Weekend Edition - Saturday/Sunday 8th/9th August

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 7:30 pm

Trump. Piece of work eh. Takes something very 'special' to be able to be truly offensive to a Fox News rep.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 7:33 pm

Reading about Corbyn's Leeds rally on twitter. Seems like he will win (though I have to say Ed's rally's were packed as well, much good that did him). It fills me with gloom, 10 more years of tory's. Great.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 7:43 pm

Uma Kumaran ‏@Uma_Kumaran · 14m14 minutes ago

Uma Kumaran retweeted Sky News
LP member: "system is about opposition as much as...the party in power. Even if it means the Tories stay in"

WTH

Calum McClure ‏@theredflag87 · 47m47 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim you do absolutely. and I concede we might not win with corbyn

Janet Edwards ‏@Janiete · 6m6 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim @theredflag87 Surprising how many admit it but want him as leader anyway. #noonewillvoteforuswedontcare

What's the point? What do these people think will happen to this country under another 5 or more years of Torys ? - or do they not care, it seems that they don't.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 7:54 pm

Analysing the balance of our Jeremy Corbyn coverage

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... n-coverage

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:04 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Uma Kumaran ‏@Uma_Kumaran · 14m14 minutes ago

Uma Kumaran retweeted Sky News
LP member: "system is about opposition as much as...the party in power. Even if it means the Tories stay in"

WTH

Calum McClure ‏@theredflag87 · 47m47 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim you do absolutely. and I concede we might not win with corbyn

Janet Edwards ‏@Janiete · 6m6 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim @theredflag87 Surprising how many admit it but want him as leader anyway. #noonewillvoteforuswedontcare

What's the point? What do these people think will happen to this country under another 5 or more years of Torys ? - or do they not care, it seems that they don't.

Student politics types. Probably planning to vote Tory as they get richer so they really don't care about creating perpetual Tory government.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:09 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Reading about Corbyn's Leeds rally on twitter. Seems like he will win (though I have to say Ed's rally's were packed as well, much good that did him). It fills me with gloom, 10 more years of tory's. Great.

Packed rallies on their own mean little - the 1983 GE has been mentioned recently in this context.

In actual fact, JC's support seems divided between those who genuinely don't care about winning elections (as quoted above) and those who seriously think he offers Labour's best chance of breaking out of the trap it currently seems to be in. The first group is not enough to win him the party leadership on their own - the other candidates need to target the second if they are to stop him (and Burnham at least appears to be making an effort there)

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:19 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Reading about Corbyn's Leeds rally on twitter. Seems like he will win (though I have to say Ed's rally's were packed as well, much good that did him). It fills me with gloom, 10 more years of tory's. Great.
Packed rallies on their own mean little - the 1983 GE has been mentioned recently in this context.

In actual fact, JC's support seems divided between those who genuinely don't care about winning elections (as quoted above) and those who seriously think he offers Labour's best chance of breaking out of the trap it currently seems to be in. The first group is not enough to win him the party leadership on their own - the other candidates need to target the second if they are to stop him (and Burnham at least appears to be making an effort there)

If we hadn't opened the doors to right wing wreckers and left wing SWP types Corbyn would have no chance. But both the right wing and I suspect the left wing actually want Labour to lose.

I have no time for the rather lose than compromise brigade (as losing isn't just compromising it is surrendering), and I find it impossible to believe that any rational person actually thinks Corbyn could win an election. The polling evidence alone (including the GE result) tells a story.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:27 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Reading about Corbyn's Leeds rally on twitter. Seems like he will win (though I have to say Ed's rally's were packed as well, much good that did him). It fills me with gloom, 10 more years of tory's. Great.
Packed rallies on their own mean little - the 1983 GE has been mentioned recently in this context.

In actual fact, JC's support seems divided between those who genuinely don't care about winning elections (as quoted above) and those who seriously think he offers Labour's best chance of breaking out of the trap it currently seems to be in. The first group is not enough to win him the party leadership on their own - the other candidates need to target the second if they are to stop him (and Burnham at least appears to be making an effort there)
If we hadn't opened the doors to right wing wreckers and left wing SWP types Corbyn would have no chance. But both the right wing and I suspect the left wing actually want Labour to lose.

