Friday 14th August 2015

Post by **refitman** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all. It's raining.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 7:32 am

Burnham's article for the MS:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-62 ... dCez7My0v8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:07 am

Tubby from yesterday evening:

But back to the other question- what value do Corbynesque investment bank bonds have?

Why should they have a value on open markets? And why shouldn't they, come to that? In the crash, no one in the private markets could trust the value of what was being traded, and there was a massive rush to government bonds - one of the reasons QE was deemed necessary in the first place - to stop a rush away from all other traded asset classes, the absolute destruction of investment capital, and negative interest rates. In such a situation, any sort of gilt is valued, and any sort of bond backed by the govt is a gilt.

Surely the point is that private capital will not invest in infrastructure, so some way must be found so we do invest. Therefore, different means of raising money must be found.

Unless we are just to bemoan the fact that we can no longer control investment and that there will not be any more public investment, except on terms set by private capital.

In short, current rules are not written in stone and the volatility of markets means that it is only sensible for government to have control over its own investment plans.
Also, investing in things with returns has not been mentioned. But these bonds could be used to invest in green technologies and housing. Both of which will provide returns on investment, and make money for the government.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:16 am

Someone mentioned the Anglo-Irish agreement as if it was some damning indictment that Corbyn didn't support it. But hardly anyone supported that Anglo-Irish agreement outside parliament, and it was certainly seen as provocative by the Unionists, who organised mass campaigns of civil disobedience.

Perhaps there is a hope that this opposition to Maggie's plan in the mid-eighties is confused with the Good Friday Agreement, in an attempt to paint Corbyn as pro-PIRA?

In fact he supports united Ireland, hardly something shocking and frightening, or even a minority opinion.

But it's a shame to see such things posted here as if they are valid arguments against Corbyn.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:16 am

mikems wrote:Burnham's article for the MS:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-62 ... dCez7My0v8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, mikems, but one thing immediately stood out for me...

The hopes of people at all levels of society are pretty much the same: a secure job, a decent home, a good standard of living, prospects for their kids, and proper care for their parents. But, in our insecure, modern world, for far too many people, these dreams are dying.

Maybe my user name highlighted it more for me? Come on, Andy, I agree but dreams? These are basic necessities of life in a modern world and should be emphasised as such. Only Tories see these as things to aspire to, which may explain why they're content to see so many without.

On a separate note I noticed someone talking about libraries earlier who stated that the minister in charge for the last five years was out of their depth and should be replaced, which rather struck a chord with me as they all should. It did make me ponder on how many have had votes of no confidence from their respective fields.

On libraries I'm as guilty as any for not using them these days, however do feel they're vitally important as a public service, especially for children. I was half-joking when I said my granddaughter could show me up on tablets as she is very adept. Nevertheless with no prompting from me, other than the way I reared our own maybe, she gets several books from the library each week. Not everything is digital. 'And on that note I think I'll pop down later; there are one or two books I can't afford that I'd like to get my hands on. Use it or lose it, I guess.

Sorry folks, as usual I've not read this before posting so typos or not, it's probably a bit repetitive or a little jumbled for clarity. Whatever I'm sure I still make my point.

On a completely separate note, I'm sorry to see more people leaving especially when reaching out seemed the order of the day after Cameron's victory, though I have to admit I was feeling similarly inclined. So cheers Tizme.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:26 am

So dark we've got the lights on in the house.

August.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:46 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:So dark we've got the lights on in the house.

August.
It's dark because THE BENNITES ARE COMING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Three day week, winter of discontent, no bread on the shelves, Red Robbo will be raised from the dead & Leyland workers will be striking because there is no sugar in the canteen.

Scargill will be returned as a glorious leader of the recently rejuvenated NUM after Corbyn re-opens all the closed pits, the miners will then immediately announce a 12 month strike in support of a £5000 per shift pay rise.

Rubbish & refuse will be piled three foot high in the street, we won't be able to bury our deceased and there will be a 6 month waiting list before you can get a telephone installed by the GPO.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:50 am

Thanks for making me laugh Rob.

