Tuesday 26 July 2016

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 6:43 am

Yo
Am sitting down to enjoy my "holiday"

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 6:44 am

Interesting point:

The vote was extremely close and the yes-no option so oversimple. Therefore, if we are to be true to our democratic principles, shouldn’t the degree of change be proportionate to the gap that separates the leavers from the remainers? I leave it to strategists to work out how this might be achieved but to have such parameters underlying practical planning and decision-making might be helpful in determining post-Brexit relations with Europe. At home, fair-minded voters ought to respect such an accommodation.

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

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:12 am

The referendum result is now well known. Leave won its strongest support in the West Midlands (59%), East Midlands (59%) and North East (58%) but attracted its weakest support in Scotland (38%), London (40%) and Northern Ireland (44%). The Leave vote surpassed 70% in 14 authorities, many of which had been previously targeted by Ukip, like Boston and Castle Point. Leave also polled strongly in Labour-held authorities in the north, winning over 65% in places like Hartlepool and Stoke-on-Trent. At the constituency level it has been estimated that while three-quarters of Conservative seats voted Leave, seven in ten Labour seats also did.

Such areas contrast sharply with strongholds of support for Remain, such as including Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Camden and Cambridge. Of the 50 authorities where the Remain vote was strongest, 39 were in London or Scotland.

A tale of two countries: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-and-the-lef ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:14 am

We have to change our press and cannot wait for/depend on a new government to do it. It needs campaigning at the scale of environmental campaigning.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:49 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:Yo
Am sitting down to enjoy my "holiday"

Sorry Refitman!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:53 am

Morning.
Something to put in the diary for next week.

Thursday 4th August 7pm, Cardiff leadership debate between Corbyn & Smith.

It will be broadcast live by Labour at:
http://tangent-taz-prod.tangentlabs.co. ... bates-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:57 am

Radio 4 interviewing people at the Democrat convention at the moment.

A Sanders supporter says there's very little difference between Trump and Clinton & it doesn't matter which of them wins. Really ? Sounds familiar.

Some of his supporters are shouting the same things Trump supporters have about her, lock her up etc.
If they really support Sanders surely they should trust his judgement about keeping Trump out ?
If Nader supporters had voted differently, we wouldn't have had George W, and all that entailed.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:58 am

It may also be time for Labour to face facts. The lost heartlands may never be won back. The disenfranchised blue collar workers and forgotten post-industrial communities may never be persuaded by Labour in the 21st century. Making a compromise on immigration, which is not the cause of problems in these communities, would be a cowardly and self-defeating way out. If these voters can’t be won back within the vague realms of what the Labour Party is supposed to be about, why not make a decisive tilt towards support for immigration, and focus on winning over and engaging the youth vote. These voters are the future and Labour needs to be aligned to them.

Perhaps the paradox here is that while a passionate defence of immigration is needed, we also need to shift the discussion away from immigration. At a macro level, it is not a substantive issue for the country.

http://www.refractory-online.com/post-b ... s-monster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
quote posted by gilsey; original link by thatchersorphan on 15 July (that's Friday 15 July 2016)

This is critical and Labour's not offering it.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 7:58 am

You can submit questions for the candidates for next week's debate

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/m/6e8ad90 ... 7661/VEsH/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 8:27 am

But those scenes will be exploited by Trump later in the campaign.
Yes, the way the Democrat upper echelons have acted is wrong, and I would have to wear a large peg to vote for her, but after seeing Trump's repulsive campaign surely it would be best to swallow the rage ?

If Sanders says Clinton would be a better president than Trump, his supporters should respect his words. Or will he be the next target for their anger ? That's the problem when rage is unleashed.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 8:30 am

RobertSnozers wrote: little or nothing on gun control etc.

Little or nothing can be done on gun control by the president given Heller.

Which was one of the problems with Sanders: he over promised, saying he could do things that are not in the President's power, thereby fueling cynicism about the 'establishment'.

Some may dislike those checks and balances in the US system, but they'll look good if we end up with President Trump.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 8:34 am

Sanders' former press secretary doesn't think they were cheated.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ry-amazing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **refitman** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 8:50 am

Rather depressing "Corbyn isn't patriotic" from Smith.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 9:07 am

Ok, as has been pointed out I do see things like a simple soul, but is what Smith said really that bad ?

It doesn't seem news to anyone that someone on the left may not be strong on what is usually seen as patriotism. Maybe Smith should have been clearer on how he defines patriotism.
I wouldn't define myself as patriotic in a YouGov survey for example, because the word carries too much ambiguity.

Some feel it is a positive thing, others see it as a 'my country right or wrong' jingoism, and there are many grey areas in between.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 9:29 am

yahyah wrote:Ok, as has been pointed out I do see things like a simple soul, but is what Smith said really that bad ?

It doesn't seem news to anyone that someone on the left may not be strong on what is usually seen as patriotism. Maybe Smith should have been clearer on how he defines patriotism.
I wouldn't define myself as patriotic in a YouGov survey for example, because the word carries too much ambiguity.

