Tuesday 28th July 2015

[refitman]

Morning all.

[LadyCentauria]

Morningtons all.

Lord Sewel jumps from Lords before he can be pushed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ugs-claims

Lord Adonis leads an attack with an 'open letter' about 'why we failed to win' by 7 'prominent' Labour candidates who failed to win 'swing' seats.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... n-campaign

And Andy Burnham is to give a speech, headlined with "timid Labour would not be up to creating the NHS today" but in the article it says,

In a sign of the deep divisions within Labour, Burnham will also criticise opponents of the veteran leftwinger for misjudging the political mood by issuing dire warnings about the danger posed by Corbyn’s success.

Burnham will say it is Labour’s timidity in recent years that explains Corbyn’s success: “The worst possible response to his impact is to resort to negativity and dire warnings of ‘oblivion’. To do that is to misread the mood of the moment.

“What our members are telling us is that they are yearning for a different style of politics from Labour and a break with the bad habits of the past. They are sick of politicians speaking in soundbites, sticking to the script and looking like they don’t believe a word they are saying.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... create-nhs

[SpinningHugo]

Andy "Westminster bubble" Burnham proving that irony lives. Again

[LadyCentauria]

P.S. Andy Burnham is critical of Labour's recent years and, in marking the 70th Anniversary of Clem Attlee's election and the creation of the NHS, does/will say this in his speech (of which I can't find the full proposed text):

“You would think that would be cause for joyous celebration, but I mark it with a sad realisation that the modern Labour party could not have created the NHS."

But his main message is of reviving that spirit instead of bleating about its loss and moving further away from it. And I'm glad to see he is criticising Jeremy Corbyn's critics, too...

[yahyah]

''Labour leadership crisis: Poll shows party is now even 'less electable' than under Ed Miliband''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 20140.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mikems]

Who knew there were hundreds of thousands of unreformed communists, who up till now have not bothered with organising themselves, that are all rushing to undermine the Labour party?

If only Labour's internal democracy could be as good and democratic as the tories...what's that? They haven't got any internal democracy at all? How can that be?

[Eric_WLothian]

Lord Sewel jumps from Lords before he can be pushed.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ugs-claims

There is something fishy here. From the linked article:

Detectives from the Met’s special inquiry team of the homicide and major crime command (HMCC) searched Sewel’s Dolphin Square flat at 6pm under a warrant issued at Westminster magistrates court issued under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Since when has the use (as opposed to the supply) of drugs been a major crime?
Unless drugs were found in his apartment, he has done nothing which would be likely to land him in court. Prostitution is legal and a film cannot prove that a 'white powder' is an illegal substance.
And who filmed (or instigated the filming of) the incident?

I'm not defending what he did - he's resigned, which is more than many politicians would have done - but how did the Sun come by the story?

[Eric_WLothian]

''Labour leadership crisis: Poll shows party is now even 'less electable' than under Ed Miliband''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 20140.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's an alternative opinion here:

Voting for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader is not quite as moronic as I read one columnist recently opining. In fact it makes quite a lot of sense to rather a lot of people. And indeed what he offers does make some sense, but only up to a point, the point being that what he wants to do with government would bring a lot of short-term relief and smiles but be a failure in the medium to long term. That, however, does not necessarily make him, or a Labour Party he would lead, unelectable, for, in the current political climate, people’s minds are very much focused on the short-term.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/peter-jone ... -1-3842375

[Willow904]

Morning all.

I'm not really getting the Jeremy Corbyn vibe, I have to say. I agree with some of what he's saying and he's clearly a very effective debater, but I don't really see him as leadership material. He's good at cutting through the crap and saying things as they are, but that's observing not leading. I thought Andy Burnham was the most impressive shadow cabinet member under Ed, his ideas on combining health and social care really cut through. He has a warmth and passion the other contenders lack and also the support of the largest number of MPs. Having seen Ed's campaign stumble partly because of his inability to secure the full trust and support of those around him, I'm now inclined to rate the ability to inspire confidence in others as a pretty essential quality in Labour's next leader. That SpinningHugo refers to Burnham as the continuity Miliband candidate only confirms that he probably is the one for me as Ed's ideology is the closest to mine of a Labour leader since John Smith. I still rate Cooper, though. She'd probably make a good shadow chancellor.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Andy "Westminster bubble" Burnham proving that irony lives. Again

Doesn't matter - he is right.

