Tuesday 18th August 2015

[yahyah]

Has anyone seen the video of the little boy trying to herd five cute kittens into the same place ?
That is easy compared with leading the Labour party.

[StephenDolan]

Why has the party allowed such a long period for the vote to take place ?
Surely two weeks would have been long enough ?

Not sure I can cope with the wait, and the acrimony, particularly here.
If we, as fellow members/supporters are falling out, what chance of showing a strong united front to the country.

I admit I bridled yesterday when one of my vote choices was commented on in a way I thought was negative.
Yes, I agree some may find Tom Watson a strange choice but my decision was made because he received a huge number of branch nominations, which hopefully means he may be in a position to get people enthused, his manifesto was detailed and I think he's a tough operator.
To me Corbyn and Watson would be on the job of tackling the Tories.

On voting Corbyn I have abandoned what always seemed the pragmatic choice, that of being more centrist. It means going out on a limb, and balancing on that wobbly branch with a huge drop underneath is undoubtedly an uncomfortable place to be.

I'm sorry if that offends some, but we all have our beliefs, fears, ways of expressing things.
It would be ironic if this democratic process ripped us apart when we have survived a lot already here.

I have OCD, the 'not knowing' of things can literally make me ill if I am not careful.
It's pushing all our buttons, even those who don't have that way of viewing the world.

Burnham firmly laid that at the door of Harman, saying it was ridiculous that the process was so drawn out.
As for who to vote for, I'm going to think and think some more before I choose!

[yahyah]

Going out to look for slugs. I may be some time.

[LadyCentauria]

Morfters all

For anyone wondering about reference to a cartoon, it was yesterday's Independent Daily Cartoon, which I put up in honour of @PF's status as FTN's Punctuation Specialist (last post on yesterday's thread.)

Today I am mostly drinking tea and being mellow...

[SpinningHugo]

Over at another place, someone insisted that I set out a positive programme and stopped moaning about how bloody awful Corbyn is. Here it is (with Corbyn moan at end).

Ok

1) The economy

Politically what Labour needs to establish above all else is a reputation for fiscal responsibility. I know full well Labour did not cause the crash, and I also know the importance of using fiscal policy at the zero lower bound, but those are irrelevant to the reputation Labour needs to establish. Polling data indicates this is the biggest hurdle to be overcome.

Once power has been won, the UK needs major infrastructure investment to both raise productivity and get off the zlb. With rates at zero there is no need to do this using crackpot helicopter money schemes.

Professor David Hendry is especially good on this here

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/0 ... g-britain/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2) Poverty and inequality

This cannot be tackled with price fixing (eg Osborne's 'Living' Wage). Stop suggesting things we know to be stupid (like rent controls, freezing energy prices). Easily the best way to help the poorest is to give them money. There are good arguments for a citizens basic income

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... or_ba.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

discredited partly by how badly the Greens argued for it. This will lead to the end of specific benefits like housing benefit, which leads to

3. Housing
The problem here is not money, nor is it that the state doesn't build enough house (we can't build anywhere near enough to distribute them equitably anyway).

There are several interlinked problems. First is the Town and Country planning Act. Large areas of greenbelt in the south needs to go, and height restriction need to be relaxed. Second the state needs to build the infrastructure (not the houses themselves). Third, and importantly, a Land Value Tax, replacing stamp duty. Stamp duty cuts down mobility (eg oldsters staying on in houses too big for them) whilst an LVT properly structured encourages building.


4. Nationalisation

Forget it. Expensive to do and a waste of time. The usual example given (rail) is exactly the worst case for it. The system we currently have (nationalised infrastructure, competition on franchises) was set up by Labour in 2002 and works really well. Cut the subsidy of rail still further (whilst introducing road pricing).

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries, and there the answer is better regulation, not nationalisation.

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

6. Health

The NHS is a national religion and so I doubt there is anything productive that can be done here. Not a problem for Labour electorally anyway.

7. Devolution

Stop trying to fix Scotland by talking of devolution to the regions. This fools nobody. No English region wants it, and you aren't talking about power to make law anyway (compare Scotland).

Devomax for Scotland, but that means Scottish MPs don't get a vote on Rest of UK laws.

