Tuesday 11th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 7:19 am

Morning and a good TuesThursday to you all.

A big thanks to the great discussions over the weekend and yesterday that I've finally caught up with. Plenty for me to ruminate over.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:05 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning and a good TuesThursday to you all.

A big thanks to the great discussions over the weekend and yesterday that I've finally caught up with. Plenty for me to ruminate over.

Ha! The trouble with starting a thread just after waking up.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:14 am

Can I just say that everyone I disagree with is an idiot? But that I don't need to say why, or offer anything but put-downs and pompous assertions?

And everything these people remember, have experienced or thought is wrong and unelectable.

And history is exactly as the tory media says it is, and saying anything different means you are 'profoundly mistaken' or 'deeply wrong' or whatever other piece of dismissive rhetoric, not backed with reasoned argument, natch, that I can think of on the spur of the moment.

That's what debate in the labour movement is all about, after all.

Just seems to be the flavour round here, with some of us.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:48 am

Too much negativity from a lot of folks. Drama queens full of doom and gloom - we should be grasping hope ! The idea that a Corbyn win will herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is nonsense.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:49 am

Morning.

Agree with Stephen, the debates and views are really useful.
Thanks for keeping things just this side of acceptable, not something I've always managed myself when disagreeing with someone.

I've just been looking at the Mirror poll report while scoffing breakfast.

One interesting result of the poll is that Corbyn is 'more popular with women (61%) than men (48%).''

Now that is interesting, to me anyway !
We watched a Sky report last night from a Corbyn meeting and they chose a bright young woman to talk about why she was backing him.
It cleared my mind that had been paying too much attention to the sad, angry, sweary, conspiracy and anti-feminist types who vociferously back Corbyn as the new saviour.

Am not sure I agree with Hugo's reference to Labour members being 'mad bastards' if they vote for him. My husband is still more definite to vote Corbyn than me, and he is less of a 'mad bastard' than any other human being I've ever known.

Feelings are high. People fall out over things like this.

Tisme asked what people here would do if a person they did not support won.
Well, even if Kendall won I would still try and encourage people to button it for a while as she tries to establish her way, and to oppose her in a way that does not let the media scream 'Labour disunited'.
For all we hear she is 'a Tory', some of her views show she clearly isn't, wanting to scrap Osborne's inheritance tax cut for one.

I certainly won't be voting Green, that's for sure.
& I do hope that the 67% of £3 supporters who've signed up to take the party to the left are not the sort who will flounce off, if Corbyn is elected, at the first sign that he has to compromise or act in the real world.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:54 am

mikems wrote:Can I just say that everyone I disagree with is an idiot? But that I don't need to say why, or offer anything but put-downs and pompous assertions?

And everything these people remember, have experienced or thought is wrong and unelectable.

And history is exactly as the tory media says it is, and saying anything different means you are 'profoundly mistaken' or 'deeply wrong' or whatever other piece of dismissive rhetoric, not backed with reasoned argument, natch, that I can think of on the spur of the moment.

That's what debate in the labour movement is all about, after all.

Just seems to be the flavour round here, with some of us.

Yeah, that really helps......

There's likely to be a good reason so many of the frequent posters have deserted the site & the antagonism towards those that don't share the same opinions is probably one of the main reasons - it's certainly mine and I suspect it's the same for many others.

Ok, we get it, Corbyn is 'the' man and everybody else is a 'red Tory' or whatever other term of abuse is today's choice but I want a prospective Prime Minister to be elected next month and Corbyn is not that.

I've seen tweets saying that it doesn't matter if, having been elected Leader in Sept, he doesn't win in 2020 ! WTF ?!! Why is a so-called Labour voter happy to keep the Tories in power for yet another 5 years ? 15 years of a Tory govt ? Really ? Just as long as their man is elected ? The man of the people that will be utterly rejected by the marginal constituencies, who in 2015 decided to stick with the Tories because the press warned them of how damaging a left-leaning Lab/SNP would be ?

But sure, start the day with another post attacking other likely Labour supporters - why not.

I think I'm done now, there's nothing left here for me but cheers for the support over the last couple of years while I've been undergoing my health issues and stuff.

@ yahyah I'd have lived that Blue Siamese but my dogs would never have tolerated it

Might catch some of you on Twitter, take care, ciao.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:55 am

If Kendal, Cooper or Burnham wins there won't be a media/tory campaign to split the party, but there will be if Corbyn wins.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 8:57 am

but pk1, I haven't said or tweeted those things, here or anywhere else, and my earlier comment was as a result of reading the responses to my comments yesterday.

