Monday 10th August 2015

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 7:17 am

Good morning - hope okay to start off?

Just looking at the end of weekend debate on electability and ineluctability of candidates

I agree with OBM

The assumption is there is an either or - vote Corbyn and he will be unelectable and vote for the others and they will be electable

I think whoever wins will in essence be 'unelectable' in the mind of the media and the commentariat with the subsequent effect on the electorate. The idea the media had lost its power to influence has been proven wrong in my eyes by the hatchet job done in 2015

No Labour politician will be considered electable by these unless they fit the old of right-wing, don't rock the boat feebleness. Kendall would be the only one at the moment to do that

What we need in the short-term is a disruptor - someone who can cause a new debate and get the electorate thinking that there can be a difference. Corbyn could possibly do this and my feeling is Cooper/Burnham will revert to type under pressure

If there is another candidate who can bring about change...and that is what we are on here is a plan to change the direction of the electorate then let he/she come forward!

The first rule in change management is to create and convince of the reasons for 'change' - a burning bridge is one or a disruption tot he status quo is another. The 'burning bridge' such as a collapse in the banking sector or a major fraud linked to the Tories is a possibility but we cannot bet on it happening and, even then, reported correctly

The only option then is for Labour to create a disruption themselves and start to set the agenda aggressively

The only option is more of the same and we will look back in years to come as this being the last chance for the Labour Party to do this. If not then another political party/movement will take it on....god forbid, UKIP who could easily move in this direction

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 8:32 am

So Harriet is off then, as she has "done her bit"

Harriet Harman was once the chilly beautiful face of New Labour, a middle class moderniser. Mr Blair consistently protected her until a series of blunders, including cutting lone parent benefits in 1997, led to her fall from grace in July 1998 when she was sacked from the cabinet as social security secretary after just 14 months ...... Upon entering the cabinet in 1997 she turned her back on her leftist roots and while secretary of state for social security pushed through cuts in benefits for lone parents, insisting they "wanted to work", whether their children were under five or over 10

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... rietharman

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 8:41 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning - hope okay to start off?

Just looking at the end of weekend debate on electability and ineluctability of candidates

I agree with OBM

The assumption is there is an either or - vote Corbyn and he will be unelectable and vote for the others and they will be electable

I think whoever wins will in essence be 'unelectable' in the mind of the media and the commentariat with the subsequent effect on the electorate. The idea the media had lost its power to influence has been proven wrong in my eyes by the hatchet job done in 2015

No Labour politician will be considered electable by these unless they fit the old of right-wing, don't rock the boat feebleness. Kendall would be the only one at the moment to do that

What we need in the short-term is a disruptor - someone who can cause a new debate and get the electorate thinking that there can be a difference. Corbyn could possibly do this and my feeling is Cooper/Burnham will revert to type under pressure

If there is another candidate who can bring about change...and that is what we are on here is a plan to change the direction of the electorate then let he/she come forward!

The first rule in change management is to create and convince of the reasons for 'change' - a burning bridge is one or a disruption tot he status quo is another. The 'burning bridge' such as a collapse in the banking sector or a major fraud linked to the Tories is a possibility but we cannot bet on it happening and, even then, reported correctly

The only option then is for Labour to create a disruption themselves and start to set the agenda aggressively

The only option is more of the same and we will look back in years to come as this being the last chance for the Labour Party to do this. If not then another political party/movement will take it on....god forbid, UKIP who could easily move in this direction

Morning.

Re the bit in bold. I think we could say that the election results in themselves should have created and convinced people of the reasons for change. It's just that there are wildly differing explanations of the cause and therefore solution.

But perhaps the more convincing reason for change might be shown by the actual 'surge' in support for Corbyn amongst the membership - much to the seeming surprise of the PLP. If Corbyn wins this leadership contest convincingly it shows a party with a much bigger split that left or right / Blairite or any other ite ---- where many of those on the ground really do seem to want change - something very different in both style and content from that which has been offered by those at the top in Labour for some time.

I'm about to start going around doing some more doorstep canvassing up here - probably early September start. It's going to be interesting to see what people say in comparison to a few months back.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 8:52 am

Today I will be mainly wearing - waterproofs.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 9:08 am

The comments underneath the Harman Guardian piece are mainly the usual bile.

Harman is, apparently 'A despicable human being', responsible for keeping down the White British Male, a 'warmonger', a 'dangerous evil woman', 'a waste of other people's oxygen', 'feminist bullshit', 'fucking idiot'.

