Friday 7th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 7:09 am

Morning all.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 8:31 am

Labour: Half Eligible To Vote Are New Sign-Ups
http://news.sky.com/story/1531708/labou ... w-sign-ups" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 8:46 am

Good morning.

@ScarletGas

Excuse my not using emoticons, Scarlet, they're just not a part of my lexicon. As for Karen Brady I was merely expressing disdain toward her title or indeed Cameron for ennobling her. I can only surmise that he sees her as George's equal.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 9:04 am

There were some other comments I was going to make with links to articles but no doubt have been seen, which rather surprised me by their absence here plus one in the New York Times, A Company Copes With Backlash Against the Raise That Roared: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/busin ... iness&_r=0. The reactions of some of the beneficiaries is rather surprising.

Before I go I just wish to express my embarrassment for Cameron being our so-called leader on the international stage. Wtf! How did we, or the world for that matter, deserve him?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 9:09 am

Morning all

Good article from the National Governors Association looking at implications for academy trusts - which are set up as charities - in the fallout from Kids Co and the dangers of having a 'charismatic' leader/founder...

http://www.nga.org.uk/Blog/August-2015- ... es-in.aspx

For some reason I can't copy bits but the para about the NGA not being surprised that people being name checked by ministers then get investigated for financial irregularities or similar is relevant.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 9:11 am

Desperately worried by the infiltration by the Communist Party of Great Britain (estimated membership approx 50) and other massively influential left groupuscules.

But in terms of numbers, I wonder what way all the various Special Branch and Demonstration Unit officers have been told to vote, since their numbers surely outweigh the 'real' membership?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 9:11 am

Yvette Cooper has some strong words today, and who can disagree with them ?

“We may have our own leadership election going on, but Labour can’t allow David Cameron to get away with this and carry on like nothing has happened – he is taking the British public for fools. We have to confront him directly on every lie and broken promise – that’s exactly what I plan to do in parliament and across the country.

“It’s time the prime minister and George Osborne were held to account for deceiving people and letting them down.”

Let's just hope the media don't drown her out with their ongoing Blairite/Corbynite battle reporting.

Here's Cooper's blog on Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette- ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:01 am

Outrage as new insurance tax will cost taxpayers an extra HUNDRED POUND a year

INSURANCE companies are set to pass on the costs of a multi-billion Government tax raid onto families – who could now have to pay an extra £100 on their annual bill for car, pet and home insurance.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/596709 ... -Companies

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:10 am

yahyah wrote:Labour: Half Eligible To Vote Are New Sign-Ups
http://news.sky.com/story/1531708/labou ... w-sign-ups" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure I agree with the maths in this headline. The 70,000 signed up as affiliated supporters through the union aren't new, surely? Union members have voted in previous elections. My husband had volunteered to pay the political levy to Labour on top of his union fee a while back, well before the election. I certainly hope the unions haven't tried to sign up people who had opted out of the levy. Of course, those union members may be more likely to vote for Corbyn, but I don't see why that would be a problem.

The problem for me is allowing the 3 quid sign up to continue once the leadership race started and possibly those who joined as full members after this point as well. This seems totally wrong to me. Union members being signed up now are different as they would already have been affiliated members paying a fee before the election and if they weren't that's wrong too.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:15 am

I certainly hope the unions haven't tried to sign up people who had opted out of the levy.

I don't think they would do that. I got an email asking me to sign up from Unite last month, but only because I have been affiliated for a long time. The term they used was that I can vote because I have already paid affiliated membership fees, and so am eligible.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:17 am

It's all a bit rich moaning now, anyway. Some on the right wanted open primaries, so anyone could vote, yet now it is a problem that paying supporters are voting (the wrong way).

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:19 am

Also, as I pointed out to some incomprehension last week, the only reason we have this system in place now is because of Falkirk, and Miliband's crumpling under pressure from the right wing press to change the electoral system and isolate the unions, particularly Unite. Hence the special conference last year, when these new rules were put in place.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:19 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Outrage as new insurance tax will cost taxpayers an extra HUNDRED POUND a year

INSURANCE companies are set to pass on the costs of a multi-billion Government tax raid onto families – who could now have to pay an extra £100 on their annual bill for car, pet and home insurance.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/596709 ... -Companies

A masterclass in how to put up VAT without putting up VAT. The Tories always put up regressive taxes. It's a wonder voters never learn. It's also a wonder the Express took so long to notice. They were probably waiting until all their readers were in Spain for their holidays to slip the bad news out.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:27 am

If, as was suggested in the media, the prospect of an SNP-backed Labour government cost the Labour Party votes, is this a wise move?

Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn has signalled he would be willing to make a pact with the SNP to become prime minister.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy- ... -1-3851857

I can't help but think that the long drawn out leadership debate should have been conducted between members in private. It's really only of interest to those who have a vote - either as members or through buying one for £3.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:28 am

yahyah wrote:Yvette Cooper has some strong words today, and who can disagree with them ?

“We may have our own leadership election going on, but Labour can’t allow David Cameron to get away with this and carry on like nothing has happened – he is taking the British public for fools. We have to confront him directly on every lie and broken promise – that’s exactly what I plan to do in parliament and across the country.

“It’s time the prime minister and George Osborne were held to account for deceiving people and letting them down.”

Let's just hope the media don't drown her out with their ongoing Blairite/Corbynite battle reporting.

Here's Cooper's blog on Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/yvette- ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good morning

Good to see both Burnham and Cooper being more robust over last couple of days. Not sure if she actually used the word but Cameron is a liar and he should be called out over it! The number of discarded policies that he knew were false is undeniable. His character as well supports the assertion. Policies in manifestos are frequently watered down but the downright moral vacuum that is this current Government takes some beating!

Do we think Copper and Burnham would have been so robust without Corbyn's presence and success? I do not think so. If only for this I am glad he stood and if carried through then whoever wins will hopefully carry the fight to the Blue Meanies!

Has Kendall given up? Heard very little from her recently

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:29 am

yahyah wrote:Labour: Half Eligible To Vote Are New Sign-Ups
http://news.sky.com/story/1531708/labou ... w-sign-ups" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Weren't Labour adding about 20,000 members a month in the few months before the General Election? If that's continued at roughly the same rate it would account for most of the 70,000 who've joined as Full Members since the GE. Then, Sky says there are about 70,000 who've signed up as Affiliate Members through the unions. There's no longer a union block-vote so these are, most likely, people who would previously have paid the union precept (and taken part in the 'internal' union voting process) but have understood that things have changed to one-member-one-vote. I'm not sure exactly how many people used to take part in Labour selections/elections through the unions but (if I'm going to be picky about numbers) those 70,000 who've affiliated are a fraction of the 'worth' of the block vote, so we're probably still in negative territory, there - and, to be honest, some of the Full Members who've signed up during the past year might well have come from the unions but decided on full rather than affiliated because if you're going to join individually you might as well go the whole hog. I hope that, ultimately, a lot more Labour-supporting union members will join up - I don't know whether the numbers that have done, so far, are matching expectations or not but they're certainly not 'unexpected' in any way.

So, what's left of Sky's story is that 50,000 have chosen to join as £3 Registered Supporters – if that is the true figure - and a lot of them might be planning to vote for JC, or telling pollsters that they are. But even if every single one of the Registered Supporters had joined up purely to vote for JC, that number of people would no more be able to hold Labour to ransom, or undermine the full membership, (that seems to be the flavour of the story) than 56 SNP MPs could have held 200-odd Labour MPs to ransom in Parliament. It's just a story designed to undermine faith in the selection process and, especially, to undermine JC's standing if he wins the contest. And my rambling thoughts have probably taken up more words than that Sky story, so I hope what I've said makes sense...

Edit to add: Morningtons, all...

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:30 am

mikems wrote:It's all a bit rich moaning now, anyway. Some on the right wanted open primaries, so anyone could vote, yet now it is a problem that paying supporters are voting (the wrong way).

No it is not a bit rich moaning now.

The process has been subverted and the party destabilised. In some cases specifically with the objective of ensuring that the opposition will not be electable.

A halt needs to be called and a roll-back initiated. The Sky figures if true are terrifying, although it should be noted some of these are union members who traditionally would have a vote.

The issue isn't the 50 people of the Communist Party of GB, it is the many groups organising via our beloved Interweb.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:33 am

What I do think is that Labour should take a clear line on the SNP - either they are willing to work with them or they are not.

