite highly on the Ed Milibandometer. I veered towards Jeremy Corbyn as much out of despair as anything else, but I'm veering away now (but to where?). I think he's going to win it, though, and it might do Labour some good to have him as a relatively short-term leader. Labour could consolidate where its soul really lies (as I think it was showing healthy signs of doing under EM) as Jeremy Corbyn, if he behaves as he says he will, could act as one of those pebble polisher\tumbler\sifter machines.

Although, of course, we'd have to go through all this malarkey again.

I'd like Ed Miliband back, at heart. I think he probably peaked too soon, in terms of taking on the leadership when he did. One innings of the "right" brother would have seen him (EM) all right, I reckon.

But I will vote, one way or another. It'll be, at present, between YC (and less likely, for all the difference I think that will make) JC. And, yes, Angela Eagle, still, for Deputy.

Edited

"its" for "it's"

I'm cracking up . . .

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 2:00 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Good-afternoon, everyone.
I've not voted yet.
Waiting to see how the contenders perform or just can't make up your mind?

I don't understand factions within the Labour party.
Disagreement is normal, I'd go so far as to say it's necessary.
Name-calling, othering and threats of irreparable schism confuse me.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 2:00 pm

utopiandreams wrote:@ephemerid

May I ask if the submariner is short, ephe? I don't want to make fun, it's just that those I've known have been, which makes perfect sense.

I agree with what you say about IDS, nevertheless aside of his incompetence, UC for example, Dave and George will know full well how much his reforms are costing, i.e not saving money as broadcast to an unknowing (I hesitate to use ignorant) populus. Dave is a classic example of this when he spouts the savings from the dispatch box. What I'm really saying is not that IDS deserves any excuse, I hate him as much as the rest of you, but can we at least agree that Dave and George are deserving of as much, possibly more in my book, of our anger.

Postscript: when I speak of costs I also mean societal and to the individuals caught in the melee.

My knowledge of submariners is as follows -

Nephew - based in Faslane; works in both nuclear-powered subs and subs carrying nuclear missiles (sometimes subs that are both and sometimes subs that are neither) and has rarely been on board an actual ship in a 10-year career.
He is 6'3"

Nearly son - not a submariner; technical and security specialist who occasionally works on board ship and in subs; usually based in a "stone frigate" (on land!) He is currently serving in a sub temporarily.
He is 6'2"

There is also a legend that all nuke submariners only ever have girl children. My nephew has 3 sons.

As far as I know, there are only restrictions on height, torso/height ratio, and limb length, in servicemen who train to be pilots; that's because of ejector seats and whatnot I understand......

And on Cameron and Osborne being as deserving of IDS of any opprobrium (I LOVE that word!) we can heap upon them, I heartily concur.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 2:05 pm

PorFavor wrote:@Willow904

Hello.

No - I can't say that I'm greatly fired up over any of the leadership contenders.

My original thinking was to vote for Yvette Cooper (as an Ed Miliband continuity\loyalty\competence leader). Andy Burnham wafts in the wind too much, lately, although he scores quite highly on the Ed Milibandometer. I veered towards Jeremy Corbyn as much out of despair as anything else, but I'm veering away now (but to where?). I think he's going to win it, though, and it might do Labour some good to have him as a relatively short-term leader. Labour could consolidate where its soul really lies (as I think it was showing healthy signs of doing under EM) as Jeremy Corbyn, if he behaves as he says he will, could act as one of those pebble polisher\tumbler\sifter machines.

Although, of course, we'd have to go through all this malarkey again.

I'd like Ed Miliband back, at heart. I think he probably peaked too soon, in terms of taking on the leadership when he did. One innings of the "right" brother would have seen him (EM) all right, I reckon.

But I will vote, one way or another. It'll be, at present, between YC (and less likely, for all the difference I think that will make) JC. And, yes, Angela Eagle, still, for Deputy.

Edited

"its" for "it's"

I'm cracking up . . .

