Thursday 20h August 2015

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:07 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:http://www.dismaland.co.uk/map/
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-33999495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Banksy show in derelict lido in Weston-super-mare
Banksy described the show as a "family theme park unsuitable for children".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/ ... UK20150820" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dismaland is "escape from mindless escapism"
sounds ace

Saw a report from there on one of the news channels, earlier! Looks really interesting but sadly, like Banksy's show in Bristol last year, beyond my range of travel for now.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:11 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't believe I am:

A) Calling anybody stupid and
B) Taking out my frustrations on anybody.

When I point out how utterly hopeless Temulkars argument was against Tubby's original point.

I can see the PMQs now.

Corbyn - I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx.

Cameron - I won't take lessons in morality from a man who associates with somebody who says yyyyyyy

Corbyn - Hah so what I have three pictures of Blair.

Which is really what this boils down to. As for absolving Blair feel free to point out where my argument does that?

You may also want to check my posting history to see my Blairite credentials in full. However not everything the New Labour government did was bad, and many of the redistributive things - like tax credits - that Cameron is cutting were a New Labour creation.

And for the avoidance of doubt I thought Harman was a disgrace for not voting against the government.

I also think Danczuk and Stringer are nobs and was a big supporter of Ed Miliband unlike some.

Or he simply points out that the prime minister of the UK selling arms to middle eastern despots whilst wearing a poppy is perhaps the most obscene abuse of our war deads memory imaginable - and theres lots of film of that. Its not difficult too pin stuff on Dave is it, because then it would be Dave Corbyn was faacing and no need to bring up Blairs sins. I think Jeremy is bright enougfh to realise who the PM is at the despatch box, dont you?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:12 pm

Blair and criminality.

The UK state violated public international law when we invaded Iraq. I thought so then and am sure now. At the time I felt ambiguous about the Iraq War, Saddam was not good for his country. But, the illegality was decisive. I marched against and in 2005 voted against the Labour party for the only time.

I don't fetishise the law. Sometimes we should break it. But it has weight in reasoning.

But.

Blair committed no crime under either UK domestic law or international criminal law. None. Monbiot has been embarrasing himself with his arrest Blair stuff for years (which is itself probably unlawful as incitement to assault).

Another reason to not want Corbyn as leader was his embarrassing lazy stuff about how Blair should stand trial "if he is guilty of a war crime." That panders to idiocy.

I can give you the details on the law if you like.

On the "Blair met Gaddafi" whataboutery, it is the duty of heads of government to meet lots of unsavoury people. If we wanted Libya to stop shooting down passenger aircraft, and didn't want to overthrow Gaddafi, Blair has to talk.

There is no equivalence between that and what Corbyn as a backbench MP has done. His line about"encouraging dialogue" would only work if he also appeared alongside and had tea in the commons with members if the UDF and extreme Zionists. He of course doesn't. It is and has always been members of the ant west struggle.

He isn't an anti-semite. He has weak judgement, caused by a narrow fixed mindset.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:13 pm

Anyway time to breathe now and stop ranting

Just want to say also I have huge respect for TE and Tubby. I disagree with them on this, and it is a key thing, but it is just a different way to try to get to the same place

I hope whatever happens we do see a more enthused and positive opposition to the Tories whoever it is from

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:27 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Blair and criminality.

The UK state violated public international law when we invaded Iraq. I thought so then and am sure now. At the time I felt ambiguous about the Iraq War, Saddam was not good for his country. But, the illegality was decisive. I marched against and in 2005 voted against the Labour party for the only time.

I don't fetishism the law. Sometimes we should break it. But it has weight in reasoning.

But.

Blair committed no crime under either UK domestic law or international criminal law. None. Monbiot has been embarrasing himself with his arrest Blair stuff for years (which is itself probably unlawful as incitement to assault).

Another reason to not want Corbyn as leader was his embarrassing lazy stuff about how Blair should stand trial "if he is guilty of a war crime." That panders to idiocy.

I can give you the details on the law if you like.

On the "Blair met Gaddafi" whataboutery, it is the duty of heads of government to meet lots of unsavoury people. If we wanted Libya to stop shooting down passenger aircraft, and didn't want to overthrow Gaddafi, Blair has to talk.

There is no equivalence between that and what Corbyn as a backbench MP has done. His line about"encouraging dialogue" would only work if he also appeared alongside and had tea in the commons with members if the UDF and extreme Zionists. He of course doesn't. It is and has always been members of the ant west struggle.

He isn't an anti-semite. He has weak judgement, caused by a narrow fixed mindset.

When did Libya threaten shoot down an aircraft in recent times?

There is meeting foreign HoS but there is another matter inviting them to come and stay at Buck House with Brenda isn't there. What is his excuse for all the money he is taking at the moment - some pretty unsavoury people there

I also think saying Corbyn is anti-West is a bit simplistic. He seems to be more anti-colonial - and the two groups you mentioned are, to him, the colonialists - the Loyalists had been abusing power in Ulster since partition and extreme Zionists are all about displacing people. He was more expressing solidarity with one side than the other

Thatcher did this as well with the resistance movements behind the Iron Curtain - favouring the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors - different people take different sides based on their political viewpoint. Corbyn is not the first and last to do this

Is Corbyn speaking to Hamas worse than the British Government supporting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the jihadists in Syria when convenient

It is also you guys raising this as a point against him, not us using it against other people - we are just highlighting that there are other examples from elsewhere

And on your point about Blair and the law - well I don't give a toss as he was never in any danger of the law - what he is though is in part responsible for an unjustified and catastrophically planned war based on false premise. That is his legacy and the more information that comes out the less good it will get for him I am sure. Hubris did for him

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:27 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Awww diddums its all the mean other partys telling fibs, its all the ex leaders fault cos he cant eat a bacon sandwich, its all down to the 'messaging' (way to sound like an out of touch spadocrat btw). We just wait for the tories to mess up and everything is rosy again. It's delusional bullshit, Tubby, and you are intelligent enough to know it.