I have no time for the rather lose than compromise brigade (as losing isn't just compromising it is surrendering), and I find it impossible to believe that any rational person actually thinks Corbyn could win an election. The polling evidence alone (including the GE result) tells a story.

Tories voting Corbyn "for a laugh" will maybe amount to a few thousand people (and several will be weeded out) There are only a few thousand members of the SWP now, too (and that number is falling almost by the week) The other far left groups are less than that, and often firmly opposed to LP entryism on principle.

This is not why he has a real chance, and his opponents are on the wrong track if they carry on along those lines.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:32 pm

Sunday People endorsing Andy Burnham for leader.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:35 pm

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

Social care chief savages failing system for elderly
Chief inspector blames poor leadership and cuts as fresh figures show 150 abuse claims each day

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:37 pm

HindleA wrote:Sunday People endorsing Andy Burnham for leader.

Interestingly they were one of the few media outlets to back EM (and not his brother) for leader five years ago.

Have they picked the winner this time, too?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:40 pm

Refuse to jump in the Corbyn bandwagon, I've scoffed at uncosted policies that other parties have been able to get away with, I'd be a hypocrite to support a man who promises the same for Labour.

I've read a whole lot of shit lately, this reassessing of Labours record in power, and yes I am aware of the cock ups, the promoting of snakes like Purnell, but when you read from supposedly well informed people that the NHS and education was worse after Labours 13 years I start to lose the will to live. Comments like that invariably come form those who Labour will never be pure enough, and yet endorse Corbyn as some kind of saviour, he's not, Labour is a coalition, a broad one, one in which I don't think Corbyn has the talent to lead.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 8:59 pm

There's one way to beat Corbyn, you know. Offer something better. Pity none of the other candidates have thought of doing that.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:00 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: Packed rallies on their own mean little - the 1983 GE has been mentioned recently in this context.

In actual fact, JC's support seems divided between those who genuinely don't care about winning elections (as quoted above) and those who seriously think he offers Labour's best chance of breaking out of the trap it currently seems to be in. The first group is not enough to win him the party leadership on their own - the other candidates need to target the second if they are to stop him (and Burnham at least appears to be making an effort there)
If we hadn't opened the doors to right wing wreckers and left wing SWP types Corbyn would have no chance. But both the right wing and I suspect the left wing actually want Labour to lose.

I have no time for the rather lose than compromise brigade (as losing isn't just compromising it is surrendering), and I find it impossible to believe that any rational person actually thinks Corbyn could win an election. The polling evidence alone (including the GE result) tells a story.
Tories voting Corbyn "for a laugh" will maybe amount to a few thousand people (and several will be weeded out) There are only a few thousand members of the SWP now, too (and that number is falling almost by the week) The other far left groups are less than that, and often firmly opposed to LP entryism on principle.

This is not why he has a real chance, and his opponents are on the wrong track if they carry on along those lines.

I really think you are wrong there. The Labour membership is small and easily overwhelmed by sustained campaigns to influence the result. The unions will have gone looking for Corbyn voters to sign up, other left wing groups are doing the same. I am not implying that this is just down to SWP, or indeed any single organisation. However 50% of voters are new sign ups, most if not all are voting for Corbyn and if they are true Labour supporters why weren't they already members.

Take away those numbers and he wouldn't win.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:03 pm

mbc1955 wrote:There's one way to beat Corbyn, you know. Offer something better. Pity none of the other candidates have thought of doing that.

I don't agree there, I think Burnham offers something better because:

1. It is actually deliverable and based in the real world.

2. He might actually win an actual election.

Two huge advantages right there.

Cooper might offer something but she hasn't really set it out.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:04 pm

mbc1955 wrote:There's one way to beat Corbyn, you know. Offer something better. Pity none of the other candidates have thought of doing that.