Thank you, Porfavor, there's much I agree with in your post.
I also agree with Willow's posts here today.
I will vote.
Regardless of the outcome of that vote, I'll continue supporting the Labour party.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 2:16 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Just thinking about the way that the Tories choose their leader - MPs only vote on early rounds and only when it's down to the last two do they get members involved.

Wondering whether the process should be the other way round given that what they're doing is to vote in the leader - not only of the party in general but of the Parliamentary party in particular.

So...candidates put themselves up for election by the members and, say, the three or four that come out top of the list, are then subject to the vote by the MPs themselves and only them. After all it's that leader who they're going to have to work with in the Commons.

Would that work?

The historical record & current events do nothing but confirm the Tory party likes only a few making decisions for many regardless of their responsibilities in government.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 2:29 pm

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

Despite the title, there is some suggestion in this article that Labour are aware of the dangers of having their electoral system called into doubt and are starting to close ranks over it somewhat. After the earlier article I'm relieved to see Burnham distance himself from any kind of legal challenge:

It is understood, however, that Burnham has privately ruled out such a move.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:01 pm

Oh - an afterthought -

Unfair on him though it may be, I think the Mid Staffs thing will haunt Andy Burnham and he doesn't seem very adept at dealing with it. If he were, it wouldn't be so important. Whereas I think that any jibes aimed at Yvette Cooper re being "Mrs Balls" would be water off a duck's back. In fact, I think she'd be better at deflecting most artillery (yes, even ATOS) than Andy Burnham would be.

Edited

"though" for "thought"

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:15 pm

PorFavor wrote:Oh - an afterthought -

Unfair on him thought it may be, I think the Mid Staffs thing will haunt Andy Burnham and he doesn't seem very adept at dealing with it. If he were, it wouldn't be so important. Whereas I think that any jibes aimed at Yvette Cooper re being "Mrs Balls" would be water off a duck's back. In fact, I think she'd be better at deflecting most artillery (yes, even ATOS) than Andy Burnham would be.

You're going to make me regret putting Burnham first!

I do think Cooper would give Cameron a rough time, she's pretty smart. She just didn't grab me enough during the campaign. Oh and what other people see as flip, flopping in Burnham, I see as actually listening and responding to evidence and constructive criticism. I view changing your mind as more facts come to light as a strength, not a weakness. Of course, he could just being saying what he thinks people want to hear, but that's not how he comes across to me. I have quite a few YC supporters on my twitter feed. She may do better than expected.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:25 pm

Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:28 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

Yes. Has she got any children do you know? And the grandee thing is a problem . . .

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:31 pm

I was speaking to the chap opposite me earlier, we can be worse than a couple of old dears having a natter; I have Les Dawson and Roy Barraclough in mind. Oh yes it was Hale and Pace I'd thought of earlier. Anyway amongst the many topics covered I mentioned the boiler engineer and what transpired the other day. Careful utopian you've already seen what speaking of politics can do, nevertheless felt safe enough; we have attended police/council meetings and are equally outspoken. I am pleased to report that he thinks similarly as the rest of us regarding IDS, Dave and George and no I was not going to hold him back! However I was disappointed to learn that he doesn't and has never voted. 'And there was me thinking we had similar views. Mind you he was fairly dismissive of past Labour governments too, but again I largely agree as well you know.

I assume he is a widower like myself, not that we've ever spoken of such things but does not partake of the herb as I. He's at least ten years my senior so an infant during the war. I'm guessing his daughter may have; I've never met her but have seen her on the odd occasion. She has bright green hair and clothes suggestive of having stepped out of a commune (rather bold assertion, utopian). Let's just say that he's a waste not and want not sort of guy, a bit like me in that regard, possibly more of a make do and mend than myself, although I have been there. He's also been self-employed much of his life and has also had craft based shops.

