Tuesday 16th May 2017

Post by **refitman** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:10 am

Morning all.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:22 am

Morning, Refitman, and thanks for opening up in time for me to post this:

Something to mitigate the gloom perhaps.

A little meat on the bones of my assertions that the negative views of Corbyn and Labour might not be an accurate picture.

I cite you video footage of appearances in York, Hebdon Bridge, Leeds, the election interview by Ken Loach, and from two good acquaintances, one a longstanding professional on our longest running radio serial, of an ICC Birmingham appearance that is already booked out!

These are real people attending these events, they are not activists, they are citizens. Many of them are young and fed up with the mess we are in.

I would give you links, but as everything is available on utube etc., make the effort yourselves.

One is a good report by BBC Leeds, not sure if it made it to national TV.

Get behind Labour, whether you believe they will win or not, you have nothing to lose and quite a lot to gain. At least make sure that the parody of a campaign run by May is not the only one in view. There is in fact a whole movement going on out there that deserves discussion.

Oh, and seeing more and more support for Thornberry too. Nice to see. Google her post interview letter explaining why she called out her fellow interviewee. Good stuff.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 7:49 am

https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/05/15/ma ... le-of-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mandatory reconsiderations and the rule of law

(former Court Of Appeal judge)

"New statistics have shown that in 87% of these mandatory reconsiderations the original decision is upheld. Now we have learned, through the response to a Freedom of Information request, that one of the DWP’s Key Performance Indicators – a management device through which the relevant civil servants’ achievements and promotion prospects are measured – is that the decisions in at least 80% of these cases should be upheld in the department’s favour following mandatory reconsideration.

This appears to be an absolutely outrageous interference by the executive with the rule of law."

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:03 am

Nationalisations.

The first thing to note is that they are, on their face, balance sheet neutral. If I spend £1m on an asset worth £1m I am neither better nor worse off. Further, for a government, there is no opportunity cost. It can just borrow more. nationalisation also, in principle at least, won't increase the deficit.

Plus there is at least one very good candidate for re-nationalisation: water. Good to see that is in the manifesto.

But there is very little reason to think that nationalisation will make the running of businesses better, and several theoretical and evidence based reasons for thinking it will make it worse. The franchise system for the railways, for example, works well, and should be continued. The last Labour government did a great job in creating it. It will be very sad to see it go.

The problem with Tory governments is that they are so driven by the idea that business knows best that they don't regulate private firms with near monopolies properly, and allow them to screw the consumer.

The problem with Labour governments of the past (ie before 1979) is that they were susceptible to producer capture, so that despite the efforts of the government to run them at arm's length, they weren't. This meant that assets bought for £1m ended up being worth considerably less.

The best option is a Labour government that doesn't see nationalisation as a panacea, but is prepared to regulate quasi-monopolies properly.

I liked the government of 1997-2010. I wish I could have that back.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:10 am

Plenty of reason to believe that any profit made will accrue to our government though, rather than the government of another country. Of course it could also create opportunities for people here too, in how to best run and manage large assets in a 21st century world.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:23 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Nationalisations.

<snip>But there is very little reason to think that nationalisation will make the running of businesses better, and several theoretical and evidence based reasons for thinking it will make it worse. The franchise system for the railways, for example, works well, and should be continued. The last Labour government did a great job in creating it. It will be very sad to see it go. <snip>

When East Coast rail was in state hands, it had the best customer satisfaction ratings in the uk, and was very profitable, which is why the Tories pushed it out to Virgin. As for the privatisation of utilities, they're mostly in state control, just other countries. My water is Chinese, the Metro is German, my electricity is French.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:24 am

seeingclearly wrote:Plenty of reason to believe that any profit made will accrue to our government though, rather than the government of another country. Of course it could also create opportunities for people here too, in how to best run and manage large assets in a 21st century world.

Yes, that is one of the dafter arguments made. It is balance sheet neutral to nationalise an industry. You won't make money (ie "get the profits") that are going elsewhere. It is the opposite mistake to that made by people who claim it will cost too much. The reason we shouldn't worry about the Greek (or German or French etc) government owning rail franchises is that they are not susceptible to producer capture, which the UK government as owner would be.