Arghh...heard about Kendall & Cooper's ABC stuff.

I went to bed thinking I would read the Guardian's endorsement and focus the mind as a result of what they argued.

This morning, hearing that Kendall/Cooper are pushing Anyone But Corbyn has made me narrow down to Corbyn/Burnham.

If voting Cooper means aligning with Kendall in any way, that is a message I do not want my vote to carry.

& this is for Ephie....it isn't just taps

Russia: Hidden chips 'launch spam attacks from irons'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-fr ... e-24707337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

''China is spying on you through your KETTLE: Bugs that scan wi-fi devices found in imported kitchen gadgets
20 to 30 appliances 'had hidden chips that send out malware to networks''

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 8:57 am

Apologies. obviously I meant a 12 foot pile of rubbish

[youtube]Je65Vw7ndro[/youtube]

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:01 am

We jest, but it's what will get hurled if Corbyn wins.
So, best to have some come-backs ready.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:16 am

A short statement from all the candidates, posted by the Guardian this morning:
Shame we can't have a job share, they all manage to say something sensible.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-57479955" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn needs to watch the 'my campaign is about hope'.
That sounds wonderful. I love it, and remember all those other things I felt hope about.
But take one example, Syriza is in danger of splitting as all that Oxi hope dissipates, it shows just how hard it is to oppose the status quo.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:18 am

@yahyah

I'm in the same place as you re the leadership. Cooper and Kendall have ruled themselves out for me because of their refusal to think about how to work with Corbyn and his supporters post the election results - other than to rule it out and do everything they can to stop it happening. I don't think that's leaderly (is that a word, if not I don't care).

Strange to have to say the men are showing more of a co-operative, unifying approach than the women. Elsewhere I see Cooper has caused some irritation with her referral on Newsnight to a feminist opposition / government / policies if she wins. When asked by Kirsty Wark to explain what this meant she cited the focus by others on transport infrastructure - planes, trains, roads etc - as being like 'boys toys' and said that in contrast childcare actually underpinned pretty much everything. Some people are pointing out to her that women also use and operate trains, planes ... and roads / cars. And why is childcare essentially - 'feminist'? Childcare should be as much the concern of men with children as women these days and recognised as such.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:18 am

yahyah wrote:We jest, but it's what will get hurled if Corbyn wins.
So, best to have some come-backs ready.

I don't know about comebacks, yahyah, but we'd need more badgers and foxes if we had rat infestations. At least we could point Cameron in their direction instead of stalking deer.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:33 am

Ah - I remember the actual term that Cooper used now - feminist economics. That's what she was asked to describe by Kirsty Wark.

Fleets of pink buses across the country - anyone? Womens toys in action. That should do the trick.

Style of thing.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

I know we've lost a few people in the last few days because they think FTN has become Corbyn HQ but please can someone pop back and argue for Andy ?

My concerns are:
Cameron using Stafford/''drinking from vases'' at PMQs and the media helping him with that.
He doesn't always come across as the brightest bulb in the box - no disrespect, I'm no intellectual myself [in case no-one had noticed

].

But I like the fact that he seems to be positioned as a unity candidate, something his canvasser argued when we were phoned at home.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:34 am

That's a reasonable piece by Burnham, but again fails to join the dots, for me. If we do have a new and much better system of technical education, who will employ the students when they have finished? It's supply side stuff, though better than not training people at all. Capital is not interested in investing for production, and is still chucking trillions in nominal value into the housing market, instead of investing.

To me this seems to be a much bigger problem in consistency than the critiques we've had so far of Corbyn's proposals, which while some find them hard to accept, are at least consistent and thought through.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:38 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:We jest, but it's what will get hurled if Corbyn wins.
So, best to have some come-backs ready.
Yes, you're right. I favour PROJECT FEAR! PROJECT FEAR!

Worked for the SNP...

Only drawback with that is those who argued against the SNP's version of oil revenue had 'Project Fear' screamed at them.