Anyway, and this is tragic, he asked that I was supportive and understanding of a lady who has recently moved in below me. There was a couple but I haven't seen him for a few days. She was sat outside her flat smoking a cigarette (no smoking indoors - I'm lucky in that regard having moved in before the current owners bought the place) and seemingly down. Her bloke has committed suicide. Apart from the obvious commiserations, having been there myself amongst other things did remark that it is not a purely selfish act, you really do believe the world is better without you. Nevertheless that is rarely the case, it is a grotesque fearsome tragedy for those left behind. Obviously I cannot impose, we've only exchanged a few words on a couple of occasions, but I shall be as mindful and supportive as possible. Oh yeah, another observation was that excepting youngsters moving into these flats, quite a high turnover, everybody moving in has a history; they have not come here by choice.

One final word on suicide, not so much for regulars but maybe the odd person looking in. People attempting suicide are rarely seeking attention, those that threaten maybe. I've done it myself before now and still cannot believe I was found let alone saved. What I can say is that when I came to I was speaking Portuguese... and had wet myself. The pain came later. I just went to work as usual the following day and one of my workmates noticed the bruising on my neck. I didn't respond when he asked about it, just adjusted my collar. I suppose I hoped he thought it were the result of some sex play or other. Thankfully it was never spoken of again.

I appreciate there are some attention seeking drama queens and quite frankly I have little patience for them, one in particular; perhaps I should as they're obviously depressed but I cannot pander to them. Perhaps I'm wiser than I once was and would be more able to cope. Many moons ago I knew a French couple, she was at uni and he, well he had followed. He disapproved of how well she got on with others and was always slashing his wrists. We lived nearby. Apart from the mess you get fed up dealing with the outcome, especially when it's frequent. I have to be honest I got so annoyed that I told him if he was serious to do it like so. I hope he never actually did.

Should this deserve moving or deletion then so be it. I'll try to be more light-hearted now... and sorry, yahyah, not exactly good news.

Edit: finally got round to the typos as the post still stands.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:39 pm

PorFavor wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)
Yes. Has she got any children do you know? And the grandee thing is a problem . . .

Yes, Ed and Yvette have three children - and seem to be a very happy family tbf to them

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:41 pm

@PorFavor

Oh go on then a little levity. Was it Toby who mentioned Yvette with a beard? I immediately thought, 'Ugh, hairy Balls'. Can say it now given your post?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:42 pm

Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton 1h1 hour ago
Robert Hutton retweeted Philip Cowley
"Technically, I am still a member of the Green party."

Philip Cowley
‏@philipjcowley
Man who is in party A denied vote for leader of party B should not really be a story... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 65967.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

The article linked to - by the Green member who doesn't feel they are really a proper member - reads as so self indulgent I thought it was a parody at first. But no - it's real.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton 1h1 hour ago
Robert Hutton retweeted Philip Cowley
"Technically, I am still a member of the Green party."

Philip Cowley
‏@philipjcowley
Man who is in party A denied vote for leader of party B should not really be a story... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 65967.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
The article linked to - by the Green member who doesn't feel they are really a proper member - reads as so self indulgent I thought it was a parody at first. But no - it's real.

When anyone uses "technically" it means "Well, yeah you're right but I;m trying to squirm out of it"

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:50 pm

: Green Facebook Friend.jpg (62.39 KiB) Viewed 5202 times

Interesting argument being used here. And they appear to be saying they've been told by the Greens it's OK to vote in the Labour leadership.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:53 pm

Mm. I was trying to learn to love Greens. But wanting their organic cake and to eat it as well ?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:53 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

His campaign recently has not been a triumph.

"I can serve under Jeremy (but he is elected by Tory entryists)."

A couple of candidates have shown leadership potential. Burnham is not one of them.

In ordinary times, the soft left candidate is the best placed strategically to win (see Miliband). His weakness as a candidate has let in Corbyn. Why he thought running as an outsider would work, when he has done nothing but work in Westminster since leaving University and never defied the party whip ever is a mystery. You won't win just because you have a scouse accent.

I don't think the evil grandees do think Labour can go back to where it was anytime soon. Sadly.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:54 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)
Yes. Has she got any children do you know? And the grandee thing is a problem . . .
Yes, Ed and Yvette have three children - and seem to be a very happy family tbf to them

I was being sarcastic - but thanks for the information, anyway!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:57 pm

yahyah wrote:Mm. I was trying to learn to love Greens. But wanting their organic cake and to eat it as well ?