8. Foreign Policy

Return to the tradition of Labour internationalism. We are the party of Ernest Bevin, not just Aneurin Bevan. We are the party of Nato and the EU. I want a party that unequivocally denounces Putin, opposes IS, and seeks to gather together the international community to oppose them.

9. Justice

We are the party of the Human Rights Act, the Race Relations Act and the Equality Act 2010. That means the justice system has to be funded because these have become a dead letter.

I could go on and on. that is what a serious radical leftwing programme would look like. it builds on the success of the last Labour government.

It is nothing like Corbyn's Bennite 1980s platform.

[RogerOThornhill]

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

6. Health

The NHS is a national religion and so I doubt there is anything productive that can be done here. Not a problem for Labour electorally anyway.

Good to see you've clearly given them a lot of thought and come up with a really deep and meaningful policy for each.

[SpinningHugo]

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

6. Health

The NHS is a national religion and so I doubt there is anything productive that can be done here. Not a problem for Labour electorally anyway.

Good to see you've clearly given them a lot of thought and come up with a really deep and meaningful policy for each.

I don't really have a lot positive to suggest. I think health is essentially unreformable. There are economies of scale in what we currently have, and there are major advantages to it.

I don't have the concerns about academies you do, but I do strongly support Comprehensive education. London is an enormous success story in education, but I understand the problems of replicating that elsewhere.

Sometimes (eg University funding) the best answer as to what to do is 'nothing at all'.

I also thought I'd written too much anyway.

[PorFavor]

@SpinningHugo

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries

I think I'm on record here as saying that very same thing. Well, we agree on that one! However, I think that water would be a popular candidate with most of the public for nationalisation. That is to say, popular with the general public.

(I would go so far as to say that it is positively dangerous for water to be in private hands - although my local water (supply) company is actually a pleasure to deal with and has been a small(ish) private concern since time immemorial.The other lot is quite a different bunch of bananas, though. Sharks, in fact.)

Edited to add

First paragraph is a bit crap, structure-wise. Oh, well . . . .

[SpinningHugo]

@SpinningHugo

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries

I think I'm on record here as saying that very same thing. Well, we agree on that one! However, I think that water would be a popular candidate with most of the public for nationalisation. That is to say, popular with the general public.

(I would go so far as to say that it is positively dangerous for water to be in private hands - although my local water (supply) company is actually a pleasure to deal with and has been a small(ish) private concern since time immemorial.The other lot is quite a different bunch of bananas, though. Sharks, in fact.)

Edited to add

First paragraph is a bit crap, structure-wise. Oh, well . . . .

Water is the best case I think. but i think we can achieve what we want through regulation. Who gets to abstract it is probably more significant than who owns pipes.

[PorFavor]

Pay attention, everyone!

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour should enjoy excitement about leadership campaign (Guardian)

Some hope . . . .

[SpinningHugo]

I don't really have a lot positive to suggest. I think health is essentially unreformable. There are economies of scale in what we currently have, and there are major advantages to it.

Depends what you mean. The funding model should not be changed. However, there is an awful lot that was being done in 2010 that should have continued but was axed to make short term savings. To be sustainable, the health service needs to move much more onto a preventative footing and manage demand better. To move away from the ghastly management speak, people with long term conditions can be supported a lot better on an ongoing basis - too often these days what happens is that people lurch from health crisis to health crisis. It's awful for them and it's expensive and disuptive for the health service. Everyone diagnosed with a long term condition could be allocated a health coach that they speak to on the phone once every week or two, or whenever they need - makes sure their medication is working ok, picks up problems early so people can be directed to their GP before things get too bad etc etc. Deal better with long term conditions and you've already made a huge improvement and taken a lot of pressure off. Lifestyle 'health training' programmes could be linked to SureStart to help people get into better habits early and focus on the less well off, who tend to have more health problems. The NHS needs to spend more money on this sort of thing to save money down the line, and improve the health and wellbeing of the population.

What doesn't need to be reformed is the commissioning structure. It's been mucked about with so many times that to disrupt it again would be counter-productive. In an ideal world I'd turn the clock back to 2010 PCTs, but we can't. Fortunately, the system has evolved back to something closer to that after the disastrous Lansley reforms. It's not perfect but it's good enough and can be improved gradually.