Thinking about it, Labour is the best kind of government to have privatised industries as it will regulate them properly. A Tory government is the best kind to have nationalised industries, as it won't be (as) susceptible to producer capture.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:25 am

Even nationalising water, in the past, proved an unhappy experience. See

http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137446398" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But, in principle and if done properly, that could work.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:28 am

55DegreesNorth wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Nationalisations.

<snip>But there is very little reason to think that nationalisation will make the running of businesses better, and several theoretical and evidence based reasons for thinking it will make it worse. The franchise system for the railways, for example, works well, and should be continued. The last Labour government did a great job in creating it. It will be very sad to see it go. <snip>
When East Coast rail was in state hands, it had the best customer satisfaction ratings in the uk, and was very profitable, which is why the Tories pushed it out to Virgin. As for the privatisation of utilities, they're mostly in state control, just other countries. My water is Chinese, the Metro is German, my electricity is French.

That franchise now makes considerably more money for the UK than it did when nationalised. That is the franchise system working.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:30 am

Well, well. Water as well. Good.

Pun intended

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:31 am

Subjecting decisions to targets. Well we all knew that the targets were there, perhaps not so large, (wasn't there a 30% target on ESA that the awful McVeigh chortled about having exceeded) but 87% seems very excessive especially in matters of support and quality of life for people already struggling.

Immoral one might say, if not downright illegal. And maybe something those international bods should take a look at again.

Given other rulings, such as those which indicate assessment should not just be about barebones functionality but also about ability (and also, maybe, right?) to enjoy life, i.e. be mobile enough to have a social existence, not just a useless eater existence, then there are serious questions on this. To be absolutely clear it is not enough to ensure that bums are cleaned, hunger and thirst assuaged, bodies given a lick and a promise, but provision should be to enable and equip people to have as normal a life as is possible given their illness or disability.

I am given to anecdote, no doubt some would want statistics too, but when you have seen a relentless passage of cases for years on end of people who have recieved zero points for their very real, medically describable conditions then 87% is utterly shocking. As I know what I see is a tiny fraction what it means in terms of human suffering is too big for me to envisage. The bastards in power aren't even ashamed, they would mete out a double dose of this given half a chance.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:36 am

Hoorah, Labour manifesto launch day & even if I didn't like a single word in it it finally will force their spokespersons to answer questions with detail and stop the 'you'll have to wait for the manifesto' bollocks.
We complain that Labour is overlooked by the media but when given the opportunity to use the media to convey its message, the various messengers come out with the 'have to wait for the manifesto' nonsense rather than dealing with the questions being put to them.
And yes, all parties do it but I'm not particularly interested in their games whereas I'm very keen to hear what Labour has to say.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 8:40 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:Plenty of reason to believe that any profit made will accrue to our government though, rather than the government of another country. Of course it could also create opportunities for people here too, in how to best run and manage large assets in a 21st century world.

Yes, that is one of the dafter arguments made. It is balance sheet neutral to nationalise an industry. You won't make money (ie "get the profits") that are going elsewhere. It is the opposite mistake to that made by people who claim it will cost too much. The reason we shouldn't worry about the Greek (or German or French etc) government owning rail franchises is that they are not susceptible to producer capture, which the UK government as owner would be.

Thinking about it, Labour is the best kind of government to have privatised industries as it will regulate them properly. A Tory government is the best kind to have nationalised industries, as it won't be (as) susceptible to producer capture.

It is balance neutral to nationalise yes. But it can still be run as a business, which it would be anyway, and then it would appear both as an assest and it would have normal profit and loss accounting. Are you saying other countries can make a profit by running our railways for instance, and we cannot? Or is there some other aspect to their profitmaking we do not take into account. Maybe that the infrastructure for rail has been subsidised in some way. I am not an expert at all. But if I have a property (railways) and rent it out (day to day business) I both have an asset with increasing capital worth and an income being generated from it. Other services likewise. AND the ability to employ, generate revenue etc, without that income being siphoned off to other parts of the world. So not such a neutral pucture as you paint.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:02 am

From the G live blog:

Q: Many people will be unnerved that you have appointed someone, Andrew Murray, to run your election campaign that believed communism was worth fighting for.

McDonnell says Murray has left the Communist party to join Labour.

Q: Have any business people joined you.

Yes, says McDonnell, naming some.

Q: So you welcome people, even those who supported communism just a few months ago.

McDonnell says they are converting people to democratic socialism.