I think Andy Burnham is doing just that. His manifesto on education, health care, housing & transport are better than Corbyns.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:05 pm

Yvette Cooper: ‘You can be strong without being extreme’
The Labour leadership candidate says she understands the frustration and anger of Corbyn supporters but warns against losing the wider electorate

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ng-extreme" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:07 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: If we hadn't opened the doors to right wing wreckers and left wing SWP types Corbyn would have no chance. But both the right wing and I suspect the left wing actually want Labour to lose.

I have no time for the rather lose than compromise brigade (as losing isn't just compromising it is surrendering), and I find it impossible to believe that any rational person actually thinks Corbyn could win an election. The polling evidence alone (including the GE result) tells a story.
Tories voting Corbyn "for a laugh" will maybe amount to a few thousand people (and several will be weeded out) There are only a few thousand members of the SWP now, too (and that number is falling almost by the week) The other far left groups are less than that, and often firmly opposed to LP entryism on principle.

This is not why he has a real chance, and his opponents are on the wrong track if they carry on along those lines.

I really think you are wrong there. The Labour membership is small and easily overwhelmed by sustained campaigns to influence the result. The unions will have gone looking for Corbyn voters to sign up, other left wing groups are doing the same. I am not implying that this is just down to SWP, or indeed any single organisation. However 50% of voters are new sign ups, most if not all are voting for Corbyn and if they are true Labour supporters why weren't they already members.

Take away those numbers and he wouldn't win.

LP membership is now over a quarter of a million - still easily outnumbering the other groups eligible to vote.

Tizme1 · Post by **Tizme1** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:08 pm

Evening all,

Like many people, I've read quite a few of the articles regarding the Labour Leadership and of course in particular about Corbyn. Plus I've been looking at the btl comments. Many of which have people saying if their preferred candidate doesn't win, they will leave/give up on Labour. A lot of those are Corbyn supporters of course but I have seen a few supporters of the other candidates make similar comments. I have no agenda in asking [other than to satisfy my own curiosity] but how do you feel about that?

Whoever your preference is, if they came last say, and the candidate you like least won, would you stay within/continue to support Labour or would you leave/give up? I've tried thinking about what my reaction would be in that situation and I think I know, but, it's difficult to be sure because I'm not faced with the situation.

Anyway, as I say it's just curiosity on my part. I don't want to start any wars or upset anyone.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:10 pm

Sneaking admiration for this lady....
Woman in 80s 'grabs attacker's testicles'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gl ... 63?SThisFB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:12 pm

As said above,it is a broad church.I dislike the threats not to work with whoever wins by some candidates.You stay and argue your case.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:16 pm

FWIW different times granted but having witnessed Militant in Liverpool,the usurption of the Party there was swift and easy,no one remembers John Hamilton.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:22 pm

Tizme1 wrote:Evening all,

Like many people, I've read quite a few of the articles regarding the Labour Leadership and of course in particular about Corbyn. Plus I've been looking at the btl comments. Many of which have people saying if their preferred candidate doesn't win, they will leave/give up on Labour. A lot of those are Corbyn supporters of course but I have seen a few supporters of the other candidates make similar comments. I have no agenda in asking [other than to satisfy my own curiosity] but how do you feel about that?

Whoever your preference is, if they came last say, and the candidate you like least won, would you stay within/continue to support Labour or would you leave/give up? I've tried thinking about what my reaction would be in that situation and I think I know, but, it's difficult to be sure because I'm not faced with the situation.

Anyway, as I say it's just curiosity on my part. I don't want to start any wars or upset anyone.