Rod 237 posts:
''Most of the comments on this thread show up one thing, no matter who wins the leadership contest, Labour are fucked.
The bile and abuse towards a labour MP by labour supporters on here shows the party will never recover from this. Corbyn may well win, but the battles will go on for years and Osborne will continue his war on society unabated.''

I would hope that most of those swearing about her are not Labour supporters, more likely to be what Kitty Jones called Narksists, those lefties always bitter and angry about betrayal etc.

The general misogyny does worry me if Yvette wins.

Many men supported Thatcher, I suspect, because she didn't mention any issues related to women.
Even one of our own here, can't remember who, said he connected Cooper with talking too much about women's issues.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 9:17 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Today I will be mainly wearing - waterproofs.

The weather has been appalling since the Tories got into power - nature telling us something ?

I've just been on the phone to the council's countryside dept. trying to report a tree that has fallen, completely blocking a footpath to the coast.
Didn't realise the winds had been that strong - it must have happened in the last day or so as we walked it on Saturday.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 9:45 am

Can I suggest the argument Corbyn is unelectable, but so is anybody else so let's vote for Corbyn is shockingly bad.

A half decent Labour leader has every chance in 2020, Cameron will be gone and Europe is going to break the Tories.

Corbyn has no chance unless we develop an economy like Greece or Spain. That isn't going to happen.

Equating the fact Corbyn has managed to enthuse a few tens of thousands of people in a tiny and insignificant slice of the population (the politically active) with any indication of the mood of the country at large is equally hopeless. And yes a Tory party not worried about winning in 2020 is far more damaging than one that has half an eye on the voters.

CND was a mass movement, but was still utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. Corbyn hasn't even got a fraction of their support. Fundamentally if the Labour Party no longer gives a toss about stopping the Tories having complete control over the citizens of this country (which is what electing Corbyn amounts to) what exactly is the point?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 9:53 am

I'm about to be visited by a lady working on behalf of the ONS for a repeat survey of our household income, assets, employment, characteristics etc. They came about two years ago.

I have a feeling I'm going to be depressed by my own answers this time.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 9:57 am

: Osborne facing Tory revolt over tax credit cuts.jpg (109.09 KiB) Viewed 10266 times

David Jack ‏@DJack_Journo 3h3 hours ago
Osborne facing Tory revolt over tax credit cuts hitting the “very people we ought to be supporting”. Via @thetimes

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 10:17 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can I suggest the argument Corbyn is unelectable, but so is anybody else so let's vote for Corbyn is shockingly bad.

I don't see why it's any different. Except for the fact that you are convinced Corbyn is unelectable, that is. Premise conclusion, conclusion premise.

You are adamant that Corbyn can't be elected. I respect that this is how you feel, but I genuinely don't see the point in using it as both the conclusion and the premise that underwrites every comment. Espcially given the fact that the other candidates are no more convincing and that none of us have a crystal ball.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:A half decent Labour leader has every chance in 2020, Cameron will be gone and Europe is going to break the Tories.

It rather depends on (a) what everyone else thinks "half decent" means, and (b) what the Tories do in the meantime. It is also predicated on taking your assertion (that Corbyn isn't half-decent) as a given fact.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Corbyn has no chance unless we develop an economy like Greece or Spain. That isn't going to happen.

Because?

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Equating the fact Corbyn has managed to enthuse a few tens of thousands of people in a tiny and insignificant slice of the population (the politically active) with any indication of the mood of the country at large is equally hopeless. And yes a Tory party not worried about winning in 2020 is far more damaging than one that has half an eye on the voters.

Well, you know what convinces me that the other candidates are better? Their failure to attract a fraction of the attention or support, that's what. Nothing shows how popular you are like a collective shrug, does it?

If you're saying that what's popular in the party is, by definition, unelectable, then that's a horrifically bleak assertion. Never mind that it neglects the way Labour need people who like Corbyn to vote for it - it effectively writes off the idea that the party can be anything other than a deeply compromised organisation that exists solely for being not quite as bad as the other lot. And a Labour that sacrifices all of that for some calculus about winning is dead in all but name anyway.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:CND was a mass movement, but was still utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. Corbyn hasn't even got a fraction of their support. Fundamentally if the Labour Party no longer gives a toss about stopping the Tories having complete control over the citizens of this country (which is what electing Corbyn amounts to) what exactly is the point?

