FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

PorFavor wrote:The anti-Corbyn sentiments (or at least as presented by the press) are getting to frenzy level. I don't know that things can continue as they are.

His reservations about "shoot to kill" make sense to me in so far as I think he's opposed to just shooting anyone who comes across the radar as appearing a bit "dodgy". I didn't think he made that quite clear in his interview.

Yeah. "Shoot to kill" is a loaded phrase. It can mean the sort of stuff the British Army did at times in Northern Ireland, with which Republicans made hay. That's obviously a bad idea.

But of course you kill people who are immediate lethal threats.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I'm getting sick of politics and the"let's get him!" approach to Corbyn...and I'm not getting my thesis finished (after having been at it for 7 years) so I'm taking a bit of a break from here and elsewhere.

Incidentally, I assume that the people who are baying for blood over what Stop The War tweeted and deleted...are precisely the same as who want full free speech where everyone's allowed to say what they think with no censorship?

Of course they are...massive hypocrites.

I notice that there are a fair number of people (including Niall Ferguson who idiotically has compared the current situation to the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century) who are saying that it's all down to policy failures over the past few decades.

How is that different to Stop the War saying that it's all due to foreign policy and meddling in the Middle East?

Probably back for the Autumn Statement and might look in during evenings. Bye for now.

RobertSnozers wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Seriously though yahyah, this is bigger than one person. The support for Corbyn was that distinctly rare event in modern societies, a genuine grass roots uprising (which nobody in the "bubble" predicted) Even if he fell under the proverbial bus tomorrow, that would still be there.

The malcontents in the PLP imagine they can simply dispatch Jez and things will go back to how they were. They have no idea how wrong they are.

Who exactly do they think will replace him, anyway? Chuka? Tristram?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Reply with quote
STW are exactly that, but it is looking increasingly like we are going to have to work with Putin - and even Assad - if we really want to defeat ISIS once and for all. Oh, the irony

Did anyone at the time insist that the police should have shot de Menezes just in case? (Once the full facts and the extent of the attempted police cover-up had been made clear, that is).

RobertSnozers wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because he was perceived as London-centric, then Jeremy Corbyn could potentially have the same problem.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they found him too intellectual, Corbyn could equally be too highbrow for them.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they thought he was too pro-immigration and ethnic minorities, then it is possible they will be even less likely to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I thought Andy Burnham had the potential to win back/retain Ukip-inclined traditional Labour voters, because he has a regional accent and genuinely likes football. Even so, it was a long shot. The worry I have with Jeremy Corbyn, is that he is on the left of Labour and as such will only be able to add votes from the left. There were nearly 4 Ukip votes for every Green vote at the last election. There isn't much scope on the left for growing support. This is not to say that I think Labour should move to the right. The policies under Ed were about right (and were often popular in polls) and Jeremy Corbyn hasn't diverted hugely from that course. It's about voter prejudice, about the insidious drip drip drip of the Daily Mail, about identity politics and the fragmentation of the working class as a movement. Under Corbyn, Labour seems to be more radical than it really is. In order to win, however, I feel that Labour needs to seem less radical than it actually is. Appearance to attract the Ukip voters, substance to attract the left-wing voters. It's how the SNP has pulled traditional Scottish Labour voters to the right. They talk a good left-wing progressive talk on the surface to win working class left-wing votes, but walk a more conservative right-wing walk to hold on to the Tartan Tories.

Obviously gossip is merely gossip, Ukip might flop in Oldham, but I do think the Ukip threat needs to be taken seriously and it needs to accepted that the media onslaught against Corbyn, unprofessional and biased as it may be, mostly works with those already predisposed to dislike him. Corbyn may be the overwhelming choice of party members, but he wasn't the obvious or popular choice among Labour voters in general and as such leaves Labour still suffering many of the problems it has recently experienced with Ed Miliband, which ultimately resulted in a shock defeat.

I think the problem with this is to see Ukip as a phenomenon of the right. I suspect a lot of working class people support them not because of any particular policy, but because they see them as anti-establishment. These were people who were never going to vote for Ed Miliband in a million years because he looked like a sixth former in his dad's suit and spoke oddly, regardless of what he actually stood for, but might see Corbyn as a real person. (It's all rubbish of course - Farage is just as much an establishment figure as Cameron but appearances count).