And it is the first comment I have ever made that could be deemed as any sort of attack on any one else here. And you weigh in as if I do nothing else!

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:01 am

mikems wrote:Can I just say that everyone I disagree with is an idiot? But that I don't need to say why, or offer anything but put-downs and pompous assertions?

And everything these people remember, have experienced or thought is wrong and unelectable.

And history is exactly as the tory media says it is, and saying anything different means you are 'profoundly mistaken' or 'deeply wrong' or whatever other piece of dismissive rhetoric, not backed with reasoned argument, natch, that I can think of on the spur of the moment.

That's what debate in the labour movement is all about, after all.

Just seems to be the flavour round here, with some of us.

Oh, I hear you. Although you missed out:

"Only by constantly stamping our feet, telling everyone our opinion is the same as empirical fact (because how strongly we believe something is the same as a measure of its truth value) and refusing to ever engage constructively with anyone who disagrees with us can Labour have a future. We're doomed because I say we're doomed so we're doomed. DOOMED. And if you disagree, you're a bollocks."

Some future, eh?

<rant>

This is a time of change. I've no idea where it will lead us, but the idea that it is necessarily doom is as spurious as it is over-repeated, in my opinion - and of many, many members (the response to that is to say some should be culled, I saw. Wow). Given how much we need to change (given our failures of late) and how bad things have been (along with much good, the legacy of our time in government is helping to enable the current government), I can't express just how hopeful that chance for change makes me - I'm not saying it'll turn out peachy, but the groundswell of demands for something different is becoming a movement.

If the alternative to it is being told off and talked down to by people who have mistaken their certainty for a law of physics, then I can't imagine why anyone wants a change, can you? More being shouted at, please! I want to be in a party that tells me to know my place! *sigh*

</rant>

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:06 am

I for one welcome our new Bennite overlords.

1. Why don't Brown and especially Miliband intervene? The latter should not have resigned immediately, and his failure to say anything at all about Corbyn is yet further abnegation of responsibility.

2. If Corbyn wins, what will the excuse for his inevtable failure be? Betrayal by Blairites? Or the neo-liberal forces of reaction?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:09 am

Morning all. Bit bleary eyed in the Riots household this morning.

Just to say hear hear to yahyah - and to Toby - for their views on the state of the Labour leadership contest. We have to have a bit more faith in people than write things off as a disaster before anything has happened. Certainly those I've met who want to vote for Corbyn have been far from entryist or mad bastards ... they've been long standing members. And those people will - I'm pretty sure - get behind another person should they win. I can think of a couple of possible exceptions to that but that's all.

FWIW - Newsnight had Diane Abbott and Chris Bryant on to talk about the polls showing Corbyn so far ahead. Neither of them thought it was a reliable indicator that he would win. Abbott said Corbyn could win but she really felt it would come down to second preferences. Now both of them have reasons they might want to say this .... but then polls aren't high on my list of good indicators of what is actually going to happen at the moment. Funny that.

@pk Sorry you don't like the tenor of FTN at present. I think Mikems was trying to have a bit of an ironic laugh with his comment - it didn't come across as bad tempered to me - but appreciate we all interpret posts in our own ways. I think FTN is managing a whole lot better than many other places to have a polite but sometimes feisty exchange of views over this. And I am seeing a variety of views - I don't feel that one perspective is drowning out all others. And there are probably many of us - like me - who are as yet undecided about who to go for. I wish you well pk. Have valued your contributions through some of FTNs most active times - and hope you will return.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:10 am

Here we go again.

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

pk1 wrote:
mikems wrote:Can I just say that everyone I disagree with is an idiot? But that I don't need to say why, or offer anything but put-downs and pompous assertions?

And everything these people remember, have experienced or thought is wrong and unelectable.

And history is exactly as the tory media says it is, and saying anything different means you are 'profoundly mistaken' or 'deeply wrong' or whatever other piece of dismissive rhetoric, not backed with reasoned argument, natch, that I can think of on the spur of the moment.

That's what debate in the labour movement is all about, after all.

Just seems to be the flavour round here, with some of us.
Yeah, that really helps......

There's likely to be a good reason so many of the frequent posters have deserted the site & the antagonism towards those that don't share the same opinions is probably one of the main reasons - it's certainly mine and I suspect it's the same for many others.

Ok, we get it, Corbyn is 'the' man and everybody else is a 'red Tory' or whatever other term of abuse is today's choice but I want a prospective Prime Minister to be elected next month and Corbyn is not that.

