Thursday 13th August

[howsillyofme1]

Morning everyone....

Start with a non-Jezza story

I love ambitious out-there thinking - from this we will get change. Incremental change within current frameworks only works if the framework is still valid. Papering over cracks and hiding from the truth

Paul mason tries this in this video....look forward to reading the book

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

[StephenDolan]

Morning all.
About time those poor picked upon fracking companies were given support from central government.

Government will step in if councils don't fast-track fracking applications

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

[yahyah]

Morning.

Andy Burnham on why the Tories 'cynical handling of NHS waiting time figures must be exposed'
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ng-6242211" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't heard the BBC mention the change in reporting the figures, Radio 4 anyway, too busy with the Corbynite/Blairite angle.

[mikems]

Here's Yvette Cooper's piece in the Morning Star :

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8c ... cxKc7My0v8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yahyah]

Grrr...have just seen headline saying who got eliminated from GB Bake Off.
Was going to watch it tonight.

[yahyah]

Some good news - Expenses cheat David Laws has been refused a peerage.
What is shocking is that Clegg put him forward for one.

[yahyah]

The Tories will seek to destroy whoever wins, but as I ponder my vote this does play on my mind:

''They intend to define him early on in the wider public mind as a dangerous ideological zealot - highlighting his opposition to Britain's nuclear deterrent his support for Hezbollah and past relationship with the IRA.''
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 52649.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Edited to add: Of course, so will the Tory/Lib Dem leaning Independent intend to define him as such too, and one way they can do it is with articles like that.

[ephemerid]

Another non-Jezza story - from welfareweekly.com

Jobseekers who have mental health problems are not classed as "vulnerable" by DWP unless they also have a "physical impairment".

When sanctioned, only "vulnerable" claimants will qualify for a hardship payment. New guidance for decision makers on what this means has been issued, and it says this - "Requests for hardship payments may be made by people who say they have a mental health condition. A person will only be a member of a vulnerable group if the condition causes limitation in functional capacity because of a physical impairment" and "It is extremely rare for a mental condition to produce a physical impairment that limits or restricts functional capacity but it can happen".

There is a list of "conditions that are mental illnesses without physical impairment" supplied should a decision maker be confused. It includes agoraphobia, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, and psychosis, amongst others.
If you are in an acute phase of your schizophrenia, with a paranoid psychosis that convinces you the BBC are monitoring you through the taps in the bathroom (yes, I've met someone who is like this) if you are physically fit you have zero restriction on your functional capability. You can be as mad as a box of frogs and in acute psychotic crisis, but you can function.
You will probably fail to attend your signing-on session or your workfare placement, because you have to keep an eye on the taps; you might be spending a lot of time emailing the authorities because they need to deal with the tap problem; you could decide that the only safe place is in the A&E/council/bank/church/wherever where the staff may be required to seal off the taps so that you can explain the situation to them and stop the monitoring which is now telling you to cut your tongue out. Or something.
And when you are sanctioned for your error, you will not be able to claim any hardship payment because you are not restricted by a physical impairment, you are just temporarily off your head or meds for a bit and things are getting a bit crazy. You'll get better because you usually do; and while that happens your poverty will become penury.

Personally, I find the idea that people with any of the many conditions listed in the article are on JSA and not ESA to be ridiculous. They should be on ESA, not subject to any sanctions, and able to do permitted work as and when able.
Just because most mentally ill people are not obviously physically impaired and not in obvious mental health crisis it does not mean that they are not vulnerable. They are vulnerable to sudden changes in their condition, and those with long-term organic mental illness which can develop a psychotic element should not be put under this sort of pressure. Ever.

[SpinningHugo]

Cooper's attack on Corbynomics and his 'interesting' views on foreign policy trailed here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -our-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

too little too late of course, but she has to try. A bit more of this five weeks ago was what was required (that and some bolder policy moves).

[yahyah]

Ephie, I almost cannot take that in, it seems so ridiculous.

[yahyah]

Cooper's attack on Corbynomics and his 'interesting' views on foreign policy trailed here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -our-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

too little too late of course, but she has to try. A bit more of this five weeks ago was what was required (that and some bolder policy moves).

Is this the 'big intervention' Hodges was trailing yesterday ?

[mikems]

Thanks for that link yahyah. I see the tories have come to the conclusion that all the problems in Greece are the result of electing Syriza, not the other way round, as most people might think. This absurdity will become the new common sense in the media.

