Tuesday 16th May 2017

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:46 pm

HSOM! some would say earlier with the withdrawal of media support for Brown, and subsequent two pronged assault on every aspect of who he was, which of course reached a shrill pitch that I will never forget just before the love in in the rose Garden betwenn Clegg and Cameron. And through all that Labour accepting against all logic the blame for a global crisis not of Britains making, and certainly not of the Labour Party. His subsequent exit from Downing street with dignity and decency was accompanied by a blast of misinformation about the role of a sitting Prime Minister and how British handover of government is done. Imagine for a moment what happened when Cameron 'disappeared', and contrast it.

But there was a prolonged attack on Labour that had them on the defensive from quite a way back. And really this was exacerbated by the press jumping on every Labour utterance and tearing it to shreds, a thing that continues to the present. Made a lot of people very personally defensive, and also very risk averse too.

I agree with your analysis of Corbyn. He never did not face this kind of hostility, he was always going against the grain so he is more resilient. We have seen numerous contenders for the 'throne' just wither into obscurity under the pressure despite fine words, which is why I suppose they felt able to take refuge in a kind of collective hijacking. But I do believe this is exactly what we need now. Someone who will remind voters of what has been lost, and what needs to be done to get it back. If he moves the public that far then we are lucky, and there is hope for us yet.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:56 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Apparently the manifesto talks of replacing Council Tax with Land Value Tax.

I think this is a truly great idea.

(cJA edit)

I wholeheartedly agree
From Sparrow/Stewart live blog
Labour to consider replacing council tax with land value tax

The Labour Land Campaign website up since Summer of 2014 linked below
http://www.labourland.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Progressive, fair

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:58 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Apparently the manifesto talks of replacing Council Tax with Land Value Tax.

I think this is a truly great idea.

Just a promise to review I think, no?

I strongly favour an LVT as well.

Glad we agree on this. I hope they firm up this promise through the campaign.

It's reason enough on its own to vote Labour IMHO.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:05 pm

How much does regulating private companies owning public services cost government?

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:06 pm

@Hugo,
Corbyn's been leader for 19 months, there's only been a couple of labour leaders in the position for a shorter duration, so I can't see that anyone on this website could be described as a long term supporter.

Why do you think abolishing tuition fees is regressive?
- I can see that reducing them could be regressive, because lower earners ( only paying back part of the a total cost anyway) might still pay back the same amount, whilst higher earners (paying back the total) would pay less than before - but if abolishing fees completely, it would depend on where the replacement funding came from.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:16 pm

On tertiary education

I do not see any education as being regressive - it is the application of it in a class ridden society with a culture that distrusts experts and lauds the amateur and the ignorant

I think this type of argument is lazy and we should try to tackle the problem of educational access at the same time. The Tory public sector cuts make society more and more unequal and then anything spent on culture or the arts is immediately termed regressive. Look to expand participation.

I have also said I do not favour the complete abolition of fees - I think a max level of £1-2000 would be more suitable and similar to our European partners

Oh, and as for the cost - it will be interesting to ssee what % of loans actually get paid back from the current cohort......this is the elephant in the room with tuition fees

I would actually look to expand this and make a tertiary education (whether FE, university etc) available to anyone who wants it at some point in their lives. Pretty expensive, yes but so are many other things. It is prioritisation

I have had a look at the IFS comments

Firstly, their opinion on how much of the money will be raised is a fair challenge but it is just a view and an opinion. The maths suggest Labour are right - what is more difficult is the behavioural aspects of it - ansd that says a lot about the attitude to taxation of the rich/corporations. If they hide away from paying for it then the only option is tax everyone more heavily or forget public services.....if it has become unacceptable to raise direct taxation then it is society who is a loser, not Labour

On the IFS they have quite melodramatic headlines in the G but if you look at the graphs I do not think the situation is anyway as extreme as it is portrayed! 'Highest tax take and public spending for decades!' but when you look at the graphs....not quite so dramatic