One reason why the Tory attack line at the GE was so successful was that the party for far too long seemed to just hope the issue would go away (despite the supposedly "left liberal biased" BBC leading on it almost daily during the campaign) By the time Ed definitely said "no" after the debate it was too late (and the CyberNats were able to twist his words as meaning he would be happy to see the Tories stay in power)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:36 am

mikems wrote:
I certainly hope the unions haven't tried to sign up people who had opted out of the levy.
I don't think they would do that. I got an email asking me to sign up from Unite last month, but only because I have been affiliated for a long time. The term they used was that I can vote because I have already paid affiliated membership fees, and so am eligible.

Thanks. That's what I assumed, which puts the bulk of the 70,000 affiliated supporters in the same category as full members who joined before the election. Which makes the headline of the article wrong, imo.

I'm less happy about people paying 3 pounds to vote, especially since the contest started, but it's not as skewed as the article suggests. Labour MPs had control of who made the ballot, so the system is far less open to abuse than the current situation makes it appear. Those who got Corbyn in to widen the debate took a risk which seems to be backfiring on them, but it is by no means certain it won't be to Labour's advantage in the end. The rejection of Blairism is clear. Labour has to continue the search for a way forward that started under Ed. This time, the Blairite right will lack the power to hold the party back, as the party members are making it clear Tory-lite, watered down Thatcherism is not what they want.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:40 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:If, as was suggested in the media, the prospect of an SNP-backed Labour government cost the Labour Party votes, is this a wise move?

Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn has signalled he would be willing to make a pact with the SNP to become prime minister.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy- ... -1-3851857
I can't help but think that the long drawn out leadership debate should have been conducted between members in private. It's really only of interest to those who have a vote - either as members or through buying one for £3.

We are all busy laughing at Donald Trump potentially getting the GOP nomination and rendering them unelectable in the States (he won't win, expect him to implode shortly). Corbyn is just as toxic in the UK. Nobody should kid themselves otherwise.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 10:49 am

Sorry to disagree with you TE but I do here.

There is absolutely no way that the leadership contest can be called off now and the evidence it is being "subverted" is, to put it at its most non-committal, highly tenuous.

If the outcome is Corbyn winning due to the support of those just paying £3 but with only a minority of the "full" membership, then that is far from an ideal outcome - as with Ed's win in 2010 - but in the short term we will have to live with it. It means he certainly wouldn't be leader for more than a few years (something I strongly suspect will be the case regardless, many have noted how he looked - uncharacteristically - shifty and unconvincing on Newsnight this week when asked if he *really* wanted to be PM)

As already pointed out, the real message to come from the result (whether JC, AB or YC ultimately prevail) will be the crushing rejection of Progress-ism.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

Alan Yentob denies abusing his position to block Newsnight Kids Company report in car-crash interview

The BBC creative director admits calling the Newsnight team, but denied he did anything wrong

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/al ... on-6208999

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 11:04 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Sorry to disagree with you TE but I do here.

There is absolutely no way that the leadership contest can be called off now and the evidence it is being "subverted" is, to put it at its most non-committal, highly tenuous.

If the outcome is Corbyn winning due to the support of those just paying £3 but with only a minority of the "full" membership, then that is far from an ideal outcome - as with Ed's win in 2010 - but in the short term we will have to live with it. It means he certainly wouldn't be leader for more than a few years (something I strongly suspect will be the case regardless, many have noted how he looked - uncharacteristically - shifty and unconvincing on Newsnight this week when asked if he *really* wanted to be PM)

As already pointed out, the real message to come from the result (whether JC, AB or YC ultimately prevail) will be the crushing rejection of Progress-ism.

I am not advocating cancelling the contest. I am advocating rolling back the electorate to the point it was at GE+ 1 month. That would solve most of the issues with process integrity.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 11:06 am

There's been a lot of doomsday stuff from various quarters about Corbyn winning which, as far as I'm concerned, is just ridiculous. Like any leader, in order to maintain his position, he will need to perform well. If he doesn't perform well, if Labour slides in the polls, he'll be out - just as any other leader would be. If he does well, what's the problem? He's slightly to the left, not a ruddy communist. I haven't warmed to him myself, but his views are well within the Labour spectrum and as such Labour members are choosing to vote for him. Burnham and Cooper need to up their game, which they're doing.