As for Hezbollah, the current government is effectively on the same side as Hezbollah since both are fighting ISIS, while Israel is reportedly treating wounded ISIS fighters in West Bank hospitals and, until recently, Turkey has been supplying them and refusing aid to anti-ISIS fighters.

I wonder if it is really clever to attack Corbyn on foreign policy, since he will know all the ins and outs of it going back decades and will not be afraid to point out our government's hypocrisy.

Yet, it's old Jeremy who is the ideological extremist, for calling for peace and an end to occupations and invasions, of course.

[SpinningHugo]

Cooper's attack on Corbynomics and his 'interesting' views on foreign policy trailed here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -our-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

too little too late of course, but she has to try. A bit more of this five weeks ago was what was required (that and some bolder policy moves).

Is this the 'big intervention' Hodges was trailing yesterday ?

I think so, yes.

So she wisely leads on why Corbynomics is potty (she is a proper economist), and then lays into his foreign policy stances. She should spend less time talking about the fact he won't win. We all know that, but I think she needs to go on the stuff the waverers may not have thought about properly.

Cooper is the last best hope.

Why then has she performed so poorly?

I think the answer is that she knows that being leader of the Labour party without being PM is a prize not worth having. Quite easy to win saying the things the Labour electorate want to hear. Much harder then to about face and say the things Labour needs to say to win. So, you end up saying nothing of interest.

Might even have worked, had it not been for the Great Awakening. She was (and is) my second choice. I think she would have been PM if leader in 2015, but 2020 is a higher hurdle for Labour.

[onebuttonmonkey]

Contrary to what I fear may be popular belief, I've no desire to be fractious in here. So, given some posters think it's become a Corbyn-fest - and as I'm certainly as guilty of banging on about that as much as (if not far more than) anyone - I think it might be best for the collective mood if I went back to lurking until things are calmer. That's not said with any drama, recrimination or malice. I may be a long-time lurker who many know from The Other Place, but I'm not the most regular of posters here, and I've no desire to upset the balance by being more vocal. I respect our differences but, at the same time, have no desire to grate on them.

You know there's a but coming, right? Right.

But before I do, I thought I'd post one last time on the whole Corbyn thing. I wrote this to post here, thought twice, posted it in the other place and then thought - nah, for what it's worth, if I'm going to gracefully (joke) step aside for a little while, I should gracelessly (not joke) thump my tub again first. So here goes:

I want a different style of politics, in style and in content. Most of all, in the short term, I’d like a party that listens to that rather than chiding people like me for it. Without that listening – without their engagement rather than their confused rebuttals, there is no long term.

I'm clearly far from alone in wanting this.

As for Blair? He’s a relic – a vacuum with a god delusion, incapable of seeing the way that ordinary people have left him in the past where he belongs. That shrewdness of his that used to be so sharp? It’s deserted him as he panics most of all about his legacy. Those old enough to remember when he seemed to offer hope are also old enough to remember all the ways in which he destroyed much of it. Those too young to remember that will be baffled by the status he still has among a media that seems utterly unrepresentative of their needs or concerns. He is part of a political system that is failing them visibly now – the debts and the austerity that works for the fraction of us who are so over-represented in Westminster.

And this whole head vs. heart thing I’m supposed to choose between, in Coopers intervention? My head tells me that anyone relying on that lazy, false opposition has nothing to offer either. It's the opposite of reason, an emotional appeal to consequence made in the absence of an argument for people to do what she would prefer.

Given Blair’s history, “annihilation” is a really cackhanded choice of hyperbole, isn’t it? Similarly Cooper and her “intervention”. “Power in the hands of the many, not the few” goes one of her campaign slogans. As long as it’s not the hands of the many members who clearly disagree with her, of course. And complaining in the media about an election process they fully and vocally supported when they thought they were in with a chance? Pathetic and self-serving in a way that typifies the kind of thing people like me are choosing not to support.

What they have spectacularly failed to comprehend is that people like me are proud of our choice. Head and heart, united in a hope for a real change that the other candidates simply aren’t offering. For new, young members, this is invigorating, involving and radical – not a throwback. For older types like me, for those coming back or who’ve been left on the margins, it’s rediscovering what the party is for – and how that is relevant for all our future.

Similarly If anyone’s out of touch, lost the plot or stuck in the past, it’s those who can’t grasp the reasons for Corbyn’s popularity – who literally cannot conceive that that popularity is valid. The way all of Labour’s victories have been won – from the start of the unions to the welfare state and the NHS, from the minimum wage to rights for women – has been through fighting together, not with each other. Sure, it’s going to be difficult – but people are tired of the timidity that gives up a chunk of what’s needed in advance of a fight.