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:18 pm

Kuennservativeberg excelling herself again, I see.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:34 pm

Willow904 wrote:It's the referral to democratic socialism that confuses me. Was it accidental? Used as a clumsy synonym for social democracy? From John McDonnell, that seems unlikely. In which case, does this mean Labour is a party of democratic socialism now? Is it becoming fundamentally anti-capitalist? Is this what Momentum supporters are seeking? It would certainly explain why I've been feeling less and less at home within the party. I'm a social democrat first and foremost. In its pure form democratic socialism isn't really compatible with social democracy. Even with the best will in the world to share Labour between the two ideologies, tensions will inevitably arise. Labour is in a very strange place.

(cJA edit)

I'm not suggesting the interview was deliberately manipulative. Twenty-first century media creating context, visuals, editing causes confusion. I'm not writing about media conspiracy. It's the environment we're living in now. Moving fast, blowing through the next headline and sound-bite, content doesn't have to be intentionally covert or purposely nefarious. We're human, we get a lot of information thrown at us, very recent phenomenon in human psychological development.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:44 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:It's the referral to democratic socialism that confuses me. Was it accidental? Used as a clumsy synonym for social democracy? From John McDonnell, that seems unlikely. In which case, does this mean Labour is a party of democratic socialism now? Is it becoming fundamentally anti-capitalist? Is this what Momentum supporters are seeking? It would certainly explain why I've been feeling less and less at home within the party. I'm a social democrat first and foremost. In its pure form democratic socialism isn't really compatible with social democracy. Even with the best will in the world to share Labour between the two ideologies, tensions will inevitably arise. Labour is in a very strange place.
(cJA edit)

I'm not suggesting the interview was deliberately manipulative. Twenty-first century media creating context, visuals, editing causes confusion. I'm not writing about media conspiracy. It's the environment we're living in now. Moving fast, blowing through the next headline and sound-bite, content doesn't have to be intentionally covert or purposely nefarious. We're human, we get a lot of information thrown at us, very recent phenomenon in human psychological development.

I was reflecting on my own inner tensions, more than anything JA. Why I can't seem to like Corbyn and McDonnell. When you share a common goal, a common desired outcome, it should be easy to collaborate and yet somehow it's not. Ideology gets in the way. I can't stop being a social democrat. Paul's probably right. I just don't want to be living in a country that requires a revolution. I have no stomach for revolution. I want to live in Sweden or Norway already. Not going to happen, obviously. I read a phrase in the context of knowing what McDonnell believes and imbibed it with meaning that wasn't there. No one ever did answer my question, though. Is Momentum anti-capitalist? Just wondering. I don't actually know much about them, really.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:55 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Kuennservativeberg excelling herself again, I see.

Hmm. I've missed this. Shall I ignore or look into...?

Resolution Foundation v IFS, Ding Ding, seconds out, round 1!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:55 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
citizenJA wrote:How much does regulating private companies owning public services cost government?
Also - how much does stepping in when private companies with public service contracts fail cost government? How much does picking up the pieces of private companies gaming their contracts cost government?

Exactly this. Some public services shouldn't have privately owned companies steering the endeavour.
Private companies have other goals conflicting with public service provision and democratic accountability.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 2:58 pm

Willow

There is no reason at all why you cannot dislike the Labour leadership or criticise them for their direction - you have done so previously and will continue to do so I am sure

The problem is when people just launch into a rant about the leadership, assume their opinion is right and not listen to the counter-arguments

As to the question on momentum and anti-capatalist. I don't know either. I am sure there are people who would want to look at a more 'socialist' state than others. I presume I am a capitalist but my capitalism is far away from that espused by the IEA for example. I don't think the ultra-capitalists ever have to defend their views as others - I think you see far more commentators on the media from that wing than you do from the extreme socialist wing of opinion