Yeah. I actually think the argument and action shown by that Facebook poster is just wrong - and also by the bloke who wrote the Indy article.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 3:59 pm

Husband has finally voted
Corbyn 1, Burnham 2, Cooper 3,
Watson, 1, Creasy 2, Eagle 3,

Odd to think that a month or so ago he was an enthusiastic Cooper fan.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:06 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Green Facebook Friend.jpg
Interesting argument being used here. And they appear to be saying they've been told by the Greens it's OK to vote in the Labour leadership.

Signing up to vote requires people to state they don't belong to another party. Lying in order to participate is ethically wrong, regardless of motivation. I can't believe the Greens would ever endorse such behaviour, but then I couldn't believe the Greens would use Tory lies and propaganda against another party either. I'm not suggesting they should be thrown in jail or anything, just be prepared to forfeit their 3 quid and maybe refrain from boasting about what is clearly an act of deception. I honestly thought Green party supporters were better than this.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:09 pm

Off on a tangent.

Mr Riots and I are more than a little disappointed that we were too late to snap up a dinky little tractor that's been done up and put on sale in our favourite garden / machinery centre. It's 42 years old but runs like a dream now ... and would have been just perfect for getting the big logs up from down in the boggy woods. It had just been sold for £500 before we saw it this morning .......................... Such is life.

Today is a grizzly drizzly day.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:11 pm

I see the ongoing saga of the Danczuk's self publicity & sex lives is still plodding on.

Am too cynical, can't help thinking Mrs D's latest outpouring is to up her fees for scantily clad pics.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:13 pm

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Green Facebook Friend.jpg
Interesting argument being used here. And they appear to be saying they've been told by the Greens it's OK to vote in the Labour leadership.
Signing up to vote requires people to state they don't belong to another party. Lying in order to participate is ethically wrong, regardless of motivation. I can't believe the Greens would ever endorse such behaviour, but then I couldn't believe the Greens would use Tory lies and propaganda against another party either. I'm not suggesting they should be thrown in jail or anything, just be prepared to forfeit their 3 quid and maybe refrain from boasting about what is clearly an act of deception. I honestly thought Green party supporters were better than this.

I can't honestly say I did

Still, most of them must be decent surely ?
We must live in hope.

& maybe I've missed it, but has Cameron been cornered by the media about Tory MPs and councillors cheating by applying ?

Surely Cameron should denounce them for interfering in the democracy of another party and have them thrown out of the Tory party ?

Have I just missed it, or are the media not insisting the cheats are held to account ?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

His campaign recently has not been a triumph.

"I can serve under Jeremy (but he is elected by Tory entryists)."

A couple of candidates have shown leadership potential. Burnham is not one of them.

In ordinary times, the soft left candidate is the best placed strategically to win (see Miliband). His weakness as a candidate has let in Corbyn. Why he thought running as an outsider would work, when he has done nothing but work in Westminster since leaving University and never defied the party whip ever is a mystery. You won't win just because you have a scouse accent.

I don't think the evil grandees do think Labour can go back to where it was anytime soon. Sadly.

Let's get this clear Hugo - I think very very few people in the Labour party (including at the top echelons) are "evil".

Maybe the MP for Rochdale, and even that is a bit of a stretch?

I *do* think that too many of them have allowed themselves to get disastrously out of touch with both the wider party and the bigger constituency out there that is generally sympathetic to Labour. Comparisons with the 1980s keep being made, but the danger there was being driven into a marginalised proletarian ghetto in the manner of the French Communist Party. The existensial threat that faces the party today - PASOKification - is a rather different animal, and what happened in Scotland shows it is a chillingly realistic scenario.

As somebody said to me recently "if the Labour party is to die, I would rather it was with a bang not a whimper". I don't think death is anywhere near inevitable - hell, I don't even think the 2020 GE is lost - but its sentiments like that fuelling Corbynmania.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:19 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Off on a tangent.