Come on how is one of the 'electables' going to get the measure of Sturgeon? How exactly are they going to do that when they are universally despised north of the border? Tory lite certainly isnt going to win back Greens, Tory lite wont deal with Plaid, Tory lite wont make a dent in SNP Scotland. Tory lite isnt going to brink back the Kippers.

Labour cannot win in 2020 without Scotland. Corbyn is the only candidate who stands a chance of doing that.

And yep Ive been to Gower many times over the years, lived in Pennard for a while, and was at a book signing there the other day. It has been labour for a century - but hey just dismiss it as gentrified. That is exactly the sneering attitude that has lost you seats across the UK.

Im not emotionally invested in this campaign. Im looking in from the outside, it really matters not one jot to me who wins. Given my past in the Labour party, however, and having seen how those of us on the Left were treated when we were viewed as the enemy within, I cant help thinking about word Karma.

I was referring to England/Wales more than anything re Sturgeon. She knew exactly what she was doing in trying to embarrass Miliband last time. The new leader will have time to prepare for that. Possibly governing with the SNP.

Welsh Labour has tried to be fairly leftwing, certainly more than the SNP is. Doesn't seem to have been an electoral panacea, does it? Plaid don't seem to be going anywhere really. UKIP are more of a problem, but seeing them as leftists manque is a bit of a stretch.

It's not going to be easy, but Cameron's not got his Lib Dem shield this time. He can't blame everything on Labour any more. And he's got a referendum on his least favourite subject coming up. On the subject of which, Corbyn's been all over the place.

And talking about messaging isn't Spad-bollocks. It's what the Tories and SNP have done very well.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:33 pm

The Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn is to issue a public apology over the Iraq war on behalf of the party if he becomes leader next month, a move Tony Blair repeatedly resisted.

In a statement to the Guardian, Corbyn said he would apologise to the British people for the “deception” in the run-up to the 2003 invasion and to the Iraqi people for their subsequent suffering.

Such an apology would be important symbolically – particularly in a party where Iraq remains a sore point, 12 years after Britain joined the US in the invasion - and signal a wider departure from existing Labour’s defence and foreign policy.

The MP made a vow that suggests future UK military interventions will become rarer: “Let us say we will never again unnecessarily put our troops under fire and our country’s standing in the world at risk. Let us make it clear that Labour will never make the same mistake again, will never flout the United Nations and international law.”

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

Is it within Corbyn's power, is it appropriate, to apologise on behalf of the Labour party over this?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:34 pm

@howsillyofme1

Regarding what was or what was not known at the time (Savile). I could never forgive my father for what he did, nevertheless I did put it down to the abuse he suffered at boarding school, descriptions of which he did share with us (my brother too). Horrendous in our book but seemingly accepted as normal in his. Alright this was in pre-war India, but nonetheless a product of British colonialism. I suppose we could also label it part of the establishment, my grandfather was a bigwig on the Indian Railways; villa with extensive grounds in Bombay as it was then, private carriage to hook onto any train not to mention servants. Quite something for one who was partially Indian himself.

This I suspect was typical among the ex-boarding school elite in those shortly before us and the abuse of their fags and may be an explanation for the sexual proclivities of the time. My guess anyway. For my part I was determined to prove and exercise my heterosexuality. I may be completely wrong of course not having first hand experience; my brother and I were given some choice and decided against public school.

When my grandparents followed their only surviving son to England some years later, he'd come over at partition, Grandad did everything, Grandma never came to terms with the loss of her servants. He was also mega-rich having sunk most of his money in Rio Tinto shares which later saw a thirteen fold increase in value if I'm not mistaken. She and my mother fell out irreparably after he died and she lived with us temporarily before the flat my parents got her. She treated my Mum as a slave, after that she used to falsely accuse us kids of stealing from her when we visited after school. At least I think so, 99% certain my brother and sister were innocent too.

As an aside she was either in her very late nineties or even a centenarian when she died and left all her money to Jehovahs Witnesses; she'd been befriended and helped by one in her latter years. I'm not sure but think my parents contested her will and failed, which I found hypocritical as they'd always said we wouldn't inherit form them. My father always believed in independence in adulthood and even volunteered to disown us so we could get more than minimum grant for uni.

Last I saw my mother she told me not be so stupid and that of course we were written into their will. That may no longer be the case now as she fell out with me shortly before he died. In his final days I admonished her for bullying and expecting too much of him, he was ready to go. Remember I did know of what I was speaking having witnessed the slow demise of my paralysed wife and did my best to console her. Never spoken of in my heart I really wanted to punish him in his dying days for what he had done, obviously I didn't but steered my parents back to their youth and the time they had met. .Nevertheless and partially because of my sister who obviously knew better, I was not forgiven, So much so that I wasn't even told of his funeral let alone his demise until afterwards. I am their eldest son. Mind you she didn't like my long hair either, making me wear a pony tail to visit him in hospital. If that shamed her she need only have asked for a haircut before the funeral. I suspect it was more than that.

Perhaps unkindly on my part, but I've not seen my family since. Too long to proof read - should have written this elsewhere.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:35 pm

I said, and have pretty much stood by, not posting on the Leaders election, even tonight with some fairly heated arguments - but this
FFS!
What compromises is he thinking of?
Giving an anaesthetic before burning to death in a cage...
Flogging only with lightweight soft wool..
Only blowing up half the historic sites..
Only the enemy's women being sold as slaves..

Corbyn: we need to seek "a political compromise" with ISIS. A view, certainly. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

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

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:37 pm

Howsillyofme

I too think Blair has behaved shabbily since he left office.

Why you think this helps your case that Corbyn is not so bad mystifies me.

Yes, they have both shown very poor judgment.

This isn't a game where your dissing my guy somehow makes up for me dissing yours.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:39 pm

citizenJA wrote:
The Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn is to issue a public apology over the Iraq war on behalf of the party if he becomes leader next month, a move Tony Blair repeatedly resisted.

In a statement to the Guardian, Corbyn said he would apologise to the British people for the “deception” in the run-up to the 2003 invasion and to the Iraqi people for their subsequent suffering.