Hard to answer because, to me, getting Labour elected is The Issue that matters. Too many people are suffering to allow the tory's any more time after 2020. Which is why its vital we get an electable leader. Can I put hand on heart and pledge allegiance to a Corbyn or Kendall Labour party? No.
Would I continue to reluctantly support Labour under either of them ? Yes, because there is no other party that can get the tory's out (though I'm not sure either of them can get them out)
Edit to put a stray "o" back in its place.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 9:48 pm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/su ... am-6220764" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sunday People backs Andy Burnham as Labour leader - if he makes Yvette Cooper his deputy

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sat 08 Aug, 2015 10:18 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
David Cameron enjoys a holiday beer as Eurotunnel 'threatens' to sue UK over Calais crisis

THIS picture shows David Cameron enjoying a relaxing beer on holiday as Eurotunnel threaten to sue the UK Government over the ongoing Calais migrant crisis.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ant-crisis
From the photo it looks as if those poor buggers in Cornwall have got them again.

On the bright side don't they have a lot of large jellyfish again this year?

Edited for correction

They're in Portugal...What size are the jelly fish there?

Only about a foot long (including viciously stinging tentacles - tentacles that can still sting for up to a week after they've been detached from a dead or injured Man o'War. But very painful; and lethal if you're a small fish...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_man_o%27_war

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 12:00 am

Tizme1 wrote:Evening all,

Like many people, I've read quite a few of the articles regarding the Labour Leadership and of course in particular about Corbyn. Plus I've been looking at the btl comments. Many of which have people saying if their preferred candidate doesn't win, they will leave/give up on Labour. A lot of those are Corbyn supporters of course but I have seen a few supporters of the other candidates make similar comments. I have no agenda in asking [other than to satisfy my own curiosity] but how do you feel about that?

Whoever your preference is, if they came last say, and the candidate you like least won, would you stay within/continue to support Labour or would you leave/give up? I've tried thinking about what my reaction would be in that situation and I think I know, but, it's difficult to be sure because I'm not faced with the situation.

Anyway, as I say it's just curiosity on my part. I don't want to start any wars or upset anyone.

I'll stay and see how they lead/steer the Party. It's possible that someone could take Labour in a direction I couldn't support but I'd still think long and hard before walking away.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 6:35 am

Good Morning

On the leadership contest, again!.

I will reiterate previous comments that Corbyn is, by no means, my ideal candidate for the Labour leadership - despite his consistency and personal appeal he is unlikely to deliver a 2020 win for the party. I wish I was wrong but that, to me, is the reality.

I do though find it a bit tiresome that he and his supporters are under such negative scrutiny - especially from Labour supporters. The reason we wanted him nominated was the lacklustre and weak responses from all other leadership candidates to the GE in 2015

As one they all seemed to have forgotten the progress made under Miliband and instead of reaffirming his principles and direction of travel there was a rowing back to the relative safety of neoliberalism and the rest

It is only since Corbyn started capturing some of the imagination that we have seen some sort of response from Cooper and Burnham. Whether they are doing enough is to be seen, and also whether their hearts are in it will again have to wait. Was it Corbyn's fault that the leadership, of which Cooper and Burnham have their places, have been so useless since May?

A much more courageous start to their campaigns would have stopped Corbyn in his tracks but that didn't happen and now they are playing catch-up. I have no sympathy for them as courage has often been the thing missing from recent Labour campaigns and I would like to see it being shown now

The main learning for me from 2010 is that the media still has massive power to influence and it can only be countermanded with difficulty. Courageous standing up for principles and aggressive responses to the interviewers coupled with some policies that pit the Tories and their media pals against the BBC would be a start.

The BBC is a shadow of its former self but the public still like it - make clear to them what the Tories are planning to do and at whose behest it is

The only way to win in 2020 is to be aggressive, courageous and combative with the press and the Tories. We have allies out there and we have the right policy direction left us by Miliband. Who is the best to take that fight to them? If Burnham and Cooper think it is them then they should be starting now

The days of triangulation are over - the 1997-2010 Government made great strides in improving the public services but that legacy has been forgotten due to the 'it was Labour overspending that caused the financial crash' and 'Iraq'. The Blairites are the ones who are most to blame for poisoning this legacy - they, and their supporters in the press, are also calling for austerity and saying that too much was spent.....the problem I have is not that money was spent but that so much went into the pockets of useless private sector outsourcing entities

Labour has to decide who it is for - it should be for the vast majority of the population who have been shat on by globalisation and the arrogance/power of global companies playing fast and loose with the free movement of capital. A few simple economic messages showing this should help....to counter those from the neo-liberals. The most powerful message in economic terms has been the 'living within our means', 'balancing the books' and 'maxing out the credit card'.