I keep getting emails from a heating oil company [we're off gas grid] telling me heating oil price is at a six year low. It tracks the market price fairly swiftly. So, where oil was concerned a bit of caution was wise.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:42 am

Morning
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 54796.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right to Buy: 40% of homes sold under Government scheme are being let out privately

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:48 am

I'm getting to the point I don't want to vote for any of them.

But you know what really winds me fucking up, and to be fair I haven't seen it on here are the "I'm more left wing and ideolically socialist pure than you, and whatever Labour's does I will never vote for it, but it isn't it hysterical seeing it pull itself apart"

Those lot, I could easily give a slap. And make no mistake there's plenty of them about.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 9:50 am

I think that was what shocked me in my conversations with the man who is stocking weaponry and survival rations because climate change/whatever catastrophe is going to destroy our world, and my fairly sane neighbour agreeing with him.

We are trying to separate logic...deficits etc... feelings...media appeal...vote with the heart/brain etc.

But how many of our fellow electorate are immersed in views of the world that don't even deal with logic ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:01 am

letsskiptotheleft wrote:I'm getting to the point I don't want to vote for any of them.

But you know what really winds me fucking up, and to be fair I haven't seen it on here are the "I'm more left wing and ideolically socialist pure than you, and whatever Labour's does I will never vote for it, but it isn't it hysterical seeing it pull itself apart"

Those lot, I could easily give a slap. And make no mistake there's plenty of them about.

Morning Skippy....I can understand how you feel.
It'll be interesting to see how many of the £3 sign ups would actually bother joining as members, donating to the party, or even voting for Labour even if Corbyn gets elected.

It is one of the major factors that strikes my heart when I consider my vote...by voting Corbyn I align myself with a whole bunch of people whose views, and the way they express them, have made me veer away from the left left [as opposed to centre left] in the past.

Hope the weeding's going well, and walks with your dogs provide some peace.
Don't get too down

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:08 am

http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/up ... Aug-15.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn's is interesting as it shows how he wants to govern by taking power from the PLP and giving it to the members. That is of course his best hope of staying on.

Kendall on 'anyone but Corbyn'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33921047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She and Cooper could not stand as MPs arguing for Corbyn to be PM given what they have now gone on record as saying.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:10 am

yahyah wrote:I know we've lost a few people in the last few days because they think FTN has become Corbyn HQ but please can someone pop back and argue for Andy ?

My concerns are:
Cameron using Stafford/''drinking from vases'' at PMQs and the media helping him with that.
He doesn't always come across as the brightest bulb in the box - no disrespect, I'm no intellectual myself [in case no-one had noticed ].

But I like the fact that he seems to be positioned as a unity candidate, something his canvasser argued when we were phoned at home.

I've always liked Andy myself, yahyah, he's more pragmatic than Jeremy who seems more closely aligned to my utopian ideals. Like many of you I get emails from Labour because of my partial support but couldn't join the party or pay their £3 as I'm still a disenchanted LibDem I guess, which is funny though coming from a different perspective as I seem fairly closely aligned to obm's views and he openly professes his positioning to the left of Labour. Even funnier perhaps is that a year or so ago when speaking to my mother, she stated that she thought me a Tory. I could only assume it was my entrepreneurial spirit that made her think that of me.

However (look at what I've started my sentence with, Lord Chancellor, and a paragraph too) Tories are not as business friendly as they repeatedly assert. I think Ed suggested as much, at least he seemed that way to me. Nowadays, since Maggie at least, Tories are corporatist and not particularly supportive of small business and small businesses are the larger employers in overall numbers. I don't comment much in the G these days, too many trolls or right wing shills for my liking and I don't really appreciate getting into arguments or picking them up on their ignorance. Then again with less time for picking apart government literature I'm largely left with expressing opinion... and what's that really worth?

Anyway to express another, the Telegraph these days seems no better than the Mail, and that's saying something! I know Lord Justice Leveson must have done nicely from his inquiry, in a remunerative sense, but he must feel disenfranchised by Cameron and his lackeys, but looking at it another way, it is Cameron that is the lackey.