Some mass movements connect, some don't. It's traditional to see what happens before announcing the outcome. Why are you so unwilling to do that. Why is it so inconceivable that Labour might attract back those who were left behind? Why do you imagine everyone who wants a better party will just keep going along with it if it rejects a genuine groundswell of support?

And, seriously, without any "he's unelectable" rhetoric, without any calculation of whether he can win a vote here or there, can you tell me what's so bad about his popularity or proposals - or inclusivity? See, I think we should start with a platform and try and persuade people why it is worthwhile. One reason for that is that doing it the other way round is what many voters are so sick of. There are other reasons, but it is the traditional horse-cart arrangement for good reason.

I don't want a scrap and I mean no offence. But the constant assertion that x isn't electable is everything about this leadership election that we can be better than. Talk about wha tthe other candidates offer. Talk about what Corbyn doesn't. But if you keep telling people like me I'm wasting my vote in five years time, all you're doing is convincing me that the future of the Labour party has no place for me. And how's driving people away with defeatism a victory for anyone?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 10:38 am

On balance I definitely don't want Corbyn as leader (not least because Burnham is saying many of the right things now - most recently on Syria - and IMO deserves a chance; it seems ever more clear he was very badly advised on his campaign early on, allowing himself to be spooked by the utterly fatuous "continuity Miliband" jibe) Stuff like his lack of front bench experience, highly sectarian past, sometimes dodgy positions on foreign policy especially, and even his age can't be just wished away - however much JC's fervent admirers desire it.

But the doom currently being offered by TE about him is well over the top - even if he wins it is unlikely he will lead Labour into the next GE, and the only possibility of him deciding he wants to do that is if the party under him is polling extremely well (rather than extremely badly)

And if he only had the support of the zealots who are (I agree) so often a PITA on social media, he would be destined to come a distant 3rd at best - the reason he has a genuine chance is that several mainstream long term party supporters are backing him. You can take the view that is because they have lost their minds and are no longer interested in winning elections (as so many patronising, clueless Very Serious People of the Blairite variety do) or you can look at the actual reasons why they are inclined to support him, and try to win them over by persuasion and actually offering something compelling to vote *for*.

Burnham seems to be the only candidate who is now doing that, another indication that he has the skills needed to lead the party - and is thus getting my vote.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 10:50 am

CND was a mass movement, but was still utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country.

This is news to me. Not that it was a mass movement, but that it was 'utterly rejected by the vast majority'. If I remember correctly the '83 and '87 elections did not really discuss nuclear disarmament at all, concentrating instead on the tory/media lie that Labour was 'soft on defence' and wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons to let the Russians in.

Similarly with Yvette Cooper trotting out the incorrect rubbish about British Leyland being the archetype of nationalisation. She knows nothing about it, evidently, nor does she have any comprehension of what motivated the Labour govt to nationalise it. In those day we had the concept of 'the national interest' motivating politics and the national interest was best served by not allowing the UK car industry to collapse into bankruptcy, as it was doing under private ownership.

It was one of the very first tory/murdoch campaigns - to demonise the entire concept of nationalisation using an utterly bastardised version of events to make their case.

So we lost our car industry in the end and all the tens of thousands of ancillary businesses that made up our industrial skill base, but who cares about that?

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 10:57 am

Also, regarding CND, we ought not to forget that there was a major shift in geo-political strategy - to accompany the change in economic approach - of launching a new Cold War, after a decade of detente and peaceful cooperation. That was a political move originating in US strategic interests, not the UK's. Yet, of course, our ruling class went along with it all, and that meant that sensible debate about nuclear weapons and our relations with the Soviet Union was off the table.

Our nuclear weapons are not ours. They are the United States's weapons. We pay for them, manage them and operate them, but not in our interests at all. It is the price we have to pay to the imperial centre, just as the Assyrians had to pay their whack and send their men as soldiers to the Roman Emperors.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 11:11 am

I take the view that our nuclear capability will one day be majorly downgraded if not more - but it may be a right wing government that actually does it.

(the "Nixon to China" syndrome again)

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 11:16 am

: Who is to blame for older peoples readmissions.jpg (118.96 KiB) Viewed 10178 times

Jonathon Tomlinson ‏@mellojonny 14m14 minutes ago
Cuts to social care funding have left even people with “substantial” needs unsupported http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4244?sso=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 11:20 am

The G has picked up the Tory MP disquiet over tax credit cuts story now ...