Such an apology would be important symbolically – particularly in a party where Iraq remains a sore point, 12 years after Britain joined the US in the invasion - and signal a wider departure from existing Labour’s defence and foreign policy.

The MP made a vow that suggests future UK military interventions will become rarer: “Let us say we will never again unnecessarily put our troops under fire and our country’s standing in the world at risk. Let us make it clear that Labour will never make the same mistake again, will never flout the United Nations and international law.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is it within Corbyn's power, is it appropriate, to apologise on behalf of the Labour party over this?

I am not sure it is wise to say 'flout international war' unless he has the legal reasoning behind it - if he has then it is no less reasonable than saying we didn't but would be unwise I think! He should be prepared though for any consequences that follow. I wouldn't be surprised if he concentrates on the UN point in the end as that is probably the surest ground

I think it is appropriate to say that it was the wrong decision and I think he clearly has the right to say it as he is the leader of the party....it is always more difficult to take an active position as someone will come out and say he was wrong....but then there were a lot of people who came out and said it was wrong when Blair didn't apologise so I don't see a big problem.

It won't be hard to find someone who doesn't want any apologies etc but there needs a line to be drawn under it and after that the boil should be lanced

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:39 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I said, and have pretty much stood by, not posting on the Leaders election, even tonight with some fairly heated arguments - but this
FFS!
What compromises is he thinking of?
Giving an anaesthetic before burning to death in a cage...
Flogging only with lightweight soft wool..
Only blowing up half the historic sites..
Only the enemy's women being sold as slaves..

Corbyn: we need to seek "a political compromise" with ISIS. A view, certainly. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

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

It is Lansbury all over again. Nice guy, and it would be lovely if the world were as he thinks it is

Who gets to be Ernie Bevin?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:41 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I said, and have pretty much stood by, not posting on the Leaders election, even tonight with some fairly heated arguments - but this
FFS!
What compromises is he thinking of?
Giving an anaesthetic before burning to death in a cage...
Flogging only with lightweight soft wool..
Only blowing up half the historic sites..
Only the enemy's women being sold as slaves..

Corbyn: we need to seek "a political compromise" with ISIS. A view, certainly. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

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

Channel 4 News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.

Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:42 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Howsillyofme

I too think Blair has behaved shabbily since he left office.

Why you think this helps your case that Corbyn is not so bad mystifies me.

Yes, they have both shown very poor judgment.

This isn't a game where your dissing my guy somehow makes up for me dissing yours.

I have given my reasons for tending towards Corbyn...in the end is that he is the best of a quite poor bunch

I think Miliband was much better but I know your views on that and I disagree with you

It is part of the sadness I feel that I have to look to a man who has been an MP for 32 years to find any radical approach to opposing the Tories - and opposing the Tories is the most important thing to do at the moment

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:45 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
The Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn is to issue a public apology over the Iraq war on behalf of the party if he becomes leader next month, a move Tony Blair repeatedly resisted.

In a statement to the Guardian, Corbyn said he would apologise to the British people for the “deception” in the run-up to the 2003 invasion and to the Iraqi people for their subsequent suffering.

Such an apology would be important symbolically – particularly in a party where Iraq remains a sore point, 12 years after Britain joined the US in the invasion - and signal a wider departure from existing Labour’s defence and foreign policy.

The MP made a vow that suggests future UK military interventions will become rarer: “Let us say we will never again unnecessarily put our troops under fire and our country’s standing in the world at risk. Let us make it clear that Labour will never make the same mistake again, will never flout the United Nations and international law.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nomy-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is it within Corbyn's power, is it appropriate, to apologise on behalf of the Labour party over this?

I am not sure it is wise to say 'flout international war' unless he has the legal reasoning behind it - if he has then it is no less reasonable than saying we didn't but would be unwise I think! He should be prepared though for any consequences that follow. I wouldn't be surprised if he concentrates on the UN point in the end as that is probably the surest ground

I think it is appropriate to say that it was the wrong decision and I think he clearly has the right to say it as he is the leader of the party....it is always more difficult to take an active position as someone will come out and say he was wrong....but then there were a lot of people who came out and said it was wrong when Blair didn't apologise so I don't see a big problem.

It won't be hard to find someone who doesn't want any apologies etc but there needs a line to be drawn under it and after that the boil should be lanced

Agree with your post.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:48 pm

Howsillyofme
You make a good point about me. I am just the wrong person to be anti-Corbyn. You could make a long list of MSM journos of whom that is also true. Because people like me also didn't want Ed Miliband we will be ignored by those who wanted him.

Not a whinge, just an observation.

I can see that my having cried wolf over Miliband undermines me when I shout it at the top of my lungs over Corbyn

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:53 pm

I'm not sure how the Americans would react to a future PM accusing them implicitly of deception like that.

Doesn't mean it's not true of course or that it wouldn't do Labour good to say it. But I wonder if he's taking the view that his best service can be to get this out of the way and allow a successor (and possible PM) to strike a different tone with America.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:55 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Awww diddums its all the mean other partys telling fibs, its all the ex leaders fault cos he cant eat a bacon sandwich, its all down to the 'messaging' (way to sound like an out of touch spadocrat btw). We just wait for the tories to mess up and everything is rosy again. It's delusional bullshit, Tubby, and you are intelligent enough to know it.

Come on how is one of the 'electables' going to get the measure of Sturgeon? How exactly are they going to do that when they are universally despised north of the border? Tory lite certainly isnt going to win back Greens, Tory lite wont deal with Plaid, Tory lite wont make a dent in SNP Scotland. Tory lite isnt going to brink back the Kippers.

Labour cannot win in 2020 without Scotland. Corbyn is the only candidate who stands a chance of doing that.

And yep Ive been to Gower many times over the years, lived in Pennard for a while, and was at a book signing there the other day. It has been labour for a century - but hey just dismiss it as gentrified. That is exactly the sneering attitude that has lost you seats across the UK.

