Wednesday 14th October 2015
Posted: Wed 14 Oct, 2015 7:11 am
Morning all.
I blow hot and cold on this - but, overall, I think (possibly over-optimistically) it's true.We’re not as selfish as we think we are: here’s the proof
George Monbiot
Stories of greed and ego bombard us. But a new study shows that humans are inherently good
Rather like the Belgrano, the economy was heading in the other direction when the Tories torpedoed it.Osborne said: “A fortnight ago, Labour told voters they were ready to back our plans. But now, they have confirmed they want to go on borrowing forever – loading debts onto our children that they can never hope to repay. This is not socialist compassion – it’s economic cruelty. As Labour’s Great Recession showed, those who suffer most when government run unsustainable deficits are not the richest but the poorest.
“So today, with Labour’s economic policy in obvious chaos, I call on all moderate, progressive Labour MPs to defy their leadership and join with us to vote for economic sanity. Failing that, they should at least follow the advice of the former shadow chancellor and abstain.”
I thought this at the time but she definitely says that there is an over-consumption of steel in the world and yet hansard...TobyLatimer wrote:I missed this little exchange yesterday. I love Dennis in Beast mode to bits, but Soubry is hard faced as they come too.with barrister training. Was it really sexist to say "She even looks like Thatcher"?
[youtube]7HsYL2zQO4g[/youtube]
I remember in that programme about the Commons, Rees-Mogg used to go back and get things corrected - presumably Soubry went back and said "I didn't mean over...I meant to say under"Anna Soubry: So have I. [Interruption.] You know what, that is so out of order. [Interruption.] Well, I do. I find it offensive and sexist, and the hon. Gentleman should know better. I know he has a bigger majority than me, but in Broxtowe more people voted for me than for him in Bolsover. He needs to understand that there is under-consumption of steel in the world. The price of steel has almost halved. Fine words are not enough. Realism and action are required. We have to live in the real world, not the fantasy world of the ’60s.
Sounds like Political Correctness Gone Mad to me.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:It's probably not Skinner's best line but the accusation of sexism is borderline in my view. He's hardly suggesting that it's because she's a woman that she wants to close steelworks.
Good words TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Have to admit to being genuinely confused by Ohso's comment yesterday evening suggesting "you lot need to get with the programme". Let me make my position clear, what I am attempting to do is critique, pointing out some shortcomings in the Corbyn strategies in the hope that we can all recognize it, amend them, and move forward; however it seems that a good number of posters on here take such critique as outright condemnation of Corbyn and support for the machinations of the Blairite right of the Party. If you genuinely think that then I, and others, are wasting our time here and this place will become the echo chamber the vile Rusty has always claimed it to be.
Over to you folks.
And if anybody can show me where I've said any of that I'll be very surprised. My posts have been an attempt to suggest "he would do better if .... - for example, by not giving the Fourth Estate such easy opportunities on a plate, of by giving himself chances to respond to and refute Cameron in PMQs - , but it seems that doing so puts me on a par with Simon Danczuk for some here (not you Ohso, please don't think I was singling you out, I was just surprised by the vehemence of your post).refitman wrote:Good words TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Have to admit to being genuinely confused by Ohso's comment yesterday evening suggesting "you lot need to get with the programme". Let me make my position clear, what I am attempting to do is critique, pointing out some shortcomings in the Corbyn strategies in the hope that we can all recognize it, amend them, and move forward; however it seems that a good number of posters on here take such critique as outright condemnation of Corbyn and support for the machinations of the Blairite right of the Party. If you genuinely think that then I, and others, are wasting our time here and this place will become the echo chamber the vile Rusty has always claimed it to be.
Over to you folks.
While there are constructive non-pro-Corbyn comments (he would do better if... etc), it seems that the overwhelmingly negative ones (he's killed the party, Labour are doomed, he's useless) appear to be holding peoples attention.