Some feel it is a positive thing, others see it as a 'my country right or wrong' jingoism, and there are many grey areas in between.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning all

After a day back from holiday - back to the airport to fly to London---joy!

Going to be staying not far from Bracknell so a hat tip to Mrs Ohso

No, in a general comment it wasn't that bad but in this case he is really being a bit lazy as he seems to be just playing to the audience a bit.....it was again, a bit crap! This is my view of him at the moment......I have no great problems with him per se but find the idea that Labour will automatically put time behind them and move back to before the large voter loss since 2003ish with him as leader is far-fetched.

The other issue I have with this type of argument is that identity politics are dangerous.....he is proudly Welsh (no problem with that myself) but how long is it before me hear the siren cries 'how can he speak to those in the swing Midland's seats'?

I have (even after 30 years essentially absent) a fairly strong Black Country accent (not bloody Brummie!!!). I am proud of it but those who focus on 'identity politics' are happy to put me in a box because of it. Much more 'acceptable' to have a neutral metropolitan accent I think.

Being seen as metropolitan may not be a great vote winner, but I do not see being identified with a strong regional link as one either

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 9:32 am

I have a metropolitan accent - Manc (what remains of it)
And it hasn't done me any ... oh

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 9:33 am

That Corbyn doesn't really 'get' patriotism is one of the few things I like about him. I don't either.

This is good on an optimistic future for Labour

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

it is, of course, by someone with the same kind of perspective as me.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 9:54 am

SAS: Lead, follow or get out of the way

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iXi ... as&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a phrase the currently keeps springing to mind

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:08 am

howsillyofme1 wrote: No, in a general comment it wasn't that bad but in this case he is really being a bit lazy as he seems to be just playing to the audience a bit.....it was again, a bit crap!

Agree.

He said all the right things about the NHS though, including a specific mention of CCGs which seemed to go over JO'Bs head. He should probably take that as an indication that it would go over a lot of people's heads.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:11 am

RobertSnozers wrote: Interesting that a commentator who supports Smith is positing the view that scares me most about him - that Smith is more or less just posing as a leftwinger and begin a move to the right when he feels strong enough in his position.

I am sure that authenticity is one of Corbyn's main attractions (this is not a dig, but an observation). Labour MPs like Smith are leftish policy wonks. Miliband was too. People like that are more interested in 'what works' and that means gaining power. So, as a result, they're shifty as they try to pitch themselves to win.

Corbyn isn't like that at all. His views are genuinely ideological, and deep rooted. He hasn't changed his mind on anything for 40 years. He really does believe it. He is authentic.

Of course, the very things that appeal to you about him, are what repels me. Being a conservative type I'd prefer someone with light ideological commitments, and a strong commitment to practical policy. That now has the deathly smell of Blair about it though.

The point about his piece though is that the optimistic scenario he sketches is incredibly unlikely.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:14 am

Morning

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/07/ ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Care minister role downgraded in government reshuffle
The social care brief has been handed down to parliamentary under-secretary of state for community health and care, David Mowat

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:15 am

CLP nominations coming in

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... ip-contest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who CLPs nominated last time is slightly misleading as some (eg mine) nominated long before it became clear JC might win.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:16 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:That Corbyn doesn't really 'get' patriotism is one of the few things I like about him. I don't either.

This is good on an optimistic future for Labour

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

it is, of course, by someone with the same kind of perspective as me.
I find it hard to get past the first few paras. The preconditions for Smith to win seem... Well, two might be possible, all three are highly unlikely. Most of all though, this idea that until recently Labour was a soft left social democratic party and now it's a hard left socialist one (and it's necessary to 'get back' to the previous state). I don't buy either premise. Democratic socialism is not 'hard left' and in any case, Labour has always encompassed a range from the socialist to the centrist. (If Labour was a soft left party more or less in its entirety, I doubt Ed Miliband would have faced such a sustained onslaught on his right flank). It's not a case of getting back to some mythical state that never existed by having a leader who initially pretends to be a lefty, but by actually balancing the elements that are there. Otherwise the membership is just going to realise they have been betrayed again.

Interesting that a commentator who supports Smith is positing the view that scares me most about him - that Smith is more or less just posing as a leftwinger and begin a move to the right when he feels strong enough in his position.

Interesting last paragraph

If I am honest this is it for me......

I know that Corbyn, as a leader, will not look to tack right in order to acquiesce to the wishes of the rich, the press or the 'establishment'. He has changed his views over the years as the pendulum has swung - the landscape is very different to that of 1983

We saw how that worked with Blair - who started off selling a centre-left story but by his exit had really moved to the right. The same with Wilson (although he possessed a phenomenal intellect so could play things to his own advantage) and Callaghan as well. Kinnock and Miliband also seemed to follow the same path in opposition

It seems that there is a history of Labour leaders moving to the right as they come under the spotlight - can't think of anyone really holding steady or tacking leftward

The worry is that, for me, I look at all the other potential leaders in the party (including Smith) and I know this is what will happen. To understand what their policies will actually be you have to look to a few notches to the right

Give me someone whoespouses politics I can support - ie left of centre - but who also give confidence that they have the character to stand firm against the calls to move rightwards