In general though, and I look at the manifesto today, and I am relatively content with it. Letting public ownership have a role in the monopoly strategic industries is right. Higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations as well (on a view that our public spending is skewed) as well as some other progressive measures. If it was a truly 'promise anything' as has been thrown at it I think there would have been far more on social security cut reversal

Would have I different policies and priorities - the answer is probably yes but I like that they have been open about where the funding has come from - much more so than the Tories will be I am sure...and with far more scrutiny than them as well

It is a manifesto from a left wing party.....not extreme left, just what left wing was when I started getting interested in politics

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:06 pm

Willow904 wrote:I was reflecting on my own inner tensions, more than anything JA. Why I can't seem to like Corbyn and McDonnell. When you share a common goal, a common desired outcome, it should be easy to collaborate and yet somehow it's not. Ideology gets in the way. I can't stop being a social democrat. Paul's probably right. I just don't want to be living in a country that requires a revolution. I have no stomach for revolution. I want to live in Sweden or Norway already. Not going to happen, obviously. I read a phrase in the context of knowing what McDonnell believes and imbibed it with meaning that wasn't there. No one ever did answer my question, though. Is Momentum anti-capitalist? Just wondering. I don't actually know much about them, really.

(cJA edit)

Neither do I, I don't know what Momentum does. I'm politically simple. Country and people are likely best served voting out Tory/UKIP government. It's wonderful discussing ideology and social/political theory when public services aren't in crisis, you know? Generally comfortable circumstances shared together throughout the country is possible. I'm baffled by greed, hostilities, revolution. I prefer being happy and content over being right, if a choice need be made.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:10 pm

Labour, just sort it out like regular people, that's the best any government can do.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:36 pm

seeingclearly wrote:It is about us, and our awareness of just how unjust and fragmented our home has beckme. I want to be able to see that turned back in my lifetime. So my children and theirs still have a home in which they can flourish.

(cJA edit)

I liked that, the whole post, thank you.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:46 pm

Just a thought.

It would be nice to try to find ways to bring back posters here who have left for whatever reason.

Given the aversion to banning people, one option we could introduce is a time limit between posts. This might create a bit more space for debate and variety of opinions and stop folk, and I know I've done this myself, dominating threads.

Unintended collateral damage might be reducing "banter" from the likes of HindleA and Tiny Clanger. But is it worth a try? 15 minutes before you can post again?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:51 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just a thought.

It would be nice to try to find ways to bring back posters here who have left for whatever reason.

Given the aversion to banning people, one option we could introduce is a time limit between posts. This might create a bit more space for debate and variety of opinions and stop folk, and I know I've done this myself, dominating threads.

Unintended collateral damage might be reducing "banter" from the likes of HindleA and Tiny Clanger. But is it worth a try? 15 minutes before you can post again?

Possibly.

I'm not sure how it'd solve any (real or perceived) ganging up on a single poster though.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 3:53 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just a thought.

It would be nice to try to find ways to bring back posters here who have left for whatever reason.

Given the aversion to banning people, one option we could introduce is a time limit between posts. This might create a bit more space for debate and variety of opinions and stop folk, and I know I've done this myself, dominating threads.

Unintended collateral damage might be reducing "banter" from the likes of HindleA and Tiny Clanger. But is it worth a try? 15 minutes before you can post again?
Possibly.

I'm not sure how it'd solve any (real or perceived) ganging up on a single poster though.

Maybe not.

But perhaps it would leave space for a range of responses to a post, rather than heading straight for binary positions.

Incidentally Corbyn has just arrived in my constituency

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:11 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Just a thought.

It would be nice to try to find ways to bring back posters here who have left for whatever reason.

Given the aversion to banning people, one option we could introduce is a time limit between posts. This might create a bit more space for debate and variety of opinions and stop folk, and I know I've done this myself, dominating threads.

Unintended collateral damage might be reducing "banter" from the likes of HindleA and Tiny Clanger. But is it worth a try? 15 minutes before you can post again?
Possibly.