These are pretty much nonsensical but to those who have no knowledge of macroeconomics seem to make sense - we should counter them. In order to do so we should stop any Labour politician (I am looking at you Kendall) making any comments about 'Labour over-spending' as this just dilutes the message and confuses people. Do you hear any Tories saying - 'Labour rescued the public sector from years of underinvestment by us' - do you buggery!

As a final point, if in the end the Great British Public decide they want to follow this Tory guff then I am afraid they will have to reap the consequences. There is only so much you can do - if they want to remain ignorant of the reality and self-centred then I am afraid we have to accept that.

I am not a great fan of the GBP to be honest and have little faith in them actually being interested before it is too late. It is the same people who allowed the Tories to destroy the country from 1979-1997 - I fear it will be the same now

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 6:49 am

AngryAsWell wrote:Uma Kumaran ‏@Uma_Kumaran · 14m14 minutes ago

Uma Kumaran retweeted Sky News
LP member: "system is about opposition as much as...the party in power. Even if it means the Tories stay in"

WTH

Calum McClure ‏@theredflag87 · 47m47 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim you do absolutely. and I concede we might not win with corbyn

Janet Edwards ‏@Janiete · 6m6 minutes ago
@SpawnofJustice @flashgrim @theredflag87 Surprising how many admit it but want him as leader anyway. #noonewillvoteforuswedontcare

What's the point? What do these people think will happen to this country under another 5 or more years of Torys ? - or do they not care, it seems that they don't.

I guess it's that there is no point in Labour being in power if they are (perceived as) so similar to the Tories that it makes no real difference. In the end either Labour is a clear alternative, or it doesn't really matter.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 6:51 am

Me again, taking advantage of no-one else being around to have a discussion with myself - hope I do not end of calling some of my own comments 'nonsense'!

Labour need to start showing 'leadership'. This means not just agreeing with the prejudices of the public who are being led in a lot of cases by the reporting in the press

Labour should try and wrest the leadership away from the Tories and the right-wing media - if we just follow them we will be a pale shadow of what we should be

Example, with the unions. Most industrial disputes now are due to poor management and not unions throwing their weight around. Most people don't equate unions with the protections workers enjoy now, or all the good work that goes on with employers behind the scenes. The Labour Party should stop being mealy-mouthed and take position in support of worker actions against poor employers. The tube strike is one place to start. The dispute is not about pay but all we see are half-truths in the newspapers (and on LDV if you go and have a look) about how much they earn. Labour politicians are noticeable by their absence in this debate. Get out there and support workers against poor management and remind the public of what unions are about. If a union is being unreasonable then say so but there are not too many cases of that nowadays

The same things can be said about higher education funding, immigration and many other subjects

Get out there and say what we believe in - aggressively if necessary. The press and Tories will argue back and ridicule but if we believe what we are saying then we have to keep on saying it. If we are right then the public will follow....if they don't at least they cannot say that they were not told!

True leadership is hard and needs courage and conviction...who has it, coupled with the right philosophy?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 7:09 am

People are not rational. Burnham and Cooper are both, I suspect, "unelectable", not least because of our laughable and disastrous press, but also because they simply have no appeal. (Don't ask me why Cameron does - like I say, people are not rational).
Labour has to start bringing in far more real people. People who, like Ed, will take on the media. This leadership election isn't so much about getting in next time, it's about having a Labour party at all.

Have just read Martin Amis' Zone of Interest, and see (with much of the current talk about immigration) that we have not come as far as we might have thought. And this time I suspect there are more here (ie: in "britain") on the wrong side of it.

Grim.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 7:43 am

[quote="howsillyofme1"

True leadership is hard and needs courage and conviction...who has it, coupled with the right philosophy?[/quote]

For me, the answer to that question is Corbyn.