Whatever happens, Labour are getting stronger not weaker. Ed started a reversal in the drop off in membership that is going from strength to strength and shoud be celebrated. Union members are opting in, not walking away. I see all this as a good thing. Most importantly the last week has seen the contenders positioning themeselves against the Tories, not each other. The last laugh for me would be if Corbyn's involvement were to reveal the common ground that the party can unite around rather than the differences that could split it, as the right-wing media hopes.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 11:09 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:If, as was suggested in the media, the prospect of an SNP-backed Labour government cost the Labour Party votes, is this a wise move?
I can't help but think that the long drawn out leadership debate should have been conducted between members in private. It's really only of interest to those who have a vote - either as members or through buying one for £3.
We are all busy laughing at Donald Trump potentially getting the GOP nomination and rendering them unelectable in the States (he won't win, expect him to implode shortly). Corbyn is just as toxic in the UK. Nobody should kid themselves otherwise.
[citation needed]

I do have worries over Corbyn's electability (which has less to do with him and more to do with the 'narrative') but to compare him with Trump seems off the mark. Trump is a buffoon who can't say anything serious and is popular largely through being outrageous and saying things that politicians usually don't. Corbyn has a very serious platform. I'm not aware of any humiliating gaffes.

Well we have the SNP statement, his CND statements, his Kosovo statements and Christ knows what they will find in his comments on terrorism.

So he won't be electable on the economy and national security. Good luck with that.

My point isn't that he is like Trump it is that he is popular in his "party" like Trump and unelectable in any circumstances like Trump.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 11:21 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:If, as was suggested in the media, the prospect of an SNP-backed Labour government cost the Labour Party votes, is this a wise move?

Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn has signalled he would be willing to make a pact with the SNP to become prime minister.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy- ... -1-3851857
I can't help but think that the long drawn out leadership debate should have been conducted between members in private. It's really only of interest to those who have a vote - either as members or through buying one for £3.

Well at least he didn't say it in a national campaign

http://www.cityam.com/214985/andy-burnh ... -talks-snp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I think that Milliband called that one wrong. I can understand why he did it; after the Falkirk fiasco no-one else wanted to pick up the poisoned chalice, so ~~Andy~~ Jim Murray stepped up to the plate impressing exactly no-one, and jumping two footed into his own mouth, and a campaign which made wild and illogical claims about the electoral mathematics.

So you've got Labour candidates being supported by funds from the Labour party (one of the reasons I didn't join back then) fighting losing battles against SNP candidates temporarily buoyed up through political participation from the referendum. Of course Milliband couldn't just say "Bugger them" and put his support behind the SNP; it might have been smart politically, but he would literally have been throwing his party to the - er, SNP candidates (I did say literally).

The biggest lie was that a vote for the SNP was one ~~less for Labour~~ more for the Tories (Obviously). I crunched the numbers in those constituencies, and in most constituencies even if EVERY SINGLE Labour voter moved to the SNP, they still would have kept the Tories out. The only exception, IIRC, was Angus Robertson's SNP/Tory marginal of Moray.

Edit: It was the constituency of Angus, so you can see where I got confused:

Just for fun, I've worked out what would have happened to the Tory vote in 2010 (there may be a couple of by elections in there) if the Labour and SNP voters had split down the middle. (I've not allowed for Lib Dems because they're so volatile, but you can probably make your own conclusions.)

Labour Held Constituencies:
Aberdeen North: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 7900
Aberdeen South: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 1498
Airdrie and Shotts: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 11512
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 3233
Central Ayrshire: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 5714
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13997
Cumbernauld . . :(L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13265
Dumfries & Galloway: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: -1317
Dundee West: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 10894
Dunfermline West: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 10615
East Kilbride: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 12377
East Lothian: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 5240
East Renfrewshire: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: -306
Edinburgh East: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 8366
Edinburgh North & Leith: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 4075
Edinburgh South: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: -168
Edinburgh South West: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 1476
Falkirk: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13588
Glasgow Central: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 8475
Glasgow East: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 12424
Glasgow North: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 6317
Glasgow North East: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 10560
Glasgow South: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 9815
Glasgow South West: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 10444
Glenrothes: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 14101
Inverclyde: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 9415
Kilmarnock . .: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 11679
Kirkcaldy . . .: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13797
Lanark & Hamilton: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 9538
Linlithgow: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13212
Livingston: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 12662
Midlothian: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 8614
Motherwell: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 11847
North Ayrshire: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 9701
Ochil . .: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 6196
Paisley . . North: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 9592
Paisley . . South: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 11556
Rutherglen: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13525
Stirling: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 2621
West Dunbartonshire: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 13959