Im not emotionally invested in this campaign. Im looking in from the outside, it really matters not one jot to me who wins. Given my past in the Labour party, however, and having seen how those of us on the Left were treated when we were viewed as the enemy within, I cant help thinking about word Karma.
I was referring to England/Wales more than anything re Sturgeon. She knew exactly what she was doing in trying to embarrass Miliband last time. The new leader will have time to prepare for that. Possibly governing with the SNP.

Welsh Labour has tried to be fairly leftwing, certainly more than the SNP is. Doesn't seem to have been an electoral panacea, does it? Plaid don't seem to be going anywhere really. UKIP are more of a problem, but seeing them as leftists manque is a bit of a stretch.

It's not going to be easy, but Cameron's not got his Lib Dem shield this time. He can't blame everything on Labour any more. And he's got a referendum on his least favourite subject coming up. On the subject of which, Corbyn's been all over the place.

And talking about messaging isn't Spad-bollocks. It's what the Tories and SNP have done very well.

Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:55 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote: I am not sure it is wise to say 'flout international war' unless he has the legal reasoning behind it - if he has then it is no less reasonable than saying we didn't but would be unwise I think! He should be prepared though for any consequences that follow. I wouldn't be surprised if he concentrates on the UN point in the end as that is probably the surest ground

I think it is appropriate to say that it was the wrong decision and I think he clearly has the right to say it as he is the leader of the party....it is always more difficult to take an active position as someone will come out and say he was wrong....but then there were a lot of people who came out and said it was wrong when Blair didn't apologise so I don't see a big problem.

It won't be hard to find someone who doesn't want any apologies etc but there needs a line to be drawn under it and after that the boil should be lanced

I know that Philippe Sands, an international law expert at the LSE, thinks Blair/Bush broke international law. But I don't know what broader opinion is.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:55 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I said, and have pretty much stood by, not posting on the Leaders election, even tonight with some fairly heated arguments - but this
FFS!
What compromises is he thinking of?
Giving an anaesthetic before burning to death in a cage...
Flogging only with lightweight soft wool..
Only blowing up half the historic sites..
Only the enemy's women being sold as slaves..

Corbyn: we need to seek "a political compromise" with ISIS. A view, certainly. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

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

Channel 4 News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.

Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh dear.

Surprised that has appeared now, I would have thought it would be kept in Cameron's back pocket for an emergency. Actually quite surprised Corbyn said it.

In Corbyn's defence as a backbench MP you can say those things. I think that is particularly disgraceful, but I just about see the benefit of at least having the view voiced. But you cannot say that stuff if you have ambitions to lead the country.

There can be no compromise with ISIS, they and their backers must be utterly defeated (although right now the world seems largely clueless how to do it). Probably worth noting the Enemy of freedom, the USA, has also come to that conclusion and actually cut a deal with Iran to achieve it.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 9:56 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm not sure how the Americans would react to a future PM accusing them implicitly of deception like that.

Doesn't mean it's not true of course or that it wouldn't do Labour good to say it. But I wonder if he's taking the view that his best service can be to get this out of the way and allow a successor (and possible PM) to strike a different tone with America.

Yep fair point but then the US are not as interested in us as they were and I doubt it will cause many ripples. I think they themselves see Iraq as a mistake though and Obama has come pretty close to saying it was wrong

I think they will find Corbyn a bit bemusing to be honest.......won't fit their stereotype of a Brit!

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:00 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Awww diddums its all the mean other partys telling fibs, its all the ex leaders fault cos he cant eat a bacon sandwich, its all down to the 'messaging' (way to sound like an out of touch spadocrat btw). We just wait for the tories to mess up and everything is rosy again. It's delusional bullshit, Tubby, and you are intelligent enough to know it.

Come on how is one of the 'electables' going to get the measure of Sturgeon? How exactly are they going to do that when they are universally despised north of the border? Tory lite certainly isnt going to win back Greens, Tory lite wont deal with Plaid, Tory lite wont make a dent in SNP Scotland. Tory lite isnt going to brink back the Kippers.

Labour cannot win in 2020 without Scotland. Corbyn is the only candidate who stands a chance of doing that.

And yep Ive been to Gower many times over the years, lived in Pennard for a while, and was at a book signing there the other day. It has been labour for a century - but hey just dismiss it as gentrified. That is exactly the sneering attitude that has lost you seats across the UK.

Im not emotionally invested in this campaign. Im looking in from the outside, it really matters not one jot to me who wins. Given my past in the Labour party, however, and having seen how those of us on the Left were treated when we were viewed as the enemy within, I cant help thinking about word Karma.
I was referring to England/Wales more than anything re Sturgeon. She knew exactly what she was doing in trying to embarrass Miliband last time. The new leader will have time to prepare for that. Possibly governing with the SNP.

Welsh Labour has tried to be fairly leftwing, certainly more than the SNP is. Doesn't seem to have been an electoral panacea, does it? Plaid don't seem to be going anywhere really. UKIP are more of a problem, but seeing them as leftists manque is a bit of a stretch.

It's not going to be easy, but Cameron's not got his Lib Dem shield this time. He can't blame everything on Labour any more. And he's got a referendum on his least favourite subject coming up. On the subject of which, Corbyn's been all over the place.

And talking about messaging isn't Spad-bollocks. It's what the Tories and SNP have done very well.
Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.

Labour doesn't have a hope of winning back Scotland in 2020. It is also true that any political platform capable of winning back Scotland would be utterly toxic in England and Wales.

A radical move would be to campaign for Scottish independence in 2020, arguing that since they want it they should have it and rUK will be better off without them.

Nuts I know but Sturgeon would implode given her current Tory/SNP strategy.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:03 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I said, and have pretty much stood by, not posting on the Leaders election, even tonight with some fairly heated arguments - but this
FFS!
What compromises is he thinking of?
Giving an anaesthetic before burning to death in a cage...
Flogging only with lightweight soft wool..
Only blowing up half the historic sites..
Only the enemy's women being sold as slaves..

Corbyn: we need to seek "a political compromise" with ISIS. A view, certainly. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

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

Channel 4 News has unearthed footage of Corbyn in 2014 comparing the actions of Isis to US forces retaking the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004. “Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling, likewise what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling,” Corbyn told Russia Today.