I've seen tweets saying that it doesn't matter if, having been elected Leader in Sept, he doesn't win in 2020 ! WTF ?!! Why is a so-called Labour voter happy to keep the Tories in power for yet another 5 years ? 15 years of a Tory govt ? Really ? Just as long as their man is elected ? The man of the people that will be utterly rejected by the marginal constituencies, who in 2015 decided to stick with the Tories because the press warned them of how damaging a left-leaning Lab/SNP would be ?

But sure, start the day with another post attacking other likely Labour supporters - why not.

I think I'm done now, there's nothing left here for me but cheers for the support over the last couple of years while I've been undergoing my health issues and stuff.

@ yahyah I'd have lived that Blue Siamese but my dogs would never have tolerated it

Might catch some of you on Twitter, take care, ciao.

Hope you will come back PK.
I think more people agree with you than you realise.

Fight Yvette's corner please. Or else it will become an echo chamber here.
I seriously am still undecided, all over the place with it so would appreciate it, but can understand
if it seems too much of an uphill struggle.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:13 am

To be frank, the responses I had yesterday upset me. I hate all this pointless rowing and confrontation and doubly hate it when people won't debate properly, here of all places.

We can all assert and proclaim and brook no differences, it's just not good behaviour, in my opinion.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:19 am

Maybe we should start each post with a disclaimer: 'I believe.....such & such'.

I am probably one of the most dogmatic twits in the world. Can forget that other people believe/feel as strongly as I do if they don't think like me.

Please don't fall out. I value you all, and your views. You are all like a little bit of my thinking, prodding and sometimes provoking.

If we split, and split again, and row and see malice in each other's views then there will be only one winner...that's the right wing. & let's not kid ourselves, the right wing of modern Britain could end up making Thatcher look like Tinkerbell.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:20 am

@rebeccariots2 - I've always tried to be a 'glass half full' type, difficult as it is sometimes with my own disabilities & progressive illnesses. I don't always agree with some other opinions, but respect that they surely have as much right to a point view as I do, or anyone else. It's never entered my head to get personal though, the very second you start petty name calling, or raising the voice to make your point is the moment you lose the argument, it was the first thing drilled into us as CWU reps on negotiating with line managers, but it can be equally applied anywhere.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:21 am

mikems wrote:To be frank, the responses I had yesterday upset me. I hate all this pointless rowing and confrontation and doubly hate it when people won't debate properly, here of all places.

We can all assert and proclaim and brook no differences, it's just not good behaviour, in my opinion.

Not much of a 'haven' at the moment

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:25 am

How about we start again ?

Full English breakfast, delicious vegetarian version available.
Chocolate & plain croissants, toast and some of RR's bramble jam, posh coffee or builders tea.

Am sure OhSo will have some baked goodies in the cupboard too.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:30 am

yahyah wrote:How about we start again ?

Full English breakfast, delicious vegetarian version available.
Chocolate & plain croissants, toast and some of RR's bramble jam, posh coffee or builders tea.

Am sure OhSo will have some baked goodies in the cupboard too.

I'll join you in that Yahyah

..and will - for the sake of peace - keep my views on a Corbyn win to myself in future.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:32 am

Morning all.

Judging by the frothing right's delight at what the polls currently show, the very last thing that Labour - and the country who need an effective opposition to this bunch of unprincipled wreckers in government - should do is to go into a periof of infighting and backstabbing. Like is happening now.

1. Accept the result
2. Say that you will work with the leader whoever it is and whatever his/her politics are. And don't just say it, do it.
3. Mount an effective opposition. Outline what policies the party stands for.

You never know - some of those voters who've been disappearing to other parties might well start returning...

I know this sounds obvious but...

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

yahyah wrote:How about we start again ?

Full English breakfast, delicious vegetarian version available.
Chocolate & plain croissants, toast and some of RR's bramble jam, posh coffee or builders tea.

Am sure OhSo will have some baked goodies in the cupboard too.

Sounds good, plum tomatoes and no beans for me if available!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:35 am

Respect for you all folks. I have to go off to work now ... wish I didn't as I'm feeling so groggy. Hope to see you all later.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:36 am

One last thing.

Please remember - Less Passion, Less Protein.

Don't overdo it with those breakfasts.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:42 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
yahyah wrote:How about we start again ?

Full English breakfast, delicious vegetarian version available.
Chocolate & plain croissants, toast and some of RR's bramble jam, posh coffee or builders tea.