I'm not sure how it'd solve any (real or perceived) ganging up on a single poster though.
Maybe not.

But perhaps it would leave space for a range of responses to a post, rather than heading straight for binary positions.

Incidentally Corbyn has just arrived in my constituency

Scorpions will always be scorpions, it's not a surprise when they repeatedly sting.

May commenting on Trump was freaking scary.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:21 pm

What did she say?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:24 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
I was reflecting on my own inner tensions, more than anything JA. Why I can't seem to like Corbyn and McDonnell. When you share a common goal, a common desired outcome, it should be easy to collaborate and yet somehow it's not. Ideology gets in the way. I can't stop being a social democrat. Paul's probably right. I just don't want to be living in a country that requires a revolution. I have no stomach for revolution. I want to live in Sweden or Norway already. Not going to happen, obviously. I read a phrase in the context of knowing what McDonnell believes and imbibed it with meaning that wasn't there. No one ever did answer my question, though. Is Momentum anti-capitalist? Just wondering. I don't actually know much about them, really.
DEMOCRACTIC socialism. That's the other form of socialism from revolutionary socialism. It means pursuing socialism through democractic means, NOT through revolution. Social democracy is really not very far away from democratic socialism, but Labour has never stopped being a socialist party - it just got momentarily afraid of using the term in public. You don't have to like McDonnell and Corbyn to like what the party stands for.

No, Momentum is not anti-capitalist. Its principles include securing a Labour government that: Redistributes wealth and power from the few to the many; Invests to create high-quality jobs and infrastructure; Reverses the privatisation of railways, the energy sector and public services; Provides decent homes for all in both the public and private sector...

The terminology is of working with the current, capitalist system, not overthrowing it.

Working with the current capitalist system is social democracy. Democratic socialism implies a desire to replace capitalism or so I believed. Hence my sense that the two sit uneasily within the same party. Btw, when I used the word "revolution" I was describing the action of replacing one thing with another. My understanding of democratic socialism is that it seeks socialist revolution through democratic rather than violent means. Which is somewhat different from social democracy which, as you describe above, seeks to work within the system as it is. So it's interesting Labour calls itself a "democratic socialist" party as it certainly hasn't presented itself as such for some time. Thus my original query as to whether Corbyn and McDonnell wish Labour to be a democratic socialist party, as it seems they are more of that ideology, but it seems I have simply fallen foul of the fact that "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" seems to be used interchangeably by some people and hence my confusion.

That Momentum isn't anti-capitalist is good to know. As I said, I really know very little about them.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:28 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: Firstly, their opinion on how much of the money will be raised is a fair challenge but it is just a view and an opinion. The maths suggest Labour are right -

I don't understand this. Where is the IFS maths error?

I trust the IFS on this.

But, McDonnell has been clever enough to escape Osborne's refusal to let the OBR give a verdict officially on party plans. Just make unrealistic claims about the tax take them (just as the Tories made unrealistic claims about how much could be cut.)

The most outrageous is the £7bn in tax evasion savings. That is basically balls.

So, it looks like about a £20bn shortfall on the funding. But Labour isn't playing Balls' game of fiscal rectitude any longer, and won't win to be held to account, so why not?

It is also useful in the party battles to come. "Look at the lovely things Corbyn promised."

On big things Labour is right though, especially on capital investment. So sad we don't really have an overall serious package.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:What did she say?

Q: What is your response to the revelation that President Trump disclosed intelligence matters to the Russians?

May says she does not comment on intelligence matter. It is up to Trump what he wants to tell his guests, she says.