Oh well, posted without reading as usual. I am lazy but then this isn't work.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:11 am

That is of course his best hope of staying on.

Lucky, then, that it is also what he has always believed in.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:13 am

Mirror backs Burnham.Not to be taken as necessarilly my view.A request was made as to possible reasons

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/an ... ur-6248770" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:16 am

mikems wrote:Someone mentioned the Anglo-Irish agreement as if it was some damning indictment that Corbyn didn't support it. But hardly anyone supported that Anglo-Irish agreement outside parliament, and it was certainly seen as provocative by the Unionists, who organised mass campaigns of civil disobedience.

Perhaps there is a hope that this opposition to Maggie's plan in the mid-eighties is confused with the Good Friday Agreement, in an attempt to paint Corbyn as pro-PIRA?

In fact he supports united Ireland, hardly something shocking and frightening, or even a minority opinion.

But it's a shame to see such things posted here as if they are valid arguments against Corbyn.

What it showed was his terrible judgment. Because it seemed to put off the glorious day of a united Ireland and was entered into by the Tories it must be wrong, he thought. Other extremists, like Ian Paisley, also opposed it as you say.

Thatcher had to be persuaded into signing it, and subsequently regretted having done so, thinking that the Unionists who rejected all compromise were right.

History has, of course, completely vindicated it. It was a first step towards Good Friday, and stopping people murdering one another over whether they used euros or pounds.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:17 am

letskiptotheleft - ultra-leftists are the pits and always have been. Don't let them put you off.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:22 am

What it showed was his terrible judgment.

No, it didn't. He has always supported a united Ireland, and almost certainly always will. So 'judgement' doesn't come into it. He would have made his decision about the agreement based on whether it was more or less likely to bring about a united Ireland and peace.

And his judgement was not so terrible, because the Anglo-Irish treaty didn't work, and did not bring peace.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:24 am

yahyah wrote:I know we've lost a few people in the last few days because they think FTN has become Corbyn HQ but please can someone pop back and argue for Andy ?

My concerns are:
Cameron using Stafford/''drinking from vases'' at PMQs and the media helping him with that.
He doesn't always come across as the brightest bulb in the box - no disrespect, I'm no intellectual myself [in case no-one had noticed ].

But I like the fact that he seems to be positioned as a unity candidate, something his canvasser argued when we were phoned at home.

I'm on holiday in North Wales with a weak wi-fi signal so my posts have been patchy, but I'm still supporting Andy. I had the chance to observe how he would deal with leadership when Osborne pulled off his surprise devolution of the NHS to a Manchester mayor. Labour city leaders involved in secret talks left him in a very difficult position. I felt he handled the situation well, talking to the Labour councillors involved before making any kind of statement. He managed to state his position well, opposing Osborne's move as fragmentary (emphasizing his desire to see all areas with integrated health and social care, not just a select few) without criticizing his Labour colleagues. It was skillfully handled, I thought. I also got a glimpse of his frustration of not being in a position to achieve his goals. I just get a strong sense from Andy that he wants to be PM because he has a genuine belief his policies and choices could change people's lives for the better. I think that kind ambition is important in a leader. I don't see those qualities in Corbyn. Andy has also won the most support among MPs and I feel that trust in a leader is vital.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:28 am

mikems wrote:... Capital is not interested in investing for production, and is still chucking trillions in nominal value into the housing market, instead of investing...

This is what made me mention posting at the G, mikems. I can't remember what they said but someone commenting on banks the other day got my back up. Either theyr'e too young to remember or were simply ignorant of such matters, but having had a small business in the eighties after bank deregulation, that's all they seemed interested in, at least a major shift. Less concerned with industry, and I don't mean corporations, they pulled finance away from small business toward property speculation... and in my own case fuck the eight people who worked for me.

On a somewhat tangential note for no other reason than coming to mind, it's funny how being self-employed I was less able than many to gain a mortgage at typical rates of interest, but as an employer could endorse others' applications. 'And talking of interest rates I think I got one out at 11%, which rather quickly became 18. Thanks Maggie, that was before the BoE was separated from government. Not that I have any respect for Osborne in that regard btw, mortgage interest rates that is.