And I expect you are familiar with the "Nixon to China" phenomenon?

[citizenJA]

Good-morning.
Light rain here.

[SpinningHugo]

Andy "Westminster bubble" Burnham proving that irony lives. Again

Doesn't matter - he is right.

And I expect you are familiar with the "Nixon to China" phenomenon?

This is Burnham's problem.

http://t.co/xa3NNb7U47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is no good urging radicalism if you haven't got anything to say. No policy proposals at all.

And he doesn't.

It is painful.

[ScarletGas]

Good Morning,

Been away for a few days (in Pembrokeshire) recharging the batteries and having time to think about the current state of the leadership fracas.

I will regale you with my thoughts a little later but in the meantime here is an excellent article (unusually) from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian.

Its about time someone actually articulated the consistent hypocrisy emanating from the smug, shallow PR man masquerading as our Prime Minister.

http://gu.com/p/4b3an/sbl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PorFavor]

Andy "Westminster bubble" Burnham proving that irony lives. Again

Doesn't matter - he is right.

And I expect you are familiar with the "Nixon to China" phenomenon?

This is Burnham's problem.

http://t.co/xa3NNb7U47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is no good urging radicalism if you haven't got anything to say. No policy proposals at all.

And he doesn't.

It is painful.

Whilst recognising that two wrongs don't make a right -

I may have missed them, but I can't say that I've noticed Liz Kendall offering anything like concrete policy proposals.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

[AnatolyKasparov]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

[SpinningHugo]

Doesn't matter - he is right.

And I expect you are familiar with the "Nixon to China" phenomenon?

This is Burnham's problem.

http://t.co/xa3NNb7U47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is no good urging radicalism if you haven't got anything to say. No policy proposals at all.

And he doesn't.

It is painful.

Whilst recognising that two wrongs don't make a right -

I may have missed them, but I can't say that I've noticed Liz Kendall offering anything like concrete policy proposals.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

If you read it,you'll see she gets the same criticism.

[frightful_oik]

Afternoon each. Some great posts yesterday I thought. I haven't posted much owing to work pressures but I'm still around.
EU or not EU? I'm just about for but I do think the Greeks were treated shabbily and I expect Cameron to negotiate for UK's right to opt out of any kind of worker protection. It's a close one.

[SpinningHugo]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

[Temulkar]

I've held off posting on the leadership struggle, mainly because as a green its not my fight, but also cos things have been rather hectic recently.

IMO, a Corbyn led Labour would win back support in Scotland and Wales, it would hoover up Greens, and Lib Dems, and many of the surprisingly Bennite Kippers that I have spoken to.

None of the others have a snowballs chance in hell of doing that. They represent everything that is despised about the modern Labour Party. None of the others can get non voters off their arse to the ballot booth, Corbyn will.

I think it says a lot about the current PLP, that there is already talk of a coup if Corbyn wins, in defiance of the memberships decision. A faster way to political oblivion I cannot imagine.

Labour is at a crossroads; it really is a crusade or it is nothing. It may have taken twenty years for the residual loyalty to the movement to dissipate, but here we are. The choice made in this election, and by the PLP afterwards, will determine if Labour even has a future, or if it goes the way of the dodo.

I may be a member of the greens but I am a firm believer in the Labour movement, and always have been. I was in the LPYS till Kinnock and Watson culled it, and saw the party move away from me. There are so many people who are the same, just sitting waiting for the party to come home. Corbyn might just lead you there.

[refitman]

I've held off posting on the leadership struggle, mainly because as a green its not my fight, but also cos things have been rather hectic recently.

IMO, a Corbyn led Labour would win back support in Scotland and Wales, it would hoover up Greens, and Lib Dems, and many of the surprisingly Bennite Kippers that I have spoken to.