Am sure OhSo will have some baked goodies in the cupboard too.
I'll join you in that Yahyah

..and will - for the sake of peace - keep my views on a Corbyn win to myself in future.

That breakfast sounds ace. Can I add several cups of coffee so strong they dissolve the spoon?

To be clear about my own frustrated rant earlier: I've no problem with us disagreeing. I respect that we are a broader church and it would be dull if no one disagreed. I absolutely respect that other opinions differ and I enjoy talking about the why and what of those opinions. I like the passion and the commitment. I definitely don't want anyone to keep their opinions to themselves. It's nice to talk about all of them over a good breakfast.

It's just the "you're an idiot, it's a fact that the future is x" comments that, ahem, grind my gears. It's not disagreement, it's being disagreeable. And it destroys the conversation we could be having about the party's future, whoever your preferred candidate is.

Anyway, I've stopped visibly shuddering at an atomic level, so I think I need more coffee.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:46 am

Y'know, I can sum up my reasons for voting Corbyn in one name: Toby Young.

If you didn't listen to it on Saturday, please pull out Any Questions and listen to Toby's diatribe on Corbyn.

If you listened to him, you'd think Corbyn was going to open Gulags, set up the Khmer Rouge and start Collectivisation. This is the narrative of the right wing; the monstering of our position as democratic socialists. The fact that you can suggest "Well, we could raise tax on the wealthy a bit, but not as much as it was under Thatcher" and all of a sudden be a frothing quixotic Wolfie Smith is a stain on society, and a shame on our courage.

Corbyn will be an effective voice to state what we believe should be the case; what the country should look like - for the party is a Crusade if it is anything. It will be the first time that those views are able to be articulated without the prism of cowardice and fear - every time Corbyn stands up in PMQs he won't be one of these:

But he will push and push for what is right, not necessarily what is expedient. We tried playing the Tories' game; we tried rolling over and letting UKIP tickle our tummies; we capitulated and danced until we could taste the sick in the back of our mouths.

So if we're going to lose, let's lose on our own terms, not on someone elses. If we can't convince people of the strength of our arguments in five years, then maybe we don't deserve power, and certainly not a power that only feeds off what is virtuous, compassionate and right.

Put it this way, in Zimbabwe, they allow hunting because they feel it is okay for wealthy people to pay money to shoot a few animals, because their money allows for the rest of the animals to survive. Whether you vote for Corbyn or not comes down to this; would you allow this for your country?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:56 am

My opinion, and of course others are available is that Corbyn is a luxury that the Labour Party cannot afford, I do get frightened at the prospect of another Tory government in 2020, and make no mistake I can easily see the privatisation of the NHS on the agenda if that happens, TE is spot on there, the groundwork has been laid already, less respect for it as a whole and those who work in it.

I'm fit now, 47 years of age, I have no idea where I will be in 10 years time. I'd prefer it to be under a Labour government, even a Labour government that has to compromise on it's founding principles. A privately educated upper middle class man helped to deliver most of what was once good in this country, a man who got Tories to vote for him, ok, it was a different time and a different age but I don't think peoples wants and needs have moved on so greatly.

Anyway, weeding calls, unfortunately.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 9:59 am

TobyLatimer wrote:Too much negativity from a lot of folks. Drama queens full of doom and gloom - we should be grasping hope ! The idea that a Corbyn win will herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is nonsense.

Our doom and gloom should be reserved for thoughts about the current government, who possibly do herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As RogerO'T says, whoever wins, unite, and oppose.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:03 am

yahyah wrote:How about we start again ?

Full English breakfast, delicious vegetarian version available.
Chocolate & plain croissants, toast and some of RR's bramble jam, posh coffee or builders tea.

Am sure OhSo will have some baked goodies in the cupboard too.

Only egg and bacon quiche at the moment, but if you're happy to eat it for breakfast

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:12 am

Good morning all. Since May I've been largely trying to avoid politics, and like many others I still haven't made up my mind who to vote for as leader, which is quite worrying, as I knew from early on in 2010 that I thought Ed was the best candidate.

Apologies if this has been posted previously, but someone has conducted an experiment on the Mail website, posting Nazi propaganda, replacing "Jew" with "Migrant". The resulting comments are interesting to say the least:

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/exp ... propaganda

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:17 am

gilsey wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Too much negativity from a lot of folks. Drama queens full of doom and gloom - we should be grasping hope ! The idea that a Corbyn win will herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is nonsense.
Our doom and gloom should be reserved for thoughts about the current government, who possibly do herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As RogerO'T says, whoever wins, unite, and oppose.

