Monday 27th July 2015

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 6:30 pm

I don't know who will ultimately win the leadership campaign, what I do know is Labour scared of it's own shadow at the moment, every minor blip is blown up to gigantic proportions, every bollock dropped by Harman evidence of a party unsure of it's identity.

Every candidate apart from Corbyn has been insipid for the most part, I doubt Corbyn actually wants the gig, but to give him his dues he's going for it, his message isn't being watered down to appeal to the aspirational, whoever they are, whoever I vote for I doubt they will be there in three years time, they speak, apart from Corbyn the same old spiel, a lot of course depends of course if Labour is prepared to change half way, something it has always been loathe to do.

So yes, I agree with Hugo, Jarvis is well placed, if he wants it, Starmer another I keep bleating on about, while Labour has another period of navel gazing, buoyed on by the press, because, hey that's what they should do an average bunch of ministers are having a free reign, not just frustrating, maddening.

Yahyah, hugs to you too, hope you're well x

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 6:32 pm

This an area where, dare I say it, Corbyn needs to learn from the SNP. They see no contradiction between attacking Cameron from the left and strongly supporting EU membership. They're right about that.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 6:41 pm

I'm going to do a Margaret Beckett then Tubby and fully own to being 'pitiful'. I think Corbyn has a point and it's not unreasonable to say we should wait to see what Cameron negotiates on our (or rather the Tories) behalf before deciding how to direct a campaign. Also not unreasonable to work out what are clear concerns and not desirable outcomes from Cameron's negotiations.

This is different times from Major and the Social Chapter etc. The combination of already insecure and low paid employment for many more people than before, further weakened workers rights - as a result of a Cameron / Tory demands in an EU renegotiation - weakened trades unions as a result of Tory legislation - and still having free movement of labour because the EU aren't going to negotiate that principle away - a higher minimum wage - but none of the protections re not undercutting wages, firms having to advertise jobs in the UK that Labour intended to bring in .... seem to combine the worst of all worlds for many UK workers but are probably some business bods idea of heaven on a plate.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 6:44 pm

I think Corbyn's talking a lot of old spiel too. The populist nonsense of bringing back grants and abolishing fees (what happens to those who don't make it to university? they don't look like they'll even get school places at the moment) and chucking around silly broadbrush figures he's seen in the paper but hasn't given a second's thought to. And the rubbish about the EU that I just posted.

People always say "if you offer them two Tory parties, they'll choose the real one". But apparently the same doesn't apply with offering them two Green parties.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:00 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:I'm going to do a Margaret Beckett then Tubby and fully own to being 'pitiful'. I think Corbyn has a point and it's not unreasonable to say we should wait to see what Cameron negotiates on our (or rather the Tories) behalf before deciding how to direct a campaign. Also not unreasonable to work out what are clear concerns and not desirable outcomes from Cameron's negotiations.

This is different times from Major and the Social Chapter etc. The combination of already insecure and low paid employment for many more people than before, further weakened workers rights - as a result of a Cameron / Tory demands in an EU renegotiation - weakened trades unions as a result of Tory legislation - and still having free movement of labour because the EU aren't going to negotiate that principle away - a higher minimum wage - but none of the protections re not undercutting wages, firms having to advertise jobs in the UK that Labour intended to bring in .... seem to combine the worst of all worlds for many UK workers but are probably some business bods idea of heaven on a plate.

No doubt at all what Cameron's concerns are.

But Corbyn, despite the "straight talking" image he has, is pretty clearly flirting with leaving the EU. He's not just talking about the campaign. To talk about making demands to reform the EU like he does there is raising false hopes. Most powerful person in the EU is Angela Merkel, quite likely joined by Sarko again in a couple of years, plus the Right just about everywhere except Italy (who have so many domestic problems, they can't be very left wing or assertive on the international stage).

We have to be honest that we aren't going to be driving something with 27 members to the left. The case for staying is that we influence it more from inside, and that if we leave it'll be telling us what to do anyway.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:01 pm

There were lots of concerns about low pay in Major's Britain. Sure, globalisation was less advanced, but it was a country without much in the way of in-work benefits.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:03 pm

: Take Health Out of TTIP.jpg (60.87 KiB) Viewed 6196 times

Glad to see Pembrokeshire in the forefront ...

Perhaps another reason to consider being pitiful?

Editing to add link to the above
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/07/2 ... ese-signs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:17 pm

Tubby

Why are you harking back 25 years to a period of time very different from now - with a PM who, despite many faults, is definitely a step up from the incompetent fool we have now?

I am not supporting the use of the word 'demands' but I definitely support the premise that the EU cannot be built on the backs of the general population - the people who have paid for the luxuries of the rich over the last couple of decades. I for one will not decide what I am voting for until I have seen what is being proposed - do you trust Cameron not to try and further our lead in the race to the bottom?

I don't believe we shall see him get much out of the rest of Europe on worker protection but after tha incompetent handling of the Greek situation and the ascendancy of the right wing in Government nothing would surprise me

I would not lightly vote against the EU but it has to be an EU worth supporting....it is currently but will that be the way after Cameron has finished with it - as I said I expect that to stay the case but I have no confidence in him

As to Corbyn - I am glad he is there. I don't really see him as a PM but he is a vessel for the left to express dissatisfaction with the current situation. He may not win but we can hope he tries to pull the party away from the right-wing

His politics are nowhere near the Militant of the early 80s and, in fact, he seems to be speaking the same language that the Party as a whole was as recently as the 90s.

And do we really think he would be worse that the current fool in Number 10 - the leader of the most incompetent, mendacious and downright corrupt bunch of shysters we have seen in power for many a decade

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:33 pm

I would not lightly vote against the EU but it has to be an EU worth supporting....it is currently but will that be the way after Cameron has finished with it - as I said I expect that to stay the case but I have no confidence in him

Voting to leave because you don't like what Cameron's negotiated doesn't make much sense to me. If it's a change across the whole EU then we get stuck with that when we leave. If it's something special for Britain, like the Social Chapter Opt Out, then we simply say we'll opt back in when we can, like we did before 1997.