None of the others have a snowballs chance in hell of doing that. They represent everything that is despised about the modern Labour Party. None of the others can get non voters off their arse to the ballot booth, Corbyn will.

I think it says a lot about the current PLP, that there is already talk of a coup if Corbyn wins, in defiance of the memberships decision. A faster way to political oblivion I cannot imagine.

Labour is at a crossroads; it really is a crusade or it is nothing. It may have taken twenty years for the residual loyalty to the movement to dissipate, but here we are. The choice made in this election, and by the PLP afterwards, will determine if Labour even has a future, or if it goes the way of the dodo.

I may be a member of the greens but I am a firm believer in the Labour movement, and always have been. I was in the LPYS till Kinnock and Watson culled it, and saw the party move away from me. There are so many people who are the same, just sitting waiting for the party to come home. Corbyn might just lead you there.

Hi Tem, good to 'see' you and a great post.

(can you post/PM me the details for your book? I've forgotten them)

[Temulkar]

It's called The Last Roundhead, refit. If anyone is near Newark, I am at the new Civil War Museum on Saturday giving a talk at 2.30.

[citizenJA]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Exactly.
Vote Labour.

[Willow904]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

[citizenJA]

This is Burnham's problem.

http://t.co/xa3NNb7U47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is no good urging radicalism if you haven't got anything to say. No policy proposals at all.

And he doesn't.

It is painful.

Whilst recognising that two wrongs don't make a right -

I may have missed them, but I can't say that I've noticed Liz Kendall offering anything like concrete policy proposals.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

If you read it,you'll see she gets the same criticism.

Of course.
It's what happens to Labour.

[SpinningHugo]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

I deliberately left off the railways.

The rail network was renationalised in 2002 (something now reflected in government accounting).

I don't believe subsidies of travel are appropriate. The best way to help the poor is to give them money.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Burnham, to me, exemplifies a certain Cake-and-Eat-itism that's symptomatic of Labour losing its core purpose. He, more than even Harman (who at least was straightforwardly awful) got the Welfare vote wrong with his "I oppose but I'll abstain, I won't abstain, I will abstain but I told them to change, I did, honest, look at me" approach. That's not leadership and regardless of the rights and wrongs of abstaining, it's key to why any clear, alternative message was buried. It also shows that he was most concerned with the preserving the reputation of a certain A. Burnham rather taking a coherent and consistent stance over something that needed opposition.

It's also a fact seldom acknowledged that some entryists still voted Labour but wouldn't again if it continues a rightward path. The cost of Nuneaton, say, are marginals where Labour's support is flagging because of losing the left. It's the cost of the (illusory) centre that's elided by the (pseudo-reasonable) "we must be in the centre" talk. Never mind that it's not the centre if it's only got one side, but how many millions have we already lost because of that misdefinition?

I dunno. As I said yesterday, this is an identity crisis. For all Corbyn may not be the answer, the others don't seem to understand the bigger question: Wales, Scotland, principled alternatives and hope. Burnham for me is far too flimsy to provide any if that, whatever Corbyn's flaws...

Edit(s): for typing errors and to add a gripe about centrism, an extra condemnation of Burnham, who is my second favourite candidate but (a) after that I can't vote for him, and (b) has no more chance of becoming PM than me.

[SpinningHugo]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

I deliberately left off the railways.

The rail network was renationalised in 2002 (something now reflected in government accounting).

I don't believe subsidies of travel are appropriate. The best way to help the poor is to give them money.

[DonutHingeParty]

Cameron to boost HoL because its not representative of the country? Presumably hell be looking for SNP Lords, then.

Looking at the numbers, it seems as if the Tory majority is about equal in both houses, its just the Lib Dems that would need to be kicked out.

Surely the parliamentary committee can't allow this?

[onebuttonmonkey]

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

I deliberately left off the railways.

The rail network was renationalised in 2002 (something now reflected in government accounting).

I don't believe subsidies of travel are appropriate. The best way to help the poor is to give them money.

Renationalisation of the railways is popular and it even works. It's not an either give them money or sort the railways question. We could do both, not least by getting the benefits of running them.