Who knows what will happen? Whatever the result, we need a party that stops belittling the choice of so many members. We need a party that recognises its future has to mean more than its recent past.


All the best to all - I'll lurk here but keep my typing-gob shut for a little while. Interesting times ahead.

[rebeccariots2]

Cooper's attack on Corbynomics and his 'interesting' views on foreign policy trailed here

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -our-party" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

too little too late of course, but she has to try. A bit more of this five weeks ago was what was required (that and some bolder policy moves).

Is this the 'big intervention' Hodges was trailing yesterday ?

I'm guessing so.

Trouble for me with the summary bit I've read so far

As for this idea that power doesn’t matter so long as our principles remain intact.

I dare you to tell that to the woman in tears because she cant afford her bedroom tax arrears, tell that to the working parents on tax credits about to lose thousands of pounds who cant afford new school shoes for the autumn term, tell that to the family struggling with care costs, forced to sell their family home, tell that to all those people who are being hit by Tory government.

All those people with no one else to stand up for them other than the Labour party.

That’s us. That’s our job. We can’t walk away.

It’s not enough to be angry at the world. We’re the Labour party, we have a responsibility to change the world or what’s the point of us at all?

Because in the end Britain needs a strong Labour party now more than ever.”

is that I thought she along with Kendall was one of the candidates telling us we didn't have enough to say to the people who weren't in these dire straits last time round and should be focusing more attention on the aspirational groups ... rather than just those struggling to survive? Correct me if I'm wrong. And whilst some of the Labour party have shown real anger and determination to oppose these very nasty Tory policies - too many of those in the positions where they could have struck harder blows in opposition to at least convince those affected that Labour were on their side - just didn't - and haven't since (Harman and Reeves and others). Many people affected by these issues that I spoke to on the doorstep didn't see Labour as really standing up for them anymore - and most likely didn't vote because of it.

Would also like to hope that someone like Creasy could get her head around how to use issue based campaigns to achieve a lot more for such groups even when only in opposition. She's right - politics and the structures and dynamics have changed - Labour has to work out how to operate in different ways as well.

[StephenDolan]

OBM, you're going nowhere, you hear me?

Good honest discussion, life is brighter for it.

Thanks for the Cooper link, I hope she fleshes out what she believes should and can be done. Lots of why not them, not much why me from her so far.

When it was Cameron v Davis was there as much coverage in the political media? My memory is a bit hazy. Wondered if the length of the process and the type of process have resulted in differences in how the candidates act and speak.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

From LabourList -

I understand pressure from anti-Corbyn figures is now coming on Gordon Brown, and even Ed Miliband, to do the same.

Ed Miliband? I thought he was useless and universally disliked. Why would his "intervention" cut any ice?


Edited

Sorry - by "do the same" I mean intervene in the leadership contest. I'm sure you all guessed that, though,

[StephenDolan]

OBM, you're going nowhere, you hear me?

Good honest discussion, life is brighter for it.

Thanks for the Cooper link, I hope she fleshes out what she believes should and can be done. Lots of why not them, not much why me from her so far.

When it was Cameron v Davis was there as much coverage in the political media? My memory is a bit hazy. Wondered if the length of the process and the type of process have resulted in differences in how the candidates act and speak.

I do remember a fair bit of coverage. I think there was probably less excitement given that Davis was the favourite from the beginning, and things stayed that way really until the second round of voting (although by then Cameron had emerged from the crowd as the strongest opposition). It seemed like more of a 'Westminster bubble' story, and most of the coverage seemed to be around which MP supported which candidate - although William Hague introduced the membership voting, this only applied to the final two who had already been whittled down by MPs, so there seemed to be far less interest in the ordinary members' voting. In hindsight, the winner was essentially the 'anyone but Davis' candidate. The Tory rules allow for late swings in a way that the Labour rules don't seem to, so any 'excitement' comes late in the day.

Thanks Robert.

[ephemerid]

Ephie, I almost cannot take that in, it seems so ridiculous.

It IS ridiculous.

There are between 500,000 and a Million people who will have a schizophrenic-type psychotic episode in their lives - people can and do recover from such episodes, and the reason why the numbers are so vague is because there are so many episodes of similar illness that never repeats itself and which will not be recorded as a definitive diagnosis.