Two Tory MPs question scale of planned tax credit cuts
Backbenchers Guto Bebb and Andrew Percy say more protection needed for people working hard in low-paid jobs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... bebb-percy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 11:38 am

I have to say that it's to Burnham's credit that he's engaging with the clear desire for some different policies. I admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the-people hat, indeed; in my defence, I had my own satire hat on) but it's infinitely preferable to the "I won't work with him" nonsense of those with no clear policies of their own. I think it's fair to say I remain unconvinced by Burnham overall, but there's far more hope for him to try and build a broader consensus than the others and him winning wouldn't be a disaster for those energised by the left having had a voice. And while I might quibble a little at his own policy's affordability/details - and the style with which he announced a renationalisation that, frankly, isn't - he's attempting an inclusivity that Kendall and Cooper seem to only have platitudes for. For me, as I've said quite a lot, I'd like to see Burnham involved and engaged in a supporting role, where i think he's better suited. But I completely respect his attempts to engage and the way in which it's being done.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 11:41 am

Sadiq Khan MP retweeted
Aysha S. Raza ‏@DrAyshaRaza 9h9 hours ago
Government housing plans put 125,000 homes at risk in west London http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/wes ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #TogetherWeKhan @SadiqKhan #HousingCrisis

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:11 pm

Speaking of nukes - last night on BBC 4 had a rather fascinating 'Storyville' - Atomic, Living in dread and promise

Amazing, that having been there in the 60s 70s & 80s how soon I forget how living in fear of a nuclear war became the norm.

Doesn't attract the same attention nowadays. Anyhow - here's a link for the iplayer thingy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065y1dx

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:12 pm

Morning all.

I'm not entirely convinced what "electable" means - or "un-electable", obviously. All the candidates were elected as MPs.
All the candidates increased their majority last time; all the candidates are incumbents of relatively safe Labour seats.
So clearly they are all "electable" as far as their constituencies are concerned.

On the question of the Labour leadership, what members need to decide is what they think will happen in the next 5 years.
We have fixed-term Parliaments, and there is no point assuming that some disaster will befall the Tories - however devoutly that is to be wished, the chances are that they are in office for the duration. With Cameron or without him at the top.

So unless something happens to destabilise the machinery of government, what do we want from a Labour leader?
Personally, I want to see Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition earn their Short Money and do some opposing. It's not happening now.
In collaboration with other parties, and with a real fighting spirit, much of what the Tories are planning can be opposed and stopped.
They have a very slender majority, and if they go too far could be removed with a vote of no confidence. It's not impossible.

Kendall has said that she does not want to protest. She says she wants power.
If she is elected leader, then, she will not be protesting against anything, presumably. That's hardly an effective opposition.
If she wants power, she has forgotten what she's for - her job is to represent her constituents and do what is best for her country.
If she aspires to power rather than service while in high office, she's not fit for the office she seeks.
She has said she will not serve under Corbyn - even if asked, which is doubtful given her ideas.

Cooper has said that protest doesn't change anything - which, coming from a Labour politician is disgraceful.
The party she wants to lead began as a protest movement; if, as leader, she doesn't protest for us, who will?
She has been trotting out all sorts of non-policy statements - the Tories are liars (we knew, Yvette), the Tories are punishing women (but let's not mention the sick or disabled, eh, Yvette) - but I have yet to hear what she would actually do to oppose now or govern later.
She has said she will not serve under Corbyn either - once again, shameful - and would rather go to the back benches.

Both of these women want to be the leader of the gang, but are not prepared to accept the leadership of someone they disapprove of.
Do they seriously think, that after such a display of childish disunity, that should they win they can expect the support of others?
I have heard people say that a win for Corbyn would split the party - this is risible when it's the disgruntled New Labour people thwarted in their ambitions, who will not get behind him, and will nor serve with him, and will not lend their talents to a desperately-needed opposition.
Neither of them have any credibility with me as a result.

Burnham has recently been a bit better - he was accused of being "continuity Miliband" and that's nearly right.
He has shifted a bit more to the left every time Corbyn has announced a new policy - but the small print in some of Burnham's policies show that most of this is surface stuff. His claim that he would re-nationalise rail is actually not true.
He has good policies on health and social care - and has had for some time - but he has also been playing catch-up and/or copycat, and it really doesn't smack of decisive leadership to me. At least he's prepared to work with Corbyn if he wins.