Is Labour a democratic socialist party now? I thought it was a predominantly social democrat party when I joined. I mean, I thought that was how Labour described itself. Ed Miliband certainly described himself as a social democrat. Has Labour always called itself democratic socialist and I didn't notice or is this a recent thing? Bit confused

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:03 am

Hugo said:

That franchise now makes considerably more money for the UK than it did when nationalised. That is the franchise system working.

At huge expense to the average citizen who is paying for profit that gets ploughed into other nations infrastructure rather than that of their own. Thus we have seen immense rises in the cost of many basic things that link us to our own infrastructure. These are things that are supposed to enrich us as a nation, not impoverish us. Economic models from Blairs time ay be your favourite reference but we are a long way on from there, the world is, and we need sustainability, and soon. Not an endless reliance on growth on a finite planet. Besides which franchising all this stuff out leads to poor accountability and very little oversight, which we desperately need to tackle if our children and theirs are going to have lives worth living.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:12 am

seeingclearly wrote:Hugo said:
That franchise now makes considerably more money for the UK than it did when nationalised. That is the franchise system working.
At huge expense to the average citizen who is paying for profit that gets ploughed into other nations infrastructure rather than that of their own. Thus we have seen immense rises in the cost of many basic things that link us to our own infrastructure. These are things that are supposed to enrich us as a nation, not impoverish us. Economic models from Blairs time ay be your favourite reference but we are a long way on from there, the world is, and we need sustainability, and soon. Not an endless reliance on growth on a finite planet. Besides which franchising all this stuff out leads to poor accountability and very little oversight, which we desperately need to tackle if our children and theirs are going to have lives worth living.

You don't need to tell him that, he's a Green, remember?

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:19 am

We would be in good company, Willow. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

I guess if we renationalised things it would change matters and maybe we would be.... but who am I to know?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:26 am

seeingclearly wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:Plenty of reason to believe that any profit made will accrue to our government though, rather than the government of another country. Of course it could also create opportunities for people here too, in how to best run and manage large assets in a 21st century world.

Yes, that is one of the dafter arguments made. It is balance sheet neutral to nationalise an industry. You won't make money (ie "get the profits") that are going elsewhere. It is the opposite mistake to that made by people who claim it will cost too much. The reason we shouldn't worry about the Greek (or German or French etc) government owning rail franchises is that they are not susceptible to producer capture, which the UK government as owner would be.

Thinking about it, Labour is the best kind of government to have privatised industries as it will regulate them properly. A Tory government is the best kind to have nationalised industries, as it won't be (as) susceptible to producer capture.
It is balance neutral to nationalise yes. But it can still be run as a business, which it would be anyway, and then it would appear both as an assest and it would have normal profit and loss accounting. Are you saying other countries can make a profit by running our railways for instance, and we cannot? Or is there some other aspect to their profitmaking we do not take into account. Maybe that the infrastructure for rail has been subsidised in some way. I am not an expert at all. But if I have a property (railways) and rent it out (day to day business) I both have an asset with increasing capital worth and an income being generated from it. Other services likewise. AND the ability to employ, generate revenue etc, without that income being siphoned off to other parts of the world. So not such a neutral pucture as you paint.

The price paid reflects the actual and potential profit. It is a neutral transaction. Which is why "it costs too much" and "we should get the profits" are equally wrongheaded.

Unfortunately, there is also every reason to think that it won't be run on an arm's length business basis. See the history of nationalised industries in the UK and everywhere else. A particular problem for a Labour government, given its ties to the producers. Which is why you won't find economists endorsing it.

Indeed, the entire point for many of nationalising rail is to stop it being run in a commercial way.

There is also a political opportunity cost. There are so many better things to spend time and energy doing than making the rail system slightly worse.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:32 am

55DegreesNorth wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:Hugo said:
That franchise now makes considerably more money for the UK than it did when nationalised. That is the franchise system working.
At huge expense to the average citizen who is paying for profit that gets ploughed into other nations infrastructure rather than that of their own. Thus we have seen immense rises in the cost of many basic things that link us to our own infrastructure. These are things that are supposed to enrich us as a nation, not impoverish us. Economic models from Blairs time ay be your favourite reference but we are a long way on from there, the world is, and we need sustainability, and soon. Not an endless reliance on growth on a finite planet. Besides which franchising all this stuff out leads to poor accountability and very little oversight, which we desperately need to tackle if our children and theirs are going to have lives worth living.
You don't need to tell him that, he's a Green, remember?