I don't know if I would have supported him if there had been another "conviction" candidate with ideas I could subscribe to.
I don't know if he is the right person to lead Labour now - but I believe the others are not for all sorts of reasons.

Labour had a good leader in Ed Miliband - but he didn't do enough (or was prevented from doing enough) to get across the good things that 13 years of Labour achieved and he was not supported strongly enough by his shadow cabinet.
Although he did a good job in keeping the party united as much as he could, that unity evaporated as soon as he resigned; much of the Corbyn manifesto isn't that different from his, and Burnham's isn't either now that he's catching up.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - this is not 1983, things have moved on, Corbyn is not Foot; Labour has, along with all the good it did when in office, drifted to the right. The centre ground is now further to the right than it has been for a very long time.
Kendall is almost a Tory; Cooper as yet has no policies beyond telling us what the Tories have done wrong; Burnham is, IMHO, not to be trusted because he is claiming things that his manifesto doesn't actually offer, rail nationalisation being a case in point.

It seems to me that Labour is having an existential crisis right now. It needs to work out who and what it's for. There is a bit too much distance between the heirarchy and the grassroots, and an element of control I find distasteful - Harman is policing possible "entryists" despite the partys' support for the new election system, certain elements of the PLP are doing what they can to discredit Corbyn, some are saying they will refuse to work with him thus risking a split at a time when Labour needs unity to fight the real enemy of Tory hegemony, and all this smacks of a heirarchy petrified that they will lose control but too weak to mount an effective opposition.

Corbyn has opened up the debate to an unprecedented degree, and for that alone he deserves a bit of kudos. If he wins, I doubt he will go on to contest the next GE - I think he'll be removed or will step down, and a more "electable" candidate will be found.

But for now, he offers some hope - and for me and many others, that's something we're not seeing in the others.
As Michael Sheen said, "There is never an excuse to not speak up for what you think is right. You must stand up for what you believe. But first of all, by God, believe in something".

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 7:58 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:There's one way to beat Corbyn, you know. Offer something better. Pity none of the other candidates have thought of doing that.
I think Andy Burnham is doing just that. His manifesto on education, health care, housing & transport are better than Corbyns.

It couldn't , of course, be worse. But the problem of Corbyn is being created by the failure of the soft left to put forward a decent candidate. In ordinary times 'Kinnock' beats 'Benn' easily within Labour. It is increasingly clear to me why Burnham came a poor fourth in a competition won by Ed Miliband.

Cooper is now our only hope of being competitive in 2020. I wanted her to replace Miliband from 2012 on. But, she has stuck to the blandest of policy proposals.

However, I might spin this as Cooper keeping her eye on the prize. The prize is being PM. The prize is not being leader of the Labour party. The latter without the former is far far worse than not winning at all (See Ed Miliband - a man who has wrecked his life through hubris. Hague was quickly forgiven as nobody thought anyone else would have done much better.)

As Trump is proving so dramatically, what you need to say to appeal to a plurality of a party's base is quite different from what you need to do to win a general election. So perhaps Cooper's best bet is not to give too many hostages to fortune. I think Burnham already has, with populism I do not approve of.

This is good (Runciman is very leftwing if you read him regularly)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n16/david-runciman/short-cuts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:02 am

I seriously doubt that Britain will vote for Cooper.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:17 am

"Would you vote for the wife of the man who got us into this mess in the first place?"

Style of thing...

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:22 am

Exactly.

Ah how I miss Imageark.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:23 am

11 million registered disabled voters in particular have serious reservations about Cooper, after her stewardship at the DWP in the dying days of Browns government

13 April 2010

Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper.

The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/m ... l-approved

I personally wouldn't waste my time micturating on her even if she was showing signs of spontaneous human combustion.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:28 am

imageark in Graun on 6th august wrote:Mary Poppins .... sorry Mark Carney - says all this speculation about interest rates is understandable, an indicator that the economy is 'returning to normal'.