By the way, has anyone in the media had a go at Farage's intellect because he never went to university? Or is that line reserved for Corbyn too?

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

Willow904 wrote: If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because he was perceived as London-centric, then Jeremy Corbyn could potentially have the same problem.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they found him too intellectual, Corbyn could equally be too highbrow for them.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they thought he was too pro-immigration and ethnic minorities, then it is possible they will be even less likely to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I thought Andy Burnham had the potential to win back/retain Ukip-inclined traditional Labour voters, because he has a regional accent and genuinely likes football. Even so, it was a long shot. The worry I have with Jeremy Corbyn, is that he is on the left of Labour and as such will only be able to add votes from the left. There were nearly 4 Ukip votes for every Green vote at the last election. There isn't much scope on the left for growing support. This is not to say that I think Labour should move to the right. The policies under Ed were about right (and were often popular in polls) and Jeremy Corbyn hasn't diverted hugely from that course. It's about voter prejudice, about the insidious drip drip drip of the Daily Mail, about identity politics and the fragmentation of the working class as a movement. Under Corbyn, Labour seems to be more radical than it really is. In order to win, however, I feel that Labour needs to seem less radical than it actually is. Appearance to attract the Ukip voters, substance to attract the left-wing voters. It's how the SNP has pulled traditional Scottish Labour voters to the right. They talk a good left-wing progressive talk on the surface to win working class left-wing votes, but walk a more conservative right-wing walk to hold on to the Tartan Tories.

Obviously gossip is merely gossip, Ukip might flop in Oldham, but I do think the Ukip threat needs to be taken seriously and it needs to accepted that the media onslaught against Corbyn, unprofessional and biased as it may be, mostly works with those already predisposed to dislike him. Corbyn may be the overwhelming choice of party members, but he wasn't the obvious or popular choice among Labour voters in general and as such leaves Labour still suffering many of the problems it has recently experienced with Ed Miliband, which ultimately resulted in a shock defeat.

I think the problem with this is to see Ukip as a phenomenon of the right. I suspect a lot of working class people support them not because of any particular policy, but because they see them as anti-establishment. These were people who were never going to vote for Ed Miliband in a million years because he looked like a sixth former in his dad's suit and spoke oddly, regardless of what he actually stood for, but might see Corbyn as a real person. (It's all rubbish of course - Farage is just as much an establishment figure as Cameron but appearances count).

By the way, has anyone in the media had a go at Farage's intellect because he never went to university? Or is that line reserved for Corbyn too?

It's interesting you think Ukip being perceived as anti-establishment is the main draw. My experience is that Ukip appeals to those who feel Labour has become about multi-culturalism and immigration. People who are conservative with a small 'c' but whose working class background prevents them from ever considering voting Tory. I agree Corbyn could be more acceptable to Ukip-inclined voters than Ed - he's not Oxbridge, he's not the son of immigrants - but I wonder if he's different enough.

Willow904 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

Willow904 wrote: If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because he was perceived as London-centric, then Jeremy Corbyn could potentially have the same problem.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they found him too intellectual, Corbyn could equally be too highbrow for them.

If people didn't vote for Ed Miliband because they thought he was too pro-immigration and ethnic minorities, then it is possible they will be even less likely to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

I thought Andy Burnham had the potential to win back/retain Ukip-inclined traditional Labour voters, because he has a regional accent and genuinely likes football. Even so, it was a long shot. The worry I have with Jeremy Corbyn, is that he is on the left of Labour and as such will only be able to add votes from the left. There were nearly 4 Ukip votes for every Green vote at the last election. There isn't much scope on the left for growing support. This is not to say that I think Labour should move to the right. The policies under Ed were about right (and were often popular in polls) and Jeremy Corbyn hasn't diverted hugely from that course. It's about voter prejudice, about the insidious drip drip drip of the Daily Mail, about identity politics and the fragmentation of the working class as a movement. Under Corbyn, Labour seems to be more radical than it really is. In order to win, however, I feel that Labour needs to seem less radical than it actually is. Appearance to attract the Ukip voters, substance to attract the left-wing voters. It's how the SNP has pulled traditional Scottish Labour voters to the right. They talk a good left-wing progressive talk on the surface to win working class left-wing votes, but walk a more conservative right-wing walk to hold on to the Tartan Tories.