Quite happy to accept that the greens endorse lots of silly things. One being the juvenile error that growth can't continue indefinitely. (A mistake about what economic growth is.)

But, as I think it immoral to vote for a party led by Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Fisher, Landsman, and now unbelievably Murray, I have to suck it up.

They were and are far better than Labour in Brexit, the biggest political issue by far.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:49 am

@Willow

From the mid '90's,it is on the membership card.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 9:54 am

seeingclearly wrote:We would be in good company, Willow. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

I guess if we renationalised things it would change matters and maybe we would be.... but who am I to know?

I'm not sure I follow. Social democracy and nationalisation is a common theme in the countries you mention, and I'm a big supporter. 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.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 16 May, 2017 10:02 am

HindleA wrote:@Willow

From the mid '90's,it is on the membership card.

Ah. Ok. I'm probably reading too much into a phrase (that can, I know, be used as a synonym for social democracy) because I know Corbyn and McDonnell are supporters of the ideology of democratic socialism. I just got used to Ed referring to himself as a social democrat and thinking of the party in those terms, so the phrase democratic socialism stood out a bit.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 10:13 am

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:@Willow

From the mid '90's,it is on the membership card.
Ah. Ok. I'm probably reading too much into a phrase (that can, I know, be used as a synonym for social democracy) because I know Corbyn and McDonnell are supporters of the ideology of democratic socialism. I just got used to Ed referring to himself as a social democrat and thinking of the party in those terms, so the phrase democratic socialism stood out a bit.

Long-standing tension between socialism and social democracy. Is Labour Die Linke or the SPD?

Corbyn and McDonnell want it to be Die Linke, which is why we now have Milne, Fisher and Murray running things.

None of these people would identify as "social democrats" in the European tradition.

We don't really have a clear social democratic party. As the Lib Dems showed from 2010 onwards, they are an unhappy mix of liberals and social democrats.

There is no clear social democratic party on the ballot paper now.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:08 am

Glad to hear the fake outrage emanating. It's a reminder of where we are politically in this country.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:11 am

Morning All

Can I just remind everyone of the text at the top of the page

You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room.

It would not be OK to share someone's private contact details loudly in a crowded room.

Please only link here to pages that you are sure are already public.

Thank you

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:15 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:@Willow

From the mid '90's,it is on the membership card.
Ah. Ok. I'm probably reading too much into a phrase (that can, I know, be used as a synonym for social democracy) because I know Corbyn and McDonnell are supporters of the ideology of democratic socialism. I just got used to Ed referring to himself as a social democrat and thinking of the party in those terms, so the phrase democratic socialism stood out a bit.
Long-standing tension between socialism and social democracy. Is Labour Die Linke or the SPD?

Corbyn and McDonnell want it to be Die Linke, which is why we now have Milne, Fisher and Murray running things.

None of these people would identify as "social democrats" in the European tradition.

We don't really have a clear social democratic party. As the Lib Dems showed from 2010 onwards, they are an unhappy mix of liberals and social democrats.

There is no clear social democratic party on the ballot paper now.

We're still too class ridden as a society for social democracy to prosper here yet IMHO.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:32 am

Willow904 wrote:
seeingclearly wrote:We would be in good company, Willow. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Holland, Canada, New Zealand, etc.

I guess if we renationalised things it would change matters and maybe we would be.... but who am I to know?
I'm not sure I follow. Social democracy and nationalisation is a common theme in the countries you mention, and I'm a big supporter. 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.

Is it a direct quote though? I read it as a reference to what he said, not his actual words. i.e. not a transcript, so there would have to be something more solid that an unsubstatiated reference to make a change of that kind..... Still either way a better option than eternal tory misery.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:38 am

@SpinningHugo

In case you are wondering, I just deleted your post.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:39 am

Thoughts on the manifesto?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:39 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@SpinningHugo

In case you are wondering, I just deleted your post.

Now just move the cursor over and delete his account, do everyone a favour.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:46 am

Buying capital assets like railways is fine, if they are then run on a commercial basis. No opportunity cost, save for the political time spent doing it.

Spending £12bn on abolishing tuition fees is not so bright. That is a regressive policy, that is not just a capital purchase. Much better to spend the money on, say, early years (or other good things). That is a real opportunity cost in revenue terms.

