FlyTheNest

mikems wrote:The rising anti-Corbyn panic is interesting...Blair's been wheeled out...which should convince bundles of left-wingers to ditch Jeremy, no problem at all.

dominic dyer ‏@domdyer70 20h20 hours ago
Chancellor expects DEFRA to make further budget cuts of between 25 to 40% no way Liz Truss fund extension of badger cull no money left

mikems wrote:Michael Foot being mentioned a lot, as if it is axiomatic that all left-wingers are going to lose. But, of course, Foot lost because the right of the party split away and formed the SDP. Can they do that trick again, now, does anyone think? Perhaps they could link up with Tim Farron and his chums and keep the tories in power for twenty years of so. Seats in the Lords at the end of it.

No, Foot lost because he was an organisational and presentational shambles, because his policies were so out of tune with the population he was doomed.

mikems wrote:Also Labour is unlikely to win the next election in any case, regardless of the leader, simply from the arithmetic. So we shouldn't just be thinking short-term, or we will have to go through all this again next time, barring an unlikely victory.

mikems wrote:

No, Foot lost because he was an organisational and presentational shambles, because his policies were so out of tune with the population he was doomed.

That's an opinion, of course. Not an accepted fact we can all work with.

SpinningHugo wrote:Corbyn now 5/2 second favourite.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blair says the SNP are reactionary and describes nationalism as a “caveman” ideology.

Watch: The short walk that Rob Wilson MP claimed 13p travel expenses for

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... on-9698152

Blair says he does not believe the claims about Labour being out of power for ever. That reminds him of what people used to say about Labour, old Economist covers, he says.

He says politics does not work like that.

And he says the Tories are going to start getting “cocky”.

mikems wrote:The '83 manifesto was not as left-wing as Wilson's in '74. Describing it as 'the longest suicide note in history' and as some sort of historical defeat of socialism is hyping the facts beyond what they can bear, in my opinion.

PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

I

mikems wrote:The '83 manifesto was not as left-wing as Wilson's in '74. Describing it as 'the longest suicide note in history' and as some sort of historical defeat of socialism is hyping the facts beyond what they can bear, in my opinion.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

That said it also gave a remarkably high figure for members joining since 2010. Can the party have changed that much? I just pay my subs and don't attend meetings. What do people who have more of a feel for this than me think? Have we had a high turnover in members?

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PorFavor wrote:If the "Blairites" (shorthand) had any sense, they would ditch Tony Blair as their figurehead, and plough their furrow without reference to him. If they can't see the damage caused by their continually wheeling him out and, by implication, saying "Tony Blair is the best we can come up with" then they are being really rather stupid. Even those who once thought that he was wonderful must surely recognise that times have changed. They are behaving in a way that goes contrary to everything that they keep saying that they (and saying that their opponents in Labour don't) stand for by continually looking backwards (and quite a long way backwards, now).

So-called "Progress" is stuck in the past.

I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

That said it also gave a remarkably high figure for members joining since 2010. Can the party have changed that much? I just pay my subs and don't attend meetings. What do people who have more of a feel for this than me think? Have we had a high turnover in members?

I did a Yougov poll about the Labour leadership, I don't know if it was the one quoted. I said "don't know" for who I would elect leader. There were 20% " don't knows" in the published poll, I believe. There was also a question about likelihood to vote. I wonder if Corbyn's supporters came out higher on likelihood to vote? I may look for the details on this poll as the media seem keen on the Corbyn ahead, Labour gone mad, narrative. They may be stretching the data to fit a story to suit them.

Éoin ‏@LabourEoin 26 mins26 minutes ago

Labour is in grave danger of becoming a populist anti-austerity movement..... warns Tristram Hunt. That is all.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
I don't think they do 'wheel him out'.

In 2010 Blair made no intervention as it would not have helped his preferred candidate. Today it is clear that the candidate he (and I) would prefer is going to lose, and so it makes no difference.

It is certainly true that the right of the party needs a figurehead who we can persuade the rest of the party to elect them. I had hoped Kendall would be that person, but it seems not.

Given that yesterday's poll was carried out before the Welfare Bill fiasco, and that the Corbyn-ite ultras tend to be more committed than those determined to elect Burnham (are there such people?) my current fear is that it understated Corbyn's strength.

That said it also gave a remarkably high figure for members joining since 2010. Can the party have changed that much? I just pay my subs and don't attend meetings. What do people who have more of a feel for this than me think? Have we had a high turnover in members?

I did a Yougov poll about the Labour leadership, I don't know if it was the one quoted. I said "don't know" for who I would elect leader. There were 20% " don't knows" in the published poll, I believe. There was also a question about likelihood to vote. I wonder if Corbyn's supporters came out higher on likelihood to vote? I may look for the details on this poll as the media seem keen on the Corbyn ahead, Labour gone mad, narrative. They may be stretching the data to fit a story to suit them.

Likely or v likely to vote came out at 95%. Which will not be right

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/22/co ... p-contest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:One thing that needs to happen now is that JC needs to be pinned down on whether he is really going to serve just a few years as leader, then stand down.

He has hinted at this, and his team have been even less ambiguous. He needs to leave no doubt about it one way or the other, though.

PorFavor wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

How would that affect people whose "stamp" is paid whilst they are on benefits? And those people who are below the tax threshold? Will they be frozen out of the system? (Ok. Ok. I'll go and read the article now - and the question may be answered!)

RogerOThornhill wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

HindleA wrote:http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... ional.html

MERGING INCOME TAX AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Government has asked the Office of Tax Simplification to investigate 'closer alignment' of income tax and National Insurance. It could result in a single new tax which would probably apply only to earnings.

How would that affect people whose "stamp" is paid whilst they are on benefits? And those people who are below the tax threshold? Will they be frozen out of the system? (Ok. Ok. I'll go and read the article now - and the question may be answered!)

I doubt it will happen - if it was simple it would have been done by now.

That Office for Tax Simplification under John Whiting (ex PwC tax partner and someone I've heard speak) has been running for a few years now and if they haven't come up with a watertight way of solving this then they never will.