Obviously gossip is merely gossip, Ukip might flop in Oldham, but I do think the Ukip threat needs to be taken seriously and it needs to accepted that the media onslaught against Corbyn, unprofessional and biased as it may be, mostly works with those already predisposed to dislike him. Corbyn may be the overwhelming choice of party members, but he wasn't the obvious or popular choice among Labour voters in general and as such leaves Labour still suffering many of the problems it has recently experienced with Ed Miliband, which ultimately resulted in a shock defeat.

I think the problem with this is to see Ukip as a phenomenon of the right. I suspect a lot of working class people support them not because of any particular policy, but because they see them as anti-establishment. These were people who were never going to vote for Ed Miliband in a million years because he looked like a sixth former in his dad's suit and spoke oddly, regardless of what he actually stood for, but might see Corbyn as a real person. (It's all rubbish of course - Farage is just as much an establishment figure as Cameron but appearances count).

By the way, has anyone in the media had a go at Farage's intellect because he never went to university? Or is that line reserved for Corbyn too?

It's interesting you think Ukip being perceived as anti-establishment is the main draw. My experience is that Ukip appeals to those who feel Labour has become about multi-culturalism and immigration. People who are conservative with a small 'c' but whose working class background prevents them from ever considering voting Tory. I agree Corbyn could be more acceptable to Ukip-inclined voters than Ed - he's not Oxbridge, he's not the son of immigrants - but I wonder if he's different enough.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I will go further, people should not leave the party even if JC is ousted. They should remain to take revenge (where merited) and ensure such a thing doesn't happen again.

Its partly a natural process, too. The PLP started to move to the left at the last GE, this trend will continue in 2020 and 2025. Because it is what most of the members want.

Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, suggested the government should be willing to commit ground troops to the fight against Islamic State. In a question to Cameron, Fox said that military campaigns were not won from the air alone and that Cameron should “rule nothing out”. Cameron said the Iraqi government were best placed to defeat Isis on the ground.

Willow904 wrote:

Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, suggested the government should be willing to commit ground troops to the fight against Islamic State. In a question to Cameron, Fox said that military campaigns were not won from the air alone and that Cameron should “rule nothing out”. Cameron said the Iraqi government were best placed to defeat Isis on the ground.

The Hawks are out in force, I see. With the US and Russia already involved, Cameron's thrashing around for the slimmest of reasons for why UK bombing is also needsd. Apparently our skilled bombers will kill fewer civilians, according to Cameron. That'll go down well in the US!

Separately, Germany’s foreign minister has ruled out taking part in any airstrikes in Syria.

“It doesn’t make sense if we add to the 16 nations which are carrying out air attacks,” Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.

Barbara Keeley ‏@KeeleyMP 5m5 minutes ago
Appalling answer from Care Minister to my Health Q today about care sector in crisis. Care providers need Govt to fund £1.7 for Nat Min Wage

Barbara Keeley ‏@KeeleyMP 3m3 minutes ago
Tory Govt brings in measures to increase Nat Min Wage, this needs to be funded for care sector. Care Minister asks me to suggest how to fund

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Barbara Keeley ‏@KeeleyMP 5m5 minutes ago
Appalling answer from Care Minister to my Health Q today about care sector in crisis. Care providers need Govt to fund £1.7 for Nat Min Wage

Barbara Keeley ‏@KeeleyMP 3m3 minutes ago
Tory Govt brings in measures to increase Nat Min Wage, this needs to be funded for care sector. Care Minister asks me to suggest how to fund

(my bold)

See this is a big part of the problem. Labour is constantly being asked to say how they would fund '***ing Tory policy. They wouldn't and they shouldn't be being asked this by Tory MPs and the media because they wouldn't have got into this position in the first place. They'd have not done these things or done something differently.

It seems to me that Labour are now often interviewed as though they were the ones doing these things - as if they are in power and not the Tories - an impression often amplified by the Tories not putting people up to defend their own policies - or putting people who have little or nothing to do with them up.

RobertSnozers wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: Who exactly do they think will replace him, anyway? Chuka? Tristram?

I would think Burnham. Chuka and all have been the most anti-Corbyn, but that doesn't mean they think of one of them can take over.

I doubt that very much. Burnham was 'Continuity Miliband' according to Hugo and all the other 'moderate' idiots. He was the compromise soft-left candidate of more or less the exact same political stripe that the 'moderates' had spent 2007-2015 undermining. If Burnham had won they'd be going after him almost as hard as they are with Corbyn.