All seems sensible to me. I didn't really understand the Lansley reforms. I never thought they would be a disaster, but nor did I think they would achieve very much. seemed to me to be an expensive distraction, both in terms of money and political capital. Incremental piecemeal reform of the kind you suggest seems to me to be the best we can do.

[ephemerid]

Have to largely agree - we know where certain posters here stand in (not) supporting JC, there is no need for them to recycle the same offerings endlessly.

As a fellow non-supporter I wouldn't mind so much if they had any effect in winning people round, but of course they won't any more than the mostly cack handed and tone deaf interventions by Labour "grandees" have done more generally

Quite simply, people aren't going to be scared into not supporting Corbyn. But they might, even now, be *persuaded*.

(and Burnham's latest speech was an attempt to do exactly that, no surprise it has been described as "pandering" by the usual suspects)

Brilliant, so anyone who puts up any argument against Corbyn is recycling the same old pap, that could be turned on it's head with those who support him too.

I'm out of here, when you start laying down what is posted it's time to say toodle pip.

I think that's a bit harsh. Some people (Hugo in particular) seem to be bringing up the same content repeatedly, hoping for a different response. Plus it's all attack. I'm sure people would be open to different information and, in particular, positive items about the other candidates.

I agree with you, Refitman.

I am more upset than I thought I'd be that posters who I like and respect have chosen to go - particularly as they have the view that those of us here who are considering a vote for Corbyn are more numerous (they're not), more vocal (they're not), and are unwilling to consider other options (they are).

Nobody is laying down what can and cannot be posted, as far as I'm aware. Nobody has attacked anyone personally - except me; I made my reasons for that clear, and have apologised when I think I have something to apologise for.
I have had my flouncing-out moments too, so I appreciate that there are times for many of us when we no longer feel welcome; but the recent departures are, in my opinion, based on perception and not on the reality of what is happening here.

I have been looking through the posts, not for the first time, and I see a fairly even spread of views. If anything, the consensus here seems to be leaning more towards Burnham than anyone else.
I really hope that our erstwhile friends come back. This is a poorer place without them.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for keeping this place going.

[ohsocynical]

@SpinningHugo

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries

I think I'm on record here as saying that very same thing. Well, we agree on that one! However, I think that water would be a popular candidate with most of the public for nationalisation. That is to say, popular with the general public.

(I would go so far as to say that it is positively dangerous for water to be in private hands - although my local water (supply) company is actually a pleasure to deal with and has been a small(ish) private concern since time immemorial.The other lot is quite a different bunch of bananas, though. Sharks, in fact.)

Edited to add

First paragraph is a bit crap, structure-wise. Oh, well . . . .

Water is the best case I think. but i think we can achieve what we want through regulation. Who gets to abstract it is probably more significant than who owns pipes.

I understand they're re-nationalising water in some parts of Germany....

[PorFavor]

I didn't really understand the Lansley reforms.

Neither did he, so far as I can remember. I think he said as much.

[SpinningHugo]

This is dangerously wrong in my view. There is 30+ years of Corbyn stuff out there, and the surface has hardly been scratched.

[RogerOThornhill]

I didn't really understand the Lansley reforms.

Neither did he, so far as I can remember. I think he said as much.

Hunt said that most of the cabinet didn't understand them when he was on QT.

You can see why he wants to blame Burnham for everything - the 4 years of Lansley are an embarrassment of taking one's eyes off the ball. But they can't admit it of course.

[ohsocynical]

Sophy Ridge ‏@SophyRidgeSky 5 hrs5 hours ago


Cheers from supporters as Jeremy Corbyn tells journalists: "I'm disappointed in your profession"

[SpinningHugo]

I should also have added

10. Electoral Reform

I don't feel strongly about this as no system is perfect, but our current system seems dysfunctional. Giving Ukip one seat on a 13% share is not ok.

I also feel that it would be healthy for the left if we weren't forced into a single coalition called the Labour party. being honest, I would feel very uncomfortable indeed being in a party led by Corbyn, and an electoral system that allowed these differences to stand on different platforms would be healthier.