Sorry, wasn't accusing you of being in the "we're doomed" group.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:And if anybody can show me where I've said any of that I'll be very surprised. My posts have been an attempt to suggest "he would do better if .... - for example, by not giving the Fourth Estate such easy opportunities on a plate, of by giving himself chances to respond to and refute Cameron in PMQs - , but it seems that doing so puts me on a par with Simon Danczuk for some here (not you Ohso, please don't think I was singling you out, I was just surprised by the vehemence of your post).refitman wrote:Good words TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Have to admit to being genuinely confused by Ohso's comment yesterday evening suggesting "you lot need to get with the programme". Let me make my position clear, what I am attempting to do is critique, pointing out some shortcomings in the Corbyn strategies in the hope that we can all recognize it, amend them, and move forward; however it seems that a good number of posters on here take such critique as outright condemnation of Corbyn and support for the machinations of the Blairite right of the Party. If you genuinely think that then I, and others, are wasting our time here and this place will become the echo chamber the vile Rusty has always claimed it to be.
Over to you folks.
While there are constructive non-pro-Corbyn comments (he would do better if... etc), it seems that the overwhelmingly negative ones (he's killed the party, Labour are doomed, he's useless) appear to be holding peoples attention.
I think the majority of his Cabinet appointments were good (apart from the return of serial liability Dianne Abbott), especially John McDonnell as Chancellor; those of us who lived in London back in the GLC days will remember McDonnell did a pretty decent job as Ken's Chair of Finance and Deputy Leader, in tough funding circumstances not dissimilar to those facing us today ....well, up until the point where they fell out over rate capping. My views on Watson are known, and that appointment was not Jeremy's but due to the Labour Party electorate; I have to respect that decision, but I've always feared we would regret it.
Critique is not negativity, it is about suggesting people look at things dispassionately. But passion seems to be ruling the roost at the moment here, on Twitter and elsewhere, something I think will be damaging in the long run; if people like me feel that they are being silenced then we are at the top of a very long & slippery slope. I hope I'm wrong, but increasingly I feel without hope.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Have to admit to being genuinely confused by Ohso's comment yesterday evening suggesting "you lot need to get with the programme". Let me make my position clear, what I am attempting to do is critique, pointing out some shortcomings in the Corbyn strategies in the hope that we can all recognize it, amend them, and move forward; however it seems that a good number of posters on here take such critique as outright condemnation of Corbyn and support for the machinations of the Blairite right of the Party. If you genuinely think that then I, and others, are wasting our time here and this place will become the echo chamber the vile Rusty has always claimed it to be.
Over to you folks.
Sorry Dan, realized you weren't, but others appear to be doing just that. I looked in for a while before I started posting again, and saw something of a mob mentality emerging where anybody not eulogizing Corbyn was being leapt on, which definitely made me think twice about posting again and (I suspect) has silenced more than one person. But if that is what people want ......refitman wrote: Sorry, wasn't accusing you of being in the "we're doomed" group.
I have no idea if it's sexist, but it made me laugh, and that's a rare thing in politics these days. We are becoming more like the USA with the doom and gloom siege mentality of the media, where every wobble is a disaster. Ties in with the Monbiot piece linked earlier. People are basically nice but the media tells us everyone else is selfish and nasty and our response is to look to ourselves and batten down the hatches and, in extreme cases, vote Tory to protect what little we have from the (media invented) nasty, greedy people, not realising it's the Tories themselves that are the threat, not immigrants/lefties/Scottish nationlists/benefit claimants/disabled/public sector workers etc.refitman wrote:Sounds like Political Correctness Gone Mad to me.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:It's probably not Skinner's best line but the accusation of sexism is borderline in my view. He's hardly suggesting that it's because she's a woman that she wants to close steelworks.
It depends on your interpretation of 'not eulogizing Corbyn'. I can't think of anyone here who does eulogize him, tbh.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Sorry Dan, realized you weren't, but others appear to be doing just that. I looked in for a while before I started posting again, and saw something of a mob mentality emerging where anybody not eulogizing Corbyn was being leapt on, which definitely made me think twice about posting again and (I suspect) has silenced more than one person. But if that is what people want ......refitman wrote: Sorry, wasn't accusing you of being in the "we're doomed" group.