There are about 250,000 people with enduring schizophrenia in the UK. Most of them manage their condition just fine, hold down jobs, and may not ever have an acute episode after the first diagnostic event.
But - there are also people whose illness does not respond to treatment and which causes them immense distress when they suffer repeated psychotic episodes or long periods of low mood and physical torpor caused by medication.
Considering how many manage their condition well, the ones who do not have regular work (or are sick enough to need to claim benefits because nobody will employ them) are likely to the most seriously affected.

That's just one illness. There are millions more with the other conditions named on DWP's little list (now where have I heard that expression before....) and as with the example I gave, these will most likely be people who are most seriously affected, or they would be living normal lives/working/whatever with the same sort of control over their illness as people with any other treatable and well-monitored and controlled condition.

How anyone can call a person with a mental illness in these kinds of circumstances not vulnerable purely because they have no physical impairment is beyond me. But not, evidently, beyond the untrained uneducated moronic fuckwits who formulate DWP policy.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Thanks for that link yahyah. I see the tories have come to the conclusion that all the problems in Greece are the result of electing Syriza, not the other way round, as most people might think. This absurdity will become the new common sense in the media.

As for Hezbollah, the current government is effectively on the same side as Hezbollah since both are fighting ISIS, while Israel is reportedly treating wounded ISIS fighters in West Bank hospitals and, until recently, Turkey has been supplying them and refusing aid to anti-ISIS fighters.

I wonder if it is really clever to attack Corbyn on foreign policy, since he will know all the ins and outs of it going back decades and will not be afraid to point out our government's hypocrisy.

Yet, it's old Jeremy who is the ideological extremist, for calling for peace and an end to occupations and invasions, of course.

Nobody cares what the government did or didn't do, they won't understand it anyway. They will understand the simple message Corbyn supports terrorists.

They won't really go for Corbyn on foreign policy, even though his track record is dire. They will simply hammer him into the dust on the economy, see 83 and 87 elections for how well that works.

If Labour supporters like Tubby and myself can pull his program to pieces as sound bites and impractical dreaming in five minutes you can bet the Tory party can and you can absolutely be certain that the public at large won't vote for it.

This sort of policy works really well for the Greens (except for the citizens income which was too far even for them) because nobody who votes Green expects them to form a government. They know therefore it would never be implemented. It absolutely doesn't work for a party that they are voting for to actually form the government.

Given the erosion of the Labour base if he gets 20% he will be doing very well. Expect UKIP to win a huge chunk of Labours heartland.

[ohsocynical]

Ephie, I almost cannot take that in, it seems so ridiculous.

It IS ridiculous.

There are between 500,000 and a Million people who will have a schizophrenic-type psychotic episode in their lives - people can and do recover from such episodes, and the reason why the numbers are so vague is because there are so many episodes of similar illness that never repeats itself and which will not be recorded as a definitive diagnosis.

There are about 250,000 people with enduring schizophrenia in the UK. Most of them manage their condition just fine, hold down jobs, and may not ever have an acute episode after the first diagnostic event.
But - there are also people whose illness does not respond to treatment and which causes them immense distress when they suffer repeated psychotic episodes or long periods of low mood and physical torpor caused by medication.
Considering how many manage their condition well, the ones who do not have regular work (or are sick enough to need to claim benefits because nobody will employ them) are likely to the most seriously affected.

That's just one illness. There are millions more with the other conditions named on DWP's little list (now where have I heard that expression before....) and as with the example I gave, these will most likely be people who are most seriously affected, or they would be living normal lives/working/whatever with the same sort of control over their illness as people with any other treatable and well-monitored and controlled condition.

How anyone can call a person with a mental illness in these kinds of circumstances not vulnerable purely because they have no physical impairment is beyond me. But not, evidently, beyond the untrained uneducated moronic fuckwits who formulate DWP policy.

Our closest friend has just told us that her twenty one year old granddaughter has just tried to kill herself for the third time because the voices in her head tell her to.
Luckily they are a supportive family. God help those who are on their own.

[RogerOThornhill]

At last - some good news.

News Corp. Planning to Sell Off Money-Losing Education Unit

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/bu ... -unit.html

Amplify, a much-heralded push by News Corporation into digital education, led by Joel Klein, a former New York City schools chancellor, is nearing an inglorious end.

News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, said on Wednesday that it would take a $371 million write-down on the education division and would move to wind down the production of tablets for schoolchildren, a key part of the unit’s offering.

Moreover, News Corporation’s chief executive, Robert Thomson, said in an earnings call with analysts that the company was in an “advanced stage of negotiations” with a potential buyer for the remaining education business.