Mr Riots and I are more than a little disappointed that we were too late to snap up a dinky little tractor that's been done up and put on sale in our favourite garden / machinery centre. It's 42 years old but runs like a dream now ... and would have been just perfect for getting the big logs up from down in the boggy woods. It had just been sold for £500 before we saw it this morning .......................... Such is life.

Today is a grizzly drizzly day.

How about one of those lovely big horses, there's a chap round here who uses one for logging ?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:21 pm

cards on table.

1) I don't think any of the Labour leader contenders are "electable".
2) I don't want to vote for any of them.
3) Corbyn at least means crisis - which is required to bring about fundamental change.
4) Terrible in the short term but I think much better in the long term. And the alternative is equally terrible (see 1).
5) I hate the fact that Thatcher and her aftermath brought the country so far to the right that we consider Labour to be left at all.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:23 pm

yahyah wrote: Have I just missed it, or are the media not insisting the cheats are held to account ?

Of course not - it gives them a story - it makes politics interesting in the same way that they want Corbyn to win.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:24 pm

Well, today started hot and sunny. Just had a massive peal of thunder, but the sun has also come back out again. At least the weather's never dull, eh?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:27 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

His campaign recently has not been a triumph.

"I can serve under Jeremy (but he is elected by Tory entryists)."

A couple of candidates have shown leadership potential. Burnham is not one of them.

In ordinary times, the soft left candidate is the best placed strategically to win (see Miliband). His weakness as a candidate has let in Corbyn. Why he thought running as an outsider would work, when he has done nothing but work in Westminster since leaving University and never defied the party whip ever is a mystery. You won't win just because you have a scouse accent.

I don't think the evil grandees do think Labour can go back to where it was anytime soon. Sadly.
Let's get this clear Hugo - I think very very few people in the Labour party (including at the top echelons) are "evil".

Maybe the MP for Rochdale, and even that is a bit of a stretch?

I *do* think that too many of them have allowed themselves to get disastrously out of touch with both the wider party and the bigger constituency out there that is generally sympathetic to Labour. Comparisons with the 1980s keep being made, but the danger there was being driven into a marginalised proletarian ghetto in the manner of the French Communist Party. The existensial threat that faces the party today - PASOKification - is a rather different animal, and what happened in Scotland shows it is a chillingly realistic scenario.

As somebody said to me recently "if the Labour party is to die, I would rather it was with a bang not a whimper". I don't think death is anywhere near inevitable - hell, I don't even think the 2020 GE is lost - but its sentiments like that fuelling Corbynmania.

Nah.

PASOK were

1. Corrupt
2. Imposed austerity that led to 28% Greek unemployment (about 7.5m in UK terms)
3. Operating in a proportional system

The prospects of Labour losing out to a party further left (who? The Greens?!?) Is precisely zero. The evidence of a need to shift further left is just not there. ( For the avoidance of doubt my objection to Corbyn is on the substance, not his electability.)

I do however agree that the sentiment in your last paragraph is very powerful.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:27 pm

In contrast to my football team at the moment, refitman

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:28 pm

refitman wrote:Well, today started hot and sunny. Just had a massive peal of thunder, but the sun has also come back out again. At least the weather's never dull, eh?

All those conflicting air masses. Location, location, location.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Burnham seems to understand what lies behind Jezzamania and that even if JC doesnt win, it needs to be recognised and accomodated if Labour is to succeed.

I'm not so sure that Cooper does - and too much of her support seems to be from establishment "grandees" who think things can just go back to how they were if she wins.

Oh, and can she not constantly mention that she is a woman please? WE KNOW, YVETTE, WE KNOW

(Kendall hasn't done that nearly as much, tbf to her)

His campaign recently has not been a triumph.

"I can serve under Jeremy (but he is elected by Tory entryists)."

A couple of candidates have shown leadership potential. Burnham is not one of them.