[ohsocynical]

This is dangerously wrong in my view. There is 30+ years of Corbyn stuff out there, and the surface has hardly been scratched.

I'm getting a strong clutching at straws vibe.
Isn't that logical? The longer you've been in any job, the more past you have? On the other hand the longer you're in a job the more experience you've had?

[ohsocynical]

@ Tubby and SpinningHugo

re: a conversation a week or so ago.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-1 ... t-monsanto" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ephemerid]

On Clinical Commissioning Groups - I think this was one of the daftest ideas I have ever heard of.

It gave GPs and a few consultants ideas that they could decide what they needed and commission it effectively. The whole point of having properly trained commissioners is that they are experts at getting value for money, experts at working within groups to find common ground, experts at dealing with the senior medical prima donnas who want their service funded to the detriment of another.
No clinician - unless they are in a very hands-off managerial role - has the overview necessary to pull together all the separate strands that make good commissioning such a success, in terms of optimum clinical outcomes, controlled spending, adequate resourcing, and most important of all, ensuring that contracts for outsourced services are water-tight and monitored carefully.

When I worked at the DAAT, I wanted funding for a project. Our commissioning manager wanted - evidence and/or research to back up my claims of what I thought my project could do; a small pilot done, which he gave me a little budget for; and then when I had the results I was expected to make my case for it to him, to my line manager, my peers, and the head of the DAAT before he'd consider it. Once he'd agreed in principle, I had to tell him who my preferred provider was, and why - if it wasn't the NHS, he would want to know why an outsourced service would be better. In the end, he gave me the funding for a limited period. Which was fine.
He lost his job when the PCT was disbanded, as did all my DAAT colleagues (some of whom went on to work for the company that took over most of the DAAT functions) and he was hired back as a consultant a few months later (on much higher pay) when it became obvious he was needed. Last I heard, he was doing consultancy work for a few trusts; and although his expertise was mainly within the drug/alcohol field where he started out, he had such a good reputation that he was doing commissioning work outside the specialty.

CCGs have been taken over in many places by the likes of McKinsey and other bean counters. I find this so annoying - we had world class commissioning nationally and in PCTs. It's such a shame that the HWBs and the CCGs are not working well in lots of places - there was a really good Panorama recently about what they're trying to do in Liverpool. The ideas are fantastic - and very much along the lines of what Burnham (and Miliband!) proposed, an integrated health and social care service. The problem is that the NHS is keen to see this happen, and wants to get better discharge planning going; but the LA simply doesn't have the funding to provide the home care packages that would make it work.

Lansley may not be quite as much as a fool as he's painted, but he's a bit of a fool all the same.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Talking of renationalizing, I've happened across this by "non-partisan Policy Exchange".

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media- ... nalisation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's hilariously bad. Apart from the usual bollocks ("6 months to put in a phone line") and the implication he can remember frequent power cuts (he's 44, one year older than me), he suggests Maria Eagle and Ed Miliband were plotting the renationalization water.

Guess, what? Green energy subsidies are bad.

[Tubby Isaacs]

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

I think it's unrealistic and probably a waste of money putting schools back in LAs that don't want them and which had lots of sink schools in anyway. They missed a trick at the election by not branding their policy in terms of "sorting out Gove's mess".

Think fees are too high- moving towards Wales' level, and its support system is better.

[RogerOThornhill]

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

I think it's unrealistic and probably a waste of money putting schools back in LAs that don't want them and which had lots of sink schools in anyway. They missed a trick at the election by not branding their policy in terms of "sorting out Gove's mess".

Think fees are too high- moving towards Wales' level, and its support system is better.

Yes, the LAs never had the voluntary controlled ones anyway really.

Did you catch the C4 News bit on academies with Birbalsingh and Francis Gilbert - it's hilarious.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/d ... ref/150815" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

4. Nationalisation

Forget it. Expensive to do and a waste of time. The usual example given (rail) is exactly the worst case for it. The system we currently have (nationalised infrastructure, competition on franchises) was set up by Labour in 2002 and works really well. Cut the subsidy of rail still further (whilst introducing road pricing).

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries, and there the answer is better regulation, not nationalisation.