Corbyn’s campaign, in response, said he regarded Isis as a “vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... our-leader" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh dear.

Surprised that has appeared now, I would have thought it would be kept in Cameron's back pocket for an emergency. Actually quite surprised Corbyn said it.

In Corbyn's defence as a backbench MP you can say those things. I think that is particularly disgraceful, but I just about see the benefit of at least having the view voiced. But you cannot say that stuff if you have ambitions to lead the country.

There can be no compromise with ISIS, they and their backers must be utterly defeated (although right now the world seems largely clueless how to do it). Probably worth noting the Enemy of freedom, the USA, has also come to that conclusion and actually cut a deal with Iran to achieve it.

Votes are cast now. It is too late.

It is very important in politics to establish the "story" about your opponent early on. Once it is fixed in the public mind, that is that.

Every time IS behead someone Corbyn will be asked what we should do and he will give some nonsense about opening a dialogue and how Americans did some brutal things as well let's not forget.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:04 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm not sure how the Americans would react to a future PM accusing them implicitly of deception like that.

Doesn't mean it's not true of course or that it wouldn't do Labour good to say it. But I wonder if he's taking the view that his best service can be to get this out of the way and allow a successor (and possible PM) to strike a different tone with America.

Yep fair point but then the US are not as interested in us as they were and I doubt it will cause many ripples. I think they themselves see Iraq as a mistake though and Obama has come pretty close to saying it was wrong

I think they will find Corbyn a bit bemusing to be honest.......won't fit their stereotype of a Brit!

I think equating their actions in that Fallujah with ISIS (given what happened to their soldiers) is pretty incendiary myself. Not sure it would make any difference, but Corbyn probably won't be offered any sort of visit to the country.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:06 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.

The SNP, as they affected the last election, pretty much popped up at the worst time possible, talking unhelpful stuff, quite deliberately, about rewriting the budget and holding feet to the fire. In reality, they'd have been about as powerful as the Lib Dems.

I think this can be prepared for next time. Had Labour not been bashful about its fiscal policy (which wasn't very austere) they'd have been less vulnerable to the SNP doing this. The actual fiscal differences were pretty small.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:06 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Oh dear.

Surprised that has appeared now, I would have thought it would be kept in Cameron's back pocket for an emergency. Actually quite surprised Corbyn said it.

In Corbyn's defence as a backbench MP you can say those things. I think that is particularly disgraceful, but I just about see the benefit of at least having the view voiced. But you cannot say that stuff if you have ambitions to lead the country.

There can be no compromise with ISIS, they and their backers must be utterly defeated (although right now the world seems largely clueless how to do it). Probably worth noting the Enemy of freedom, the USA, has also come to that conclusion and actually cut a deal with Iran to achieve it.

Votes are cast now. It is too late.

It is very important in politics to establish the "story" about your opponent early on. Once it is fixed in the public mind, that is that.

Every time IS behead someone Corbyn will be asked what we should do and he will give some nonsense about opening a dialogue and how Americans did some brutal things as well let's not forget.

Some votes are cast, not all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:09 pm

I think most just cast when they get the ballot. I did.

I won't be revealing my choices for fear it will influence anyone

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:09 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I was referring to England/Wales more than anything re Sturgeon. She knew exactly what she was doing in trying to embarrass Miliband last time. The new leader will have time to prepare for that. Possibly governing with the SNP.

Welsh Labour has tried to be fairly leftwing, certainly more than the SNP is. Doesn't seem to have been an electoral panacea, does it? Plaid don't seem to be going anywhere really. UKIP are more of a problem, but seeing them as leftists manque is a bit of a stretch.

It's not going to be easy, but Cameron's not got his Lib Dem shield this time. He can't blame everything on Labour any more. And he's got a referendum on his least favourite subject coming up. On the subject of which, Corbyn's been all over the place.

And talking about messaging isn't Spad-bollocks. It's what the Tories and SNP have done very well.
Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.
Labour doesn't have a hope of winning back Scotland in 2020. It is also true that any political platform capable of winning back Scotland would be utterly toxic in England and Wales.

A radical move would be to campaign for Scottish independence in 2020, arguing that since they want it they should have it and rUK will be better off without them.

Nuts I know but Sturgeon would implode given her current Tory/SNP strategy.

Well I celarly disagree on your opening sentences, Labour can win bback seats from the SNP, and they can do it on a platform that will certainly win back support in England that left Labour for exactly the same reason Scots did.

Of course with a defeatist approach to messaging, you dont stand a chance. I am stunned that you think surrendering Scotland is somehow a better electoral strategy than fighting tooth and nail to win it back. Labour may as well give up now and hand the keys to Downing street to the tories in perpetuity.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:10 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I'm not sure how the Americans would react to a future PM accusing them implicitly of deception like that.

Doesn't mean it's not true of course or that it wouldn't do Labour good to say it. But I wonder if he's taking the view that his best service can be to get this out of the way and allow a successor (and possible PM) to strike a different tone with America.

Yep fair point but then the US are not as interested in us as they were and I doubt it will cause many ripples. I think they themselves see Iraq as a mistake though and Obama has come pretty close to saying it was wrong

I think they will find Corbyn a bit bemusing to be honest.......won't fit their stereotype of a Brit!

I think Sir Humphrey would be whispering in his ear something about American investment if he were PM!

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:13 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: Corbyn is not to blame for any of that....if you, TE and Hugo want to take out your frustration then blame those who did that rather than the rest of us who are fed up of being taken for granted and no longer want to accept the political status quo where we have 3 'main' English parties spouting the same crap
Per the IFS, biggest fiscal difference between the parties in the last election since 1992. And the SNP were more austere than Labour.

There was a danger that Kendall could make Labour very similar to the Tories, but she's tailed off last.

I know there was and I supported it.....but Miliband lost and the reasoning amongst the party grandees was that it was an attack on 'aspiration'.