[SpinningHugo]

Re-nationalisation of bus services would have a much wider, positive impact than re-nationalisation of the railways, allowing councils to use profits from city routes to subsidise rural routes, instead of limited council tax funds. The rural poor are neglected because they are outnumbered by Tory voting neighbours. Our country is turning into a complete basket case because political policy is skewed toward pandering to the niche needs of a handful of middle class, middle England swing voters.

I deliberately left off the railways.

The rail network was renationalised in 2002 (something now reflected in government accounting).

I don't believe subsidies of travel are appropriate. The best way to help the poor is to give them money.

Renationalisation of the railways is popular and it even works. It's not an either give them money or sort the railways question. We could do both, not least by getting the benefits of running them.

Serious transport policy people don't agree. The franchise system, set up by Prescott, works well. We should be looking to end the subsidy of rail, but the state owned network with competitive bidding for franchises is a good system.

Another New Labour triumph.

[yahyah]

A report here about Corbyn's appearance on Woman's Hour this morning.
No doubt the audio will be up on BBC i-player soon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33686708" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Typical BBC - of all the things that were covered, Corbyn wanting universal free childcare paid for by general taxation, equal pay/work opportunity, eradicating violence against women, they head the piece 'Jeremy Corbyn 'embarrassed' by sexy label'.

[ScarletGas]

So here are the thoughts of a Labour watcher who has never been a member of the party but has invested his £3 to be able to vote in the upcoming election.

I think it was YahYah yesterday that articulated most closely to my thoughts in that at age 67 I am, possibly for one of the only times in my life, going to vote with my heart rather than head.

When Corbyn got on to the ballot I was one of those that immediately said he stood no chance and that because of his age, background and not the least politics would get monstered by the media. If anyone thinks Ed got a rough time then watch out in the unlikely event (in my view) of JC becoming leader.

Not for the first time in my life I was wrong and am very happy to admit to this. As I have said I do not think he will win and that is probably (thinking with my head this time) a good thing because, as many people on here have pointed out more eloquently than me, you can only change society if you have power and there is no way that Jeremy could become PM.

He is,however,in the process of performing an invaluable service to the Labour party and that is to show to at least a proportion of the general public (no matter how some people, even on here deny it) that there is a genuine alternative to the perceived narrative espoused by the majority of the political hierarchy.

I had, and still have to some degree, major concerns over the blandness of the other candidates. For me it is really difficult to distinguish a significant difference between Andy and Yvette who seem to have been offering various shades of vanilla but not the radical difference that a goodly part of left wing supporters (and I would venture to suggest a decent proportion of the voting public) are crying out for.Liz,I am afraid, I see her speak but hear the words of a tory.

Now is not the time to do a Clegg (I have principles but if you do not like those I have others) that way lies certain political oblivion. If Corbyn is persuading the other candidates (here I am talking of Andy & Yvette, Liz is a lost cause) that they can offer something more than tinkering with the current perceived wisdom and show movement towards offering the electorate (remember less than a quarter actually voted for the Conservatives and probably less than that positively) a more inclusive option then he has performed a great service.

The general public are not in love with the Tories.That is the great opportunity Labour must grasp. The public want to see an opposition that offers a radical alternative and fights for them. That may not be a Corbyn led opposition but he can have a great influence on the direction of travel of whoever is finally elected after this interminable process.

[PorFavor]

This is Burnham's problem.

http://t.co/xa3NNb7U47" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is no good urging radicalism if you haven't got anything to say. No policy proposals at all.

And he doesn't.

It is painful.

Whilst recognising that two wrongs don't make a right -

I may have missed them, but I can't say that I've noticed Liz Kendall offering anything like concrete policy proposals.


Good morfternoon, everyone.

If you read it,you'll see she gets the same criticism.

Yes I know (I did read it before responding to you). But, for some reason, I assumed that you were criticising Andy Burnham (and not Liz Kendall).

[citizenJA]

The general public are not in love with the Tories.That is the great opportunity Labour must grasp. The public want to see an opposition that offers a radical alternative and fights for them. That may not be a Corbyn led opposition but he can have a great influence on the direction of travel of whoever is finally elected after this interminable process.