Some wit on twitter said this is Miliband's manifesto with the discipline of Balls removed. That seems about right to me. So, we know Miliband wanted an FTT, but Balls said it was dumb on a national scale (because it is). Even dumber post-Brexit.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 11:54 am

Temulkar wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@SpinningHugo

In case you are wondering, I just deleted your post.
Now just move the cursor over and delete his account, do everyone a favour.

When asked FTN has always been, on balance, against blocking posters.

I'm not here much these days, so don't know if, on balance, that view has changed.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:00 pm

@PaulfromYorkshire

I'm still against blocking posters.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:01 pm

Good morfternoon.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:02 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@SpinningHugo

In case you are wondering, I just deleted your post.
Now just move the cursor over and delete his account, do everyone a favour.
When asked FTN has always been, on balance, against blocking posters.

I'm not here much these days, so don't know if, on balance, that view has changed.

Last night we had an alt-right fake news site promoted as fact, and the term genocide denial cast at people, including highly respected academic genocide scholars, by individuals who clearly don't have a scooby-doo what constitutes genocide, or any respect for the principle of equality before the law. It was a grotesque display of fascism.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:16 pm

In response to Hugo

Do you actually understand that most of us who supported Corbyn on here were actually fairly tepid and were more interested in the move back left in policy - away from the consensus that has failed us so badly

If we look at the UK in 2017 - Brexit coming, higher inflation, interest rates that cannot be raised, public services in a mess and underfunded etc none of this can be blamed on the policies espoused by someone like Corbyn. The situation has been created by Governments that have applied the neoliberal economic mode of privitization is always more efficient than the public sector. This coupled with billions thrown awayon various military adventures (both the Falklands and Iraq could have been avoided if Governments had actually shown some moral fibre in years previous). Of course the Labour Government 97-2010 was better than the Tory one that went before it but it didn't make the changes it could have and actually, in parts, put in place the structures later exploited by the Tories

The thing that drove us away from here was not that other people didn't support Corbyn - that was their right to do so - but those that did were referred to as a 'cult', told we were dring 'Corbyn Kool-aid' etc. It became impossible almost to discuss policy and the direction of the party without siome frothing rant against the leadership

It would have been nice to have someone elese apart from Corbyn to viote for who could move us back to the left, rather than just moving to the right. The thing that made me support Corbyn in the leadership election was the realisation that even someone like Miliband couldn't win.....it had to be someone who was stubborn and bloody minded enough to take on the people in the party that believed fully in the neo-liberal mantra

We are talking here of politicians such as D. Miliband, Straw, Reid and Blunkett - those that wanted to ride roughshod over civil liberties and were implicated in the nefarious practices of rendition.

For some of us the party had got rotten at the core and forgotten the reason for its existence. The problems created then are now manifesting themselves in the frustration of people who were originally a Labour constituency having stopped voting or coming out for the crude populism of brexit

I for one am ambivalent about the leadership - the thing I want to see is policies that cahllenge and roll back some of the changes we have seen since 1979....but what gets my back up is being accused of being a 'cultist' and then being subjected to one or two people (and it is a very small minority) on here who only see everything in terms of the party leadership.

We are seeing the most inept Government in modern times and yet we allow ourselves to be diverted into continually debating the leadership - a position that is not open at the moment....

If people in the party do not think that Jeremy Corbyn leading a Labour Government is not prefereable to a Theresa May Conservative one then they need to have a hard think about their positions.

And just for the absence of any doubt. Corbyn is no ideal - he has too much baggage, he is stubborn (not always a bad thing9 and is more an activist than necessarily a leader. The trouble is though is that critics have not come up with any viable options and the continued sniping and criticism from within the party has damaged both him and the party. The attempted coup after the referendum was, in my opinion, the most inept and destructive event I have seen a political party undertake - if you are attempting an assassination you have to succeed!

The behaviour then on the party establishment is attacking its own membership and attempting to disenfranchise them in terms of internal party democracy

I am sure there will be a bloodbath after the election and it is going to be interesting to see what happens......one thing for me is clear though, I will vote for whoever maintains a direction of travel back to a balanced society instead of the unbalanced on we have now. It may be a Jeremy Corbyn, it may be one of the younger intake - it may be a Keir Starmer.

The leader to me is irrelevant realyl, it is the policy program they put forward.