In ordinary times, the soft left candidate is the best placed strategically to win (see Miliband). His weakness as a candidate has let in Corbyn. Why he thought running as an outsider would work, when he has done nothing but work in Westminster since leaving University and never defied the party whip ever is a mystery. You won't win just because you have a scouse accent.

I don't think the evil grandees do think Labour can go back to where it was anytime soon. Sadly.
Let's get this clear Hugo - I think very very few people in the Labour party (including at the top echelons) are "evil".

Maybe the MP for Rochdale, and even that is a bit of a stretch?

I *do* think that too many of them have allowed themselves to get disastrously out of touch with both the wider party and the bigger constituency out there that is generally sympathetic to Labour. Comparisons with the 1980s keep being made, but the danger there was being driven into a marginalised proletarian ghetto in the manner of the French Communist Party. The existensial threat that faces the party today - PASOKification - is a rather different animal, and what happened in Scotland shows it is a chillingly realistic scenario.

As somebody said to me recently "if the Labour party is to die, I would rather it was with a bang not a whimper". I don't think death is anywhere near inevitable - hell, I don't even think the 2020 GE is lost - but its sentiments like that fuelling Corbynmania.

I think you are completely wrong in that analysis, the threat is not PASOKification, it is that Labour is about to become an unelectable left wing mess.

The reasons PASOK fell from power because it pushed a right wing agenda when for the majority of Greeks their living standards were collapsing. We are not even close to that in the UK.

UKIP are the existential threat to Labour and they are a right wing party. For the scenario you are proposing to apply to the UK you would need to see UKIP nowhere and Greens/TUSC votes in the high teens and 10% respectively.

Polls tell us Labour lost because it wasn't trusted on the economy and because it was seen as a soft touch on welfare (although the latter finding needs care).

When Osborne compares the UK to Greece we call him out for his bollocks, let us not allow wishful thinking lead us into the same trap.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 4:58 pm

UKIP pose as a "real Labour" alternative in anti-Tory areas.

That is how they nearly won the Heywood and Middleton by-election just weeks after Ed Balls made an almost comically pro-austerity speech at the Labour conference (which they exploited shamelessly, rushing out "we will defend your benefits" leaflets after Ed B pledged to freeze CB)

Labour have just been wiped out by an SNP who were PERCIEVED as to their left and anti-austerity (whatever the reality) and if they went into terminal decline, its not just UKIP who would benefit - but Plaid the Greens and even the LibDems (who, under Farron, are set to pitch themselves way to the left of Blairism) would feast on the corpse too. There is not one part of the Labour coalition that is "safe", in extremis.

If people want to vote for a plastic insincere political puppet who just does what media plutocrats tell them, they already have Cameron. The prospects for Labour in "me-tooism" are now less than zero, and (in contrast to post-1983 or even 1992) there is little room for the party to move even further right without its very existence coming into question. The political culture in the "Westminster bubble" is sick, delusional and widely reviled.

Voting for Corbyn may not be the answer, but it is a response to a profound question - "what is the Labour party *for* in the 21st century"? The very question that both Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasy asked in the days and weeks after the GE, which alone marks them out as possible future leaders

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:01 pm

yahyah wrote:I see the ongoing saga of the Danczuk's self publicity & sex lives is still plodding on.

Am too cynical, can't help thinking Mrs D's latest outpouring is to up her fees for scantily clad pics.

The Danczuk's give a clear understanding of what is meant by a dysfunctional family.

I feel sorry for their boys.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:03 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:UKIP pose as a "real Labour" alternative in anti-Tory areas.

That is how they nearly won the Heywood and Middleton by-election just weeks after Ed Balls made an almost comically pro-austerity speech at the Labour conference (which they exploited shamelessly, rushing out "we will defend your benefits" leaflets after Ed B pledged to freeze CB)

Labour have just been wiped out by an SNP who were PERCIEVED as to their left and anti-austerity (whatever the reality) and if they went into terminal decline, its not just UKIP who would benefit - but Plaid the Greens and even the LibDems (who, under Farron, are set to pitch themselves way to the left of Blairism) would feast on the corpse too. There is not one part of the Labour coalition that is "safe", in extremis.