[DonutHingeParty]

Cameron to boost HoL because its not representative of the country? Presumably hell be looking for SNP Lords, then.

Looking at the numbers, it seems as if the Tory majority is about equal in both houses, its just the Lib Dems that would need to be kicked out.

Surely the parliamentary committee can't allow this?

Just to break it down further, now I'm at a computer rather than phone.

HOC - Con 330 / Everyone Else: 320. Con Share = 50.1%
HOL - Con 226 / Everyone else: 28.9%

So it looks as if Cameron has a point.

However, if you take out the crossbenchers, Lords Spiritual and Non-Affiliated out of the equation, the numbers look a bit different.

HOL - Con 226 / Everyone else: 325. Con Share = 41%

The biggest concern is that there are 101 Liberal Democrat Lords (which is quite a lot for a party that wants to abolish them)

And who's appointed 48 of these since 2010?

Step forward David Cameron!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_life_peerages_(2010%E2%80%93present" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Temulkar]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isnt Labour a party of the Left or has Progress completely abandoned the pretence now? Opposition parties don't win elections from the centre, they win by opposing.

[Willow904]

Burnham, to me, exemplifies a certain Cake-and-Eat-itism that's symptomatic of Labour losing its core purpose. He, more than even Harman who at least was straightforwardly awful, got the Welfare vote wrong with his I oppose buy I'll abstain, I won't abstain, I will but I told them to change, I did approach. That's not leadership and regardless of the rights and wrongs of abstaining, it's key to why any clear, alternative message was buried.

It's a fact seldom acknowledged that some entryists still voted Labour but wouldn't again if it continues a rightward path. The cost of Nuneaton, say, are marginals where Labour's support is flagging because of losing the left.

I dunno. As I said yesterday, this is an identity crisis. For all Corbyn may not be the answer, the others don't seem to understand the bigger question: Wales, Scotland, principled alternatives and hope. Burnham for me is far too flimsy to provide any if that, whatever Corbyn's flaws...

I have a little more sympathy for Burnham's and Cooper's position. They are both hoping to be leader and would hope for and expect loyalty from their MPs if they do. It's called leading by example and I fail to see what else they could have done. They both stated what position they would have taken if they were in charge, but currently they are not. Corbyn voted against because, as a backbencher, he could, but there's no bravery in that and this kind of dissension in the ranks is what constantly undermines Labour in the eyes of voters. A leader that can pull everyone together and promote a united committed message will transform Labour's fortunes. For me, Corbyn isn't that person. I don't agree with all of his policies any more than I do any of the other contenders, so continue to struggle to understand the excitement about him. I shall be interested in seeing the final vote. I wouldnt be bothered if he wins like some, I agree with enough of his outlook, but I'll be bemused, to say the least.

[yahyah]

Labour Welsh Assembly member and Burnham supporter Alun Davies warns against attacks on Kendall.

“The aggressive, almost misogynist, bullying of Liz Kendall and the labelling of her and her supporters as ‘Tories’ is appalling and is something that many of us will reflect upon and regret.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... ve-9741174" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tish]

Even if Corbyn doesn't win, he's changed the tone of the debate, which must be a good thing. I always thought that if Labour lost that would be the end of the left within the party, that we'd have a succession of Blairite modernisers fighting with each other over who could be most like the Tories. The fact that the Blairites have in fact been utterly marganlised, and the only candidate they could scrape together looks like finishing a humiliating last is a startling turnaround.

If Cooper or Burnham win with Corbyn a close second, then surely they'll have to take on board a lot of his and his followers ideas and principles, if only to stop the party from splitting in half, in the same way that Ed Milliband was forced to continually appease the Blairite "modernisers" on the basis that he only narrowly won the leadership from them in the first place. And whoever becomes leader will also be able to tell the dwindling band of modernisers to FO whenever they rear their ancient heads in public, seeing as this contest has finally proved just how marganised they've become.

It's all much more positive than I ever imagined two months ago anyway.