Being serious, I'd find this hard, and I think the majority of the PLP would. His views on Russia, Kosovo, Israel and so on are not things I can support. Most MPs will keep their heads down I expect until the time comes for his removal. He'll inevitably say or do something, probably in relation to foreign affairs, that there will be a coup, in the Spring?

The Shadow Cabinet will be very interesting. An almost completely new frontbench I expect, with faces we are not familiar with.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:20 am

Good morning, everyone.

Yesterday, Alistair Campbell described his intervention in the leadership contest as his attempt to "stop a train wreck".
This, apparently, is "telling it like it is". Actually, it's just his opinion, for what it's worth.
Yesterday, the results of a YouGov poll putting Corbyn ahead was described as "Another Miliband triumph".
The long-term Labour people voting for Corbyn are "mad bastards".

I don't think I am mad.
I know I'm not illegitimate.
I don't think this qualifies as reasonable discussion.

I'm upset that pk1 is staying away. I don't understand why she thinks, given the above, that everybody here supports Corbyn.

Judging by the posts here over the past week or so, I think that opinion is actually quite evenly spread. Clearly some don't agree.

Having had several of my own flouncing off episodes, I'm not going to indulge in one today.
However, I think it would be helpful if people didn't cite opinion as fact or insult those they don't agree with.

Thank you.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:41 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
gilsey wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:Too much negativity from a lot of folks. Drama queens full of doom and gloom - we should be grasping hope ! The idea that a Corbyn win will herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is nonsense.
Our doom and gloom should be reserved for thoughts about the current government, who possibly do herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As RogerO'T says, whoever wins, unite, and oppose.
Being serious, I'd find this hard, and I think the majority of the PLP would. His views on Russia, Kosovo, Israel and so on are not things I can support. Most MPs will keep their heads down I expect until the time comes for his removal. He'll inevitably say or do something, probably in relation to foreign affairs, that there will be a coup, in the Spring?

The Shadow Cabinet will be very interesting. An almost completely new frontbench I expect, with faces we are not familiar with.

What, this Russia one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rship.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What hideous thing is Corbyn saying about Russia now?

"What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"

The monster! He's saying that we shouldn't bomb Russia - he's like an inverted Kenny Everett!

It's patently obvious that Russia is being used as an anachronistic dog whistle for Telegraph users, despite the fact that for the last 35 years it's been about as Communist as a bucket of crabs injected with Ayn Rand's DNA.

What did he actually say about Kosovo? He signed an EDM endorsing a report by respected journalist John Pilger which said that Kosovo was a terrible thing and that we needed to help clean it up, the same one signed by other MPs such as Dennis Skinner, John McDonnell and Ann Cryer. Again, this is being used to position him as antagonistic and destructive to Blair's legacy when in actual fact he's taken a sober and mature approach to this, despite some of his supporters wanting him to promise to string tony Blair up with piano wire for Iraq.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Israel - well, I think he and I are probably on a different side to you on that one anyway; although it's odd that on the one hand it seems to be the right thing to disparage not bombing Russia when Israel is 20% colonised by Russians.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:46 am

I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:49 am

DonutHingeParty wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
gilsey wrote: Our doom and gloom should be reserved for thoughts about the current government, who possibly do herald the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As RogerO'T says, whoever wins, unite, and oppose.
Being serious, I'd find this hard, and I think the majority of the PLP would. His views on Russia, Kosovo, Israel and so on are not things I can support. Most MPs will keep their heads down I expect until the time comes for his removal. He'll inevitably say or do something, probably in relation to foreign affairs, that there will be a coup, in the Spring?

The Shadow Cabinet will be very interesting. An almost completely new frontbench I expect, with faces we are not familiar with.
What, this Russia one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rship.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What hideous thing is Corbyn saying about Russia now?
"What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"
The monster! He's saying that we shouldn't bomb Russia - he's like an inverted Kenny Everett!

It's patently obvious that Russia is being used as an anachronistic dog whistle for Telegraph users, despite the fact that for the last 35 years it's been about as Communist as a bucket of crabs injected with Ayn Rand's DNA.

What did he actually say about Kosovo? He signed an EDM endorsing a report by respected journalist John Pilger which said that Kosovo was a terrible thing and that we needed to help clean it up, the same one signed by other MPs such as Dennis Skinner, John McDonnell and Ann Cryer. Again, this is being used to position him as antagonistic and destructive to Blair's legacy when in actual fact he's taken a sober and mature approach to this, despite some of his supporters wanting him to promise to string tony Blair up with piano wire for Iraq.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Israel - well, I think he and I are probably on a different side to you on that one anyway; although it's odd that on the one hand it seems to be the right thing to disparage not bombing Russia when Israel is 20% colonised by Russians.