If people want to vote for a plastic insincere political puppet who just does what media plutocrats tell them, they already have Cameron. The prospects for Labour in "me-tooism" are now less than zero, and (in contrast to post-1983 or even 1992) there is little room for the party to move even further right without its very existence coming into question. The political culture in the "Westminster bubble" is sick, delusional and widely reviled.

Voting for Corbyn may not be the answer, but it is a response to a profound question - "what is the Labour party *for* in the 21st century"? The very question that both Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasy asked in the days and weeks after he GE, which alone marks them out as possible future leaders

Do you know, if the LibDems went blue in the face swearing they wouldn't go in with the Tories again, I wouldn't believe them.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:08 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
refitman wrote:Well, today started hot and sunny. Just had a massive peal of thunder, but the sun has also come back out again. At least the weather's never dull, eh?
All those conflicting air masses. Location, location, location.

I've been putting cream on my sunburned knees

Some huge clouds appearing now, but it's still very warm...
I've mowed the grass in case we do get rain tomorrow. That usually means we won't get much.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:09 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
refitman wrote:Well, today started hot and sunny. Just had a massive peal of thunder, but the sun has also come back out again. At least the weather's never dull, eh?
All those conflicting air masses. Location, location, location.
I've been putting cream on my sunburned knees

Some huge clouds appearing now, but it's still very warm...
I've mowed the grass in case we do get rain tomorrow. That usually means we won't get much.

Sunburned knees ? Mine have gone rusty it's been so wet recently...er, all summer.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:15 pm

I'm surprised the Guardian allows comments saying Labour are rigging the election.
Isn't that defamatory ?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Voting for Corbyn may not be the answer, but it is a response to a profound question - "what is the Labour party *for* in the 21st century"? The very question that both Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasy asked in the days and weeks after the GE, which alone marks them out as possible future leaders

I think statements like that, which we have heard a lot from the mainstream candidates are part of the problem. It sounds like you are saying something big and profound, but when you ask for specifics you find there is nothing there.

What Labour is for is to be a mainstream social democratic party in the European tradition that wins elections, thereby helping the poorest. That is what it has tried to be in all our lives.

It now seems to want to stop being that.

I am not at all convinced that it needs to move radically further left in order to prevent its " PASOK-ification" by ......

Ukips???!!!!???

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:UKIP pose as a "real Labour" alternative in anti-Tory areas.

That is how they nearly won the Heywood and Middleton by-election just weeks after Ed Balls made an almost comically pro-austerity speech at the Labour conference (which they exploited shamelessly, rushing out "we will defend your benefits" leaflets after Ed B pledged to freeze CB)

Labour have just been wiped out by an SNP who were PERCIEVED as to their left and anti-austerity (whatever the reality) and if they went into terminal decline, its not just UKIP who would benefit - but Plaid the Greens and even the LibDems (who, under Farron, are set to pitch themselves way to the left of Blairism) would feast on the corpse too. There is not one part of the Labour coalition that is "safe", in extremis.

If people want to vote for a plastic insincere political puppet who just does what media plutocrats tell them, they already have Cameron. The prospects for Labour in "me-tooism" are now less than zero, and (in contrast to post-1983 or even 1992) there is little room for the party to move even further right without its very existence coming into question. The political culture in the "Westminster bubble" is sick, delusional and widely reviled.

Voting for Corbyn may not be the answer, but it is a response to a profound question - "what is the Labour party *for* in the 21st century"? The very question that both Dan Jarvis and Stella Creasy asked in the days and weeks after the GE, which alone marks them out as possible future leaders

No UKIP don't pose as real Labour, they pose as the - "stop those filthy immigrants stealing your jobs and abusing your kids party"

Hence those disgusting adverts linking child abuse and ethnicity.

The Labour loves welfare scroungers party.

They do not stand as a left wing alternative to Labour.

Jarvis and Creasy both screwed it up. Both of them could have stood and won. They probably won't get a second chance.