SNP Held Constituencies:
Angus: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: -960
Banff & Buchan: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 4553
Dundee East: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 8263
Moray: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 957
Nah Eillan (that one) (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: 5134
Perth: (L+S)/2 = Majority over Tories: -1219

I don't think anyone's going to be predicting a Tory Surge in Scotland this year, are they?

So the message should be: Vote with your conscience unless you live in Dumfries, East Renfrewshire, Edinburgh South, Angus or Perth.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:00 pm

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

Kids Company had a string of celebrity backers, including rock band Coldplay and artist Damien Hirst, and was lauded by the prime minister, David Cameron, as the embodiment of “the big society”.

And it amply demonstrates the drawbacks of relying on volunteers and charities to provide essential services. Charitable donations are random and can suddenly cease. Meanwhile accountability and scrutiny of many and various charities and groups is far more work intensive and bureaucratic than that of a single government authority.

Kids Company was clearly as vulnerable to fraud, lack of good governance and volatile donations as any other charity throughout its existence (since 1996) so why has it collapsed under a cloud now? The fact that so many vulnerable young people appear to be somehow left in the lurch by its collapse doesn't make sense to me. The existence of Kids Company surely doesn't excuse the local council from their legal duties of care any more than the existence of food banks excuses the DWP from its legal duty to pay benefits in a timely manner.

The saddest thing is I feel I can't trust the media to seek the truth any more. I'm looking for the hand of government in everything they say and every spin they put on this. Paranoia and conspiracy theory really doesn't suit me, but there is definitely more to this story.

From wiki:

The charity's annual reports claimed that the number of people it was helping increased from 13,500 in 2008 to 16,500 in 2010 and then rose to 36,000 in 2011 and remained at that number for each year since

So the charity more than doubles in size in 2011, despite its controversial practice of giving cash handouts to children. Cameron lauded it, over-rode concerns to hand more money to it earlier this year and now the government is bad-mouthing its founder and generally trying to discredit her. Hmmm...

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:11 pm

Good morfternoon.

Labour has treated the environment as an afterthought – that needs to change
Angela Eagle
(Guardian)

Disappointingly, she doesn't mention fracking (or if she does, I missed it).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... le-labour-

Edited

Tense (not me - the grammar sort)

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:22 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Sorry to disagree with you TE but I do here.

There is absolutely no way that the leadership contest can be called off now and the evidence it is being "subverted" is, to put it at its most non-committal, highly tenuous.

If the outcome is Corbyn winning due to the support of those just paying £3 but with only a minority of the "full" membership, then that is far from an ideal outcome - as with Ed's win in 2010 - but in the short term we will have to live with it. It means he certainly wouldn't be leader for more than a few years (something I strongly suspect will be the case regardless, many have noted how he looked - uncharacteristically - shifty and unconvincing on Newsnight this week when asked if he *really* wanted to be PM)

As already pointed out, the real message to come from the result (whether JC, AB or YC ultimately prevail) will be the crushing rejection of Progress-ism.

I am not advocating cancelling the contest. I am advocating rolling back the electorate to the point it was at GE+ 1 month. That would solve most of the issues with process integrity.

It effectively amounts to the same thing. It makes a mockery of the election process (far more than any dodgy registered supporters). It would be the same absolute reputational disaster for all it isn't as extreme as cancelling the election. It would show that, even in our election process, we "can't be trusted to do what we say." It would be pitched as being scared of our own supporters. I know none of these are necessarily true, but when has that stopped a narrative taking hold.

My other point is that Labour rightly disparages the Tories for treating everyone who claims social security as if they are suspect and don't deserve it. They tar all users of a system with a small number who do abuse it. So why would we propose using exactly the same logic to all the thousands and thousands of people who have joined up or registered in order to take part? So first of all, the logic is suspect, secondly, given that many have done so sincerely, the damage to the party in welcoming them by saying they're not allowed to vote would be catastrophic, and thirdly, the press and the Tories will crucify us.