1. 'Normal' got us in shit in the first place.
2. Have to as ever ask 'whose economy' ?( Seeing as how during this economic disaster, the wealthy have done very nicely)
3. Beware of normalisation.

Style of thing

https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/4370916" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:31 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Exactly.

Ah how I miss Imageark.

He's around, TC - his posts get lost in the mass (no, morass) of arguments, trolling, etc. BTL at the G these days.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:33 am

ephemerid wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:Exactly.

Ah how I miss Imageark.
He's around, TC - his posts get lost in the mass (no, morass) of arguments, trolling, etc. BTL at the G these days.

It would be great to entice him over here.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:36 am

TobyLatimer wrote:11 million registered disabled voters in particular have serious reservations about Cooper, after her stewardship at the DWP in the dying days of Browns government

13 April 2010

Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper.

The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA.

http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/m ... l-approved

I personally wouldn't waste my time micturating on her even if she was showing signs of spontaneous human combustion.

I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, Toby.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 8:47 am

Also - after years of campaigns trying to get recognition that the WCA is a dangerous, cruel, flawed, pre loaded, hocus pocus psycho babble 'assessment (which ultimately determines who gets support to live or die) including 'Pat's petition which led to the WOW petition, various groups, RCN , BMA, Prof Harrington reviews - As IDS was rolling out the aforementioned 'points make prizes' test he inherited from her - Cooper went on say that ;

"We introduced the test which we worked on with doctors, with disability groups, based on good medical evidence"

Which was, and still is bollocks.

[youtube]xRXuzg-kurI[/youtube]

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:01 am

Here's Burnham.

Calls for those on incapacity benefit to get fitter - Make people exercise more and taking there medication away

I'm not qualified enough to criticize what the video title seems to suggest, and the editing could make it possible these are just soundbites taken out of context ...

[youtube]SfZbgaYPYBo[/youtube]

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:17 am

Here's Corbyn speaking at a scrap the WCA protest

: 9985826376_73fd287ff0_k 00.jpg (37.3 KiB) Viewed 5797 times

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:26 am

mbc1955 wrote:There's one way to beat Corbyn, you know. Offer something better. Pity none of the other candidates have thought of doing that.

I think you're half right. There's two ways to beat Corbyn:

1) Offer something better, or
2) If he's so wrong, win the argument.

Cooper and Kendall have, instead, used a lot of adjectives and refused to be in any cabinet fronted by him - without having anything but adjectives to say what their cabinets would amount to (modern! progressive! non-specific!). Andy Burnham, bless him, has announced a mish-mash of pre-extant policies from the last manifesto and few that are very similar to what Corbyn stands for - several aren't quite what they seem. He's also claimed to be bold and radical a lot, which, as much as I like him, he really isn't.

I don't expect everyone to agree with Corbyn or join in. I am saddened that people who don't like it increasingly refer to it (elsewhere, not here) sneerily as "populist" or a "bandwagon". I'm pretty sure, had a candidate they preferred had that huge public response, they'd be proud, vocal and saying it showed a genuine groundswell of opinion that amounted to a movement. And that hall with over 1500 people in it last night felt like nothing I've been associated with in my years of politics.

And it's involving people who weren't interested or felt left out of politics before. Isn't that a good thing? I genuinely don't understand why some in the party are even more dismissive of the party's left than the press are... Especially when they haven't:

1) Offered something better, or
2) If he's so wrong, won the argument.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:33 am

By the way: I was in about the fifth or sixth row. I tweeted a picture looking back from my seat some fifteen, thirty minutes before it started.

https://twitter.com/onebuttonmonkey/sta ... 76/photo/1

In case anyone wonders why it's so exciting and invigorating.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:52 am

Bold and radical alone,plays well in the gallery,it will however ensure Labour will be consigned to the opposition benches.The most progression was made via a broad church with the nominally right of the party playing a pivotal role engendering cross party support,for example Morris,whose legislation ,some 45 years later still fundamentally utilised for the betterment of many.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:55 am

TobyLatimer wrote: "We introduced the test which we worked on with doctors, with disability groups, based on good medical evidence"

Which was, and still is bollocks.