The SNP, as I say, have this right. Cameron is a dangerous fool trying to cut off Britain from its main market. (Well, they're right about the EU, even if they don't apply the logic to leaving the UK).

Cameron's dug a right hole for himself though. Lots of people might vote to leave the EU because they don't like him and what he's about. This is what you get when you hand over policy decisions to referenda.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:38 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Take Health Out of TTIP.jpg
Glad to see Pembrokeshire in the forefront ...

Perhaps another reason to consider being pitiful?

Editing to add link to the above
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/07/2 ... ese-signs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No reason at all, I don't think.

It's like other Single Market stuff. Non-members will get it dumped on them, with no say in it. As this blogger, who doesn't sound very keen on TTIP or the EU's role says.

http://www.beuc.eu/blog/how-ttip-will-a ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:43 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote: I suppose it's better than someone like Cameron pretending to like the Smiths.y.
Whatever else there is to be said against him, Cameron clearly does like the Smiths

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

As for Corbyn, he won't be leader in 2020 even if elected. There are only around 20 members of the PLP who would want him. An aged, inexperienced, old rebel singing songs of the 70s. He wouldn't be able to construct a realistic opposition, let alone government. He is not like Foot, experienced, loyal, and backed as the unity candidate by the majority of the PLP. Foot was loved by many, liked by all. Those who know Corbyn best, his colleagues, tolerate him, nothing more.

Renationalise BT? Really? Leave the EU? Really? Marr gave him the softest of rides, people on here would be shouting if the same had been done with a Tory.

Burnham and Cooper have made themselves ridiculous with their (shared) strategy of not saying anything at all. One of them (probably the former) will win through second preferences. But their cynical refusal to engage has damaged them, and the party. The reason is that they know what would persuade the leadership electors bears little relation to what would persuade the voters in Nuneaton and Canterbury they eventually need to win over.

Jarvis is now well positioned to stop Prime Minister Osborne winning a third term. In 2030.

Oh, Hugo. I wish you did have a time machine and could venture to the future to see how parties and voters turned out - if you did, your trolling might be even more exquisite with time. As it is, your reliance on lazy assertions and easy spin sound as lazy as some of those thinkpieces in the press that mistake Talking Up The Doom for Having A Winning Argument.

I enjoyed Marr's interview, easy ride or not. I'm sorry you didn't. Do I think Corbyn will win? I really don't know. But I find him far more amendable than the constant, cocksurely condescending pronunciations on how people in various constituencies are going to vote in 2020. If you were so confident of every element of the future, why are you so determinedly trying to construct it? Shall I tell everyone to stay home because you've already called it?

If you want to talk about the ideas and principles Labour needs? Sure. I'll happily do that. But your style of writing Corbyn off is precisely why so many people are currently favouring him. Not saying it's enough to win him even a leadership election, but all the same: he may lose, but that argument just looks bankrupt. And that's certain to lose the next election for Labour. It's what we need a change from.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:48 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I would not lightly vote against the EU but it has to be an EU worth supporting....it is currently but will that be the way after Cameron has finished with it - as I said I expect that to stay the case but I have no confidence in him
Voting to leave because you don't like what Cameron's negotiated doesn't make much sense to me. If it's a change across the whole EU then we get stuck with that when we leave. If it's something special for Britain, like the Social Chapter Opt Out, then we simply say we'll opt back in when we can, like we did before 1997.

The SNP, as I say, have this right. Cameron is a dangerous fool trying to cut off Britain from its main market. (Well, they're right about the EU, even if they don't apply the logic to leaving the UK).

Cameron's dug a right hole for himself though. Lots of people might vote to leave the EU because they don't like him and what he's about. This is what you get when you hand over policy decisions to referenda.

But don't the SNP think of / use the EU almost as their alternative to the UK? There seemed to be a lot of wishful thinking bound up in their assertions about staying a member of the EU even if they left the UK during the Indy ref.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:09 pm

On the EU: firstly, I, for one, feel somewhat differently about it after what happened with Greece. I've always been a qualified supporter of it, but now I can't help but wonder if it's time to need to be reconvinced. If they had a referendum tomorrow, I'd probably vote No - and that's a first for me.

Secondly, there's a wonderful irony with the way the SNP are saying they'll need another referendum on Independence at the same time as Cameron and the rest of the EU referendum supporters are still carrying on as if this referendum will solve the question of the EU. Those who want out will never be satisfied and the question never gets resolved, as the SNP are proving now. It's one of many reasons why referenda are such a useless and self-defeating political instrument.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:11 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
But don't the SNP think of / use the EU almost as their alternative to the UK? There seemed to be a lot of wishful thinking bound up in their assertions about staying a member of the EU even if they left the UK during the Indy ref.

Yes, they were talking rubbish on that score. It's quite ironic that they see themselves as internationalists and so different from UKIPpy old England that they mess up whenever there's an international dimension. They didn't think their secession had any implications for other EU members, when plenty of them won't want to encourage separatists in their own borders. Similarly they were keen on the Euro as late as 2009. And they at first went headlong for TTIP, seeing it in terms of extra whisky exports.

But they aren't flirting with leaving the EU, like Corbyn is, or talking about a left-wing alternative outside it.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:14 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:On the EU: firstly, I, for one, feel somewhat differently about it after what happened with Greece. I've always been a qualified supporter of it, but now I can't help but wonder if it's time to need to be reconvinced. If they had a referendum tomorrow, I'd probably vote No - and that's a first for me.