Together, the moves highlight the difficulty that has confronted News Corporation and others looking to move teaching into the digital age, relying on the Internet and tablets to update traditional curriculums.

Excellent.

Amplify is where Rachel Wolf scuttled off to when she left the NSN - it was a bit of a surprise to see her back (in No 10) but presumably she saw it was a dud and jumped ship early.

[PorFavor]

It's absolutely hacking it down here and has been for some hours. Very dark with rumbles of thunder (the thunder has been supplied to break the monotony, I assume).

[ohsocynical]

Thanks for that link yahyah. I see the tories have come to the conclusion that all the problems in Greece are the result of electing Syriza, not the other way round, as most people might think. This absurdity will become the new common sense in the media.

As for Hezbollah, the current government is effectively on the same side as Hezbollah since both are fighting ISIS, while Israel is reportedly treating wounded ISIS fighters in West Bank hospitals and, until recently, Turkey has been supplying them and refusing aid to anti-ISIS fighters.

I wonder if it is really clever to attack Corbyn on foreign policy, since he will know all the ins and outs of it going back decades and will not be afraid to point out our government's hypocrisy.

Yet, it's old Jeremy who is the ideological extremist, for calling for peace and an end to occupations and invasions, of course.

Nobody cares what the government did or didn't do, they won't understand it anyway. They will understand the simple message Corbyn supports terrorists.

They won't really go for Corbyn on foreign policy, even though his track record is dire. They will simply hammer him into the dust on the economy, see 83 and 87 elections for how well that works.

If Labour supporters like Tubby and myself can pull his program to pieces as sound bites and impractical dreaming in five minutes you can bet the Tory party can and you can absolutely be certain that the public at large won't vote for it.

This sort of policy works really well for the Greens (except for the citizens income which was too far even for them) because nobody who votes Green expects them to form a government. They know therefore it would never be implemented. It absolutely doesn't work for a party that they are voting for to actually form the government.

Given the erosion of the Labour base if he gets 20% he will be doing very well. Expect UKIP to win a huge chunk of Labours heartland.

I for one can't see the point in supporting a contender or party that are wishy-washy about issues that will be even more desperate five years down the road.

Many people don't want a Torylite government.

The Tory party is already hard at work. Misinformation is their forte.

I refuse to be suckered in or driven away by it.

[ohsocynical]

It's absolutely hacking it down here and has been for some hours. Very dark with rumbles of thunder (the thunder has been supplied to break the monotony, I assume).

Drizzly here at present. We're supposed to get it later on today.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Thanks for that link yahyah. I see the tories have come to the conclusion that all the problems in Greece are the result of electing Syriza, not the other way round, as most people might think. This absurdity will become the new common sense in the media.

As for Hezbollah, the current government is effectively on the same side as Hezbollah since both are fighting ISIS, while Israel is reportedly treating wounded ISIS fighters in West Bank hospitals and, until recently, Turkey has been supplying them and refusing aid to anti-ISIS fighters.

I wonder if it is really clever to attack Corbyn on foreign policy, since he will know all the ins and outs of it going back decades and will not be afraid to point out our government's hypocrisy.

Yet, it's old Jeremy who is the ideological extremist, for calling for peace and an end to occupations and invasions, of course.

Nobody cares what the government did or didn't do, they won't understand it anyway. They will understand the simple message Corbyn supports terrorists.

They won't really go for Corbyn on foreign policy, even though his track record is dire. They will simply hammer him into the dust on the economy, see 83 and 87 elections for how well that works.

If Labour supporters like Tubby and myself can pull his program to pieces as sound bites and impractical dreaming in five minutes you can bet the Tory party can and you can absolutely be certain that the public at large won't vote for it.

This sort of policy works really well for the Greens (except for the citizens income which was too far even for them) because nobody who votes Green expects them to form a government. They know therefore it would never be implemented. It absolutely doesn't work for a party that they are voting for to actually form the government.

Given the erosion of the Labour base if he gets 20% he will be doing very well. Expect UKIP to win a huge chunk of Labours heartland.

I for one can't see the point in supporting a contender or party that are wishy-washy about issues that will be even more desperate five years down the road.

Many people don't want a Torylite government.

The Tory party is already hard at work. Misinformation is their forte.

I refuse to be suckered in or driven away by it.

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

[ephemerid]

Ephie, I almost cannot take that in, it seems so ridiculous.

If that's ridiculous, this is even more so.....