So she's fine with Trump revealing any intelligence acquired via Five Eyes with Russia? Riiiiiiiiight.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:31 pm

TNS_UK poll Con 47 (+3) Lab 29 (+1) UKIP 8 (-2) LD 8 (-3)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:47 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:Willow

There is no reason at all why you cannot dislike the Labour leadership or criticise them for their direction - you have done so previously and will continue to do so I am sure

The problem is when people just launch into a rant about the leadership, assume their opinion is right and not listen to the counter-arguments

As to the question on momentum and anti-capatalist. I don't know either. I am sure there are people who would want to look at a more 'socialist' state than others. I presume I am a capitalist but my capitalism is far away from that espused by the IEA for example. I don't think the ultra-capitalists ever have to defend their views as others - I think you see far more commentators on the media from that wing than you do from the extreme socialist wing of opinion

In general though, and I look at the manifesto today, and I am relatively content with it. Letting public ownership have a role in the monopoly strategic industries is right. Higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations as well (on a view that our public spending is skewed) as well as some other progressive measures. If it was a truly 'promise anything' as has been thrown at it I think there would have been far more on social security cut reversal

Would have I different policies and priorities - the answer is probably yes but I like that they have been open about where the funding has come from - much more so than the Tories will be I am sure...and with far more scrutiny than them as well

It is a manifesto from a left wing party.....not extreme left, just what left wing was when I started getting interested in politics

I don't want to dislike the Labour leadership, that's the thing. I want to be enthusiastic. I need to look at the manifesto. Can't really rely on the media to pick up anything interesting.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:51 pm

What I was trying to say not liking the leadership of the party is perfectly acceptable

I despised Blair as a person and a lot of his values

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 4:56 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: Firstly, their opinion on how much of the money will be raised is a fair challenge but it is just a view and an opinion. The maths suggest Labour are right -
I don't understand this. Where is the IFS maths error?

I trust the IFS on this.

But, McDonnell has been clever enough to escape Osborne's refusal to let the OBR give a verdict officially on party plans. Just make unrealistic claims about the tax take them (just as the Tories made unrealistic claims about how much could be cut.)

The most outrageous is the £7bn in tax evasion savings. That is basically balls.

So, it looks like about a £20bn shortfall on the funding. But Labour isn't playing Balls' game of fiscal rectitude any longer, and won't win to be held to account, so why not?

It is also useful in the party battles to come. "Look at the lovely things Corbyn promised."

On big things Labour is right though, especially on capital investment. So sad we don't really have an overall serious package.

Partial quoting is not on!

The numbers Labour gave are right...the IFS doesn't say they aren't.

They indicate the it will difficult to realise them all because of the behavioural reaction. That is an opinion not a fact

We will have to see....

As to the tax avoidance/evasion savings...again we will have to see the full details on how they will do it and how they react if it doesn't arise

I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt...let us compare with what the Tories are saying

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 5:18 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:It's the referral to democratic socialism that confuses me. Was it accidental? Used as a clumsy synonym for social democracy? From John McDonnell, that seems unlikely. In which case, does this mean Labour is a party of democratic socialism now? Is it becoming fundamentally anti-capitalist? Is this what Momentum supporters are seeking? It would certainly explain why I've been feeling less and less at home within the party. I'm a social democrat first and foremost. In its pure form democratic socialism isn't really compatible with social democracy. Even with the best will in the world to share Labour between the two ideologies, tensions will inevitably arise. Labour is in a very strange place.
(cJA edit)

I'm not suggesting the interview was deliberately manipulative. Twenty-first century media creating context, visuals, editing causes confusion. I'm not writing about media conspiracy. It's the environment we're living in now. Moving fast, blowing through the next headline and sound-bite, content doesn't have to be intentionally covert or purposely nefarious. We're human, we get a lot of information thrown at us, very recent phenomenon in human psychological development.
I was reflecting on my own inner tensions, more than anything JA. Why I can't seem to like Corbyn and McDonnell. When you share a common goal, a common desired outcome, it should be easy to collaborate and yet somehow it's not. Ideology gets in the way. I can't stop being a social democrat. Paul's probably right. I just don't want to be living in a country that requires a revolution. I have no stomach for revolution. I want to live in Sweden or Norway already. Not going to happen, obviously. I read a phrase in the context of knowing what McDonnell believes and imbibed it with meaning that wasn't there. No one ever did answer my question, though. Is Momentum anti-capitalist? Just wondering. I don't actually know much about them, really.