Secondly, there's a wonderful irony with the way the SNP are saying they'll need another referendum on Independence at the same time as Cameron and the rest of the EU referendum supporters are still carrying on as if this referendum will solve the question of the EU. Those who want out will never be satisfied and the question never gets resolved, as the SNP are proving now. It's one of many reasons why referenda are such a useless and self-defeating political instrument.

How would voting to leave the EU help Greece or Britain?

That's gesture politics.

Agree with you about referenda though.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:26 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:On the EU: firstly, I, for one, feel somewhat differently about it after what happened with Greece. I've always been a qualified supporter of it, but now I can't help but wonder if it's time to need to be reconvinced. If they had a referendum tomorrow, I'd probably vote No - and that's a first for me.

Secondly, there's a wonderful irony with the way the SNP are saying they'll need another referendum on Independence at the same time as Cameron and the rest of the EU referendum supporters are still carrying on as if this referendum will solve the question of the EU. Those who want out will never be satisfied and the question never gets resolved, as the SNP are proving now. It's one of many reasons why referenda are such a useless and self-defeating political instrument.
How would voting to leave the EU help Greece or Britain?

That's gesture politics.

Agree with you about referenda though.

Not sure where this idea of "gesture politics" suddenly became so popular from. Suddenly opposing things by opposing them is written off as a gesture. I kind of thought it was, well, politics.

It seems a little like anyone actively doing anything someone else doesn't like is a gesture. Which is more about belittling the thing done than actually addressing it. Accusing everyone else's actions as being shallower than an alternative that fails to make a point seems far more the gesture to me. In other news, nuance is dead.

On the EU - I'm no longer sure we should remain. Does it help Greece? No more or no less than remaining does. But Europe represented - for some - the idea that a larger, less right wing settlement might be possible from looking outside an increasingly neoliberal Britain. It was true in the past but it isn't true anymore. I'm pro what i thought Europe was, but the recent events truly rattled me - possibly because I'm naive about it. I'm merely being honest about the fact that, given a choice based on recent actions, my feeling is to reject an organisation that just hobbled a country for generations. That's what happened, and tacit consent does nothing to address that.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:30 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote: I suppose it's better than someone like Cameron pretending to like the Smiths.y.
Whatever else there is to be said against him, Cameron clearly does like the Smiths

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

As for Corbyn, he won't be leader in 2020 even if elected. There are only around 20 members of the PLP who would want him. An aged, inexperienced, old rebel singing songs of the 70s. He wouldn't be able to construct a realistic opposition, let alone government. He is not like Foot, experienced, loyal, and backed as the unity candidate by the majority of the PLP. Foot was loved by many, liked by all. Those who know Corbyn best, his colleagues, tolerate him, nothing more.

Renationalise BT? Really? Leave the EU? Really? Marr gave him the softest of rides, people on here would be shouting if the same had been done with a Tory.

Burnham and Cooper have made themselves ridiculous with their (shared) strategy of not saying anything at all. One of them (probably the former) will win through second preferences. But their cynical refusal to engage has damaged them, and the party. The reason is that they know what would persuade the leadership electors bears little relation to what would persuade the voters in Nuneaton and Canterbury they eventually need to win over.

Jarvis is now well positioned to stop Prime Minister Osborne winning a third term. In 2030.
Oh, Hugo. I wish you did have a time machine and could venture to the future to see how parties and voters turned out - if you did, your trolling might be even more exquisite with time. As it is, your reliance on lazy assertions and easy spin sound as lazy as some of those thinkpieces in the press that mistake Talking Up The Doom for Having A Winning Argument.

I enjoyed Marr's interview, easy ride or not. I'm sorry you didn't. Do I think Corbyn will win? I really don't know. But I find him far more amendable than the constant, cocksurely condescending pronunciations on how people in various constituencies are going to vote in 2020. If you were so confident of every element of the future, why are you so determinedly trying to construct it? Shall I tell everyone to stay home because you've already called it?

If you want to talk about the ideas and principles Labour needs? Sure. I'll happily do that. But your style of writing Corbyn off is precisely why so many people are currently favouring him. Not saying it's enough to win him even a leadership election, but all the same: he may lose, but that argument just looks bankrupt. And that's certain to lose the next election for Labour. It's what we need a change from.

One of the things I like about this site compared to, say, the Graun, is we at least attempt to address things others have said. Rather than, you know, just dismiss others as trolls or whatever.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:32 pm

I'm not sure I like being a Committee Chair. Is it possible to be permanently set to backbencher? It's kind of my natural level...

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:32 pm

Evening All

Some cracking discussion on here about the leadership contest. Thanks.

I'm away next week for a holiday. Then who knows, for better or worse, you may see more of me again round here

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:35 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:I'm not sure I like being a Committee Chair. Is it possible to be permanently set to backbencher? It's kind of my natural level...

Bob on an orange bra and do a quick line and you should return to the back benches pretty quickly

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:36 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Whatever else there is to be said against him, Cameron clearly does like the Smiths

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

As for Corbyn, he won't be leader in 2020 even if elected. There are only around 20 members of the PLP who would want him. An aged, inexperienced, old rebel singing songs of the 70s. He wouldn't be able to construct a realistic opposition, let alone government. He is not like Foot, experienced, loyal, and backed as the unity candidate by the majority of the PLP. Foot was loved by many, liked by all. Those who know Corbyn best, his colleagues, tolerate him, nothing more.

Renationalise BT? Really? Leave the EU? Really? Marr gave him the softest of rides, people on here would be shouting if the same had been done with a Tory.

Burnham and Cooper have made themselves ridiculous with their (shared) strategy of not saying anything at all. One of them (probably the former) will win through second preferences. But their cynical refusal to engage has damaged them, and the party. The reason is that they know what would persuade the leadership electors bears little relation to what would persuade the voters in Nuneaton and Canterbury they eventually need to win over.