I'd have said rail was a pretty good case for the extra investment you call for, isn't it? As you know, I'm not keen on renationalizing train franchises now because of the mess Network Rail is in. Obviously, it can't go ahead now with the electrifications it's sheleved, but there must be plenty of other stuff- generally rail has all sorts of plans put together, by all sorts of bodies, but they don't get done.

[Tubby Isaacs]

5. Education

Essentially carry on the enormous success story that was the New Lawbour reforms. Don't listen to the siren voices of doom from left or right. Don't suggest regressive things like abolishing student fees (see Scotland for how the current system works much better.)

I think it's unrealistic and probably a waste of money putting schools back in LAs that don't want them and which had lots of sink schools in anyway. They missed a trick at the election by not branding their policy in terms of "sorting out Gove's mess".

Think fees are too high- moving towards Wales' level, and its support system is better.

Yes, the LAs never had the voluntary controlled ones anyway really.

Did you catch the C4 News bit on academies with Birbalsingh and Francis Gilbert - it's hilarious.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/d ... ref/150815" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't seen it yet, cheers.

So do you favour something going in above the LAs, academies etc, a common system of regional regulation? I think that's best.

I'd like to offer the standalone academies a chance to go back to LAs, perhaps by parental ballot. Labour was very scared of these before because they begged the "What about Europe, eh?" question. Time to offer them?

[RogerOThornhill]

So do you favour something going in above the LAs, academies etc, a common system of regional regulation? I think that's best.

I'd like to offer the standalone academies a chance to go back to LAs, perhaps by parental ballot. Labour was very scared of these before because they begged the "What about Europe, eh?" question. Time to offer them?

Yes, something like the regional commissioners but regional is too wide - 20k+ schools divided into 8 RSCs...

I thought Blunkett's ideas were good - locally elected rather than DfE appointed - and the select committee thought that there would have to be more than 8. Think the new committee has its beady on the RSCs to see what's come about since.

I did like Gilbert pointing out that schools had as much autonomy in the LA as they needed...I wonder how many did it for the extra cash?

[SpinningHugo]

4. Nationalisation

Forget it. Expensive to do and a waste of time. The usual example given (rail) is exactly the worst case for it. The system we currently have (nationalised infrastructure, competition on franchises) was set up by Labour in 2002 and works really well. Cut the subsidy of rail still further (whilst introducing road pricing).

Water is the biggest problem of the privatised industries, and there the answer is better regulation, not nationalisation.

I'd have said rail was a pretty good case for the extra investment you call for, isn't it? As you know, I'm not keen on renationalizing train franchises now because of the mess Network Rail is in. Obviously, it can't go ahead now with the electrifications it's sheleved, but there must be plenty of other stuff- generally rail has all sorts of plans put together, by all sorts of bodies, but they don't get done.

I am not sure.

The reason (and this may sound daft) is driverless cars. If they do really come on in the next twenty years, it is going to render much of the rail network obsolete. I'd have to look into it more carefully than I have.

[rebeccariots2]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... hree-times

I know small L liberals may not agree, but surely there should be an offence of deliberately cheating to try and wreck the democratic process of a political party one does not support?
A few of these tossers up in front of the magistrates may stop them in future.

Well in this bloke's case it should definitely be an offence. Perhaps the perfect punishment would be automatically awarding his vote to Labour - or the party which had its processes undermined by him - at the next general election. Along with being made to sweep some roads in a bright vest with his name on it ... for some considerable time.

Yes - I'm being petty - but the tone of his comments is horrid.

[Willow904]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... hree-times

I know small L liberals may not agree, but surely there should be an offence of deliberately cheating to try and wreck the democratic process of a political party one does not support?
A few of these tossers up in front of the magistrates may stop them in future.

Well in this bloke's case it should definitely be an offence. Perhaps the perfect punishment would be automatically awarding his vote to Labour - or the party which had its processes undermined by him - at the next general election. Along with being made to sweep some roads in a bright vest with his name on it ... for some considerable time.

Yes - I'm being petty - but the tone of his comments is horrid.