When deciding whether to sanction or not (and this includes JSA claimants with known health problems and ESA WRAG claimants) the decision maker has this very handy guidance, which is aimed at deciding if the claimant will suffer more hardship than a person who doesn't have health problems, viz:
"The decision maker must decide if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a healthy adult"
"The decision maker should make this comparison based on a normal health adult who is in similar circumstances to the person with the medical condition" (Obviously, they won't be - they haven't got a medical condition....)

In order to help, the DWP guidance says this:
"It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without 1. essential items such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation, or 2. sufficient money to buy essential items - for a period of two weeks"
"The decision maker must determine if a person with a medical condition would suffer a GREATER decline in health than a normal healthy adult and would suffer hardship".

This proves that DWP know that a normal healthy adult will suffer a decline in health if they are sanctioned - as they do not have the money to buy the essential items.
It also shows that the yardstick of this decline in health is based on a period of two weeks - yet the minimum sanction for JSA is 4 weeks and the maximum is 156 weeks.
So the rules are now that, even though DWP expects some decline in health for a normal healthy adult deprived of benefit for two weeks, it will sanction anyway knowing that there is a danger that healthy people could become unwell.

On top of that, it is now incumbent on an unqualified clerk to decide if the decline in health a person with a medical condition could expect is the same or greater than that already expected in a normal healthy adult.
If it is, the decision maker can recommend a shorter sanction, a deferred sanction, or new conditions to be applied before another sanction, or no sanction at all. Or whatever they fancy.....
While all this deciding is going on, the claim is "suspended" ie, no benefit is paid. So the claimant, irrespective of health, is without benefit for the duration; and the same applies if they apply for a mandatory reconsideration, and same again if they appeal.

The DWP knows its' rules will cause a decline in health for healthy people. They know ill people will have a greater decline in health.
But still they do it, and they do not care what the consequences are.

It's a national disgrace.

[HindleA]

Morning:

Re:"vulnerability"
http://www.spartacusnetwork.org.uk/inde ... nerability" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Viscious vulnerability"

[AnatolyKasparov]

Cooper has basically aimed to win this contest by saying next to nothing and hoping she can thus slip though on transfers.

(in other words coming a poor second or even third in the original round of voting - do you think the Tories and their media wouldn't make hay with that?)

Her campaign has been desperately disappointing, and as a result many will have long since stopped listening to her. Almost her sole sign of life was eviscerating Kendall in the first televised debate when LK swallowed Osborne's voodoo playground economics wholesale - more of that and JC might not be set to win on the first ballot.

At least Burnham has tried.......

[mikems]

Of course they will lie. They lied in 1945 too, when people had had enough of the old ways. They said Clem Attlee would bring in the Gestapo.

Of course, if Clem had agreed, or failed to counter that lie, we wouldn't have won then either.

[HindleA]

National disgrace,indeed.Cheered on by large sections of the great British public.


I have rather given up on the notion that most people are reasonable,not with regard to social security they are not.

[StephenDolan]

Nobody cares what the government did or didn't do, they won't understand it anyway. They will understand the simple message Corbyn supports terrorists.

They won't really go for Corbyn on foreign policy, even though his track record is dire. They will simply hammer him into the dust on the economy, see 83 and 87 elections for how well that works.

If Labour supporters like Tubby and myself can pull his program to pieces as sound bites and impractical dreaming in five minutes you can bet the Tory party can and you can absolutely be certain that the public at large won't vote for it.

This sort of policy works really well for the Greens (except for the citizens income which was too far even for them) because nobody who votes Green expects them to form a government. They know therefore it would never be implemented. It absolutely doesn't work for a party that they are voting for to actually form the government.

Given the erosion of the Labour base if he gets 20% he will be doing very well. Expect UKIP to win a huge chunk of Labours heartland.

I for one can't see the point in supporting a contender or party that are wishy-washy about issues that will be even more desperate five years down the road.

Many people don't want a Torylite government.

The Tory party is already hard at work. Misinformation is their forte.

I refuse to be suckered in or driven away by it.

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

Four years is a long time. This is a leadership contest, from there the debates can be had and if (yes, qualified!) this results in a broader debate across society about the options available and the choices we make then that's a positive IMHO.

[AnatolyKasparov]

National disgrace,indeed.Cheered on by large sections of the great British public.


I have rather given up on the notion that most people are reasonable,not with regard to social security they are not.