I know it is nonsense, you know it is nonsense but there are a number in the party who think it is true and they are still around....Kendall is definitely on this page

Cooper and Burnham could have come out fighting for the manifesto that they campaigned on but they didn't and I lost confidence in them at that point. If they came out now and reaffirmed the manifesto and called out the Tories for what they are then I may change my mind - possibly not on Cooper though as she is too strident on 'security' for my liking

One of Burnham's first statements, as the leadership contest kicked off, was that Ed's was the best manifesto he had ever stood on in all his years of seeking/defending his seat. I wish the Labour Party hadn't fallen into the short-term(ist) habit of expecting a leader who didn't win first time out to stand aside before they were dumped. I'd, foolishly, thought that when we elected Ed in 2010 it was for the long-term rather than just one election. Did no-one in the upper echelons of the party want to refuse his offered resignation? Where would we be if the tinkerers and inventors gave up when their initial prototype didn't quite work? Winning in 2015 would have been icing on the cake of a re-growing party with a leader who was gaining respect, however grudging. Now, if Corbyn does become leader, there is a possible chance of winning in 2020 but whoever wins there is no-one guaranteed to win then - and no-one guaranteed to lose, either. I have a concern, though, that even should the Party be willing to stand with Corbyn through 'til the 2025 election (regardless of winning or not in five years' time) he could be ready to stand aside by then and we'd be into 'when will he retire' rather than 'when will he resign' territory. Now, I think he's likely to remain pretty fit and youthful for much longer than that but leading a party - and, especially, being PM - is an exhausting (thus ageing) responsibility.

So:

My votes (once my ballot papers have arrived and barring 'events') will eventually go back looking pretty much like @refitman's with Burnham first, Corbyn second, no third or fourth preferences for the leadership - and Eagle, Creasy, Watson, in that order (if I use three preferences) but most likely no fourth or fifth preferences. I'll wait to fill them in until close to the deadline but not so close that they'd get back too late.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:16 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.
The SNP, as they affected the last election, pretty much popped up at the worst time possible, talking unhelpful stuff, quite deliberately, about rewriting the budget and holding feet to the fire. In reality, they'd have been about as powerful as the Lib Dems.

I think this can be prepared for next time. Had Labour not been bashful about its fiscal policy (which wasn't very austere) they'd have been less vulnerable to the SNP doing this. The actual fiscal differences were pretty small.

The SNP didnt just pop up suddenly it has been over a decade of their politicians tearing Labour a new one in Scotland, over the complete disregard for Scottish voters, over a complete betrayal of the principles the Labour party are supposed to stand for. 2015 was a complete repudiation of Blairite labour across the UK. Whatever you say about Milliband (and I openly stated I liked him) he was hampered by the very wing of the party that has lost Scotland, the very wing now giving up on Hardie's homeland. The very wing that claim they are 'electable' in spite of the evidence of two elections, and loss of millions of voters.

Corbyn filled halls Scotland. Kendall couldnt even fill the back room of a pub - she literally managed six people.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:20 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
Thank you for your posts here.
love
cJA

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:21 pm

Temulkar wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.
Labour doesn't have a hope of winning back Scotland in 2020. It is also true that any political platform capable of winning back Scotland would be utterly toxic in England and Wales.

A radical move would be to campaign for Scottish independence in 2020, arguing that since they want it they should have it and rUK will be better off without them.

Nuts I know but Sturgeon would implode given her current Tory/SNP strategy.
Well I celarly disagree on your opening sentences, Labour can win bback seats from the SNP, and they can do it on a platform that will certainly win back support in England that left Labour for exactly the same reason Scots did.

Of course with a defeatist approach to messaging, you dont stand a chance. I am stunned that you think surrendering Scotland is somehow a better electoral strategy than fighting tooth and nail to win it back. Labour may as well give up now and hand the keys to Downing street to the tories in perpetuity.

The Scottish decision to turn to the SNP is an emotional not a rational thing. It cannot be defeated by offering a more left wing vision than the SNP does. The Scots do not want to listen. While campaigning in England on a radical left platform will pick up Green votes it will lose more votes to the centre than it gains from the left. I see no convincing analysis that 2015 was lost because votes were lost on the left, more that voters chose the right to lock out the parties of the far left.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:23 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Possibly governing with the SNP? So you are giving up on Scotland then. I am honestly dumbfounded by that statement. The threat of the SNP in government with Labour was one of the Tories most effective lines of attack. It will be again in 2020.

You have to win back Scotland to stand any hope of success in 2020. That is a simple fact. English voters wont go for an SNP/Labour coalition, that has just been proven.

If that is your messaging, it's one which is certain to lose the next general election.
The SNP, as they affected the last election, pretty much popped up at the worst time possible, talking unhelpful stuff, quite deliberately, about rewriting the budget and holding feet to the fire. In reality, they'd have been about as powerful as the Lib Dems.

I think this can be prepared for next time. Had Labour not been bashful about its fiscal policy (which wasn't very austere) they'd have been less vulnerable to the SNP doing this. The actual fiscal differences were pretty small.
The SNP didnt just pop up suddenly it has been over a decade of their politicians tearing Labour a new one in Scotland, over the complete disregard for Scottish voters, over a complete betrayal of the principles the Labour party are supposed to stand for. 2015 was a complete repudiation of Blairite labour across the UK. Whatever you say about Milliband (and I openly stated I liked him) he was hampered by the very wing of the party that has lost Scotland, the very wing now giving up on Hardie's homeland. The very wing that claim they are 'electable' in spite of the evidence of two elections, and loss of millions of voters.

Corbyn filled halls Scotland. Kendall couldnt even fill the back room of a pub - she literally managed six people.

Corbyn filled small halls in Scotland, but reports on enthusiasm for him are mixed. Sturgeon filled streets. Unless the SNP screws up they will remain dominant.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:29 pm

Temulkar wrote:
The SNP didnt just pop up suddenly it has been over a decade of their politicians tearing Labour a new one in Scotland, over the complete disregard for Scottish voters, over a complete betrayal of the principles the Labour party are supposed to stand for. 2015 was a complete repudiation of Blairite labour across the UK. Whatever you say about Milliband (and I openly stated I liked him) he was hampered by the very wing of the party that has lost Scotland, the very wing now giving up on Hardie's homeland. The very wing that claim they are 'electable' in spite of the evidence of two elections, and loss of millions of voters.