It interests me that those who shout 'cultist' are the ones who spend all the time focusing on the leaders and very little on policy.......I would have thought it would be the other way round!

I am sure some people are attached to Corbyn as a leader, such as others were to Thatcher and Blair - and Churchill beofre them. I just don't see any of them on here, or ever have done

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:26 pm

Hugo, you have me completely wrong. I am no great supporter of Corbyn, but very interested in the movement around him, but more than that how it actually is on the ground, rather than how our intransigent media report it.

My personal reason for being here at all has been because I utterly oppose what the tories have done since 2010, not just in the legislation they have managed to push through, which has been bad enough, but also the way they have strategically played off all opposition and seem to think that diversity in politics is disposable. I was surprised the people let them back in, though I have my doubts on a lot of their behaviour prior to and after that date. They came with a clear cut plan to demolish a lot of our social infrastructure, definitely not of Cameron and co's authorship, frankly they don't have the intellect, so it has held my interest to see what would emerge and sure enough it has turned very hard and right wing. And the country has in some kind of bubble of disbelief been carried along that direction of travel too.

i am heartened by any fightback against this tendency, the early Cameron years had me cringing in embarassment at the way Labour seemed to be so apologetic for its actions and so ready to crumble against a politician I never saw as anything other than a lightweight conman. In the wake of the apologetics we got a cluster of Labour MPs who were acting continually not as an opposition but as enablers of the tories. I have never moved from a position of believing that 2010 was in fact a kind of silent coup, there were signs of that I recognised from other parts of the world. Not least the shameful and complicit nature of our press, and the active suppression of information that took place through till 2015. It came as no surprise that Cameron did a vanishing trick. The coup after all was not his, it was silent, and he was a figurehead at best. So now we are at this point with another election, and I want to be able to see that there is a rallying point against what I regard as a very unBritish state of affairs, because the beneficiaries of this current government are not the same as in other periods of lengthy tory domination. The nation itself has been brought to the point of self destruction, the common interestsbof its component parts have been disregarded in favour of fomenting difference and division. Corbyn at the moment represents the only point of recovery I can see, and that is tenuous because, as I said those Labour MPs who have been acting as enablers have not helped at all.

i would love to return not to the Blair glory days, but to the Britain that existed in 2010, with its institutions still intact. I do not want a breakup of the union, I do not want out of Europe, and most of all I do not want a bunch of people running this country with an agenda that appeases right wing nut jobs.

I will settle for anytging that unites people against that. Right now Corbyn is doing a good job, given the obstacles he has faced. He might not be the choice of everyone, but he is who we have got, he understands what we have lost in the last seven years, and he is offering what is probablt the last chance to turn back from the disastrous path we are on. As we are not the only nation going down this road, may I point out recent events in N.O. and Virginia ( if you don't know of these then regard it as something you probably should gen up on). For all the ominous and frankly rather stupid ideas that we are lgoing to be led by communists, the fact is that we now have the opposite, a regime that may get in with an enhanced majority that is increasingly fascistic to the point of eliminating as much as possible all opposition in favour of a one party state. When I have observed this kind of thing else where it has not been good. Though some step back from the brink. But we are already late in the process. The enthusiasm of people for something different is therefore very welcome. And that is where I stand on this matter. And why I hate to see the opposition being undermined here on a daily basis.

As a nation we have a great weakness. That is to believe that certain political things could never happen to us. But they have, and even now there is only a bare recognition of it. It could also be our strength if people rallied around with determination to stop things. Maybe not immediately, but to change the direction of travel enough for the immediate future to be more secure, and for change in 2022. If there had been fewer doubters then it could have happened sooner, though I personally will not give up hope that actually we ARE a better nation than that. And I will not give up hope that events will turn our way.

It is all we have right now. And it is part of the reason I speak up. And am more interested in the bigger picture than anything else.

Apologies if this has been long and if I have over posted. I am not a dominating type at all, but on this I feel very strongly. It is not Corbyn at all. 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.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:33 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: I will vote for whoever maintains a direction of travel back to a balanced society instead of the unbalanced on we have now.

Unfortunately, by voting for Corbyn or equivalent you guaranteed that the direction of travel would be in the opposite direction (ie not even steady state). The Tories have moved right, because they know they can without adverse consequence. We're having an election now because of Labour's weakness. Governments don't usually cut and run after two years, because the electoral cycle should be biting the government badly at this point.