1. This is what I had in mind on Putin

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f1 ... cnD1yZVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No condemnation of Putin's invasion of a sovereing country in flagrant breach of international law. Lots of stuff about how Ukraine's borders have 'ebbed and flowed'. A man who thinks Poland should not have been allowed to join Nato (why not? Is it not a sovereign country?)

2. A "'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo". This view of the lunatic fringe has been refuted many times. We don't need to get into that.

3. I agree that we had better not get on to Israel.

Corbyn is a classic example of the anti-American left. Shameus Milne will love him. I won't.

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:50 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

Ah, Ken,

I did not consider myself swayable by all these emails that are coming out of Labour at the moment, but although I was plumping for Stella Creasy as deputy due to her work in communities and against loan sharks, Ken has endorsed Angela, which has made me pause. I think that as Angela's main claim is endorsement from the Unions, if Corbyn gets in that'd be a bit too industrial for my liking, so I'll stick with Stella. Tom Watson has been discredited for my money by falling quiet on phone hacking when the Mirror were implicated, and is showing himself to be a one note drum, Caroline Flint I think has a too metropolitan approach and Ben Bradshaw is also standing. Anyone got any other thoughts for deps?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:53 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Judging by the frothing right's delight at what the polls currently show, the very last thing that Labour - and the country who need an effective opposition to this bunch of unprincipled wreckers in government - should do is to go into a periof of infighting and backstabbing. Like is happening now.

1. Accept the result
2. Say that you will work with the leader whoever it is and whatever his/her politics are. And don't just say it, do it.
3. Mount an effective opposition. Outline what policies the party stands for.

You never know - some of those voters who've been disappearing to other parties might well start returning...

I know this sounds obvious but...

Thank you, Roger.

I agree with you on all three points.

Re. 1 and 2 -
These are what seem to be causing much of the difficulty. There have been noises from various quarters suggesting that there are issues with the new voting system, and some have even suggested some sort of coup if Corbyn wins; yet there has been no suggestion from anywhere else that such a coup would be considered if any other contender wins the contest.
We also know that two of the candidates have expressed the intention of refusing to work with Corbyn if he wins; if anything is guaranteed to split the party, it's that - and what a gift to the Tories to have Labour MPs at each others' throats. I wish they'd try to keep to campaigning on policies rather than engage in this sulky and very childish behaviour.
Neither Burnham nor Corbyn have done this, to their credit. Much as I'd like to see a woman leading the party, the female candidates right now have some way to go in order to demonstrate the party unity that's so necessary right now.

Re.3 -
This can only happen if all Labour MPs decide to go along with 1 and 2. It's not looking good at the moment.
There are only a few weeks before the House returns on 7th.September, and the result will be known by the end of that week. The new leader will have just 2 weeks at the helm before Conference, when the nuts and bolts of the policy framework will be thrashed out. It's not a lot of time to get so much work done before the House returns in October.
People on all sides and from all persuasions will have to compromise (whoever the leader is) if any effective opposition can happen. I am assuming that this is what the party wants - and if it does, all concerned need to pull their socks up and work together. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen.

And yes, it IS obvious.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:59 am

onebuttonmonkey wrote:I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article and, as you say, well worth a read. For me, the following bit resonated -

. . . . the real reason for Corbyn's rise lies not in any innate brilliance of Corbyn or his team, but in the totally uninspiring nature of his rivals. By any usual measure Corbyn is not an especially charismatic or formidable politician. He has neither the verbal skill of a George Galloway, nor the quotability of a Livingstone. If there was even a scintilla of genuine enthusiasm among party members for any of his rivals, then Corbyn would be nowhere. That he is so far ahead, shows just how badly his rivals have performed. (politics.co.uk)

For me, that paragraph quite neatly sums up the situation as I see it. Sad but true.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:00 am

Good morfternoon!

I hope you are all well breakfasted.

onebuttonmonkey · Post by **onebuttonmonkey** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:12 am

PorFavor wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article and, as you say, well worth a read. For me, the following bit resonated -

. . . . the real reason for Corbyn's rise lies not in any innate brilliance of Corbyn or his team, but in the totally uninspiring nature of his rivals. By any usual measure Corbyn is not an especially charismatic or formidable politician. He has neither the verbal skill of a George Galloway, nor the quotability of a Livingstone. If there was even a scintilla of genuine enthusiasm among party members for any of his rivals, then Corbyn would be nowhere. That he is so far ahead, shows just how badly his rivals have performed. (politics.co.uk)
For me, that paragraph quite neatly sums up the situation as I see it. Sad but true.