And all of that's before we even get to whether the problem is anywhere near as bad as it's been made out to be. Even if it was, it wouldn't justify changing the process.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:23 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: We are all busy laughing at Donald Trump potentially getting the GOP nomination and rendering them unelectable in the States (he won't win, expect him to implode shortly). Corbyn is just as toxic in the UK. Nobody should kid themselves otherwise.
[citation needed]

I do have worries over Corbyn's electability (which has less to do with him and more to do with the 'narrative') but to compare him with Trump seems off the mark. Trump is a buffoon who can't say anything serious and is popular largely through being outrageous and saying things that politicians usually don't. Corbyn has a very serious platform. I'm not aware of any humiliating gaffes.
Well we have the SNP statement, his CND statements, his Kosovo statements and Christ knows what they will find in his comments on terrorism.

So he won't be electable on the economy and national security. Good luck with that.

My point isn't that he is like Trump it is that he is popular in his "party" like Trump and unelectable in any circumstances like Trump.

Not disagreeing with you, but quite honestly many of the people who are desperate and looking to Corbyn to right society's ills would probably look at you blankly if you mentioned the above subjects to them.
When you're barely scraping by, are depressed, ill, worried, or even plain fed up, those are the last things you're going to be worried about. I've just got through a couple of horrible months concerned about money and health, and it's scary how your world shrinks.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:26 pm

And I'm not an expert, but National Security? Is that what we're still calling it under the Tories?

The opinion amongst those I've spoken to is we might as well spend the money on something else.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:37 pm

Over at the other place, I was slightly grizzled at yesterday for having written about Burnham without having done a similar piece on all the rest. Apparently this means I'm as bad as the journalists I might criticise. *sigh* It's a funny old election. But then, they all are.

Anyway, as you'll remember from my BBCQT previews, my version of even-handedness is generally to savage everyone from my own ~~tediously morally self-righteous position~~ standpoint. I mention it here because, goaded by yesterday, I've just done review of the four Labour leadership candidates over there in that style. I don't think it's right to post it here as it's obviously snarky and critical and insulting and I've no desire to kick off a row or rub people up the wrong way. But, for those who want the satire-enabled grumbly version of the candidates - and I know a few have previously very generously said they enjoy the rantiness -, a link to the comment's here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... t-57087846

Or I've just slung it up on my blog - with pictures! - here

http://onebuttonmonkey.com/obm/2015/8/7 ... tings.html

Let's say no more about it, for fear Harriet ejects me from the party. And happy Friday, all. The sun's shining, and I can hear a pub calling me from a few hours in the future...

Edit: added link to my own site for Guardian-averse readers.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:43 pm

ohsocynical wrote:And I'm not an expert, but National Security? Is that what we're still calling it under the Tories?

The opinion amongst those I've spoken to is we might as well spend the money on something else.

The problem is (as I understand things - please correct me someone if I'm wrong) we don't have that money, it will be borrowed to pay for trident, so unless Corbyn plans on still borrowing it for day-today expenditure, we won't have it to spend on anything.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 12:56 pm

DonutHingeParty wrote:
Eric_WLothian wrote:If, as was suggested in the media, the prospect of an SNP-backed Labour government cost the Labour Party votes, is this a wise move?

Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn has signalled he would be willing to make a pact with the SNP to become prime minister.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy- ... -1-3851857
I can't help but think that the long drawn out leadership debate should have been conducted between members in private. It's really only of interest to those who have a vote - either as members or through buying one for £3.
Well at least he didn't say it in a national campaign

http://www.cityam.com/214985/andy-burnh ... -talks-snp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I think that Milliband called that one wrong. I can understand why he did it; after the Falkirk fiasco no-one else wanted to pick up the poisoned chalice, so ~~Andy~~ Jim Murray stepped up to the plate impressing exactly no-one, and jumping two footed into his own mouth, and a campaign which made wild and illogical claims about the electoral mathematics.

I just don't see how the LP could even contemplate doing a deal with a single-policy party - that policy being to break up the UK, whatever the cost. What could the SNP bring to the table except a block of votes directly controlled from outwith the UK Parliament by Sturgeon? Imo any mention of needing pacts with other parties shows a lack of confidence in the LP's ability to win votes.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:09 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:And I'm not an expert, but National Security? Is that what we're still calling it under the Tories?