I don't know, Toby, but was it on my part to suggest she may be pig-headed?TobyLatimer wrote:I missed this little exchange yesterday. I love Dennis in Beast mode to bits, but Soubry is hard faced as they come too.with barrister training. Was it really sexist to say "She even looks like Thatcher?
You'd have to be going some to be more cynical about the MSM than me!! And while I agree that a 'media strategy' will have little, if any, effect that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one; as I said yesterday I know Jeremy's USP is his "I'm a political rule breaker" approach, something that will prove to be a strength in the long run, that doesn't mean he can pretend that the rules don't exist - they do exist, at the moment they are set by the Fourth Estate, so the approach should be to find a way to nullify them and get the Labour message to the electorate. Miliband was beginning to look at ways of doing that (the online unit, Gloria De Piero's Doorstep teams etc) and, although they proved not to be as effective as they should have been they were a sensible first step; I think Corbyn should be building on that, not ignoring it, but it seems I may be in a minority here.howsillyofme1 wrote: Good morning
I am not a great supporter of Corbyn and wish that we had managed to find a genuine left wing radical who did not have the baggage but those type of people were weeded out of the party since the Blair years - only now did we see them start return in the 2010 and 2015 intakes
In the end though Corbyn won a crushing victory and he clearly has a mandate from the party etc move things to the left. Personally I think he has tried pretty hard to allay some of these fears and, in fact, it is this that has caused him the most problems. The McDonnell austerity bill statement a few weeks ago, Trident and others have actually been pushed by the right of the party screeching for him to set out his agenda or they will take their ball home with them
There have been some fair critiques from a number of posters on here and we, as true members of the left will always be dissenters to an extent. In fact I have seen very little to suggest that Corbyn is demanding a blind following of ultra-left policies. Tubby, TGS, Willow and HindleA have all contributed to the debate and have made some good points about where Corbyn has made mistakes and how he could possibly rectify them. They clearly are not ideological soulmates of Corbyn, and they should not change their views just because he is leader.
I do not agree with some of their comments but that is mainly because I have a much more cynical view of the media and the neoliberal wing of the party. I think there are some members who are not just dissenting but are being used as willing pawns by the Tories and their allies in undermining the party. There are not that many and we could probably name most of them but they are vocal and have unfettered access to the media
Labour still has some very good politicians and I hope over time we can see less tension - people like Burnham, Cooper, Starmer, Nandy, Jarvis etc are still the future of the party post-2020 and I hope they can work with Corbyn to marry his ability to reach out to the radicals and disenfranchised with their understanding of how to frame the argument. If he can get Ed back in some capacity as well that would be a real bonus
The upshot is that there may need to be some bloodletting...in order to change there has to be a break with the past, people like Mandelson, and some of the acolytes of the neoliberal ring may need to be cut out of things if they cannot accept that the party is going to move to the left. If they want to cross the floor then good luck to them....or even move to the Lib Dems lol. It may cause a storm now but the sooner they make up their minds the better. It is FiFo. And before you say it...yes, Corbyn was always a dissenter himself in the past but the way he went about int was different - and he never used it to undermine the party to the benefit of the Tories. He could always articulate his reasoning as well - based upon his own principles. If you hear a Chris Leslie or a Danczuk - they have no real reasoning.
To me the argument made that Miliband was the final straw. He tried to move the party to the left in his own way and was supported by many on here and in the party. A truly talented and courageous politician. And who did for him.....the same forces that are going after Corbyn...the same names and he same newspapers. It was not the left that lost the election in 2015 it was the same people who want to lose it in 2020 so they, in their own minds, can bring it back to the right.