I don't disagree this is a big part of it. That said, the next paragraph is also - to me - valid:

But Corbyn's success is also a sign of a wider shift in the public mood away from politicians who fit the overly-spun Tony Blair mould. The rise of populist plain-speaking politicians and parties both in the UK and around the world has until now largely left the Labour party behind. The huge electoral success of Blair led to an entire generation of MPs who have tried and largely failed to recreate his style. The failure of their attempts is only too plain to see in this contest.

It's both, I think. And Campbell doesn't seem to have noticed this is now an unignorable part of contemporary politics.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:14 am

PorFavor wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article and, as you say, well worth a read. For me, the following bit resonated -

. . . . the real reason for Corbyn's rise lies not in any innate brilliance of Corbyn or his team, but in the totally uninspiring nature of his rivals. By any usual measure Corbyn is not an especially charismatic or formidable politician. He has neither the verbal skill of a George Galloway, nor the quotability of a Livingstone. If there was even a scintilla of genuine enthusiasm among party members for any of his rivals, then Corbyn would be nowhere. That he is so far ahead, shows just how badly his rivals have performed. (politics.co.uk)
For me, that paragraph quite neatly sums up the situation as I see it. Sad but true.

Perhaps if they got the same coverage as Corbyn gets they might have a better chance of being heard.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:19 am

Blair too was perceived as authentic in 1997. If you can fake authenticity you have it made.

Corbyn now 1/3, Burnham as long as 10/3

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is going to make 79-83 look like a period of calm stability.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:26 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Blair too was perceived as authentic in 1997. If you can fake authenticity you have it made.

Corbyn now 1/3, Burnham as long as 10/3

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is going to make 79-83 look like a period of calm stability.

I'm interested to know where you're going with the authenticity line?

DonutHingeParty · Post by **DonutHingeParty** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:34 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
DonutHingeParty wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Being serious, I'd find this hard, and I think the majority of the PLP would. His views on Russia, Kosovo, Israel and so on are not things I can support. Most MPs will keep their heads down I expect until the time comes for his removal. He'll inevitably say or do something, probably in relation to foreign affairs, that there will be a coup, in the Spring?

The Shadow Cabinet will be very interesting. An almost completely new frontbench I expect, with faces we are not familiar with.
What, this Russia one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rship.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What hideous thing is Corbyn saying about Russia now?
"What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"
The monster! He's saying that we shouldn't bomb Russia - he's like an inverted Kenny Everett!

It's patently obvious that Russia is being used as an anachronistic dog whistle for Telegraph users, despite the fact that for the last 35 years it's been about as Communist as a bucket of crabs injected with Ayn Rand's DNA.

What did he actually say about Kosovo? He signed an EDM endorsing a report by respected journalist John Pilger which said that Kosovo was a terrible thing and that we needed to help clean it up, the same one signed by other MPs such as Dennis Skinner, John McDonnell and Ann Cryer. Again, this is being used to position him as antagonistic and destructive to Blair's legacy when in actual fact he's taken a sober and mature approach to this, despite some of his supporters wanting him to promise to string tony Blair up with piano wire for Iraq.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Israel - well, I think he and I are probably on a different side to you on that one anyway; although it's odd that on the one hand it seems to be the right thing to disparage not bombing Russia when Israel is 20% colonised by Russians.
1. This is what I had in mind on Putin

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f1 ... cnD1yZVhBc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No condemnation of Putin's invasion of a sovereign country in flagrant breach of international law. Lots of stuff about how Ukraine's borders have 'ebbed and flowed'. A man who thinks Poland should not have been allowed to join Nato (why not? Is it not a sovereign country?)

Because it unnecessarily provoked Russia; and Corbyn is opposed to any form of sabre rattling.

“I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybody’s else’s expansion. But there has got to be some serious discussions about de-escalating the military crisis in central Europe. Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other."

“We should have gone down the road Ukraine went down in 1990, which was an informal agreement with Russia that Ukraine would be a non-nuclear state [and] would be non-aligned in its foreign policy. The interesting thing is why Russia didn’t turn all that into a treaty, why they just accepted it as an informal agreement with Nato, the EU and the US.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-politics

2. A "'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo". This view of the lunatic fringe has been refuted many times. We don't need to get into that.