What I expect from a leader - of any institution - is a clear vision, the ability to inspire, and the strength of character to fight for what they want.
Ed Miliband so very nearly got it right - but he had to make compromises in the interests of party unity (and where did THAT go?) and he was misrepresented a lot of the time. Not just by the Tories and the media, but by his own members.
He was at his very best when he put his foot down - on Murdoch, on Syria, and on the energy cartel; when interviewed by the youngsters and by Paxman he stuck to his guns on the EU, saying that true leadership is standing up for what he believed in.

Now I appreciate that some people here are insistent that Corbyn is un-electable - but he is the only one of the four who is demonstrating a clear agenda, a willingness to work with anyone who will oppose the Tories, and a very strong stance on the things he believes in.
I also appreciate that "a few thousand" people does not a movement make - but this is being replicated all over the country, and there is a tangible sense that change is possible. I think to dismiss that in personally pejorative terms is actually quite foolish.

The new leader will be announced at Conference - there's a long way to go until then. Meanwhile, I am hoping that the other candidates try to offer something a bit better than they have done so far.

It strikes me that there is more than a little arrogance about Cooper. She seems to think all she has to do is make a few nice noises about womens' issues, call the Tories nasty names, and the job's done. Kendall is an arch-Blairite who never served under a Blair government, and her lack of experience (and humility) is showing her up. Burnham is a bit better, but I get the feeling that he is flailing for ideas whenever he's put on the spot; and he is weak at defending his own record let alone Labour's while in government.

Why are these three more "electable" than Corbyn? Seriously? I am asking this on the basis of what they have done in this campaign, not what they might do later or what they did before. What are they doing that impresses more than what Corbyn is doing?
For the first time in a very long time, we have a real conviction politician standing up and telling us what he believes in. For that alone, he deserves some credit. His background is not what he is now - and that's true of the others too.
If he wins, there is no assumption that he will go on to contest the General Election - his alleged un-electability is not all that relevant right now, IMHO; but what IS relevant right now is that Labour mounts an effective opposition. I think he's the man to do it.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:53 pm

mikems wrote:Also, regarding CND, we ought not to forget that there was a major shift in geo-political strategy - to accompany the change in economic approach - of launching a new Cold War, after a decade of detente and peaceful cooperation. That was a political move originating in US strategic interests, not the UK's. Yet, of course, our ruling class went along with it all, and that meant that sensible debate about nuclear weapons and our relations with the Soviet Union was off the table.

Our nuclear weapons are not ours. They are the United States's weapons. We pay for them, manage them and operate them, but not in our interests at all. It is the price we have to pay to the imperial centre, just as the Assyrians had to pay their whack and send their men as soldiers to the Roman Emperors.

Sorry but your entire second paragraph is just wrong. The weapons are ours, we bought them and operate them. We can if we wish fire them, we can do this without any input from the US government. They could if they so wished stop servicing them, at which point we would have to give up, improvise, or pay the French a fortune to buy into their program.

Perhaps if the Soviet Union had withdrawn from Poland, East Germany, Hungary etc etc and stopped oppressing their people the Cold War wouldn't have been necessary. But they didn't and it was.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:55 pm

Emily Ashton ‏@elashton 10m10 minutes ago
Alastair Campbell: People should sign up, pay £3, and vote ABC - "Anyone But Corbyn": http://www.alastaircampbell.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:12 pm

TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:15 pm

The weapons are 'ours' in that the US told us to buy them, from them, and won't allow us to use them, except with their permission. If you think the US will allow the UK to set of a nuclear war, you are the one that is wrong, not me.

As for the Soviet Union 'withdrawing' from the eastern bloc countries, that was not even a demand of western countries at the time, or at any point after the second world war. So there is no way to rationally respond to that point.

It was, however, exactly the sort of belligerent rhetoric that accompanied the new Cold War, launched by Reagan on the advice of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. And you seem to have accepted their arguments, more fool you.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:17 pm

Abby Thomlinson interviewing Liz Kendall

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

(the interview after that is Sadiq Khan also worth listening to)

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:21 pm

Another possible big difference, Ephemerid, is that the USA may have a socialist President by the time we have a general election here.