This is why I do not believe there is an way that a 'media strategy' will have any effect with the MSM - their die is cast and it shall stay the same until 2020 - if Corbyn was replaced by someone like Jarvis or Starmer there will be an initial attempt to pull them back to the right. If they resist they will be attacked as well (all Starmer's decisions in the CPS will be raked over, and Jarvis will have his army career looked at as well for skeletons). The only way is the neoliberal way for these people....raping of the poor to enrich the wealthy
Fair comment, but I think we also need to acknowledge that some of the MSM stuff (albeit not much) needs to be taken on board, it can't just be ignored however much we think it should. But I'm a lone voice on that one, so probably wrong.I think people, by which I suppose I mean me, hear enough criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell in the MSM and prefer something a bit more positive here.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Sorry Dan, realized you weren't, but others appear to be doing just that. I looked in for a while before I started posting again, and saw something of a mob mentality emerging where anybody not eulogizing Corbyn was being leapt on, which definitely made me think twice about posting again and (I suspect) has silenced more than one person. But if that is what people want ......refitman wrote: Sorry, wasn't accusing you of being in the "we're doomed" group.
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:You'd have to be going some to be more cynical about the MSM than me!! And while I agree that a 'media strategy' will have little, if any, effect that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one; as I said yesterday I know Jeremy's USP is his "I'm a political rule breaker" approach, something that will prove to be a strength in the long run, that doesn't mean he can pretend that the rules don't exist - they do exist, at the moment they are set by the Fourth Estate, so the approach should be to find a way to nullify them and get the Labour message to the electorate. Miliband was beginning to look at ways of doing that (the online unit, Gloria De Piero's Doorstep teams etc) and, although they proved not to be as effective as they should have been they were a sensible first step; I think Corbyn should be building on that, not ignoring it, but it seems I may be in a minority here.howsillyofme1 wrote: Good morning
I am not a great supporter of Corbyn and wish that we had managed to find a genuine left wing radical who did not have the baggage but those type of people were weeded out of the party since the Blair years - only now did we see them start return in the 2010 and 2015 intakes
In the end though Corbyn won a crushing victory and he clearly has a mandate from the party etc move things to the left. Personally I think he has tried pretty hard to allay some of these fears and, in fact, it is this that has caused him the most problems. The McDonnell austerity bill statement a few weeks ago, Trident and others have actually been pushed by the right of the party screeching for him to set out his agenda or they will take their ball home with them
There have been some fair critiques from a number of posters on here and we, as true members of the left will always be dissenters to an extent. In fact I have seen very little to suggest that Corbyn is demanding a blind following of ultra-left policies. Tubby, TGS, Willow and HindleA have all contributed to the debate and have made some good points about where Corbyn has made mistakes and how he could possibly rectify them. They clearly are not ideological soulmates of Corbyn, and they should not change their views just because he is leader.
I do not agree with some of their comments but that is mainly because I have a much more cynical view of the media and the neoliberal wing of the party. I think there are some members who are not just dissenting but are being used as willing pawns by the Tories and their allies in undermining the party. There are not that many and we could probably name most of them but they are vocal and have unfettered access to the media
Labour still has some very good politicians and I hope over time we can see less tension - people like Burnham, Cooper, Starmer, Nandy, Jarvis etc are still the future of the party post-2020 and I hope they can work with Corbyn to marry his ability to reach out to the radicals and disenfranchised with their understanding of how to frame the argument. If he can get Ed back in some capacity as well that would be a real bonus
The upshot is that there may need to be some bloodletting...in order to change there has to be a break with the past, people like Mandelson, and some of the acolytes of the neoliberal ring may need to be cut out of things if they cannot accept that the party is going to move to the left. If they want to cross the floor then good luck to them....or even move to the Lib Dems lol. It may cause a storm now but the sooner they make up their minds the better. It is FiFo. And before you say it...yes, Corbyn was always a dissenter himself in the past but the way he went about int was different - and he never used it to undermine the party to the benefit of the Tories. He could always articulate his reasoning as well - based upon his own principles. If you hear a Chris Leslie or a Danczuk - they have no real reasoning.
To me the argument made that Miliband was the final straw. He tried to move the party to the left in his own way and was supported by many on here and in the party. A truly talented and courageous politician. And who did for him.....the same forces that are going after Corbyn...the same names and he same newspapers. It was not the left that lost the election in 2015 it was the same people who want to lose it in 2020 so they, in their own minds, can bring it back to the right.