Jarvis is now well positioned to stop Prime Minister Osborne winning a third term. In 2030.
Oh, Hugo. I wish you did have a time machine and could venture to the future to see how parties and voters turned out - if you did, your trolling might be even more exquisite with time. As it is, your reliance on lazy assertions and easy spin sound as lazy as some of those thinkpieces in the press that mistake Talking Up The Doom for Having A Winning Argument.

I enjoyed Marr's interview, easy ride or not. I'm sorry you didn't. Do I think Corbyn will win? I really don't know. But I find him far more amendable than the constant, cocksurely condescending pronunciations on how people in various constituencies are going to vote in 2020. If you were so confident of every element of the future, why are you so determinedly trying to construct it? Shall I tell everyone to stay home because you've already called it?

If you want to talk about the ideas and principles Labour needs? Sure. I'll happily do that. But your style of writing Corbyn off is precisely why so many people are currently favouring him. Not saying it's enough to win him even a leadership election, but all the same: he may lose, but that argument just looks bankrupt. And that's certain to lose the next election for Labour. It's what we need a change from.

One of the he things I like about this site compared to, say, the Graun, is we at least attempt to address things others have said. Rather than, you know, just dismiss others as trolls or whatever.

I wasn't dismissing you for trolling, i was praising your ability to do so when it suits you.

Any comment on the other two and a half paragraphs that directly referred to your post? The bit about how, instead of making an argument about Corbyn, you're making arguments about how popular you believe him to be in the future? It really is exactly the style that's made so many people despair of the other three candidates and the press commentary about the leadership. I'm not saying that to be flip - it genuinely is helping Corbyn's popularity.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:37 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I'm not sure I like being a Committee Chair. Is it possible to be permanently set to backbencher? It's kind of my natural level...
Bob on an orange bra and do a quick line and you should return to the back benches pretty quickly

I dunno. If I do that, I might equally end up as Chancellor of the bloody Exchequer...

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:41 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I'm not sure I like being a Committee Chair. Is it possible to be permanently set to backbencher? It's kind of my natural level...
Bob on an orange bra and do a quick line and you should return to the back benches pretty quickly
I dunno. If I do that, I might equally end up as Chancellor of the bloody Exchequer...

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:41 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Not sure where this idea of "gesture politics" suddenly became so popular from. Suddenly opposing things by opposing them is written off as a gesture. I kind of thought it was, well, politics.

It seems a little like anyone actively doing anything someone else doesn't like is a gesture. Which is more about belittling the thing done than actually addressing it. Accusing everyone else's actions as being shallower than an alternative that fails to make a point seems far more the gesture to me. In other news, nuance is dead.

On the EU - I'm no longer sure we should remain. Does it help Greece? No more or no less than remaining does. But Europe represented - for some - the idea that a larger, less right wing settlement might be possible from looking outside an increasingly neoliberal Britain. It was true in the past but it isn't true anymore. I'm pro what i thought Europe was, but the recent events truly rattled me - possibly because I'm naive about it. I'm merely being honest about the fact that, given a choice based on recent actions, my feeling is to reject an organisation that just hobbled a country for generations. That's what happened, and tacit consent does nothing to address that.

If it doesn't help Greece or Britain, that's gesture politics, surely.

Greece hobbled itself, surely. You don't act like it has for 30 years and then get to stay in the Euro with a free money to spend your way out of a recession.

Saying that isn't to approve of Merkel and all. But Greece is by far the most responsible for what's happened.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Not sure where this idea of "gesture politics" suddenly became so popular from. Suddenly opposing things by opposing them is written off as a gesture. I kind of thought it was, well, politics.

It seems a little like anyone actively doing anything someone else doesn't like is a gesture. Which is more about belittling the thing done than actually addressing it. Accusing everyone else's actions as being shallower than an alternative that fails to make a point seems far more the gesture to me. In other news, nuance is dead.

On the EU - I'm no longer sure we should remain. Does it help Greece? No more or no less than remaining does. But Europe represented - for some - the idea that a larger, less right wing settlement might be possible from looking outside an increasingly neoliberal Britain. It was true in the past but it isn't true anymore. I'm pro what i thought Europe was, but the recent events truly rattled me - possibly because I'm naive about it. I'm merely being honest about the fact that, given a choice based on recent actions, my feeling is to reject an organisation that just hobbled a country for generations. That's what happened, and tacit consent does nothing to address that.
If it doesn't help Greece or Britain, that's gesture politics, surely.

Greece hobbled itself, surely. You don't act like it has for 30 years and then get to stay in the Euro with a free money to spend your way out of a recession.

Saying that isn't to approve of Merkel and all. But Greece is by far the most responsible for what's happened.

If, as you're suggesting, Greece deserved it, then staying in helps Greece as much as leaving. Is this also a gesture? Honestly, calling something "gesture politics" is like dogmatically calling everyone else a dogmatist. It's a bit New Labour in its attempt to make playing the man look like a critique of whether or not the ball was played.

I think those that were complicit in Greece's situation deserve some of the blame. And also, for whatever they did wrong, I don't see why that means everyone there has to pay the price for 30 or 40 years. It's equivalent to taking away a third child's support because of the parent's breeding habits. It's simply inhumane. It's exactly what we didn't inflict upon actual enemies after the war.

I'm not absolving greece of blame - that means I can't absolve the EU for its choice, either.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 8:47 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote: Oh, Hugo. I wish you did have a time machine and could venture to the future to see how parties and voters turned out - if you did, your trolling might be even more exquisite with time. As it is, your reliance on lazy assertions and easy spin sound as lazy as some of those thinkpieces in the press that mistake Talking Up The Doom for Having A Winning Argument.