Until they or somebody they know is affected, of course. Sadly, things haven't reached critical mass there yet (though the way this lot are going, that could yet change)

[danesclose]

Good morning all,
Apologies if the following in less than coherent, but I've had a largely sleepless night with 18 year old twins worried about A Levels & university. Fortunately they got what they needed, so we will hopefully have an empty nest come October and will be able to get a decent night's kip tonight.

Whilst tossing & turning in the night, I got to thinking about the Labour leadership (as one does) and the pros & cons of each of the candidates in my opinion.
Firstly Liz Kendall. Leaving aside her Blairite policies, frankly I don't think she has the experience to lead the party.
Yvette Cooper has the experience, and would scare the crap out of Cameron at PMQs (he can't really be nasty to a woman & hope to get away with it). Unfortunately, the Tories & their lickspittles in the media would mention Ed Balls at every opportunity, and twist whatever he said.
Andy Burnham doesn't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but from a purely superficial perspective, it would be more difficult for the media to portray him in an unpleasant light. What they would do, however, is hammer away, repeating the 1,200 excess deaths in Stafford lie.
Someone mentioned on here that Jeremy Corbyn's leadership was a luxury that Labour couldn't afford, and I think I agree to some extent. His leadership would be portrayed in the media as "Michael Foot 2", and past comments about foreign affairs in particular would be resurrected again and again. Domestically, I think that the main problem he has is that, as in the 80's, the Tories (with some help from people in the Labour party who should know better) have managed to make things better (or at least not noticeably worse) for enough of the people who count - those who vote. Sod the disabled, the under 25's, the poor, my mortgage repayments are low & the food in the shops isn't going up, thank you Mr Osborne.
In my opinion that's a major reason why there hasn't been a grass roots movement like Syriza or Podemos in this country.
In conclusion, I think I'm going to have to go with Cooper, as the best of a bad bunch, BUT I think its essential that she gets Corbyn on board in a role with energising the grass roots & the wider population, perhaps as Party Chairman.

Now about the Deputy Leadership.....

[ephemerid]

Not enough people want a Corbyn government. Standing on a losing platform is in my view conning the people you claim to be helping.

How do you know that "not enough people want a Corbyn government"?
You may believe that, Hugo may believe that, lots of people may believe that.
There are others who do not believe that.

The voters will decide if or when he leads the Labour Party in a General Election.

Until then, your crystal ball is no better than mine.

[SpinningHugo]

At least Burnham has tried.......

Just not so you'd notice.

I am, I confess, very surprised at Brown and Miliband. Why have they said nothing?

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing. If, say, Burnham were ahead we would not have heard a peep out of him

The other striking things is how quickly politics have moved. It was only two months ago when all of us here were hoping and generally expecting Ed Miliband to now be PM. A different and more harmonious world.

[mikems]

It would have been so much better for the party, the campaign and all the candidates if they had concentrated their fire on the enemy, not one of their own.

And some more ideas for the future of the party and the country.

Far too much naval-gazing and second-guessing the tories.

[mikems]

I am, I confess, very surprised at Brown and Miliband. Why have they said nothing?

What should Miliband say? Support the people who hampered and attacked my leadership at every turn, for the sake of the party?

[PorFavor]

In conclusion, I think I'm going to have to go with Cooper, as the best of a bad bunch, BUT I think its essential that she gets Corbyn on board in a role with energising the grass roots & the wider population, perhaps as Party Chairman.

I think she's rather burnt her boats on that one (the getting Corbyn on board bit) though, hasn't she? She'd be hammered if she gave him a prominent role after all that she's said and done to date.

Oh - for me, it's Angela Eagle for Deputy!

[mikems]

Unite is recommending Corbyn first and Burnham second preference.

Angela Eagle and Tom Watson for deputy, with no preference from the Executive.

[SpinningHugo]

In conclusion, I think I'm going to have to go with Cooper, as the best of a bad bunch, BUT I think its essential that she gets Corbyn on board in a role with energising the grass roots & the wider population, perhaps as Party Chairman.

I think she's rather burnt her boats on that one (the getting Corbyn on board bit) though, hasn't she? She'd be hammered if she gave him a prominent role after all that she's said and done to date.

Oh - for me, it's Angela Eagle for Deputy!

That is an interesting point.

If Corbyn won, and was still leader in 2020, could Cooper or Kendall now campaign on the basis that they wanted him to be PM?

I don't think either of them now could (Cooper could have, until today.)
f

[SpinningHugo]

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing.