Edit: corrected quote - still not proof read however; it just stood out.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:36 am

yahyah wrote:I think that was what shocked me in my conversations with the man who is stocking weaponry and survival rations because climate change/whatever catastrophe is going to destroy our world, and my fairly sane neighbour agreeing with him.

We are trying to separate logic...deficits etc... feelings...media appeal...vote with the heart/brain etc.

But how many of our fellow electorate are immersed in views of the world that don't even deal with logic ?

One of the reasons political parties that base their policies and leaders on an unfiltered activists/members choice tend to do badly is that activists/members are by definition a bit odd.

Most people have no interest in politics, take notice at the last minute and generally just want a quiet life. They often pick up one or two garbled messages from the campaign and vote accordingly. Parties trim activists messages/choices to turn them down so they stay within the comfort zone of this constituency.

What seems sensible to believers left and right does not appeal to this large voting block. Hence Hague and IDS were chosen by Tory members for reasons of purity when the public at large would much rather have had Clarke.

Another group of people create their own reality, many SNP types I have encountered fall into this group. They latch onto a fact they believe as a bedrock and construct a reality around it. Generally nothing can shift this group and they are best ignored. They can of course switch if they latch onto another bedrock - fact.

The they are "all the same" brigade is oddly a hybrid of the two groups. This lot can vote on random emotion as much as anything, one American lady I met voted Bush because she didn't like the way Gore kissed his wife....

In short don't assume people are paying attention or are rational. The swing voters are valuable because for a few weeks before an election they are both of these things and more importantly live in the right place, which is why you can't win without them.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:45 am

Morning all.

Wet August day here. Marvelous.

If it appears that Burnham and Corbyn are likely to be the top two choices do you think this will enhance the female deputy candidates chances? Has Watson this sown up already?

Burnham in Liverpool Monday evening. I would've gone but for the fact I'll be at Anfield watching Liverpool v Bournemouth. Poor timing.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:49 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
mikems wrote:
What it showed was his terrible judgment.
No, it didn't. He has always supported a united Ireland, and almost certainly always will. So 'judgement' doesn't come into it. He would have made his decision about the agreement based on whether it was more or less likely to bring about a united Ireland and peace.

And his judgement was not so terrible, because the Anglo-Irish treaty didn't work, and did not bring peace.
Quite. The anti-Corbynites must be tying themselves in knots to gloss over the fact that what really started the peace process was the Major Government's secret communication with the IRA and Sinn Fein in February-November 1993, while terrorist activity was still going on. Going after Corbyn for this makes little sense to me, other than 'chuck enough mud and some will stick'.

His track record is poor in tipping his hat to organisations like the IRA when they were actively murdering UK citizens. Similarly and perhaps more damaging is his views on the Middle East and his association with tossers like Stop The War.....

None of this matters as a back bench rebel, but it hurts a PM contender, especially when you throw in his CND credentials. Tony Blair of course brought peace to Northern Ireland, but he did not do so on the basis of a united Ireland.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:52 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
mikems wrote:
What it showed was his terrible judgment.
No, it didn't. He has always supported a united Ireland, and almost certainly always will. So 'judgement' doesn't come into it. He would have made his decision about the agreement based on whether it was more or less likely to bring about a united Ireland and peace.

And his judgement was not so terrible, because the Anglo-Irish treaty didn't work, and did not bring peace.
Quite. The anti-Corbynites must be tying themselves in knots to gloss over the fact that what really started the peace process was the Major Government's secret communication with the IRA and Sinn Fein in February-November 1993, while terrorist activity was still going on. Going after Corbyn for this makes little sense to me, other than 'chuck enough mud and some will stick'.

No. What brought peace was the British and Irish governments working together to bring the parties to talk and stop killing one another. The Anglo-Irish agreement was very important.

Nobody expected that the Anglo-Irish agreement would achieve the approval of extremists like Paisley and Corbyn. it was however one of the staging posts towards Good Friday.