Real poetic justice would be Corbyn being elected leader with his help, taking Labour to the left and then winning a general election as the Tory majority falls apart in the aftermath of a traumatic EU referendum!
(I still want Andy Burnham to win, btw, I'm just not that bothered if Corbyn does. He'll either be successful or he won't. I'm really struggling to understand the hysteria about him (in the wider media, not here, I hasten to add!))

[yahyah]

Hugo, so 'Denis Heal' on Cif is you ?

[tinyclanger2]

Flouncetastic.

[rebeccariots2]

Man convicted of raping 13-year-old despite testimony by Lady Butler-Sloss
Retired high court judge was character witness for Philip Chard, whose mother was her cleaner, and said she was ‘astonished’ by claims made against him
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... tler-sloss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if she knew she was going to be involved in this case when she accepted the chairs role of the panel into historic child abuse - surely that wouldn't have been compatible?

[yahyah]

Flouncetastic.

Did you write that with an Alan Freeman voice ?

[tinyclanger2]

Given Blair and New Labour was what Thatcher considered her greatest achievement, I'm not sure that the support for Corbyn is much of a surprise. It's a lesser of several evils situation:

Some see the slightly less bad Tories as the lesser of said evils; others see Corbyn taking the party to the left as slightly less terrible. None of us are exactly ecstatic about either. Says more about the 1000 years of putting a tiny fraction of "types" from a highly diverse population into all the positions of power.

As Shamus Rahman Khan points out in Privilege: the making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School, (US) opening this elite school’s doors to diversity did not create equality, just, as Khan puts it himself, “a more diverse elite within a more unequal world”. Putting it another way, “expanding access to the elite institutions does not so much change the establishment thinking as change the composition of the establishment”

This is the problem with my own bugbear - our total dependence on people who've been to Oxbridge to run everything. Including Labour.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I am not sure.

The reason (and this may sound daft) is driverless cars. If they do really come on in the next twenty years, it is going to render much of the rail network obsolete. I'd have to look into it more carefully than I have.

I don't know much about driverless cars, but the rise in passenger numbers caught everyone out and there's tons of catch up as things stand. And potential to increase ridership with better services, lower fares, new railcards etc.

I'm sceptical about high profile re-openings, which every local MP seems to support.

[tinyclanger2]

Flouncetastic.

Did you write that with an Alan Freeman voice ?

It was more Alan Partridge. With a touch of Paul Calf.

[yahyah]

Man convicted of raping 13-year-old despite testimony by Lady Butler-Sloss
Retired high court judge was character witness for Philip Chard, whose mother was her cleaner, and said she was ‘astonished’ by claims made against him
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... tler-sloss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if she knew she was going to be involved in this case when she accepted the chairs role of the panel into historic child abuse - surely that wouldn't have been compatible?

Well, presuming the jury reached the right verdict, thank goodness she didn't proceed with heading up the sexual abuse inquiry. Her judgement seems to have proved poor.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Given Blair and New Labour was what Thatcher considered her greatest achievement, I'm not sure that the support for Corbyn is much of a surprise. It's a lesser of several evils situation:

Some see the slightly less bad Tories as the lesser of said evils; others see Corbyn taking the party to the left as slightly less terrible. None of us are exactly ecstatic about either. Says more about the 1000 years of putting a tiny fraction of "types" from a highly diverse population into all the positions of power.

As Shamus Rahman Khan points out in Privilege: the making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School, (US) opening this elite school’s doors to diversity did not create equality, just, as Khan puts it himself, “a more diverse elite within a more unequal world”. Putting it another way, “expanding access to the elite institutions does not so much change the establishment thinking as change the composition of the establishment”

This is the problem with my own bugbear - our total dependence on people who've been to Oxbridge to run everything. Including Labour.

Plenty of Labour's Oxbridgeans went to comprehensives, and not particularly genteel ones (eg Ed, Hillary Benn).

I think they are different to Cameron/Osborne.



O

[SpinningHugo]

Hugo, so 'Denis Heal' on Cif is you ?

I can neither confirm nor deny, but I hardly take great pains to hide my identity.

[rebeccariots2]

I've been amusing (OK that might be a bit of a stretch of that term) myself with imagining which post Burnham might give Corbyn in his team ... and vice versa.