[AnatolyKasparov]

As I said the other day, there was basically a Mandelson-orchestrated attempted coup in the hours and days immediately after the GE.

Whatever happens on Sept 11 (oo-err) it has basically blown up right in their faces.

This is good news.

[Willow904]

Even if Corbyn doesn't win, he's changed the tone of the debate, which must be a good thing. I always thought that if Labour lost that would be the end of the left within the party, that we'd have a succession of Blairite modernisers fighting with each other over who could be most like the Tories. The fact that the Blairites have in fact been utterly marganlised, and the only candidate they could scrape together looks like finishing a humiliating last is a startling turnaround.

If Cooper or Burnham win with Corbyn a close second, then surely they'll have to take on board a lot of his and his followers ideas and principles, if only to stop the party from splitting in half, in the same way that Ed Milliband was forced to continually appease the Blairite "modernisers" on the basis that he only narrowly won the leadership from them in the first place. And whoever becomes leader will also be able to tell the dwindling band of modernisers to FO whenever they rear their ancient heads in public, seeing as this contest has finally proved just how marganised they've become.

It's all much more positive than I ever imagined two months ago anyway.

I suspect with hindsight Ed's leadership will seem more definitive than many imagine. The Blairites lost control of Labour back in 2010. The idea that Ed could give it a whirl, lose and we'd all agree we took a wrong turn and rewind 5 years has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of those on the right of the party. Labour's moved on, it's more democratic, with new perspective candidates under Ed being more progressive and representative. It really is, as a party, more to the left I think. The new leader will need to be able to roll with that.

[ohsocynical]

So here are the thoughts of a Labour watcher who has never been a member of the party but has invested his £3 to be able to vote in the upcoming election.

I think it was YahYah yesterday that articulated most closely to my thoughts in that at age 67 I am, possibly for one of the only times in my life, going to vote with my heart rather than head.

When Corbyn got on to the ballot I was one of those that immediately said he stood no chance and that because of his age, background and not the least politics would get monstered by the media. If anyone thinks Ed got a rough time then watch out in the unlikely event (in my view) of JC becoming leader.

Not for the first time in my life I was wrong and am very happy to admit to this. As I have said I do not think he will win and that is probably (thinking with my head this time) a good thing because, as many people on here have pointed out more eloquently than me, you can only change society if you have power and there is no way that Jeremy could become PM.

He is,however,in the process of performing an invaluable service to the Labour party and that is to show to at least a proportion of the general public (no matter how some people, even on here deny it) that there is a genuine alternative to the perceived narrative espoused by the majority of the political hierarchy.

I had, and still have to some degree, major concerns over the blandness of the other candidates. For me it is really difficult to distinguish a significant difference between Andy and Yvette who seem to have been offering various shades of vanilla but not the radical difference that a goodly part of left wing supporters (and I would venture to suggest a decent proportion of the voting public) are crying out for.Liz,I am afraid, I see her speak but hear the words of a tory.

Now is not the time to do a Clegg (I have principles but if you do not like those I have others) that way lies certain political oblivion. If Corbyn is persuading the other candidates (here I am talking of Andy & Yvette, Liz is a lost cause) that they can offer something more than tinkering with the current perceived wisdom and show movement towards offering the electorate (remember less than a quarter actually voted for the Conservatives and probably less than that positively) a more inclusive option then he has performed a great service.

The general public are not in love with the Tories.That is the great opportunity Labour must grasp. The public want to see an opposition that offers a radical alternative and fights for them. That may not be a Corbyn led opposition but he can have a great influence on the direction of travel of whoever is finally elected after this interminable process.

Exactly !!!!! He's doing a sterling job showing - especially the younger generation, what the Labour movement was once and should be again.
Looking two or three years down the road, I think, if the Tories carry on as they have been, that a lot more people are going to be drawn back in the fold, but it will depend on how much power he, Corbyn, can wield.

[ohsocynical]

Even if Corbyn doesn't win, he's changed the tone of the debate, which must be a good thing. I always thought that if Labour lost that would be the end of the left within the party, that we'd have a succession of Blairite modernisers fighting with each other over who could be most like the Tories. The fact that the Blairites have in fact been utterly marganlised, and the only candidate they could scrape together looks like finishing a humiliating last is a startling turnaround.