This is why I do not believe there is an way that a 'media strategy' will have any effect with the MSM - their die is cast and it shall stay the same until 2020 - if Corbyn was replaced by someone like Jarvis or Starmer there will be an initial attempt to pull them back to the right. If they resist they will be attacked as well (all Starmer's decisions in the CPS will be raked over, and Jarvis will have his army career looked at as well for skeletons). The only way is the neoliberal way for these people....raping of the poor to enrich the wealthy
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... ive-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Blanchflower also said it was a “surprise” when John McDonnnell originally said Labour would back the charter. But the party was in the right place now, he said.
This is early days, policy making is messy and it takes some time to work out what you are going to do ... There are clearly political things going on. I think the right decision has now been reached.
I think we do take it on board, just don't necessarily want to hear it again here?TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Fair comment, but I think we also need to acknowledge that some of the MSM stuff (albeit not much) needs to be taken on board, it can't just be ignored however much we think it should. But I'm a lone voice on that one, so probably wrong.I think people, by which I suppose I mean me, hear enough criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell in the MSM and prefer something a bit more positive here.
Spot on. Mind you, always worth running a little stat past the Tory boys; in 18 years of Thatcher/Major the Tories managed to run a surplus only 3 times, in the 13 Labour years they managed it 4 times and would probably have managed more but for the global credit crash.Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... ive-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Blanchflower also said it was a “surprise” when John McDonnnell originally said Labour would back the charter. But the party was in the right place now, he said.
This is early days, policy making is messy and it takes some time to work out what you are going to do ... There are clearly political things going on. I think the right decision has now been reached.
Yep, I agree with Blanchflower's assessment. Osborne's fiscal charter is a joke, a stunt. Even if you agree with running a surplus in good times, it isn't sensible to legislate for it. I really hope all Labour MPs vote against it as it will piss Osborne off no end that a policy solely aimed at splitting the Labour party ends up doing little more than making him look really stupid trying to pass a law to make himself do something he says he wants to do anyway.
So that is shut up or sod off then? Fair enough.gilsey wrote:I think we do take it on board, just don't necessarily want to hear it again here?TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Fair comment, but I think we also need to acknowledge that some of the MSM stuff (albeit not much) needs to be taken on board, it can't just be ignored however much we think it should. But I'm a lone voice on that one, so probably wrong.I think people, by which I suppose I mean me, hear enough criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell in the MSM and prefer something a bit more positive here.
What's the point of a FTN that reads like the MSM?
That's not what I said.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:So that is shut up or sod off then? Fair enough.gilsey wrote:I think we do take it on board, just don't necessarily want to hear it again here?TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Fair comment, but I think we also need to acknowledge that some of the MSM stuff (albeit not much) needs to be taken on board, it can't just be ignored however much we think it should. But I'm a lone voice on that one, so probably wrong.
What's the point of a FTN that reads like the MSM?
I used to think Soubry was one of the least worst Tories (mostly due to her run ins with Farage and co). Melanie Phillips quoted her as saying, about her time as a barrister, that her clients got in trouble with the law mostly because they had 'shitty lives'. Phillips said she was puzzled as to why Soubry had consequently nailed her colours to the Tory mast, rather than Labour. As it was 'Mad Mel' writing in the Mail, she probably asked the question for the wrong reason, but nevertheless she had a point.TobyLatimer wrote:I missed this little exchange yesterday. I love Dennis in Beast mode to bits, but Soubry is hard faced as they come too.with barrister training. Was it really sexist to say "She even looks like Thatcher"?
[youtube]7HsYL2zQO4g[/youtube]
Agree with that.gilsey wrote:I think we do take it on board, just don't necessarily want to hear it again here?TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Fair comment, but I think we also need to acknowledge that some of the MSM stuff (albeit not much) needs to be taken on board, it can't just be ignored however much we think it should. But I'm a lone voice on that one, so probably wrong.I think people, by which I suppose I mean me, hear enough criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell in the MSM and prefer something a bit more positive here.
What's the point of a FTN that reads like the MSM?