It may sound absolutely crazy, but if Sanders wins the primaries against Clinton and faces Trump as the Republican candidate, he has a good chance of winning. He's tapping into the same sort of grassroots demand for change as Corbyn.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:24 pm

Allow me to suggest all those people who think Corbyn is electable should turn the argument round rather than accusing me of being unreasonable in assuming he isn't. Tell me what special circumstances exist that means what was politically toxic since before the 80s is suddenly going to deliver a victory.

I am after all the one standing on top of the building pointing out gravity is an issue, the Corbynites are the companion in an untested wing suit trying to convince me gravity isn't real.

Try and explain why a GE result which Labour lost on the economy will be fixed by electing somebody making expensive (and impossible) spending commitments on nationalisation.

Consider when the right wing is hoovering up votes in the Labour heartlands, to a degree on Osbornes anti welfare platform, how Corbyn is going to help.

Consider the risible results achieved by TUSC and ask how many voters actually want a 1980s Labour platform.

Look at the opinion polls which while dubious at best, do not show any indication of a mood for a left wing government.

Give me an example of a party winning power (short of a total meltdown aka Greece, Spain) which moved further away from the political centre than at an election it just lost. Miliband moved the party to the centre left and lost, it is just possible a slightly stronger leader and another 5 years of Tory venality migh make that a winning pitch next time, although a fair bit will have to change in the specifics.

There are dynamics such as the decline of home ownership that means in the long term people will turn away from the Tories back towards social democratic policies. However to do that they will now have to cross a chasm to commit to an old style left wing agenda. Anybody really see those Lib Dems who voted Tory to keep the left wing SNP out doing that?

Then add in a stupid commitment to giving up nukes in an era of security paranoia and a newly resurgent Russia annexing bits of countries. Yes I know this isn't a real threat but Joe Public will happily believe the sort of crap Fallon spouts.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:26 pm

mikems wrote:Another possible big difference, Ephemerid, is that the USA may have a socialist President by the time we have a general election here.

It may sound absolutely crazy, but if Sanders wins the primaries against Clinton and faces Trump as the Republican candidate, he has a good chance of winning. He's tapping into the same sort of grassroots demand for change as Corbyn.

Trump will not win the Republican nomination. Sanders will not win the Democratic one either.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:27 pm

Trump will not win the Republican nomination. Sanders will not win the Democratic one either.

I'm tempted to ask you who is going to win the Grand National next spring.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:28 pm

yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?

I'm not allowing myself to look at polls ... for obvious reasons. But, yes, depressing and, sadly, unsurprising.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:31 pm

mikems wrote:The weapons are 'ours' in that the US told us to buy them, from them, and won't allow us to use them, except with their permission. If you think the US will allow the UK to set of a nuclear war, you are the one that is wrong, not me.

As for the Soviet Union 'withdrawing' from the eastern bloc countries, that was not even a demand of western countries at the time, or at any point after the second world war. So there is no way to rationally respond to that point.

It was, however, exactly the sort of belligerent rhetoric that accompanied the new Cold War, launched by Reagan on the advice of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. And you seem to have accepted their arguments, more fool you.

Think about what Trident is supposed to do and how it works. Then ask yourself in practical terms just how a second strike weapon, acting on the autonomy of the crew (because Command and Control no longer exists in its standard scenario) could possibly be stopped from firing by the US government.

Answer it can't.

I won't dignify the rest of the bollocks that equates my arguments with idiots like Cheney with a response.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:31 pm

In his manifesto AB is saying exactly the same things he said at the first hustings, he is not being "pushed" into any position by anyone.
Problem is Corbyn gets the coverage whilst the others don't. Its SNP & UKIP all over again as far as the press are concerned, publicise the candidate who can divide Labour. And that's what they are doing and succeeding in.
(and no, I am not saying Corbyn is "like" SNP or UKIP, just that he is being used in the same way that they were by the right wing press)

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:33 pm

No one would have predicted this just a few months ago, so who can be sure what's going to happen next?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128035125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:41 pm

I won't dignify the rest of the bollocks that equates my arguments with idiots like Cheney with a response.

Look, it is just my opinion, offered up for people to think about and respond to. I am not trying to upset you, but that's what seems to happen quite a lot when I post a comment.