I enjoyed Marr's interview, easy ride or not. I'm sorry you didn't. Do I think Corbyn will win? I really don't know. But I find him far more amendable than the constant, cocksurely condescending pronunciations on how people in various constituencies are going to vote in 2020. If you were so confident of every element of the future, why are you so determinedly trying to construct it? Shall I tell everyone to stay home because you've already called it?

If you want to talk about the ideas and principles Labour needs? Sure. I'll happily do that. But your style of writing Corbyn off is precisely why so many people are currently favouring him. Not saying it's enough to win him even a leadership election, but all the same: he may lose, but that argument just looks bankrupt. And that's certain to lose the next election for Labour. It's what we need a change from.

One of the he things I like about this site compared to, say, the Graun, is we at least attempt to address things others have said. Rather than, you know, just dismiss others as trolls or whatever.
I wasn't dismissing you for trolling, i was praising your ability to do so when it suits you.

Any comment on the other two and a half paragraphs that directly referred to your post? The bit about how, instead of making an argument about Corbyn, you're making arguments about how popular you believe him to be in the future? It really is exactly the style that's made so many people despair of the other three candidates and the press commentary about the leadership. I'm not saying that to be flip - it genuinely is helping Corbyn's popularity.

I thought I had argued

1. He compares poorly to Foot in many respects, see the list, a leader who was not a success.

2. He lacks the support in the PLP to be viable.

3. That renationalising BT (as he said on Marr) and leaving the EU (a position he has always held and is now being less than honest about) are unlikely to be popular.

4. That his popularity is mainly attributable to the excessive caution of the mainstream candidates, rather than to any inherent quality

5. That Corbyn looks very unlikely to win over much support on Canterbury and Nuneaton, which we need to win

And 6, and flippantly, that Cameron's ability to joke off the cuff using Smiths songs shows he is not faking his liking.

But now I see I was just trolling by pretending to be able to see the future.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 9:08 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
One of the he things I like about this site compared to, say, the Graun, is we at least attempt to address things others have said. Rather than, you know, just dismiss others as trolls or whatever.
I wasn't dismissing you for trolling, i was praising your ability to do so when it suits you.

Any comment on the other two and a half paragraphs that directly referred to your post? The bit about how, instead of making an argument about Corbyn, you're making arguments about how popular you believe him to be in the future? It really is exactly the style that's made so many people despair of the other three candidates and the press commentary about the leadership. I'm not saying that to be flip - it genuinely is helping Corbyn's popularity.
I thought I had argued

1. He compares poorly to Foot in many respects, see the list, a leader who was not a success.

2. He lacks the support in the PLP to be viable.

3. That renationalising BT (as he said on Marr) and leaving the EU (a position he has always held and is now being less than honest about) are unlikely to be popular.

4. That his popularity is mainly attributable to the excessive caution of the mainstream candidates, rather than to any inherent quality

5. That Corbyn looks very unlikely to win over much support on Canterbury and Nuneaton, which we need to win

And 6, and flippantly, that Cameron's ability to joke off the cuff using Smiths songs shows he is not faking his liking.

But now I see I was just trolling by pretending to be able to see the future.

1. If you did, it was in another post. I'll go back and look.

2. I think the PLP needs to listen to its members a little. If Corbyn wins and they reject him, that's an indictment of how skin-deep the PLP's respect is. I don't disagree that there's division, but I rather think it's time for the PLP to learn a little, to do the listening it says it wants when the message is less to its liking. To be honest, Corbyn will be blamed for a much larger problem that needs to be addressed about the distance it's gone from its own members. My blog was a little about my experience of that...

3. Renationalising the utilities isn't unpopular; BT perhaps less so. He particularly addressed the railways on Marr - agin, more widely popular outside Westminster than in. As for Europe, it's a strange one.

4. Lack of vision as well as caution. But yes, I don't disagree. That said, it's not just a rejection of them - it's a desire for an alterntaive that represents hope. He's closer to Blair in 1994 than Foot. And it's a message that is undeniably resonating with some. To write it all off as what the oters' lack is to dismiss a genuine positivity, I suggest.

5. The problem at the next election is broader than those - and focussing on there neglects the areas a Kendall would end up losing in the north. An English labour led by any of the others would also mean Scotland remains entirely out of bounds. They have nothing to offer the SNP's arguments.

6. I'm with Johnny Marr on that.

I never said you were trolling by proclaiming the future. But, less flippantly, it would be nice if those who profess to know the future respected those they were deciding for a little more. Many of those who have the wrong explanation for failures in the past seem to be just as confident of how everyone will vote next time round. You go as far as 2030. I think the Blairite vision of centrism (wrongly defined) is as much rooted in an outdated set of ideas as he treats those on the left. I'm not stuck in the 1980s - but, by failing to see the validity of an alternative from the left in any other terms, Blair and many others are.

There. Are we all better now?

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 9:10 pm

I think I've gone from "not here for a while" to "shouting too much". I'll let you get on with it for a while, I think. Sorry for going on.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 9:20 pm

To take your own example, you might as well opt to leave the UK because of the third child policy as leave the EU because of Greece. Same policy remains with the same problems. I can't think of a better example of gesture politics.

Countries much poorer than Greece (at the time) lent them billions of Euros to keep them in the Euro- Ireland alone lent 500m Euros. Spain and Italy have lent 62Bn Euros between them. Lots of that they won't see again. You can certainly make a case that it wasn't enough, but equally you can surely see why they didn't pay a lot more over to Greek governments, surely? Lots of what Greece has done under duress would have to be done anyway. It's competitiveness is just so bad.

The EU institutions aren't up to the crisis. Greece thinks it can vote away debts unilaterally, and people wanting to treat Greece more leniently face awkward votes in their own Parliaments. The EU itself was aware of the problems, but the member states wouldn't do anything about it because they were enjoying their booms. If they clear off their separate ways, we'll get the same problems.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 9:26 pm

Renationalising the utilities isn't unpopular; BT perhaps less so. He particularly addressed the railways on Marr - agin, more widely popular outside Westminster than in. As for Europe, it's a strange one.