Corbyn just followed the Sinn Fein position, as he has done all his political career.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:54 am

Good morfternoon.

I'm still (unenthusiastically) leaning to Jeremy Corbyn. But, of the other candidates, Andy Burnham is the only one who seems to be alive to which way the wind is blowing and may, therefore, turn out to be the best "unity" candidate in the long run. So I could change my mind, depending on how things develop. Yvette Cooper, who was my original choice (again, unenthusiastically) way back, has now completely ruled herself out.

(It's raining here, too - but not as torrentially as yesterday. It's still very dark.)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:57 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: What seems sensible to believers left and right does not appeal to this large voting block. Hence Hague and IDS were chosen by Tory members for reasons of purity when the public at large would much rather have had Clarke.
I don't wish to nitpick, but the history is important here. Hague wasn't elected by members - in 1997 only MPs voted for the leader. It was Hague that introduced the members' voting as part of his so-called modernisation programme. Clarke may well have won, but IIRC what scuppered him was the 'Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact' where John Redwood endorsed him in return for the Shadow Chancellor post, a move that backfired spectacularly. Hague was always outstanding at the dispatch box, which possibly explains his popularity among MPs relative to the population - which I think should stand as a warning to those who think MPs invariably have better judgement than the membershi

IDS, well I'll give you that. But the circumstances of the 2001 contest were a bit distinct in that Clarke was not just the moderate candidate, he was the Europhile candidate in a party that by 2001 was overwhelmingly Eurosceptic. I wonder what might have happened if a more Eurosceptic moderate like Portillo had made the final ballot instead of Clarke. And it was still the MPs who were responsible for putting IDS on the final ballot.

Clarke would never have won in 1997. Within the Conservative Parliamentary Party, too many hated his europhile position and his role in Thatcher's downfall. The Redwood thing was a last, and ridiculous, throw of the dice. Clarke wasn't even close in the final round.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:03 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Wet August day here. Marvelous.

If it appears that Burnham and Corbyn are likely to be the top two choices do you think this will enhance the female deputy candidates chances? Has Watson this sown up already?

Burnham in Liverpool Monday evening. I would've gone but for the fact I'll be at Anfield watching Liverpool v Bournemouth. Poor timing.

To be honest I have totally ignored the DL contest, other than to take a AABW approach. (Almost Anybody But Watson).

The Almost is only there in case Dianne Abbott and Simon Danczuk are standing (yep I paid that much attention).

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:04 am

Mud flinging it is, then.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:04 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
yahyah wrote:I think that was what shocked me in my conversations with the man who is stocking weaponry and survival rations because climate change/whatever catastrophe is going to destroy our world, and my fairly sane neighbour agreeing with him.

We are trying to separate logic...deficits etc... feelings...media appeal...vote with the heart/brain etc.

But how many of our fellow electorate are immersed in views of the world that don't even deal with logic ?
One of the reasons political parties that base their policies and leaders on an unfiltered activists/members choice tend to do badly is that activists/members are by definition a bit odd.

Most people have no interest in politics, take notice at the last minute and generally just want a quiet life. They often pick up one or two garbled messages from the campaign and vote accordingly. Parties trim activists messages/choices to turn them down so they stay within the comfort zone of this constituency.

What seems sensible to believers left and right does not appeal to this large voting block. Hence Hague and IDS were chosen by Tory members for reasons of purity when the public at large would much rather have had Clarke.

Another group of people create their own reality, many SNP types I have encountered fall into this group. They latch onto a fact they believe as a bedrock and construct a reality around it. Generally nothing can shift this group and they are best ignored. They can of course switch if they latch onto another bedrock - fact.

The they are "all the same" brigade is oddly a hybrid of the two groups. This lot can vote on random emotion as much as anything, one American lady I met voted Bush because she didn't like the way Gore kissed his wife....

In short don't assume people are paying attention or are rational. The swing voters are valuable because for a few weeks before an election they are both of these things and more importantly live in the right place, which is why you can't win without them.