That isn't to say that I think all of the problems of the left or Labour are down to Corbyn personally: clearly they are not. There are structural problems too, as I've said. Often. It wouldn't matter now who the leader is.

These things seem obvious to me, which is why I enjoy reading other views that seem so difficult for me to comprehend, from clearly intelligent engaged people.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:42 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: I will vote for whoever maintains a direction of travel back to a balanced society instead of the unbalanced on we have now.
Unfortunately, by voting for Corbyn or equivalent you guaranteed that the direction of travel would be in the opposite direction (ie not even steady state). The Tories have moved right, because they know they can without adverse consequence. We're having an election now because of Labour's weakness. Governments don't usually cut and run after two years, because the electoral cycle should be biting the government badly at this point.

That isn't to say that I think all of the problems of the left or Labour are down to Corbyn personally: clearly they are not. There are structural problems too, as I've said. Often. It wouldn't matter now who the leader is.

These things seem obvious to me, which is why I enjoy reading other views that seem so difficult for me to comprehend, from clearly intelligent engaged people.

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

I think this is a truly great idea.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:45 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Buying capital assets like railways is fine, if they are then run on a commercial basis. No opportunity cost, save for the political time spent doing it.

Spending £12bn on abolishing tuition fees is not so bright. That is a regressive policy, that is not just a capital purchase. Much better to spend the money on, say, early years (or other good things). That is a real opportunity cost in revenue terms.

Some wit on twitter said this is Miliband's manifesto with the discipline of Balls removed. That seems about right to me. So, we know Miliband wanted an FTT, but Balls said it was dumb on a national scale (because it is). Even dumber post-Brexit.

Oh, ffs, Hugo, you are a pain in the neck. We had a proud tradition of supported education in this country. It served us well. And now we have a generation of (expensive for them) graduates who have to go abroad for opportunity, and a generation of wage serfs who may never get a leg up in life. Because of the demolition of our education system and its best points. I fundamentally disagreed with the Labour move towards tuition fees. Now they are there, even for what used to be readily available (at any age) FE courses. It has become an industry instead of national resource/investment and we are all poorer for it. Virtually no one chose this through the ballot box.

We need good teaching right the way through from early years to university, instead we are going the American way, indifferent education unless you pay and third rate, if that, community college style junk education with low level teaching. Instead of what was decent education if a bit patchy in less well funded areas. And believe me, I have seen some of them, even under Labour not good places to be, not, you understand, places of great disruption or gang divisions, but quiet despair. Where kids regularly self harmed, and suicide was not unusual. Where there were no prospects, and kids had no hope. We never even touched on fixing some of those places. And then academisation bollocks. And expenditure that went down the drain, on nothing of value, and teaching downgraded, undermined and left in tatters. And failing schools everywhere. A generation of broken education is going to take some recovery from, and you are pithering on about "early years (or other good things)" in a totally dangerous way. There, I have said it. The things you espouse are dangerous for the health and wellbeing of this country, I have no idea who you are, but even the right wing people I have endountered are merely deluded, while you are in fact quite deliberately destructive.

Much needed edits. To remove dangerous typos. I wish other removal were as easy, but we have one lodger here who has taken over the house. As such I feel like a neighbour who has lost patience. But you all know my views on that. Such lodgers suck places like this dry and remove good discourse, so forgive my anger on this. There have been terrible things happen in our country under cover of all manner of distraction. Yesterdays posts were beyond awful. and in the same vein.

So please lets look at that manifesto, which is likely to be better than we could have hoped for a fortnight ago. And take no notice of Hugos 'travelling in the wrong direction' asides.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Tue 16 May, 2017 12:56 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: I will vote for whoever maintains a direction of travel back to a balanced society instead of the unbalanced on we have now.
Unfortunately, by voting for Corbyn or equivalent you guaranteed that the direction of travel would be in the opposite direction (ie not even steady state). The Tories have moved right, because they know they can without adverse consequence. We're having an election now because of Labour's weakness. Governments don't usually cut and run after two years, because the electoral cycle should be biting the government badly at this point.

That isn't to say that I think all of the problems of the left or Labour are down to Corbyn personally: clearly they are not. There are structural problems too, as I've said. Often. It wouldn't matter now who the leader is.

These things seem obvious to me, which is why I enjoy reading other views that seem so difficult for me to comprehend, from clearly intelligent engaged people.