Network Rail couldn't take over a whelk stall at the moment. It's got enough on its plate with electrifying a single line, let alone the three it's supposed to be doing. I'd be surprised if it had any real inclination to take over running trains as well.

Mary Creagh (before she was replaced by gobshite Michael Dugher) understood this, and proposed some cautious changes. Trouble is that someone like Lucas comes into the debate and makes that all look silly and weak, even though it wasn't clear she even knew that train companies pay money over to the government.

What's Corbyn's policy?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 9:45 pm

This is what you do on the EU. Nicola Sturgeon:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... a-sturgeon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Apart from the fatuous (implied) parallel with the indyref (why is everything about Scotland?) she says Greece had too much austerity imposed on it. No confusion between that issue and EU membership.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:03 pm

Evening.

Patrick Butler on

"Cost of national living wage could trigger 'catastrophic failure' in homecare";mentioned earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We used Direct Payments and employed directly,we set our own wage level,sacrificing time for a decent wage level.However the amount we received did not change for some time.We were lucky because we could be flexible.Most will not be.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:08 pm

I don't think Corbyn is an ideal vision of a leader for Labour but he has had a positive effect on the campaign and if the upshot is that we see clearer blue water between Labour and the Tories then that surely is positive

At least I know what he stands for; I have heard little meaningful from the others (Cooper is probably the only other potential who has tried to set out any sort of vision) and all they offer is trite comments based on Tory policies - it is a poor reflection on the others that none of them has used the presence of Corbyn to get the confidence to set out a counter argument to the Tories.

That is their fault, not the fault of Corbyn...and to be honest the fact that Corbyn is proving popular with the grass roots shows what an abject failure the Labour Party has become

As to his policies; well I see his policies as being more balanced than the barminess that comes out from Downing Street and he does have principles. Do I believe he would be able to deliver on rail nationalisation....or utility nationalisation. No I don't and he probably doesn't think so either but the direction will be towards some sort of better system than we have now.

I do not think that Miliband's and Corbyn's policies would be that different but the problem was that Miliband couldn't sell it to the electorate; not his fault also I may add. Corbyn will come out fighting - he did well on Marr and comes across as a man of principle

It is interesting that we have this hierarchy of 'need to be able to give absolute assurance on every subject when questioned and not allowed to hold any ambiguity whatsoever' - even by certain posters on here

Corbyn>>Cooper, Burnham>Kendall>>>>>>>>Any Tory

FFS the PM has not answered the question on 'what will be voting on in the referendum - what are your red lines in the negotiations?' but here we see demands that a putative leader of a party not in power having to give non-ambiguous answers in totality and when he gives an honest assessment of the reality when it comes to the EU - it gets called 'gesture politics'

I believe the EU has been a positive influence and hope it will continue to be but I am not at all impressed by some of the approaches from the eurocracy and this has to be challenged.....and Cameron is only going to want to push it further in the wrong direction. If we see a right wing Government come to power in France then I fear that the EU will become a different beast from what we have now

Remember the Greek problem was caused by the establishment parties and the scandalous behaviour of financial institutions. The venom we saw directed towards Syriza was in contrast with the softly softly approach we saw being used for the corrupt politicians who caused this mess. If Greece under the previous Governments and the financial institutions were so complicit in committing fraud then why are the EU leaders not banning Goldman Sachs from the EU and putting some people in prison?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:35 pm

On the leadership race...
I disagree that Burnham, Cooper & Kendall "all the same" - they are not, each has their own areas that they see as important to Labour values and are putting them forward at the hustings.
I have listened & watched several of the hustings now and have been surprised to find myself agreeing with some bits from all of them. Even Liz.
They are different candidates with different areas of priority, but the one thing that binds them together is that they are all Labour through & through.
I've still not decided between Andy & Yvette, not because they are the same but because each is putting across a good case to win my vote.
For me, Corbyn is too old. By 2020 he will be 71 and I don't want an old man - however principled - to be speaking on my behalf on the world stage or making domestic policy based on the world as it once was. I want to stay in the EU and I'm not sure that would happen with him as leader.
Many will disagree with me on that, but hey ho, we are all entitled to our own opinion.
Liz Kendall has surprised me on occasions, but just as JC is too old for my liking, Liz is too inexperienced and that shows in the sharp, bossy, shouty manner as she answers questions and interrupts others to talk over them. Maybe in a few years with a few corners knocked of her she'll make a good socialist

I do like her early years intervention (is she talking about sure start, I wonder?) ideas. I don't want her as leader, but I'm not liking the hassle she gets for speaking her mind, she was brave to stand with so little experience behind her, and I respect her for that.
So for me its Andy or Yvette.
Whoever stays closest to the last manifesto, disbanding of HoL and replacing it with a Senate of the Regions, inquiry into blacklisting and one into Orgreave, and the many other great policies that should be happening now, included.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:41 pm

Remember the Greek problem was caused by the establishment parties and the scandalous behaviour of financial institutions. The venom we saw directed towards Syriza was in contrast with the softly softly approach we saw being used for the corrupt politicians who caused this mess. If Greece under the previous Governments and the financial institutions were so complicit in committing fraud then why are the EU leaders not banning Goldman Sachs from the EU and putting some people in prison?

What softly softly approach to the other parties? New Democracy was kicked out of government because the EU didn't give it any concessions.

What New Democracy had in its favour was that it knew the limitations of the hand it had. Syriza overplayed its hand awfully. It promised staying in the Euro and stopping austerity- New Democracy and the KKE, in their different ways, knew this wasn't possible. They got carried away with a primary surplus (which might have been an accounting trick). They thought Spain, Portugal etc would be allies, when the last thing they wanted was to be seen as like Greece. They reckoned without the Eastern members of the Euro, to whom Greece (even now) is a rich country who nearly brought their currency down.