Comparing Corbyn to IDS is unfair.

On IDS.

IDS had been shadow Secretary of State for Social Security and Defence. He also had substantial support amongst Conservative MPs (Conservatives only give their members a choice between two, if Labour had the same system the choice would now be Burnham or Cooper.)

Corbyn has been an MP for over 30 years, and has never had a shadow cabinet or government role. He has the support of around 18 MPs (out of 232), not counting Conservatives.

The Tories electing Peter Bone would be a better analogy.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:05 am

I'm being very determinedly polite, atm

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:07 am

...but I don't think I can keep it up...so I'd better go and do something else...

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:07 am

letsskiptotheleft wrote:I'm getting to the point I don't want to vote for any of them.

But you know what really winds me fucking up, and to be fair I haven't seen it on here are the "I'm more left wing and ideolically socialist pure than you, and whatever Labour's does I will never vote for it, but it isn't it hysterical seeing it pull itself apart"

Those lot, I could easily give a slap. And make no mistake there's plenty of them about.

Indeed there are - and even though I will be voting for Corbyn, I do not think this notion of ideological purity is anything other than exactly the sort of nonsense I despise about right-wingers and/or nationalists and/or special interest parties who do the same.

It's demeaning and it gives supporters (of whatever) a legitimate target for scorn, as well as giving the impression that all supporters are the same - it's the squeakiest gate that gets the most oil, and I wish they'd just belt up, frankly.

What I would also say, though, is that I am getting very bored with "Comrade Corbyn", "friend of terrorists", and "anti-semite", amongst other puerile attacks which are as inaccurate as they are tedious. It happens here, which is a shame.

I do call two of the other candidates Blairites, though; I'm not sure that's inaccurate. But it pisses people off, so I'll stop for now. However, only Burnham of the others have offered any policies I could get behind - I don't think Cooper or Kendall really have any. If either of them gave us the sort of detail that Corbyn and Burnham have, I'd be happy to look at it.

To be honest, letsskip, I think there are nastinesses on both sides - a quick glance BTL on any article about this contest in the MSM demonstrates that. It's exactly the sort of thing I disliked about the IndyRef campaign, and the anti-Miliband crapola before the GE.

I wanted Ed for PM. I still do. If Burnham wins, and does what he promises, then we'll be getting Ed's policies anyway. If Corbyn wins, I hope the PLP gets behind him - I am not happy about the sniping that's going on from the likes of Danzcuk, Mann, and Sheerman; the party voted for this new system, and the law of unintended consequences applies.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:09 am

Patten, Portillo & Mellor on Duncan Smith ...

[youtube]W0Ip7ajMoZU[/youtube]

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:17 am

yahyah wrote:A short statement from all the candidates, posted by the Guardian this morning:
Shame we can't have a job share, they all manage to say something sensible.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-57479955" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn needs to watch the 'my campaign is about hope'.
That sounds wonderful. I love it, and remember all those other things I felt hope about.
But take one example, Syriza is in danger of splitting as all that Oxi hope dissipates, it shows just how hard it is to oppose the status quo.

Syriza still has massive public support in Greece, though.

The EU establishment want the Greek people to return to the old discredited parties, but it is not happening.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:31 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: I don't wish to nitpick, but the history is important here. Hague wasn't elected by members - in 1997 only MPs voted for the leader. It was Hague that introduced the members' voting as part of his so-called modernisation programme. Clarke may well have won, but IIRC what scuppered him was the 'Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact' where John Redwood endorsed him in return for the Shadow Chancellor post, a move that backfired spectacularly. Hague was always outstanding at the dispatch box, which possibly explains his popularity among MPs relative to the population - which I think should stand as a warning to those who think MPs invariably have better judgement than the membershi

IDS, well I'll give you that. But the circumstances of the 2001 contest were a bit distinct in that Clarke was not just the moderate candidate, he was the Europhile candidate in a party that by 2001 was overwhelmingly Eurosceptic. I wonder what might have happened if a more Eurosceptic moderate like Portillo had made the final ballot instead of Clarke. And it was still the MPs who were responsible for putting IDS on the final ballot.
Clarke would never have won in 1997. Within the Conservative Parliamentary Party, too many hated his europhile position and his role in Thatcher's downfall. The Redwood thing was a last, and ridiculous, throw of the dice. Clarke wasn't even close in the final round.
What? Clarke led the first and second rounds and lost the final round 72-90.