I don't want a fight. I can't cope with stress and I don't want to upset people, or stop offering my opinions. So I am going to carry on, but I ask you to stop being so aggressive, dismissive and contemptuous of what I say.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:44 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Allow me to suggest all those people who think Corbyn is electable should turn the argument round rather than accusing me of being unreasonable in assuming he isn't. Tell me what special circumstances exist that means what was politically toxic since before the 80s is suddenly going to deliver a victory.

A: *throws apple at someone*
B: "Ow. Why did you throw an apple at me?"
A: "Apple-throwing is a fact of modern life!"
B: "No it isn't. Please stop."
A: "If you don't like me throwing apples at you, then you have to persuade me not to."
B: "But you're the one who chose to throw an apple in the first place."
A: "That's because throwing apples is a fact of modern life!"
*throws another apple*
A: "See? Apple throwing is a fact of modern life."

I respect that we disagree. What I don't respect is you constantly reasserting the same point. And when three commenters I respect hugely (and also myself) ask you not to keep making the same assertion, your response is basically, "make me stop." Oh, and then misrepresenting your own degree of certainty for the law of gravity, which is catastrophically dodgy given that all science works on the basis of objective, external observation and you are refusing to accept any observation that contradicts your own.

I think I'll step out for the afternoon. I'm fine with us disagreeing, but this is becoming disagreeable.

Edit: clearer on the gravity catastrophe. Later, all. Have a good afternoon.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:46 pm

mikems wrote:No one would have predicted this just a few months ago, so who can be sure what's going to happen next?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128035125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting that of the US candidates Saunders is 73, Hillary Clinton is 67, Trump is 69, Pataki is 70, Chafee is 62, Webb is 69.

Yet Murdoch's hacks tell us Corbyn is too 'clapped out' at 66.
Why is having a few wrinkles and some years on the clock considered a drawback in the UK these days ?

Yes, in the spirit of full disclosure, I do admit I sometimes suggested Vince Cable retire - but that was because of his political behaviour, not because he was senile.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:52 pm

Owen Jones on Corbyn, Labour and the Future of the Left

[youtube]90ea9lRnodE[/youtube]

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:53 pm

Owen has a new makeover

: CMDBaUYWoAAzfsI.jpg (24.17 KiB) Viewed 9965 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 1:57 pm

yahyah wrote:
mikems wrote:No one would have predicted this just a few months ago, so who can be sure what's going to happen next?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128035125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting that of the US candidates Saunders is 73, Hillary Clinton is 67, Trump is 69, Pataki is 70, Chafee is 62, Webb is 69.

Yet Murdoch's hacks tell us Corbyn is too 'clapped out' at 66.

There is so much that is contradictory about society's attitude to 'older' people. We've got to continue working for as long as possible so we don't become a 'burden' on the state. Yet employers don't want to employ people over the age of 50 - or, possibly more accurate, they don't want to pay people for their years of experience (in certain sectors and fields anyway) - and the government has incentivised the preferential employment of people under 25 with their latest bargain basement minimum wage for that group. If you are 'sitting' in the Lords though you can be nigh on 100 and fall asleep after lunch while your colleagues debate legislation that affects all of us and claim £300 for the snooze.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:03 pm

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

Conservatives promised to protect the ‘most vulnerable’. How’s that going?
Frances Ryan

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:15 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Allow me to suggest all those people who think Corbyn is electable should turn the argument round rather than accusing me of being unreasonable in assuming he isn't. Tell me what special circumstances exist that means what was politically toxic since before the 80s is suddenly going to deliver a victory.

I am after all the one standing on top of the building pointing out gravity is an issue, the Corbynites are the companion in an untested wing suit trying to convince me gravity isn't real.

Try and explain why a GE result which Labour lost on the economy will be fixed by electing somebody making expensive (and impossible) spending commitments on nationalisation.

Consider when the right wing is hoovering up votes in the Labour heartlands, to a degree on Osbornes anti welfare platform, how Corbyn is going to help.

Consider the risible results achieved by TUSC and ask how many voters actually want a 1980s Labour platform.

Look at the opinion polls which while dubious at best, do not show any indication of a mood for a left wing government.

Give me an example of a party winning power (short of a total meltdown aka Greece, Spain) which moved further away from the political centre than at an election it just lost. Miliband moved the party to the centre left and lost, it is just possible a slightly stronger leader and another 5 years of Tory venality migh make that a winning pitch next time, although a fair bit will have to change in the specifics.