We are having an election now because of TORY weakness, because they do not know what to do with the monstrosity they have made, and they need a mandate to secure the dubious things they have won and to make them permanent. And to shore up a failing and ineffectual prime minister. They couldn't afford to have here weaknesses made visible, her personal ratings are not going up at all, she peaked so did the tories, a while ago and they know it. Those who don't look unfortunately don't. And we are all at the mercy of their votes.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:04 pm

You really are a patronising ****

You are making massive assumptions as to why the Tories have this lead at the moment - most of which cannot be validated and so to speak with the certainty you do is misplaced

The damage was started in 2008 and the lack of Labour defending themselves against the claims of 'overspending' and blame for the financial crisis - supported by their own MPs.....this has dogged the party since then and has continued into this electiona s well - despite the evidence of it not being Labour who cannot manage an economy

The Tories have moved right because they can do and want to and now the electorate is buying into it. You cannot blame Corbyn for the laziness of the electorate in spouting asome of the nonsense you hear and also the obvious bias within the media

Corbyn has some of the blame, but so does the nationalism engendered by Brexit and the antics of the PLP - as well as a hangover from all those who stopped voting Labour in the 90s

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:10 pm

All I will say about last night's exchanges is that Oliver Kamm is an immensely smug centre-right liberal who - not untypically for such types - is nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

It is not surprising that SH likes him, but still a bit disappointing.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:32 pm

I find it infuriating and exasperating that the voting public, who (and I include myself) in the main are not economics experts, but reject Labour's ideas and accept the Conservatives' plans. Just on the say-so of the media and the Conservatives (often the same thing, I know). They (sometimes we) no more understand what the Conservatives are talking about than they do Labour. And yet the Conservatives are considered to be right!

Edited to tidy up

And again

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:32 pm

Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:
Q: Many people will be unnerved that you have appointed someone, Andrew Murray, to run your election campaign that believed communism was worth fighting for.

McDonnell says Murray has left the Communist party to join Labour.

Q: Have any business people joined you.

Yes, says McDonnell, naming some.

Q: So you welcome people, even those who supported communism just a few months ago.

McDonnell says they are converting people to democratic socialism.
Is Labour a democratic socialist party now? I thought it was a predominantly social democrat party when I joined. I mean, I thought that was how Labour described itself. Ed Miliband certainly described himself as a social democrat. Has Labour always called itself democratic socialist and I didn't notice or is this a recent thing? Bit confused

The back of my Labour Party membership card begins
'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.'

I think we're in a bit of a Monty Python sketch and I'm okay with that
Remember to love one another and vote Labour

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:33 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:37 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: I will vote for whoever maintains a direction of travel back to a balanced society instead of the unbalanced on we have now.
Unfortunately, by voting for Corbyn or equivalent you guaranteed that the direction of travel would be in the opposite direction (ie not even steady state). The Tories have moved right, because they know they can without adverse consequence. We're having an election now because of Labour's weakness. Governments don't usually cut and run after two years, because the electoral cycle should be biting the government badly at this point.

That isn't to say that I think all of the problems of the left or Labour are down to Corbyn personally: clearly they are not. There are structural problems too, as I've said. Often. It wouldn't matter now who the leader is.

These things seem obvious to me, which is why I enjoy reading other views that seem so difficult for me to comprehend, from clearly intelligent engaged people.
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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:38 pm

The Moody Blues - "Tuesday Afternoon"

https://youtu.be/j7MY1rtPL5Q

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:40 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: You cannot blame Corbyn for the laziness of the electorate in spouting asome of the nonsense you hear

That is democracy. I am not sure calling for a new polis will get us very far. Labour has to win in this world, not in some fantasy world we'd prefer.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 16 May, 2017 1:45 pm

seeingclearly wrote:
We need good teaching right the way through from early years to university,

If University education were universal, in the same way that schooling is, then I'd have no problem with it being paid for by the state. It wouldn't then be regressive,

But it isn't universal. It disproportionately goes to the children of the wealthy, who themselves will be wealthy. It is therefore regressive.

We could still justify it on other grounds if there were evidence of the current system being a barrier to entry for the poorest. There is no evidence of this at all. (Mainly because the loan system is generous.)

Parties of the left are supposed to oppose regressive policies. Especially when the opportunity cost is so high (ie it is a lot of money that could be spent on other better things).