In any case, Burnham had his opportunity to energise the membership and the wider electorate, and failed. What makes the 'moderates' think he will do any better now?

NATIONAL INSURANCE RISE FOR MILLIONS
http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... lions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 wrote:

Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, suggested the government should be willing to commit ground troops to the fight against Islamic State. In a question to Cameron, Fox said that military campaigns were not won from the air alone and that Cameron should “rule nothing out”. Cameron said the Iraqi government were best placed to defeat Isis on the ground.

The Hawks are out in force, I see. With the US and Russia already involved, Cameron's thrashing around for the slimmest of reasons for why UK bombing is also needsd. Apparently our skilled bombers will kill fewer civilians, according to Cameron. That'll go down well in the US!

rebeccariots2 wrote:

NATIONAL INSURANCE RISE FOR MILLIONS
http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... lions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA wrote:@ rebeccariots2

I thought of creating a signature containing your words about media portraying Labour as if they're the government and not Tories. The magnitude of this ongoing deceit can't be underestimated. How do Labour, or anyone outside mainstream media, countermand this? I don't know.

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 13m13 minutes ago
Not Corbyn stopping Cameron having vote on military action in Syria now. He's not convinced his own party. #where'sthatmajoritygone?

yahyah wrote:They were a little less subtle back in the day.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 13m13 minutes ago
Not Corbyn stopping Cameron having vote on military action in Syria now. He's not convinced his own party. #where'sthatmajoritygone?

RobertSnozers wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: Who exactly do they think will replace him, anyway? Chuka? Tristram?

I would think Burnham. Chuka and all have been the most anti-Corbyn, but that doesn't mean they think of one of them can take over.

I doubt that very much. Burnham was 'Continuity Miliband' according to Hugo and all the other 'moderate' idiots. He was the compromise soft-left candidate of more or less the exact same political stripe that the 'moderates' had spent 2007-2015 undermining. If Burnham had won they'd be going after him almost as hard as they are with Corbyn.

In any case, Burnham had his opportunity to energise the membership and the wider electorate, and failed. What makes the 'moderates' think he will do any better now?

yahyah wrote:Ben Blood ‏@ImportantBlogs 3m3 minutes ago
House of Commons this afternoon rejected a Lords amendments to the Devolution Act which would have given 16/17yo the vote in local elections

TobyLatimer wrote:Caroline Lucas said in the House 27 Feb 2014 - "If a link could be proven, there would be a case for corporate manslaughter"

Don't know how this could work against IDS though, given that one of the first things he did was to remove his obligation of a 'duty of care'. Which also puzzles me, how could he without an act of Parliament ?

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

TobyLatimer wrote:Caroline Lucas said in the House 27 Feb 2014 - "If a link could be proven, there would be a case for corporate manslaughter"

Don't know how this could work against IDS though, given that one of the first things he did was to remove his obligation of a 'duty of care'. Which also puzzles me, how could he without an act of Parliament ?

I'm not a lawyer, but a glance at the convictions under the Corporate Manslaughter Law suggests it's very unlikely IDS or ATOS could be prosecuted for Corporate Manslaughter.

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

They look like fairly straightforward "X killed at work by something falling on them" cases.

One of my problems with small parties, with no interest in being in government, is that they're prone to this sort of "we should go further" stuff. The Lib Dems used to be great ones for it, it's not just something the Greens do. I think it raises false hopes.

yahyah wrote:Wow, sounds of the wind outside are scary.

RobertSnozers wrote:

citizenJA wrote:Who are the 'moderates'?
I'm not having a go at anyone, I genuinely want to know.

The right wing of the Labour party. They are permitted to be called 'moderates' because people still like to think of a single continuum on which the parties sit. The truth is that many of the so-called Labour moderates hold pretty Thatcherite economic views (just with a bit more redistribution) and are pretty 'crime and punishment', much more so than some libertarian Tories. This is what amused me about the LibDems appealing for Labour rightwingers to defect to them - because they tended to be the ones who were cheerleaders for military action and lock-em-up law and order which the LibDems so vociferously opposed when not in government.

yahyah wrote:Good point from Ken Livinstone, on Radio 4, about whether we no longer have the capability to respond quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks because of cuts.