Yes, that is what is called having a plurality. The candidates of the eurosepti right had far, far more votes, and so he was bound to lose heavily when it came to a straight choice. Which he did.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:33 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
yahyah wrote:A short statement from all the candidates, posted by the Guardian this morning:
Shame we can't have a job share, they all manage to say something sensible.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-57479955" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn needs to watch the 'my campaign is about hope'.
That sounds wonderful. I love it, and remember all those other things I felt hope about.
But take one example, Syriza is in danger of splitting as all that Oxi hope dissipates, it shows just how hard it is to oppose the status quo.
Syriza still has massive public support in Greece, though.

The EU establishment want the Greek people to return to the old discredited parties, but it is not happening.

Unemployment of 26%, a destroyed economy, and decades of a wholly corrupt elite provide a rather more favourable context for the politics of the far left.

And no, the UK is not comparable to Greece.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:35 am

Well, I never said it was. As you know damn well

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:50 am

Just re-read my earlier comment about finance being redirected from industry toward property and speculation. I wasn't bankrupted but a five grand overdraft facility was removed with no notice when I was drawing the wages one Friday afternoon. I was about three grand overdrawn at the time or would have been after drawing the wages. It was a new manager who wouldn't even get off his backside to walk the four hundred yards to see what I'd got, unlike the previous manager who took an active interest.

I was only overdrawn because I'd recently doubled my workforce and was still turning work away. I could add that something approaching half of our work went overseas to America. Anyway I had to lay off my latest arrivals and then struggled with trade customers wanting VAT free payments when I insisted on cash, not that I could book it as such so effectively a 15% discount (or rather 15/115 that is). Ironically I was only a few months away from receiving much more in grants being within a development zone or whatever it was called. I could add that according to one of my suppliers that later had one of my cheques bounce, around a thousand small businesses and tradespeople were treated similarly from the one branch, so God knows what it was like nationally even if that was exaggerated.

To add insult to injury a few weeks later I got my chequebook back after shaking hands on a weekly figure to reduce the overdraft by, only to have the manager bounce every one of my cheques (one to the aforementioned supplier) thereby causing me another cashflow setback. I eventually shrank back to working alone after I'd found work for my core staff.

'And another one of my gripes... I've always believed in paying my way so did eventually clear all debt. However, and this is particularly annoying, all the revenues I had to pay thereafter were after tax and not beforehand as would have been the case had I still been trading as previously. I'd got work elsewhere by that time.

Oh I still forgot my major point. Granted the returns were not as handsome as market or property speculation but the business was still making a small profit after nine and a half wages were drawn (the half being my wife's for payroll and other bookwork). So fuck ten people's livelihood for three grand! Cashflow is the biggest bugbear for small business, not the profit and loss account.

Edit: whatever my own margins the banks were still gaining financially with business and overdraft charges; they just wanted to redirect their capital.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:52 am

I stand corrected on Hague, thank you RS.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:53 am

Oh look...

Education Specialists to support the academies and free school programme

https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov ... f2ad7d74a9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Location of contract
Any region
Value of contract (£)
£12,000,000

The Department for Education is seeking to engage specialist contractors to support the Academies and Free Schools Programme and help deliver the Department’s aim to ensure high educational standards in academies and free schools and to secure sponsorship arrangements for maintained schools moving to academy status. Contractors will be deployed regionally, in proximity to their home bases where possible, but may be asked to work in other regions to support the eight Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs). Contracts will initially run until 31 October 2017.

So in essence what they're doing is replacing the work that LAs did with private contractors answerable and contracted directly to the DfE.

Ain't localism great...can you imagine the uproar if Labour was doing this? "Bennites! Stalinists!"