I think, from what I can see here, that momentum is just ordinary people, some of them with a bent for practical activism. Not overly focused on ideology, or not right now. The inner core, less knowable. A revolution right now would just be shsking off the tories, if and when that is possible, and putting the country back on a sane recognisable/desirable path. As the general trend globally is that people want non intrusive socially driven programmes of governance but are battling with hard line government that don't deliver for the vast majority of people it is difficult to say what will emerge. Momentum will be what its membership decide upon, if that membership wants to aim for common goals through consensus who knows, if it wants ideological leaders another. It is too new, but my guess is that those who are rejecting authoritarianism now will not want anything resembling it, left or right. But who know? Two years afo who would have guessed we'd have been here.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 5:38 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:TNS_UK poll Con 47 (+3) Lab 29 (+1) UKIP 8 (-2) LD 8 (-3)

Just for the record, the latest PanelBase is Con 47 (-1) Lab 33 (+2) LibDem 7 (-1) UKIP 5 Green 3 (+1)

LibDems struggling is something that most pollsters seem to agree on now.

Farron's recent strategy - basically concentrating all his fire on Labour and letting May and her party off scot-free - is currently looking utterly disastrous.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 5:48 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:TNS_UK poll Con 47 (+3) Lab 29 (+1) UKIP 8 (-2) LD 8 (-3)
Just for the record, the latest PanelBase is Con 47 (-1) Lab 33 (+2) LibDem 7 (-1) UKIP 5 Green 3 (+1)

LibDems struggling is something that most pollsters seem to agree on now.

Farron's recent strategy - basically concentrating all his fire on Labour and letting May and her party off scot-free - is currently looking utterly disastrous.

I don't think that is fair on Farron. He's pinned his hopes on Reman, but I don't think the general published c have worked out what a catastrophe Brexit is.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 5:57 pm

Surely it is all the fault of Farron's leadership then - what incompetence is it that he cannot persuade the people of the right position on the most important subject of the time?

Only fair because it is Corbyn's fault that the most incompetent Government in living memory is on course for a landslide

We were told that the Labour decision not to come out massively for Brexit was a massive error and would lose them votes and seats to the LD....

Or could it be that the British electorate don't pay much attention to the details, believe what the media feed them and are taken on by some random concept of the 'leadership', 'strength' and 'stability'

If the Tories win a landslide the accountability lies with the people who have voted for them - not with Farron, not with Corbyn - both of which have proposed better policies and campaigned much more effectively than the leaderene!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:11 pm

Even if you accept that the LibDems are right to make Brexit their USP in this election (and that could well be the case) it still doesn't explain why Farron has spent almost all his time recently attacking Labour and barely laying a glove on the Tories - who are, lest we forget, the ones actually in power.

Could he have been seduced by the idea that Labour's total demise was imminent (after all, until just a few months ago VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE assured us that UKIP was about to do to Labour's "northern heartlands" what the SNP had in Scotland) and so they needed to be ready to feast on the corpse?

Again, not currently looking like a totally smart move.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:13 pm