If Cooper or Burnham win with Corbyn a close second, then surely they'll have to take on board a lot of his and his followers ideas and principles, if only to stop the party from splitting in half, in the same way that Ed Milliband was forced to continually appease the Blairite "modernisers" on the basis that he only narrowly won the leadership from them in the first place. And whoever becomes leader will also be able to tell the dwindling band of modernisers to FO whenever they rear their ancient heads in public, seeing as this contest has finally proved just how marganised they've become.

It's all much more positive than I ever imagined two months ago anyway.

I suspect with hindsight Ed's leadership will seem more definitive than many imagine. The Blairites lost control of Labour back in 2010. The idea that Ed could give it a whirl, lose and we'd all agree we took a wrong turn and rewind 5 years has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of those on the right of the party. Labour's moved on, it's more democratic, with new perspective candidates under Ed being more progressive and representative. It really is, as a party, more to the left I think. The new leader will need to be able to roll with that.

My bold.

My only worry is if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't gain power, will Burnham, or the others take the new message on board? I somehow doubt they will...

For a brief moment the other day, I wondered what Corbyn would do with all the new MPs, who are said to be generally more to the left than in the past...A big clear out and bring in new faces and ideas. Why not?
It's what I'd be tempted do.

[PorFavor]

Even if Corbyn doesn't win, he's changed the tone of the debate, which must be a good thing. I always thought that if Labour lost that would be the end of the left within the party, that we'd have a succession of Blairite modernisers fighting with each other over who could be most like the Tories. The fact that the Blairites have in fact been utterly marganlised, and the only candidate they could scrape together looks like finishing a humiliating last is a startling turnaround.

If Cooper or Burnham win with Corbyn a close second, then surely they'll have to take on board a lot of his and his followers ideas and principles, if only to stop the party from splitting in half, in the same way that Ed Milliband was forced to continually appease the Blairite "modernisers" on the basis that he only narrowly won the leadership from them in the first place. And whoever becomes leader will also be able to tell the dwindling band of modernisers to FO whenever they rear their ancient heads in public, seeing as this contest has finally proved just how marganised they've become.

It's all much more positive than I ever imagined two months ago anyway.

I suspect with hindsight Ed's leadership will seem more definitive than many imagine. The Blairites lost control of Labour back in 2010. The idea that Ed could give it a whirl, lose and we'd all agree we took a wrong turn and rewind 5 years has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of those on the right of the party. Labour's moved on, it's more democratic, with new perspective candidates under Ed being more progressive and representative. It really is, as a party, more to the left I think. The new leader will need to be able to roll with that.

My bold.

My only worry is if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't gain power, will Burnham, or the others take the new message on board? I somehow doubt they will...

For a brief moment the other day, I wondered what Corbyn would do with all the new MPs, who are said to be generally more to the left than in the past...A big clear out and bring in new faces and ideas. Why not?
It's what I'd be tempted do.

I'm not pro- Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership, but you make a good point. I hope that if he (JC) comes close (and I think he will), that the actual winner doesn't claim his\her victory as a clear "rejection of the left". That would be foolish, dishonest and disastrous.

[frightful_oik]

I might pop over to Newark Tem. Be nice to meet you.

[onebuttonmonkey]

My only worry is if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't gain power, will Burnham, or the others take the new message on board? I somehow doubt they will...

For a brief moment the other day, I wondered what Corbyn would do with all the new MPs, who are said to be generally more to the left than in the past...A big clear out and bring in new faces and ideas. Why not?

It's what I'd be tempted do.

(my bold)

Should Corbyn lose - which I still think is likely - I can't help but feel the entire swell of opinion and support will be whitewashed. The listening that his opponents say they're doing seems to be a little like those "difficult decisions" we're so used to being told about: it only goes one way. The choice is easy and the difficulties are the consequences for everyone else - listening is all very well, but many seem least inclined to listen to anything they didn't already prefer.