I think we can probably rule out Burnham finding a foreign affairs or defence role for Corbyn ... maybe something in housing?

I reckon Corbyn would be daft not to use Burnham's experience re health and social care ... yes, I do rate his commitment and determination to sort out some of the really knotty issues.

[rebeccariots2]

Mikes Story.jpg (63.46 KiB) Viewed 4567 times

[Tubby Isaacs]

Nothing in Energy for Corbyn either.

[SpinningHugo]

I've been amusing (OK that might be a bit of a stretch of that term) myself with imagining which post Burnham might give Corbyn in his team ... and vice versa.

I think we can probably rule out Burnham finding a foreign affairs or defence role for Corbyn ... maybe something in housing?

I reckon Corbyn would be daft not to use Burnham's experience re health and social care ... yes, I do rate his commitment and determination to sort out some of the really knotty issues.

it can't be a spending department.

Shadow Home Sec is my guess.

Could Meacher make a comeback?

The dreadful Chris Lewis?

[rebeccariots2]

Sorry.

Everyone said I was too old.jpg (22.71 KiB) Viewed 4564 times

Couldn't resist. I think I'm having my silly hour.

[rebeccariots2]

Nothing in Energy for Corbyn either.

I think you're probably right there Tubby.

[tinyclanger2]

Given Blair and New Labour was what Thatcher considered her greatest achievement, I'm not sure that the support for Corbyn is much of a surprise. It's a lesser of several evils situation:

Some see the slightly less bad Tories as the lesser of said evils; others see Corbyn taking the party to the left as slightly less terrible. None of us are exactly ecstatic about either. Says more about the 1000 years of putting a tiny fraction of "types" from a highly diverse population into all the positions of power.

As Shamus Rahman Khan points out in Privilege: the making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School, (US) opening this elite school’s doors to diversity did not create equality, just, as Khan puts it himself, “a more diverse elite within a more unequal world”. Putting it another way, “expanding access to the elite institutions does not so much change the establishment thinking as change the composition of the establishment”

This is the problem with my own bugbear - our total dependence on people who've been to Oxbridge to run everything. Including Labour.

Plenty of Labour's Oxbridgeans went to comprehensives, and not particularly genteel ones (eg Ed, Hillary Benn).

I think they are different to Cameron/Osborne.



O

(removed additional bit as less is more)

[26% of BBC Execs were Oxbridge this time last year:]

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-28953881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Deeply elitist UK "This risks narrowing the conduct of public life to a small few who are very familiar with each other but far less familiar with the day-to-day challenges facing ordinary people in the country."

The point Khan makes - is that opening up the elitist institutions simply diversifies the elite - it doesn't alter its view.
There are of course exceptions, but the situation remains the same.

Burnham Cambridge
Cooper Oxford
Corbyn North London Poly
Kendall Cambridge

Deputies are marginally "better" - but still hardly representative of the UK
Bradshaw Sussex
Creasy Cambridge
Eagle Oxford
Flint UEA
Watson Hull

[Tubby Isaacs]

Burnham Cambridge
Cooper Oxford
Corbyn North London Poly
Kendall Cambridge

Deputies are marginally "better" - but still hardly representative of the UK
Bradshaw Sussex
Creasy Cambridge
Eagle Oxford
Flint UEA
Watson Hull

So if your father's a telephone engineer like Burnham, it's bad if you go to Oxbridge?

I thought social mobility was supposed to be the name of the game?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I've been amusing (OK that might be a bit of a stretch of that term) myself with imagining which post Burnham might give Corbyn in his team ... and vice versa.

I think we can probably rule out Burnham finding a foreign affairs or defence role for Corbyn ... maybe something in housing?

I reckon Corbyn would be daft not to use Burnham's experience re health and social care ... yes, I do rate his commitment and determination to sort out some of the really knotty issues.

it can't be a spending department.

Shadow Home Sec is my guess.

Could Meacher make a comeback?

The dreadful Chris Lewis?

I think serving a prison sentence for importing coke rules him out.

[tinyclanger2]

Why does social mobility need to lead to Oxbridge though?
Our belief that Oxbridge produces everything marvelous and everything else is shite is the root of the problem. Not Oxbridge per se.