Indeed it is.

"Evidence" supplied by the ex-head medical honcho of DWP, now the head honcho of the Unum-funded Centre for Psychosocial Research.

The bio/psych/social model - which is based on the assumption that health and disease are determined by physical, mental, and social factors - so beloved of Unum has been warped by their focus on the mental and social issues. What that has led to is an assessment system based on the examiners' assumptions of a person's attitude to their illness/disability rather than the illness/disability itself.

All manner of scholarly papers have been published on this; over time the theory has been debunked on many an occasion, but still most of our politicians adhere to this idea that sick people can work if only they put their minds to it - and as long as the Centre named above continues to churn out "research" (ie. evidence-free essays by the boss) which claims to confirm this, they're happy.

Amongst the many things Cooper says the Tories have done wrong and/or lied about on "welfare", she is (rightly) very cross about all the women who will be disproportionately affected by cuts to working and child tax credits, cuts to SureStart and childcare.
But for the women who have chronic illness and/or disability (and the men!) she has nothing to say. Nothing to say about ESA, nothing to say about the WCA, nothing to say about the removal of the Work Related Activity Component.

If she had the guts to admit she was wrong (and she has a sterling example in her former leader) I could give her a bit of respect.
As it is, I can understand why people with disabilities and those who are chronically sick have no time for her.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 9:57 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Here's Burnham.

Calls for those on incapacity benefit to get fitter - Make people exercise more and taking there medication away

I'm not qualified enough to criticize what the video title seems to suggest, and the editing could make it possible these are just soundbites taken out of context ...

[youtube]SfZbgaYPYBo[/youtube]

Of course those are taken out of context. Although Mrs TE has some interesting experiences of the behaviour of some people on IC. Not everybody is making the correct moral choice, although probably for understandable reasons.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 10:00 am

HindleA wrote:Bold and radical alone,plays well in the gallery,it will however ensure Labour will be consigned to the opposition benches.The most progression was made via a broad church with the nominally right of the party playing a pivotal role engendering cross party support,for example Morris,whose legislation ,some 45 years later still fundamentally utilised for the betterment of many.

How bold and radical depends on what is being proposed

Believing in something and having the courage and conviction to see it through is another! If Cooper believes that the current system for assessing disabled people is essentially correct then say it loud and clear. If she is elected leader then she takes the party through the lobbies with the Tories

At the moment though nobody is being clear in what they believe in.

If Labour wants to be Tory but nicer then fine but don't complain if those of us who oppose this approach do not support it

I am fed up of being expected to vote Labour as it will always be better than what the Tories are. In the end all we do is stay on the agenda set by others. I want to believe in something and I want a party that has clear convictions and the courage to argue for them. Set out the principles. Policy can follow after but a principle needs to be set and stuck to!

This lack of conviction is why the party lost voters in 2015 to other parties

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sun 09 Aug, 2015 10:20 am

Morning all.

Sorry to reproduce this inevitable sour jibe here:

John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 12m12 minutes ago
I think we might find that if Corbyn wins, Creasy & Flint would turn out to be "too busy" to serve in shadow cabinet http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46994.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

whilst from that story 'Labour deputy leadership candidates: We will serve under Jeremy Corbyn if he wins top job'

... Angela Eagle, the Shadow Leader of the Commons, running for the deputy leadership, told The Independent on Sunday that if Mr Corbyn won, the party, including its top MPs, would have to “shut up” and recognise that he was the democratically elected leader. She warned that any MPs plotting a coup against Mr Corbyn were following a “recipe for disaster”. She said her experience as a member of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee and policy forum meant she could unite the party in turbulent times. Her fellow contenders Caroline Flint, Stella Creasy, Ben Bradshaw and Tom Watson said that they, too, would serve under Mr Corbyn...

If I were Creasy or Flint I think I might want to clarify my position beyond the doubt of sour Rentoul - who appears to think he knows them best.