What Syriza say about austerity is bang on, but they're pretty much a dictionary example of "it's more complicated than that". Their only chance was to get other reforms done (the OECD are always making suggestions) and accepted that they'd need to do stuff like that anyway.

Goldman Sachs, btw, are pretty marginal. The Greek government, already joining the Euro, used them to make their deficits look smaller. They were rumbled by the EU pretty quickly, and the true deficit restated.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:41 pm

Now we get support via NHS Continuing Care and private company personnel.We have scaled it back to a daily morning call and two,two hourly "sitting ins" a week.It was four times daily and we were offered overnight support(to turn)which we declined.I don't know how all this effects the amount the NHS pays to the company tbh.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:44 pm

Excuse self indulgent musings.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:45 pm

he PM has not answered the question on 'what will be voting on in the referendum - what are your red lines in the negotiations?' but here we see demands that a putative leader of a party not in power having to give non-ambiguous answers in totality and when he gives an honest assessment of the reality when it comes to the EU - it gets called 'gesture politics'

It's not an honest assessment of anything by Corbyn. It's muddling up membership with Cameron's terms, at best. At worst it's trying to get votes from people as leader out of sympathy for Greece, even though nothing he proposes will do any good.

Sturgeon isn't doing that, and she's correct.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:49 pm

HindleA wrote:Evening.

Patrick Butler on

"Cost of national living wage could trigger 'catastrophic failure' in homecare";mentioned earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We used Direct Payments and employed directly,we set our own wage level,sacrificing time for a decent wage level.However the amount we received did not change for some time.We were lucky because we could be flexible.Most will not be.

Care workers are basically paid under the minimum wage now, with travelling time not included.

If this £9 ever happens, there's going to be a lot of unpaid overtime.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 10:59 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
he PM has not answered the question on 'what will be voting on in the referendum - what are your red lines in the negotiations?' but here we see demands that a putative leader of a party not in power having to give non-ambiguous answers in totality and when he gives an honest assessment of the reality when it comes to the EU - it gets called 'gesture politics'
It's not an honest assessment of anything by Corbyn. It's muddling up membership with Cameron's terms, at best. At worst it's trying to get votes from people as leader out of sympathy for Greece, even though nothing he proposes will do any good.

Sturgeon isn't doing that, and she's correct.

If we are in the EU on Cameron's terms (whatever they may be) then it may not be worth being in it at all

Let us see what the EU of 2 years time looks like shall we. Another Sarkozy Government in France pressurised by Le Pen and a Germany throwing its economic weight around to prop up the failings of its banks in chucking cheap money at a well-known corrupt regime.

May not be a club worth being a member of

I watched Corbyn on Marr and did not think he said anything particularly anti-EU but expressed some of the same concerns I have - an EU for business and the rich!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 11:06 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:Afternoon, all. I've kept a low profile since the election - not only has it been A Funny Few Months, but also The Other Place was over-run with gloating and nonsense. Also, I know my own shouting from and about the left has not always been the same as consensus-building. I'll mouth off about Kendall on Twitter, but it's not the same as constructive, so I've kept it away from here.

Those who know me - and my frequent ranting - will be unsurprised to hear: (a) I've been exercised in all sorts of ways by the Labour leadership election and how glum an experience it is, and (b) I've ended up on the left talking about opposition and principles and Corbyn. I didn't start out intending to vote for him and, equally, I don't really want to barge in and rehash that here, but I did want to share the thing I ended up writing: it's not a rant so much as a lament and a plea. It's about what it's been like to have rejoined Labour, my experience of a "New Members' Social" and some reflections on our past and our future.

http://onebuttonmonkey.com/obm/2015/7/2 ... ahead.html

I'd be interested in how it marries with other people's experience - after all, the leadership election is, at its best, a conversation. Hopefully you'll be interested enough in my ramblings about it to excuse my indulgence in posting it here.

Hope you're all well. Here's to the future of the left...

Edit: because apparently I can't spell "it's"

I find myself in accord with you, @obm; although I've not been able to get to any meetings since just after the election I have spoken to a lot of people, read acres of print, and listened to lot of videos of speeches and interviews. A great many people find that Corbyn's is the most consistent and clearly delineated message - and distinctly more naturally expressed than those of the other contenders. And it was instructional to read Blair's 1994 speech at Blackpool. I wonder does he even remember it? Other than the applause and ovations it won.

Edit to add: P.S. I'm really pleased to see you posting here again - you never need to apologise for posting your thoughts in The Haven because they are always welcomed

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 11:16 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
If we are in the EU on Cameron's terms (whatever they may be) then it may not be worth being in it at all

Let us see what the EU of 2 years time looks like shall we. Another Sarkozy Government in France pressurised by Le Pen and a Germany throwing its economic weight around to prop up the failings of its banks in chucking cheap money at a well-known corrupt regime.

May not be a club worth being a member of

I watched Corbyn on Marr and did not think he said anything particularly anti-EU but expressed some of the same concerns I have - an EU for business and the rich!

That club will still set the rules for us if we leave it or not.

The Norwegian Government used the phrase "fax democracy"- ie EU send them the directives and they have to get on and do it.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 11:29 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
If we are in the EU on Cameron's terms (whatever they may be) then it may not be worth being in it at all

Let us see what the EU of 2 years time looks like shall we. Another Sarkozy Government in France pressurised by Le Pen and a Germany throwing its economic weight around to prop up the failings of its banks in chucking cheap money at a well-known corrupt regime.

May not be a club worth being a member of

I watched Corbyn on Marr and did not think he said anything particularly anti-EU but expressed some of the same concerns I have - an EU for business and the rich!
That club will still set the rules for us if we leave it or not.