He really can. He really, really can. Because if Brown and Miliband can, Blair can. He's not the life president of the Labour movement. He's a discredited narcissist who happened to hit the top just as the Tories were at their most unpopular, helped by some favourable parliamentary arithmetic, and lucky that the opposition imploded - which they were bound to do after the parliamentary party had been hollowed out by Thatcher over a decade. He can very easily say nothing. It just requires keeping the upper and lower parts of his mouth together and not telephoning The Times.

Try, hard I know, to see things from his perspective (which is roughly speaking mine).

What if you honestly believed the Labour party, which you had led, was headed for disaster. Could you say nothing?

Argue that he is wrong, but from his perspective I doubt he has any choice.

[ephemerid]

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing.

He really can. He really, really can. Because if Brown and Miliband can, Blair can. He's not the life president of the Labour movement. He's a discredited narcissist who happened to hit the top just as the Tories were at their most unpopular, helped by some favourable parliamentary arithmetic, and lucky that the opposition imploded - which they were bound to do after the parliamentary party had been hollowed out by Thatcher over a decade. He can very easily say nothing. It just requires keeping the upper and lower parts of his mouth together and not telephoning The Times.

Correct, Robert.

He likes talking. He gets millions for doing it all over the world. Perhaps he should stick to that. He's sooooo worth it.

[AnatolyKasparov]

At least Burnham has tried.......

Just not so you'd notice.

I am, I confess, very surprised at Brown and Miliband. Why have they said nothing?

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing. If, say, Burnham were ahead we would not have heard a peep out of him

The other striking things is how quickly politics have moved. It was only two months ago when all of us here were hoping and generally expecting Ed Miliband to now be PM. A different and more harmonious world.

Because they think 1) it won't work and 2) its not their job to interfere?

The one person who could - COULD - halt the Jezza bandwagon is, of course, your old mate EM (I don't think Brown could, and he didn't intervene in 2010 either)

But maybe Ed takes the view this is a phase that the party has to go through (he has read Gramsci and all that stuff) and maybe, being human after all, he isn't unhappy to see a kind of "revenge" dished out to certain people (it is fairly well known he was *very* fracked off with Kendall undermining both him and Burnham on health policy with *that* high-profile interview not long before the GE)

Just a few thoughts.....

[TobyLatimer]

The Blairite formula is no longer working - Michael Meacher

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/08/the- ... r-working/

ScreenShot00624.jpg (218.17 KiB) Viewed 7981 times

[SpinningHugo]

At least Burnham has tried.......

Just not so you'd notice.

I am, I confess, very surprised at Brown and Miliband. Why have they said nothing?

Blair's interventions are a sign he knows Corbyn has won. He knows as much as everyone here that anything he says will be counterproductive for the candidate(s) he would prefer. But, he also knows he can't now say nothing. If, say, Burnham were ahead we would not have heard a peep out of him

The other striking things is how quickly politics have moved. It was only two months ago when all of us here were hoping and generally expecting Ed Miliband to now be PM. A different and more harmonious world.

Because they think 1) it won't work and 2) its not their job to interfere?

The one person who could - COULD - halt the Jezza bandwagon is, of course, your old mate EM (I don't think Brown could, and he didn't intervene in 2010 either)

But maybe Ed takes the view this is a phase that the party has to go through (he has read Gramsci and all that stuff) and maybe, being human after all, he isn't unhappy to see a kind of "revenge" dished out to certain people (it is fairly well known he was *very* fracked off with Kendall undermining both him and Burnham on health policy with *that* high-profile interview not long before the GE)

Just a few thoughts.....

maybe.

I think that is selfish, and a bit juvenile of him. If true.

[PorFavor]

When is "the letter" going to be unleashed? Or is it in the pending tray awaiting a suitable psychological moment?

[mikems]

What if you honestly believed the Labour party, which you had led, was headed for disaster. Could you say nothing?

Well, I don't believe a word he says. If he says the Labour party is heading for disaster, he means something else from what most people understand by those words.

He wants to put the Labour party in aspic and keep it forever unchanged from when he was in charge, regardless of the simple fact that time moves on, and it has moved on beyond even 1983 by now.

[RogerOThornhill]

When is "the letter" going to be unleashed? Or is it in the pending tray awaiting a suitable psychological moment?

This one?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/stat ... 36/photo/1

It was out last night.

[mikems]

Is there any evidence that the unions are giving Corbyn data that they are holding back from other campaigns?

I haven't had anything from any campaign, as yet, but I have had some contact from Unite telling me to expect a ballot paper soon.