The opinion amongst those I've spoken to is we might as well spend the money on something else.
The problem is (as I understand things - please correct me someone if I'm wrong) we don't have that money, it will be borrowed to pay for trident, so unless Corbyn plans on still borrowing it for day-today expenditure, we won't have it to spend on anything.
Much of the cost associated with Trident replacement is capital isn't it? E.g. new subs, new reactors, new facilities. So if Labour is holding to the pre-election position of borrowing to fund capital investment, I presume that means that the necessary borrowing could be transferred to other infrastructure projects, resurrecting Building Schools for the Future or something like that.

There's a breakdown of the costs here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015 ... d-32236184

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:14 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:And I'm not an expert, but National Security? Is that what we're still calling it under the Tories?

The opinion amongst those I've spoken to is we might as well spend the money on something else.
The problem is (as I understand things - please correct me someone if I'm wrong) we don't have that money, it will be borrowed to pay for trident, so unless Corbyn plans on still borrowing it for day-today expenditure, we won't have it to spend on anything.

You've made the point better than I did.

If we do borrow money, better it goes where it's most needed and that's not on a weapons system.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:29 pm

Last time we were told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong brother' won. And it never went away. That de-legitimising narrative pursued Ed to the end.

This time - why do I feel we are being set up to be told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong candidate' has won? Various factions determined to delegitimise again.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:33 pm

Some will do that if it is anybody but Kendall, tbh. They already have their knocking copy ready

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:33 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Last time we were told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong brother' won. And it never went away. That de-legitimising narrative pursued Ed to the end.

This time - why do I feel we are being set up to be told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong candidate' has won? Various factions determined to delegitimise again.

It's a mark of how some of those who were most divisive over the last five years were within the party. And they weren't the ones disobeying the whip, either.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:37 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Some will do that if it is anybody but Kendall, tbh. They already have their knocking copy ready

Exactly. Just out of casual interest, has Dan Hodges expressed a preference - or is he keeping his powder dry so that he can snipe at whoever is the ultimate winner (I'm ruling out Liz Kendall as a posssibility, here)?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:47 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:Last time we were told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong brother' won. And it never went away. That de-legitimising narrative pursued Ed to the end.

This time - why do I feel we are being set up to be told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong candidate' has won? Various factions determined to delegitimise again.

I'm still veering around about who to vote for, despite my sudden conversion to Corbyn a week or two back.

But I do feel grumpy that people like my neighbour who has not voted Labour for years because of her <ahem> 'conscience' expressing her wish to sign up to vote for Corbyn.
She's been rabid to point of swearing about them, has neither helped them win or donated to the national party & now has as much right to vote for £3 as some here who have worked for years for the party, voted for them through thick & thin, or have donated to help keep the Tories out.

Are those people who have signed up just to vote for Corbyn really going to stick with the party ?
Or will their 'consciences' always give them a reason to be too purist to actually vote Labour ?

I may still vote for Corbyn [although some of the reasons not to outlined in other posts keep me awake at night] but if he wins he should be leading a party whose actual members and party workers want him.
There's always a worry the 'I'm A Real Lefty Me' brigade will move on to another sainted figure even if Corbyn gets elected. Or like my neighbour, they don't really want to be uncool and mainstream which voting Labour would be compared to supporting the little anti- this, anti-that parties.
Some of the lunacy around the SNP support frothing was bewildering and there are signs of it popping up around Corbyn too.

Sorry if this offends anyone, I am not pointing fingers at anyone here on FTN, maybe being too influenced by some of the eeejits on Cif etc.
Also, am using the term lunacy as in 'folly or eccentricity'.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:49 pm

& re RR's point on legitimacy - surely that will happen who ever wins ?
One group or another will be shouting foul.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:52 pm

Hodges has been (by his standards) relatively sensible during this contest - despite sporting a "Vote Corbyn" twibbon on his Twitter avatar

He gave up on Kendall some time ago (getting accused of "betrayal" by the Liz diehards for doing so) and is now sort of backing Cooper. His latest piece in the DT actually takes a pop at the ultra-Blairites, though he is careful to balance that with the usual invective against Jezza and his supporters.