I'm happy that Labour, under whatever leader, should be a broad church and that the party is at its best when it includes all - that's involved compromises from many on its much-maligned left for years. But the right seems far too busy disowning Corbyn not least because he is doing well. It doesn't augur well, does it? That's a clear call to listen precisely to his supporters' message being responded to with a feverish desire to deny them any validity or credence whatsoever. And that's a failure of the PLP that will lose it far more than a few marginals - it'll Clegg the whole party.

[Willow904]

Even if Corbyn doesn't win, he's changed the tone of the debate, which must be a good thing. I always thought that if Labour lost that would be the end of the left within the party, that we'd have a succession of Blairite modernisers fighting with each other over who could be most like the Tories. The fact that the Blairites have in fact been utterly marganlised, and the only candidate they could scrape together looks like finishing a humiliating last is a startling turnaround.

If Cooper or Burnham win with Corbyn a close second, then surely they'll have to take on board a lot of his and his followers ideas and principles, if only to stop the party from splitting in half, in the same way that Ed Milliband was forced to continually appease the Blairite "modernisers" on the basis that he only narrowly won the leadership from them in the first place. And whoever becomes leader will also be able to tell the dwindling band of modernisers to FO whenever they rear their ancient heads in public, seeing as this contest has finally proved just how marganised they've become.

It's all much more positive than I ever imagined two months ago anyway.

I suspect with hindsight Ed's leadership will seem more definitive than many imagine. The Blairites lost control of Labour back in 2010. The idea that Ed could give it a whirl, lose and we'd all agree we took a wrong turn and rewind 5 years has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of those on the right of the party. Labour's moved on, it's more democratic, with new perspective candidates under Ed being more progressive and representative. It really is, as a party, more to the left I think. The new leader will need to be able to roll with that.

My bold.

My only worry is if Corbyn for whatever reason doesn't gain power, will Burnham, or the others take the new message on board? I somehow doubt they will...

For a brief moment the other day, I wondered what Corbyn would do with all the new MPs, who are said to be generally more to the left than in the past...A big clear out and bring in new faces and ideas. Why not?
It's what I'd be tempted do.

As you point out, it's not just Corbyn, the new intake is more to the left. I can't see how that won't have an impact on future direction, whoever wins and is Ed's lasting legacy (last laugh?). What makes me hopeful about Labour going forward is the growing breadth of talent. A party with the likes Dan Jarvis and Keir Starmer in it, has to be better than a party with the likes of Alan Milburn and Peter Mandleson. Sheer diversity of background brings something new to the table that Labour sorely needs.

[ohsocynical]

Reading health centre could close under leaked Government NHS privatisation plans

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... se-9726139

NHS England is looking to award the contract to run the centres in September and while Capita have not yet won the contract, they are considered "preferred bidders" by the Government.

Unison national officer Nick Bradley said: "Any reorganisation could have been properly carried out by the NHS itself.

"Savings could have been used for the NHS rather than profit for a private company. PCS staff were effectively ignored."

Unison also says 931 NHS staff, who work at all the primary care support centres in the UK will transfer to the employment of Capita in September

[SpinningHugo]

What actual concrete policy proposals is Corbyn offering, come to that?

Renationalise BT, gas, electricity, post office.

Free university education.

Much higher infrastructure spending.

Rent controls.

A reversal of the reforms since the 80s in the NHS.

Much higher taxes.

Implicitly, withdrawal from EU and NATO.

The usual stuff of the left.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but isnt Labour a party of the Left or has Progress completely abandoned the pretence now? Opposition parties don't win elections from the centre, they win by opposing.

None of that list (with the exception of greatly increased infrastructure spending) is sensible. Which is why nobody else is arguing for them: they know it as well as I do.

The problem has been that they have suggested nothing but platitudes, and haven't explained why things like rent controls, which sound superficially like a good idea, are dumb.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Though how much has JC actually mentioned at least some of those things in this contest?

Part of the reason he is winning support is that he comes across as a fairly mainstream sensible social democrat.

(of course, some of those who know his history are aware its a bit more complicated than that, but.....)