I am a bit bloodyminded. Ban me, or whatever. But I'll show my contempt for someone who displays it to all, by not being what he professes to be. At least I am exactly who I am, a pissed off older person seeing a generations worth and more of good social gains go down the pan due to the kind of politically dishonest sophistry we get regaled with daily. The methodology of hit, wait for a response, hit several times again, with intolerable reasonableness, even while professing intolerable things, sickens. And I reserve my right to voice that feeling. It introduces doubt that there is an alternative. Well, there IS an alternative, because anything is preferable to another five years of this. And there are thousands of people of good intent out there working and supporting that alternative, while others are mealy mouthed and self interested, or so damn unaware of what a democracy is they don't really care. As I am unlikely to make it through that five years I would like to see something better in my time. I used to know someone whose motto was "time is not neutral". I may not see thing improve, but I am damned if I will have patience with those who make hope retreat. That is all.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:14 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Even if you accept that the LibDems are right to make Brexit their USP in this election (and that could well be the case) it still doesn't explain why Farron has spent almost all his time recently attacking Labour and barely laying a glove on the Tories - who are, lest we forget, the ones actually in power.

Could he have been seduced by the idea that Labour's total demise was imminent (after all, until just a few months ago VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE assured us that UKIP was about to do to Labour's "northern heartlands" what the SNP had in Scotland) and so they needed to be ready to feast on the corpse?

Again, not currently looking like a totally smart move.

and this as well.....hasn't helped of course

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:16 pm

seeingclearly wrote:I am a bit bloodyminded. Ban me, or whatever. But I'll show my contempt for someone who displays it to all, by not being what he professes to be. At least I am exactly who I am, a pissed off older person seeing a generations worth and more of good social gains go down the pan due to the kind of politically dishonest sophistry we get regaled with daily. The methodology of hit, wait for a response, hit several times again, with intolerable reasonableness, even while professing intolerable things, sickens. And I reserve my right to voice that feeling. It introduces doubt that there is an alternative. Well, there IS an alternative, because anything is preferable to another five years of this. And there are thousands of people of good intent out there working and supporting that alternative, while others are mealy mouthed and self interested, or so damn unaware of what a democracy is they don't really care. As I am unlikely to make it through that five years I would like to see something better in my time. I used to know someone whose motto was "time is not neutral". I may not see thing improve, but I am damned if I will have patience with those who make hope retreat. That is all.

Don't worry - if I haven't been banned (or Tem for that matter) for being a 'robust' defender of my views then I very much doubt you will be

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:22 pm

Also, he has basically obliterated Labour in his own constituency so maybe thinks its actually possible to do that nationwide.....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:34 pm

Well it might also be that both the LibDems and Greens have rather cynically promoted the "STOP BREXIT" (how?) pipe dream - again, as a grab for Labour votes as much as anything - rather than accepting the referendum result happened however much we hate it, and thus pushing for the least bad Brexit possible. Which might, of course, also have been a more fruitful line if you were hoping to detach some Tory remainers.......

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:49 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well it might also be that both the LibDems and Greens have rather cynically promoted the "STOP BREXIT" (how?) pipe dream - again, as a grab for Labour votes as much as anything - rather than accepting the referendum result happened however much we hate it, and thus pushing for the least bad Brexit possible. Which might, of course, also have been a more fruitful line if you were hoping to detach some Tory remainers.......

Cynical how, exactly? The EU seems to be one of the few things the Libdems fervently believe in. How is it cynical to base your policies and campaign on something you believe in?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:53 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well it might also be that both the LibDems and Greens have rather cynically promoted the "STOP BREXIT" (how?) pipe dream - again, as a grab for Labour votes as much as anything - rather than accepting the referendum result happened however much we hate it, and thus pushing for the least bad Brexit possible. Which might, of course, also have been a more fruitful line if you were hoping to detach some Tory remainers.......

Yeah, thanks for that, no mention of Gower, Pembroke, Ealing etc etc etc where we have 'cynically' stood down to give Labour a free run, then?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 6:54 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:[quot
SpinningHugo wrote:TNS_UK poll Con 47 (+3) Lab 29 (+1) UKIP 8 (-2) LD 8 (-3)
Just for the record, the latest PanelBase is Con 47 (-1) Lab 33 (+2) LibDem 7 (-1) UKIP 5 Green 3 (+1)

LibDems struggling is something that most pollsters seem to agree on now.