[In 2000] , the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body in effect set up by Nato, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's "mass graves" was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army. Like Iraq's fabled weapons of mass destruction, the figures used by the US and British governments and echoed by journalists were inventions - along with Serbian "rape camps" and Clinton's and Blair's claims that Nato never deliberately bombed civilians.

It was horrific, it was a massacre, a shame on humanity, it was unforgivable and unjustifiable, but it was not considered at the time to be genocide. Only afterwards did evidence from Srebenica 'qualify'.
To try and paint Corbyn, Skinner and Cryer et al as David Irving style denialists is to miss the point of the EDM which was to point out that the evidence for intervention was 'sexed up' in order to rile the British into pushing for intervention, and to encourage support for survivors on both sides; it wasn't to act as apologists for the Serbs.

Corbyn is a classic example of the anti-American left. Shameus Milne will love him. I won't.

No, he's anti war, and anti expansionist. You can hate the sin whilst loving the sinner:

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-do-we-st ... its-allies

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:37 am

AngryAsWell wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:I tend to agree with ephemerid that opinion has been fairly well spread here among most of the candidates - there are a handful of people who prefer Corbyn, and we are vocal, but, overall, I've felt that the split here was far more balanced.

Anyway, I posted this over at the other place, because I thought it was an interesting piece - and it's not pro-Corbyn, it's just interesting analysis:

Why the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn are failing

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08 ... re-failing

It makes some interesting links between Ken's ultimately successful bid to be mayor in 2000 in the face of sustained attacks from many of the same Big Beasts attacking Corbyn now. It also recognises the perceived lack of a clear opponent as well as the growing desire for a different type of politics than Campbell was part of. It doesn't say these are right, per se, or that they'll win. But it is, I think, well worth a read.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article and, as you say, well worth a read. For me, the following bit resonated -

. . . . the real reason for Corbyn's rise lies not in any innate brilliance of Corbyn or his team, but in the totally uninspiring nature of his rivals. By any usual measure Corbyn is not an especially charismatic or formidable politician. He has neither the verbal skill of a George Galloway, nor the quotability of a Livingstone. If there was even a scintilla of genuine enthusiasm among party members for any of his rivals, then Corbyn would be nowhere. That he is so far ahead, shows just how badly his rivals have performed. (politics.co.uk)
For me, that paragraph quite neatly sums up the situation as I see it. Sad but true.
Perhaps if they got the same coverage as Corbyn gets they might have a better chance of being heard.

I think Liz Kendall started out as the press's darling, though, until even they found her too anodyne to make anything of. Even Chuka Umunna now seems to be keeping a low profile in her campaign (I stand to be corrected on that).

Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham could, conceivably, be suffering from under-coverage - although I haven't been inspired by what has been reported.

Edited to add a Portsmouth comma

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 11:41 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Perhaps if they got the same coverage as Corbyn gets they might have a better chance of being heard.
Perhaps if they discovered their courage, stopped triangulating and playing the percentages, they might have something to say that was interesting enough to be covered.

Have you heard or read any coverage / discussion of AB's Health & Care plans, or much else from his manifesto? Yes, you have read them here as I posted it.
Had I not, would you have known anything about it?
Each of the candidates are saying interesting things - including Liz Kendall - which are not getting discussed by the media or even this forum, we seem to be conditioned only to process Corbyn.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 12:06 pm

Just bought a new hat

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 12:13 pm

Difficult to find those hats - searching the t'internet for a 'Lenin style workers cap' brought little joy. Turns out they are Breton caps, oodles of them on ebay.

Now if only my beard growth would get a move on .....

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 12:14 pm

AngryAsWell wrote: we seem to be conditioned only to process Corbyn.

Of course. The media loves instability in politics more than anything. A stable party with everyone agreeing with each other is boring and doesn't create the headlines or the lead on News at Ten. In much the same way as reporting on select and bill committees is largely non-existent while PMQs is reported on every week without fail.

Think I said this before but In the same way, the media would love Boris to be the next Tory leader - think of the inevitable faux pas and cock ups that this will generate for them to slaver over!

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 11 Aug, 2015 12:17 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Blair too was perceived as authentic in 1997. If you can fake authenticity you have it made.

Corbyn now 1/3, Burnham as long as 10/3

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is going to make 79-83 look like a period of calm stability.

Maybe the party should expel the factionalists who keep bleating about 'splits' and a 'coup' in defiance of the memberships demoratically expressed desire. Or is that just OK when the boot is on the other foot?

Every time I hear the blairite faction speak I am reminded of Militant.