This place is not, and has never been, to my knowledge, an echo chamber. It's my go to place for a breadth of opinion, and I love it, even when I'm not posting, and even when I think that people are mulling over the minutiae rather than seeing the bigger picture. I love the way I can come away from reading a days posts and feel both better informed and richer for having been here. There isn't another news source that does that for me.refitman wrote:Good words TGS.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Have to admit to being genuinely confused by Ohso's comment yesterday evening suggesting "you lot need to get with the programme". Let me make my position clear, what I am attempting to do is critique, pointing out some shortcomings in the Corbyn strategies in the hope that we can all recognize it, amend them, and move forward; however it seems that a good number of posters on here take such critique as outright condemnation of Corbyn and support for the machinations of the Blairite right of the Party. If you genuinely think that then I, and others, are wasting our time here and this place will become the echo chamber the vile Rusty has always claimed it to be.
Over to you folks.
While there are constructive non-pro-Corbyn comments (he would do better if... etc), it seems that the overwhelmingly negative ones (he's killed the party, Labour are doomed, he's useless) appear to be holding peoples attention.
A succinct expression of a realistic approach.GetYou wrote:I like to think that this is a place where we can deconstruct a lot of the crap that the MSM churns out, which means we need to first acknowledge it.
It would only become "little noticed" if the media stopped reporting on it, not if it was more polite.I fear that an excessively courteous PMQs would go the way of Liaison Committee meetings: civilised, but little noticed. The biggest single reason why PMQ attracts so much attention is that it is often dramatic. And it is usually dramatic precisely because it is raw and rumbustious – or, in the words of our question for the Hansard Society, ‘noisy and aggressive’.
Perhaps I should interject here since I am in agreement with you TGS, albeit one of the ones who dislike the infighting on the left. I also wish RobertSnozers shall not leave but if feeling upset or despondent don't blame his taking a break. I too have been feeling somewhat despondent of late but more particularly because of Tory actions, seemingly unopposed or at least with little effect. They are the enemy and in some respects it is even worse where I'm coming from, a former LibDem to the left of the Blairites that took over the Labour party only to witness Orange-Bookers propping the Tories up... and now it's even worse with a Tory majority and all the squabbling that's going on at the moment. I'm beginning to feel a little of the despair that followed the 2010 election after first having hopes raised by Milliband's apparent sincerity and then Corbyn's idealism.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Spot on. Mind you, always worth running a little stat past the Tory boys; in 18 years of Thatcher/Major the Tories managed to run a surplus only 3 times, in the 13 Labour years they managed it 4 times and would probably have managed more but for the global credit crash.Willow904 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... ive-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Blanchflower also said it was a “surprise” when John McDonnnell originally said Labour would back the charter. But the party was in the right place now, he said.
This is early days, policy making is messy and it takes some time to work out what you are going to do ... There are clearly political things going on. I think the right decision has now been reached.
Yep, I agree with Blanchflower's assessment. Osborne's fiscal charter is a joke, a stunt. Even if you agree with running a surplus in good times, it isn't sensible to legislate for it. I really hope all Labour MPs vote against it as it will piss Osborne off no end that a policy solely aimed at splitting the Labour party ends up doing little more than making him look really stupid trying to pass a law to make himself do something he says he wants to do anyway.
Sexist?TobyLatimer wrote:Report on the same here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10 ... _hp_ref=uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hear! Hear!GetYou wrote:I like to think that this is a place where we can deconstruct a lot of the crap that the MSM churns out, which means we need to first acknowledge it.
He really is a reactionary curmudgeon these daysrefitman wrote:Oh FFS. From Peter Kellner:It would only become "little noticed" if the media stopped reporting on it, not if it was more polite.I fear that an excessively courteous PMQs would go the way of Liaison Committee meetings: civilised, but little noticed. The biggest single reason why PMQ attracts so much attention is that it is often dramatic. And it is usually dramatic precisely because it is raw and rumbustious – or, in the words of our question for the Hansard Society, ‘noisy and aggressive’.
Seemed to get the balance better today, hit the Pig Fiddler with some follow ups that clearly discomfited him, the one area I thought he was weak on last time; Sparrow suggests OGRFG was unfazed, the red, shouty and shiny face would suggest Sparrow is wrong ....again.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Consensus seem to be that Corbyn did pretty OK?