RobertSnozers wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Michael Howard came last of 5 in 1997, and later got the call to replace IDS.

And a little after that gained only 33 seats after two Labour terms and the Iraq War, failed to get the leadership election system changed, and resigned. I would suggest he is a pretty awful example of what Labour should seek to do. The whole Howard leadership was a case of the parliamentary party attempting to stitch up the membership, anyway - something the PLP might look to.

RobertSnozers wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote: And a little after that gained only 33 seats after two Labour terms and the Iraq War, failed to get the leadership election system changed, and resigned. I would suggest he is a pretty awful example of what Labour should seek to do. The whole Howard leadership was a case of the parliamentary party attempting to stitch up the membership, anyway - something the PLP might look to.

I wasn't saying Labour should follow it, and it couldn't replace the leader like that without a contest anyway.

Howard improved things though. Importantly, he stopped trying to out-hawk Blair and introduced a bit of scepticism about Bush's tactics. With IDS in charge, Blair would have looked like a moderate. The Lib Dems were the main beneficiary, but it all helped hurt Labour.

Burnham is more electable than Howard was. I think, if it comes to a head soon, he's the one that the Chuka and all will want. They've surely learnt from Kendall losing by a mile.

I'd like to think so. But that wing of the party attacked Brown from within, then it did the same to Miliband, now it's doing the same to Corbyn. What makes you think they have learned, or can learn, anything? They want a Blairite leader, not another compromise candidate.

seeingclearly wrote:
The human rights case would seem better, there was no due diligence, no impact assessments and anything that might have mitigated the policies in term of changing the detail has been vigourously denied to the point of taking it to the highet courts in the land, using the law to protect political decisions instead of people. As to culpability though, I am sure that IDS will haave covered his back well. Someone else will be expected to fall on their sword if it ever gets to that point. Diplomacy being what it is, I doubt it will. Which is why he laughs, he is untouchable and knows it.

seeingclearly wrote:

citizenJA wrote:@ rebeccariots2

I thought of creating a signature containing your words about media portraying Labour as if they're the government and not Tories. The magnitude of this ongoing deceit can't be underestimated. How do Labour, or anyone outside mainstream media, countermand this? I don't know.

As I wrote the other night the confusion around this is so great that there are many people who now believe that parliament actually is the government and some kind of powersharing is going on. This has not been helped by all the 'they are all the same' and red tory memes. People are genuinely confused. With the amount of bewildering changes that have occurred they believe this is one of them. It was a staggering realisation to those of us who saw this. Under cover of this the Tories are getting away with more than anyone could have dreamt possible.

On a different point altogether I am reminded that I saw a post yesterday with no link about a new thing from HMRC where single women with families are having to provide their divorce papers in order to qualify for tax credits, if they can't their spplication could be considered fraud etc. etc.

The post was the text of what seemed to be a standard letter to women in this category. No divorce papers, no money, and possible prosecution. It's a sore point for me, because way back I was in this position with the DWP, and know the consequences of such things. So I could really empathise with the person who was terrified by this letter.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I wasn't saying Labour should follow it, and it couldn't replace the leader like that without a contest anyway.

Howard improved things though. Importantly, he stopped trying to out-hawk Blair and introduced a bit of scepticism about Bush's tactics. With IDS in charge, Blair would have looked like a moderate. The Lib Dems were the main beneficiary, but it all helped hurt Labour.

Burnham is more electable than Howard was. I think, if it comes to a head soon, he's the one that the Chuka and all will want. They've surely learnt from Kendall losing by a mile.

I'd like to think so. But that wing of the party attacked Brown from within, then it did the same to Miliband, now it's doing the same to Corbyn. What makes you think they have learned, or can learn, anything? They want a Blairite leader, not another compromise candidate.

I don't think Burnham would get the support - either from enough of the PLP - or from the membership. He failed to convince us last time. But perhaps more to the point ... I don't think he'd put himself up for leader for a third time. It must have been absolutely crushing last time. There would be the inevitable third time lucky baggage to add to the Mid Staffs and any other baggage those that don't like him want to saddle him with.

I fear you are right anyway ... those that don't want Corbyn don't want anyone that isn't Blair mark 2 - or, as Cameron is meant to be more or less that, mark 3 perhaps.

yahyah wrote:Wow, sounds of the wind outside are scary.