Corbyn filled halls Scotland. Kendall couldnt even fill the back room of a pub - she literally managed six people.

"Over a decade"?

This was their signature policy in 2007. On which they got elected and basically governed with the Tories.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/3897" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's forcing a £450m cut on Scottish local government, undreamed of by even Osborne at that time. Pure Keir Hardie, eh?

They got their arses kicked in 2010 by Labour too- funny decades you operate in, don't you?

You're not so keen to talk about what the SNP actually do, I notice.

They emerged as a UK issue pretty late in the day. That's what I mean. That won't happen again.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:31 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Labour doesn't have a hope of winning back Scotland in 2020. It is also true that any political platform capable of winning back Scotland would be utterly toxic in England and Wales.

A radical move would be to campaign for Scottish independence in 2020, arguing that since they want it they should have it and rUK will be better off without them.

Nuts I know but Sturgeon would implode given her current Tory/SNP strategy.
Well I celarly disagree on your opening sentences, Labour can win bback seats from the SNP, and they can do it on a platform that will certainly win back support in England that left Labour for exactly the same reason Scots did.

Of course with a defeatist approach to messaging, you dont stand a chance. I am stunned that you think surrendering Scotland is somehow a better electoral strategy than fighting tooth and nail to win it back. Labour may as well give up now and hand the keys to Downing street to the tories in perpetuity.
The Scottish decision to turn to the SNP is an emotional not a rational thing. It cannot be defeated by offering a more left wing vision than the SNP does. The Scots do not want to listen. While campaigning in England on a radical left platform will pick up Green votes it will lose more votes to the centre than it gains from the left. I see no convincing analysis that 2015 was lost because votes were lost on the left, more that voters chose the right to lock out the parties of the far left.

The Scots dont want to listen to the Blairites, They do seem to want to listen to Corbyn in their droves. That is rather the point isnt it. He is filling halls all over the UK including in Scotland.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:32 pm

Let's see how long the SNPs rightwing leaders and their new leftwing supporters go without falling out too.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:35 pm

Temulkar wrote:
The Scots dont want to listen to the Blairites, They do seem to want to listen to Corbyn in their droves. That is rather the point isnt it. He is filling halls all over the UK including in Scotland.

And Tony Benn filled halls. Lots of people agreed with him, and lots of others liked him because he said what he means. Doesn't mean he or Corbyn can win elections or lead a party.

Let's see Corbyn's popularity when his vague stuff about bringing in more tax is blown away, and has to raise tax on regular people.

Burnham and Cooper were both loyal members of Brown and Miliband governments. They're not like David Miliband or Jim Murphy.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
The SNP didnt just pop up suddenly it has been over a decade of their politicians tearing Labour a new one in Scotland, over the complete disregard for Scottish voters, over a complete betrayal of the principles the Labour party are supposed to stand for. 2015 was a complete repudiation of Blairite labour across the UK. Whatever you say about Milliband (and I openly stated I liked him) he was hampered by the very wing of the party that has lost Scotland, the very wing now giving up on Hardie's homeland. The very wing that claim they are 'electable' in spite of the evidence of two elections, and loss of millions of voters.

Corbyn filled halls Scotland. Kendall couldnt even fill the back room of a pub - she literally managed six people.
"Over a decade"?

This was their signature policy in 2007. On which they got elected and basically governed with the Tories.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/3897" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's forcing a £450m cut on Scottish local government, undreamed of by even Osborne at that time. Pure Keir Hardie, eh?

They got their arses kicked in 2010 by Labour too- funny decades you operate in, don't you?

You're not so keen to talk about what the SNP actually do, I notice.

They emerged as a UK issue pretty late in the day. That's what I mean. That won't happen again.

I am a unionist I utterly repudiate nationalism in all its forms. That is why surrendering Scotland to it is repugnant to me.

Since 2003 the SNP have been on an electoral roll, are you seriously denying that? In 2007, 8 years ago they became the government of Scotland they are still there. In 2010 their vote increased by 2.3 % hardly getting their arses kicked (although they lost a seat in the vagaries of FPTP) They have now taken all but 3 Westminster seats in Scotland.

2003 - 2015 - OVER A DECADE - Basic maths.

Now, how are you going to win a general election in the UK without winning back seats in Scotland?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:45 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:I don't believe I am:

A) Calling anybody stupid and
B) Taking out my frustrations on anybody.

When I point out how utterly hopeless Temulkars argument was against Tubby's original point.

I can see the PMQs now.

Corbyn - I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx.

Cameron - I won't take lessons in morality from a man who associates with somebody who says yyyyyyy

Corbyn - Hah so what I have three pictures of Blair.

Which is really what this boils down to. As for absolving Blair feel free to point out where my argument does that?

You may also want to check my posting history to see my Blairite credentials in full. However not everything the New Labour government did was bad, and many of the redistributive things - like tax credits - that Cameron is cutting were a New Labour creation.

And for the avoidance of doubt I thought Harman was a disgrace for not voting against the government.

I also think Danczuk and Stringer are nobs and was a big supporter of Ed Miliband unlike some.

Burnham: I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx

Cameron: I won't take lessons from a man responsible for 1200 seats at South Staffs

Cooper: I think it is outrageous the PM is doing xxxxx

Cameron: I won't take lessons from a woman taking instruction from her husband who wrecked the economy

The guy is a liar and a rogue...he will do this to everyone.