There are dynamics such as the decline of home ownership that means in the long term people will turn away from the Tories back towards social democratic policies. However to do that they will now have to cross a chasm to commit to an old style left wing agenda. Anybody really see those Lib Dems who voted Tory to keep the left wing SNP out doing that?

Then add in a stupid commitment to giving up nukes in an era of security paranoia and a newly resurgent Russia annexing bits of countries. Yes I know this isn't a real threat but Joe Public will happily believe the sort of crap Fallon spouts.

People often don't act, think or vote in a strictly rational manner - that's part of being human - I know I'm subject to it.
I'm not criticising human beings by acknowledging lots of irrational factors form human action & thought.
There's much in your post I agree with.
Mainstream media have succeeded making the words socialist or lefty pejoratives.
Cooperative socialism & lefties are the only hope against Tory corporate ownership of land & people.

corrected some grammatical errors

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:18 pm

Good-afternoon, everyone.
I'm still having computer problems but this too shall pass.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:21 pm

Who knows what is actually 'popular' enough nowadays anyhow ? When the governing party are able to do so by attracting around 36% of eligible voters (or 24% of those who could be bothered) and this with all the billions spent by Murdoch, Rothermere, Barclays, Desmond etc brainwashing a gullible politically incontinent electorate it makes sense to appeal to those 'disenfranchised'

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:22 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:
mikems wrote:No one would have predicted this just a few months ago, so who can be sure what's going to happen next?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128035125" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting that of the US candidates Saunders is 73, Hillary Clinton is 67, Trump is 69, Pataki is 70, Chafee is 62, Webb is 69.

Yet Murdoch's hacks tell us Corbyn is too 'clapped out' at 66.
There is so much that is contradictory about society's attitude to 'older' people. We've got to continue working for as long as possible so we don't become a 'burden' on the state. Yet employers don't want to employ people over the age of 50 - or, possibly more accurate, they don't want to pay people for their years of experience (in certain sectors and fields anyway) - and the government has incentivised the preferential employment of people under 25 with their latest bargain basement minimum wage for that group. If you are 'sitting' in the Lords though you can be nigh on 100 and fall asleep after lunch while your colleagues debate legislation that affects all of us and claim £300 for the snooze.

Any dissonance reflected in what's said & what's done is about the fact a few powerful interests & Tory government don't want to share resources with anyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:30 pm

Lancashire residents told to keep boiling tap water
United Utilities advises homes around Preston, Chorley and Blackpool to carry on with precautions after small levels of cryptosporidium bug found in supply
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... osporidium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hundreds of thousands of people in Lancashire have been warned to continue boiling tap water.

United Utilities first issued the advice last Thursday, after tests at one of its water treatment plants discovered traces of the microscopic bug cryptosporidium, which can cause sickness and diarrhoea.

It said it was making progress in tackling the problem, which it maintained posed a very low health risk but the precaution needed to stay in place.

The affected households cover a large area of Lancashire including Blackpool, Preston, Chorley and the Fylde coast.

Since Thursday. Five days on, people can't trust their tap water. Unacceptable.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:52 pm

mikems wrote:
If I remember correctly the '83 and '87 elections did not really discuss nuclear disarmament at all,

You memory is profoundly defective. It was central to both campaigns. Healey, one of the party's major assets, didn't support it, was humiliated on it at both elections.

You are equally wrong about car manufacturing.

UK car manufacturing is just short of its all time peak in terms of units, and is far above it in terms of value (inflation adjusted) because so much UK manufacturing is now high end. We are the third largest car producer in Europe (ahead of France) and if current rates of growth continue can expect to be second, behind Germany, by 2017.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:54 pm

yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?

hat must be an all time record for a party in a constituent part of the UK. Labour under Blair never polled numbers like that.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 2:56 pm

mikems wrote:
Trump will not win the Republican nomination. Sanders will not win the Democratic one either.
I'm tempted to ask you who is going to win the Grand National next spring.

Bernie Sanders won't be winning that either, if that helps.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:03 pm

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/20 ... f-he-wins/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:04 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
yahyah wrote:TNS poll result for Holyrood is depressing.

SNP 62%
Labour 20%
Tories 12%
Lib Dems 3%

What will all those 'Labour are Red Tories' folk say if Corbyn wins ?
That must be an all time record for a party in a constituent part of the UK. Labour under Blair never polled numbers like that.

Yes they did, in early 1995. They also hit 60% in the autumn of 1997, during Blair's all time peak of personal popularity after Lady Di's death.