Also why do you think I believe in Labour me-too-ism. I don't and really only Kendall was advocating that approach.

You want a slogan - Labour Tough on Welfare, Tough on the causes of Welfare.

Which means very little but gives cover for a generous welfare system aimed at those that need it, whilst portraying a party cracking down on the tiny number that abuse the system. I don't see a "hard left" Labour Party managing that sort of messaging.

Scotland - different country. What works in Scotland won't work in England.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:20 pm

As good a definition as you will find anywhere from SH.

What Labour is for is to be a mainstream social democratic party in the European tradition that wins elections, thereby helping the poorest. That is what it has tried to be in all our lives.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:23 pm

An unmoved, indifferent electorate didn't vote Labour in enough numbers to return a Labour government.

Generally speaking, people like novelty and some would rather be lied to by someone dazzling them with conviction than be told the truth by decent, competent people called, 'weird', over and over again by a media owned by Tories.

An irresponsible, irrational, lying and superficial political party called UKIP received almost 4M votes all over the UK - that doesn't make all UKIP voters right-wing (though UKIP is right-wing or libertarian fascist). Frightened, frustrated people daily remonstrated with, 'They're All Just The Same - Vote Something Different', voted UKIP. UKIP appealed to those feeling alienated. Is UKIP known for economic competence, social justice or dedication to fairness? No, but UKIP received almost 4M votes regardless.

I don't think it was in the best interests of the people or country(-ies), Scotland or the rest of the UK, to return fifty nationalist political party representatives to Parliament - a House they'd prefer acknowledging as the government seat of a separate country. Less than 1.5M voted SNP but fifty-six SNP MPs sit with the rest of the Opposition regardless.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:25 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:As good a definition as you will find anywhere from SH.

What Labour is for is to be a mainstream social democratic party in the European tradition that wins elections, thereby helping the poorest. That is what it has tried to be in all our lives.

Right on, I agree.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:25 pm

Only just noticed this after the DT - oddly - trumpeting state school A level results over independents. Someone cries foul but there's an interesting side to that which didn't make the article...

Telegraph cheers success of state schools, but has it fudged the figures?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... s-a-levels

Yet the chairman of the Independent Schools Council, Barnaby Lenon, called the comparison “grossly unfair”.
...
Lenon – whose organisation represents about 85% of independent schools – says it is well known that there are many good state schools, and that it is counterproductive to set the two groups against each other. He senses other forces at work. “This government has been in power now for five years and they think it’s important that they show their reforms are working,” said Lenon, the former head of Harrow.

But that's not your only job is it now Barnaby?

You really couldn't make this stuff up - trustee of an obvious Tory-front "charity" that has been cheerleading government reforms on free schools...complains about the government using dodgy data to claim that their reforms are working!

Hypocrite.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:28 pm

Thinking of people with an ecological bent, I did know a chap who rode a bike, tied his trousers with a piece of string and rode around picking up empty drink cans and the like popping them into the carrier bag on his handlebars for recycling. He wasn't a tramp exactly, well maybe but had money in the bank and about ten properties around and about; I rented small workshops off him when I worked alone. I suppose I can speak of him now that he has passed. For all his notions of recycling, nothing ever was unless he could sell it... and always over-priced, which was a pity really because there was much that was useful. However there was also the crap, boxes and boxes of old paper and shoes that were so rotten they were falling apart and god knows what else. Not only that, the houses that he used to rent out were now (well back then) stacked floor to ceiling with junk. Even a sizable plot of land behind an old pub no longer supported his goats and was covered with junk. I believe he had to clear it because of rats.

One day I may get out more and stop burdening you with my stories. There is still much that I shall never divulge. At least I've moved on from my yarns. I'm hungry so shall leave you, besides the router keeps rebooting with all this thunder and frightening... so no more thanking I'm afraid.

Tonight I shall mostly be eating nut fritters and brown rice salad.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 22 Aug, 2015 5:31 pm

The rain has just popped a manhole cover outside my house.