Thing to remember about DFH is that he is at heart an opportunist - not an ideologue like Rentoul, Aaronovitch, Collins et al. Doesn't makes him any less ridiculous much of the time, but it is still useful to know where he is coming from

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 1:56 pm

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Last time we were told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong brother' won. And it never went away. That de-legitimising narrative pursued Ed to the end.

This time - why do I feel we are being set up to be told - ad infinitum - that the 'wrong candidate' has won? Various factions determined to delegitimise again.
I'm still veering around about who to vote for, despite my sudden conversion to Corbyn a week or two back.

But I do feel grumpy that people like my neighbour who has not voted Labour for years because of her <ahem> 'conscience' expressing her wish to sign up to vote for Corbyn.
She's been rabid to point of swearing about them, has neither helped them win or donated to the national party & now has as much right to vote for £3 as some here who have worked for years for the party, voted for them through thick & thin, or have donated to help keep the Tories out.

Are those people who have signed up just to vote for Corbyn really going to stick with the party ?
Or will their 'consciences' always give them a reason to be too purist to actually vote Labour ?

I may still vote for Corbyn [although some of the reasons not to outlined in other posts keep me awake at night] but if he wins he should be leading a party whose actual members and party workers want him.
There's always a worry the 'I'm A Real Lefty Me' brigade will have move on to another sainted figure even if Corbyn gets elected. Or like my neighbour don't really want to be uncool and mainstream which voting Labour would be compared to the little poser parties.
Some of the lunacy around the SNP support frothing was bewildering and there are signs of it popping up around Corbyn too.

Sorry if this offends anyone, I am not pointing fingers at anyone here on FTN, maybe being too influenced by some of the eeejits on Cif etc.
Also, am using the term lunacy as in 'folly or eccentricity'.

I agree with the majority of your post yahyah, but not the bit about wavering to vote for Corbyn. I personally feel he is not the person I want to see leading Labour, and definitely not one who I can see leading this country on the world stage.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:07 pm

Reappearance of information for WRAG group and sanctions

"The people in this fact sheet are not real"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ns#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:09 pm

yahyah wrote:& re RR's point on legitimacy - surely that will happen who ever wins ?
One group or another will be shouting foul.

Yup.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:10 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:And I'm not an expert, but National Security? Is that what we're still calling it under the Tories?

The opinion amongst those I've spoken to is we might as well spend the money on something else.
The problem is (as I understand things - please correct me someone if I'm wrong) we don't have that money, it will be borrowed to pay for trident, so unless Corbyn plans on still borrowing it for day-today expenditure, we won't have it to spend on anything.
You've made the point better than I did.

If we do borrow money, better it goes where it's most needed and that's not on a weapons system.

However standing on a platform of unilateral nuclear disarmament is a political death wish. Besides by the next election a decision will have been taken so it will become a grandiose and futile policy gesture.

In fact the correct solution was probably a cheaper alternative to Trident or a scaled back Trident.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:19 pm

In other news, The Spectator commissions Jonathan King to write a blog entitled

Edward Heath wasn’t gay. Trust me, I tried – and failed – to seduce him

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... educe-him/

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:26 pm

I noticed 'Jeremy Corbyn: Here are the four most common misconceptions about me and my campaign – and the truth' in the Indy earlier; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 43302.html and am a little surprised none of you have mentioned it.

Being a recovering LibDem (please don't patronise me) I have not joined the party. I've always considered myself a left-leaning centrist and appreciate Jeremy's views; he come across as one who can inspire and cooperate with others. As for labelling him hard left, it just goes to show how far we've drifted to the right. Deggsy was my idea of hard left, nothing I've heard from Corbyn.

Of the other candidates I still favour Andy who has also spoken of cooperation and reaching out to others but Jeremy's the only one I've noticed speak of those who didn't vote in the GE. 'And now I'm popping over to the G to read michaelsylvain's appraisal.

Edit; I must correct myself. The others have spoken of reaching out but mainly toward those on the right, well those who voted Conservative.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 07 Aug, 2015 2:27 pm

Bert's story .I was repeatedly sanctioned because they kept sending information in a non accessible form because I am visually impaired and I couldn't comply with something I didn't know about.It taught me they are a shower of shits.

Bert is real.

Etc ad infinitum.