I would like us to have a Shadow Cabinet member standing up and saying he is either a liar or ignorant of the facts. If told to withdraw then be prepared to get chucked out. If he has lied, or is ignorant, then he will not be able to hide it so easily when it will lead the news. Shouldn't be difficult finding an example as they do it weekly

I also think you are absolving Blair from the very poor misjudgements he has made as well - as mentioned before it is you who have raised this as an issue with Corbyn...just pointing out that politicians have made errors of judgement before and not been penalised for it. Cameron is hardly safe from this accusation either but seemingly it only matters for Corbyn

If you argue he is more vulnerable to the press making a big deal of it than Cameron then you are definitely right but then that bunch of tax dodgers and crooks will do that to no matter who threatens their hegemony....Miliband anyone? and the only way to win is to hit them hard and try to get through to the public what type of people they are

I particularly despise the lies told in the House, forgetting all those left unchallenged elsewhere, they should be severely reprimanded and banished from the chamber. That would make the news headlines. 'And now I really have gone blank regarding names and cannot even think of the Speaker's (no I have not had a joint in case anyone is wondering). Anyway one of the more vociferous was himself reprimanded by the speaker for challenging either IDS' or rhyming slang's lies. I was a little surprised that he let Glenda have as much of a say at IDS that time.

Anyway whatever his name, I've just remembered Chris Bryant, Cameron too has had a go at him and if it weren't in public I wouldn't put it past him to tarnish him with homophobic slurs no matter the equality he bravely pushed through the House. 'And on that score John Bercow (his name's back too) should stop their lies forthwith. Has there been any such petition, anybody?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 10:48 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
The Scots dont want to listen to the Blairites, They do seem to want to listen to Corbyn in their droves. That is rather the point isnt it. He is filling halls all over the UK including in Scotland.
And Tony Benn filled halls. Lots of people agreed with him, and lots of others liked him because he said what he means. Doesn't mean he or Corbyn can win elections or lead a party.

Let's see Corbyn's popularity when his vague stuff about bringing in more tax is blown away, and has to raise tax on regular people.

Burnham and Cooper were both loyal members of Brown and Miliband governments. They're not like David Miliband or Jim Murphy.

The Scots dont want Burnham or Cooper, no rallies north of the border for them. No tens of thousands signing up for them. No excitement, no energy, no hope.

How are you going to win a UK General Election if you dont fight for Scotland?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 11:00 pm

Anyways I have work to do, so need to log for a bit. It's been a good discussion, so I hope I havent annoyed or upset anyone.

For anyone interested The Times review was awesome at the weekend, and I am in Chester on Bank Holiday Saturday doing a reading and signing if you're near.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 11:06 pm

Temulkar wrote: I am a unionist I utterly repudiate nationalism in all its forms. That is why surrendering Scotland to it is repugnant to me.

Since 2003 the SNP have been on an electoral roll, are you seriously denying that? In 2007, 8 years ago they became the government of Scotland they are still there. In 2010 their vote increased by 2.3 % hardly getting their arses kicked (although they lost a seat in the vagaries of FPTP) They have now taken all but 3 Westminster seats in Scotland.

2003 - 2015 - OVER A DECADE - Basic maths.

Now, how are you going to win a general election in the UK without winning back seats in Scotland?

I'm not surrendering Scotland. I said the SNP could be part of a UK government. 3% England and Wales swing to Labour and that's on the cards.

If indeed the SNP roll started right in 2003 that's pretty much straight after these heirs of Keir Hardie dumped their most leftwing policy- the "penny for Scotland" 1p on Income Tax. If you see any of them, press them on this and they'll lie to you about how they'd have lost it all in Barnett funding. See their Local Income Tax from 2007. See 8 years of council tax freezes. And it's very clear that the SNP haven't been romping home for a decade on the back of being leftwing.

The big growth in the SNP very clearly comes after 2010. They and the Tories in Westminster know that each is mutually reinforcing. They then get to hold the Referendum and basically hoover up all the Yes votes, and add more as Labour has this election.

This, by the way, is worth a look. Just a blog, but Kevin Hague (who I think is a reliable number cruncher endorse it)

http://blog.mcnalu.net/scottish-government-cuts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, in real terms, although the total Scottish government's total expenditure is now above what it was in 2008, there has been a £2.5bn real terms cut in what it gives to local government. About £1bn of this occurred from 2013-14 when police and fire services were brought under central control, but that still leaves a real terms cut of around £1.5bn. In addition to this, the 2015-16 budget enforces a council tax freeze for the eighth year in a row, i.e. the tax councils collect from their residents has been decreasing in real terms for eight years.

ie the SNP are getting a far less raw deal from Westminster than they say, and making it worse with their policy towards local government.

This is clever. But it isn't Keir Hardie.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 11:12 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
The Scots dont want to listen to the Blairites, They do seem to want to listen to Corbyn in their droves. That is rather the point isnt it. He is filling halls all over the UK including in Scotland.
And Tony Benn filled halls. Lots of people agreed with him, and lots of others liked him because he said what he means. Doesn't mean he or Corbyn can win elections or lead a party.

Let's see Corbyn's popularity when his vague stuff about bringing in more tax is blown away, and has to raise tax on regular people.

Burnham and Cooper were both loyal members of Brown and Miliband governments. They're not like David Miliband or Jim Murphy.
The Scots dont want Burnham or Cooper, no rallies north of the border for them. No tens of thousands signing up for them. No excitement, no energy, no hope.

How are you going to win a UK General Election if you dont fight for Scotland?

There won't be any hope in Corbyn either when it's clear that he needs to put taxes on middle earners up and can't run a left-wing administration by "People's QE", employing more tax collectors, eliminating tax incentives and 50p tax rates.

The SNP know their electorate well, and they know not to raise taxes on middle earners. They'd probably lose some leftwing support to Corbyn but easily hold on and attack Corbyn from the other side. They changed sides before, remember. When Independence looked on the cards, it was "low tax Scotland bringing in international investment".

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 20 Aug, 2015 11:19 pm

Not that these things are ever quite the competent plots one likes to think, look at the figures in that link for 2013/4 and 2014/5 and 2015/6.

2013/4 is austere- nice build up to the Indyref there.
2014/5 less so- scope for however the Scottish government wants to play it.
2015/6 3.9% rise! Nice one for the SNP to romp home at Holyrood (as they would anyway, but it's a nice boost) on the back of "progressive SNP fights back against unionist cuts")

You can also see how the cuts in before the 2011 Holyrood election helped the SNP too.