The Norwegian Government used the phrase "fax democracy"- ie EU send them the directives and they have to get on and do it.

I understand that well but I have yet to see Corbyn actually saying he want s to leave , although he does make clear that there are certain things he does want to see and others that he opposes: as he has every right to - we do live in a democracy you know where the diktats from technocrats in Brussels are able to be challenged

I also will find it difficult to support an EU that doesn't any longer act as a bulwark against the excesses of capitalism. Up to now it has done so and I hope it will continue to do so but a community with Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron pulling the strings is not one I look forward to with any relish

I have no faith in Cameron - he is an incompetent, a liar and a fraud with no principles.

I am afraid Tubby, you seem to be happier letting him be the person representing us in Europe than someone who has more concern about equality and fairness. As I said there seems to be a need for someone like Corbyn to be absolutely clear on hypothetical questions but no such requirement on the man who is supposedly having these discussions now.

I am pro-Europe and am Internationalist (I live abroad FFS and speak the local lingo) but my idea of what Europe is about is totally different from Cameron and some of the other leaders. I am not willing to accept an EU which goes against my values....you seem to want me to support it come what may, even if it leads to further erosion of our freedoms and embedding right wing ideology

Hobiejoe · Post by **Hobiejoe** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 11:45 pm

onebuttonmonkey wrote:I think I've gone from "not here for a while" to "shouting too much". I'll let you get on with it for a while, I think. Sorry for going on.

Don't you bloody dare!

You've turned up alongside a bunch of other old hands returning to the coop, just as the stay-at-homes are picking ourselves up off the floor after the election. Refreshing.

I'll promise to post more as well. Really.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 27 Jul, 2015 11:59 pm

I understand that well but I have yet to see Corbyn actually saying he want s to leave , although he does make clear that there are certain things he does want to see and others that he opposes: as he has every right to - we do live in a democracy you know where the diktats from technocrats in Brussels are able to be challenged

Not that sort of democracy, we don't. Member states agree the principles and the Commission works through them and basically agrees them.

Alternative is having them "faxed" to us, like Norway, with a bit of comment for appearance's sake.

I am afraid Tubby, you seem to be happier letting him be the person representing us in Europe than someone who has more concern about equality and fairness.

I don't want Cameron negotiating anything at all but he is the PM. It's one of the reason it's important to win elections.

If Corbyn can't give a straight answer, like the other three candidates can, to the question of voting to stay in the EU, then that's not very good. I don't think he understands how the EU works and what happens when you leave. He'd also be poisonous to lots of other members- do you think eg the ex-Soviet members would welcome him, with his anti-NATO stance as a breath of fresh air? I don't, though I'd happily lose our nukes.

you seem to want me to support it come what may, even if it leads to further erosion of our freedoms and embedding right wing ideology

Mine is the same position as the SNP!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 28 Jul, 2015 12:02 am

I didn't see Newsnight but apparently John Rentoul said that he was happy that Cameron won the election.

Not that this surprises anyone mind...

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 28 Jul, 2015 12:09 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
I understand that well but I have yet to see Corbyn actually saying he want s to leave , although he does make clear that there are certain things he does want to see and others that he opposes: as he has every right to - we do live in a democracy you know where the diktats from technocrats in Brussels are able to be challenged
Not that sort of democracy, we don't. Member states agree the principles and the Commission works through them and basically agrees them.

Alternative is having them "faxed" to us, like Norway, with a bit of comment for appearance's sake.

I am afraid Tubby, you seem to be happier letting him be the person representing us in Europe than someone who has more concern about equality and fairness.
I don't want Cameron negotiating anything at all but he is the PM. It's one of the reason it's important to win elections.

If Corbyn can't give a straight answer, like the other three candidates can, to the question of voting to stay in the EU, then that's not very good. I don't think he understands how the EU works and what happens when you leave. He'd also be poisonous to lots of other members- do you think eg the ex-Soviet members would welcome him, with his anti-NATO stance as a breath of fresh air? I don't, though I'd happily lose our nukes.

you seem to want me to support it come what may, even if it leads to further erosion of our freedoms and embedding right wing ideology
Mine is the same position as the SNP!

It is one question.....and I can understand why he is being equivocal. I am as well

Perhaps it would be nice if Cameron and his mates would answer some questions clearly for a change

And to be honest at least a couple of the other three have no answers to why they are letting the Tories set the agenda and not challenging it - to me that is far more worrying than Corbyn not answering on this

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Jul, 2015 12:14 am

There's not really anything to oppose at the moment. Cameron made a fool of himself by making poor old Tusk find him a slot after everyone was already exhausted from talking about Greece.

He might do a "phoney renegotiation" (as was said of Wilson's) and get a few changes that help Britain- Guy Verhofstadt, who is a strong federalist, reckoned in the candidates debate that there's a deal waiting to be done on paying child tax credits to children in "Poland". Doubtless there are a few other things too. Opposing that would be silly.

Or he might get some kind of opt out. Oppose that when it comes up, like the Social Chapter opt out, but vote to stay in and say you'll get it changed.

Wait till you see what he gets, if anything. Decide accordingly, and let his party tear him apart.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 28 Jul, 2015 12:16 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:I didn't see Newsnight but apparently John Rentoul said that he was happy that Cameron won the election.

Not that this surprises anyone mind...

That John Rentoul is happy about anything surprises me.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Jul, 2015 12:25 am

A key point, I think, is that Cameron will find it hard to keep his party together over his renegotiations.

Powder should be kept dry, even if that makes Burnham/Cooper look dull. Cameron didn't really get going as an Opposition leader until he realised he could support stuff Blair was doing and play him off against supposed dogmatic leftist, Brown. If Cameron gets something fairly minor, support that and wind up the loons in his party. And you'll look moderate compared to Osborne or Gove or whoever gets stuck with the gig after Cameron.