Farron's recent strategy - basically concentrating all his fire on Labour and letting May and her party off scot-free - is currently looking utterly disastrous.

I don't think that is fair on Farron. He's pinned his hopes on Reman, but I don't think the general published c have worked out what a catastrophe Brexit is.[/quote]

Not fair on Farron that when 48% of those who voted in the referendum were there for the taking he actually manages to cut the LibDem vote? It's not as though people haven't had to think about Brexit - they have, and just under half of them thought it was a bad idea. And yet the one party that until recently was against it loses votes...and it's not the leader's fault?

OK.[/quote]

The unfairness referred to the focus of Farrons attack, not his performance.

He is deeply unimpressive. As are all the leaders save Sturgeon and Lucas.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:03 pm

Landmark European court case could curtail freedoms of British dual nationals

...EU citizens who become British citizens and retain dual nationality may have the freedom to bring family members to the country curtailed.

“If the UK’s interpretation of the law is correct, it shall mean that all EU nationals living in the UK, who have also acquired dual British nationality, will no longer be able to rely on their free movement rights after gaining British nationality, as they will no longer be recognised by the UK as EU citizens in that context,” said Saini.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -nationals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One thing people got to know is Tory government won't serve or save you, the best you could hope for is they leave you alone enough to survive a bit. The UK deserves better than Tory governments. Most people don't vote Tory/UKIP. I wrote that elsewhere recently. It's some consolation.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:07 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well it might also be that both the LibDems and Greens have rather cynically promoted the "STOP BREXIT" (how?) pipe dream - again, as a grab for Labour votes as much as anything - rather than accepting the referendum result happened however much we hate it, and thus pushing for the least bad Brexit possible. Which might, of course, also have been a more fruitful line if you were hoping to detach some Tory remainers.......
Yeah, thanks for that, no mention of Gower, Pembroke, Ealing etc etc etc where we have 'cynically' stood down to give Labour a free run, then?

Yes, the Greens have been very proactive about not splitting the left vote. It's been much appreciated by me, at least. I hope everyone gets behind them in the Isle of Wight.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:10 pm

Anyway........about The Donald.........

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:15 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well it might also be that both the LibDems and Greens have rather cynically promoted the "STOP BREXIT" (how?) pipe dream - again, as a grab for Labour votes as much as anything - rather than accepting the referendum result happened however much we hate it, and thus pushing for the least bad Brexit possible. Which might, of course, also have been a more fruitful line if you were hoping to detach some Tory remainers.......
Cynical how, exactly? The EU seems to be one of the few things the Libdems fervently believe in. How is it cynical to base your policies and campaign on something you believe in?
Because it can't happen, so it doesn't really matter if they believe it or not. Like ending tuition fees and broken promises. Free unicorn, anyone?

Politics is the art of the possible.

We have neither left the EU or the single market as yet. It's perfectly possible to remain. Unlikely perhaps. Unpopular perhaps. But if only the likely and popular are allowed, all the parties would be offering the same - hard Brexit. Is that democracy? Why can't alternatives be offered?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:32 pm

Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Anyway........about The Donald.........

He's politically impossible
it's a not a nightmare I can wake from

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:39 pm

Afternoon, folks,
On a completely unrelated topic, why Newcastle is the best UK city to raise a family.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor ... t-13039652" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:41 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Len being helpful

http://www.politico.eu/article/len-mccl ... -2017/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realistic, really. Minimising losses to under 50 is the best I'm hoping for myself. Mind you, people keep saying how Kinnock got another chance, but he did win seats. No one would argue about Corbyn staying on if he managed that, I wouldn't have thought.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:54 pm

When I read stuff like the comments on this Twitter feed, I start to worry that 200 seats is wildly over-optimistic. What the hell is wrong with people?

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

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:00 pm

This is fair, and the end seems right judged from here and elsewhere.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -thinkable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no sympathy for Corbyn, but I understand the desire to at least have this case put.