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:23 am

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... -islington" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Council leader says cash paid for London free school site is ‘staggering waste’

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:23 am

Simon Wren-Lewis on who to vote for

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... hange.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:29 am

Can anyone please tell me just what the hell Michael Foster hopes to achieve by getting Corbyn removed from the leadership election via the courts? If he wins, there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. MPs lend him their votes to get over the 51 threshold in order to prevent uproar and a revolt by the Labour membership, which delays the contest, increases its costs unnecessarily, and makes even more people likely to vote for Corbyn just to spite Foster and the PLP, or,
2. Corbyn is forced out of the competition, Smith is crowned without challenge and a massive chunk of the Labour membership stick their fingers up and kiss goodbye to the Labour Party, both as a member and with their votes, for good.

Just what the hell is the point?

PS. Patriotism, last refuge of a scoundrel. Smith is dragging himself into the gutter. It's almost as though Zac Goldsmith didn't happen.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:30 am

HindleA wrote:Morning

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/07/ ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Care minister role downgraded in government reshuffle
The social care brief has been handed down to parliamentary under-secretary of state for community health and care, David Mowat

Theresa May's talk of social justice is just that, talk.
The MSM lap it up knowing it's so much hot air.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:31 am

JonnyT1234 wrote:Can anyone please tell me just what the hell Michael Foster hopes to achieve by getting Corbyn removed from the leadership election via the courts? If he wins, there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. MPs lend him their votes to get over the 51 threshold in order to prevent uproar and a revolt by the Labour membership, which delays the contest, increases its costs unnecessarily, and makes even more people likely to vote for Corbyn just to spite Foster and the PLP, or,
2. Corbyn is forced out of the competition, Smith is crowned without challenge and a massive chunk of the Labour membership stick their fingers up and kiss goodbye to the Labour Party, both as a member and with their votes, for good.

Just what the hell is the point?

PS. Patriotism, last refuge of a scoundrel. Smith is dragging himself into the gutter. It's almost as though Zac Goldsmith didn't happen.

I think Option 2 is what they want though.......

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:33 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Can anyone please tell me just what the hell Michael Foster hopes to achieve by getting Corbyn removed from the leadership election via the courts? If he wins, there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. MPs lend him their votes to get over the 51 threshold in order to prevent uproar and a revolt by the Labour membership, which delays the contest, increases its costs unnecessarily, and makes even more people likely to vote for Corbyn just to spite Foster and the PLP, or,
2. Corbyn is forced out of the competition, Smith is crowned without challenge and a massive chunk of the Labour membership stick their fingers up and kiss goodbye to the Labour Party, both as a member and with their votes, for good.

Just what the hell is the point?

PS. Patriotism, last refuge of a scoundrel. Smith is dragging himself into the gutter. It's almost as though Zac Goldsmith didn't happen.
I think Option 2 is what they want though.......

Admittedly, it does seem that way doesn't it. Get Labour even more beholden to rich, solitary donors and the policies they want to be written and make them even more Tory than they already are.

Edit: but is that really what the majority of the PLP want? I can understand the Blairs, the Mandelsons, and the Stephen Kinnocks of the party to be delighted with that prospect because it means they get to stuff their own mouths with gold, but the rest of the Party?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:33 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Simon Wren-Lewis on who to vote for

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... hange.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

Indeed

Perhaps if he wants to he can come over here and discuss with us - would be great if he did - rather than these links to blogs that make the same points made a million times before and add no new insight

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:39 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'

That'd only really work if Corbyn only just won by a few % points. Should he win by a similar or even increased majority over the last time, it'll be too easily countered.

Edit: And in any case, there's far more they could use to attack a Corbyn victory should it occur that doesn't require such a tenuous attack line.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:43 am

Freely admit I have lied,manipulated,and been devious in pursuance of defence of family and self.If someone asked me would I be willing to kill,i'd have to say yes.I'm not comparing the two situations,it just made me think.Would I throw my principles re.private medicine into the bin with alacrity if I thought that was the only way to save a life,of course I would.Personally,I would call that prioritising principles and living in the real world rather than the one I would like.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:44 am

RobertSnozers wrote:The claim that Putin is helping Trump? Please.

I'm not into conspiracy theories as you know, but that one of Trump's key right hand men is a Putin flunky is a simple matter of record.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:49 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Simon Wren-Lewis on who to vote for

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... hange.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

He endorses voting for Smith. The argument is to try and explain why those who voted for Corbyn should now change their minds as the fact have changed.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:52 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:I know that Corbyn, as a leader, will not look to tack right in order to acquiesce to the wishes of the rich, the press or the 'establishment'. He has changed his views over the years as the pendulum has swung - the landscape is very different to that of 1983

...snip...

Give me someone whoespouses politics I can support - ie left of centre - but who also give confidence that they have the character to stand firm against the calls to move rightwards

Even if Smith is actually the ideal Corbyn but not Corbyn candidate that he is making himself out to be (I don't believe it for one second), it doesn't matter. We know that it isn't Corbyn's character that is the problem for the PLP, it's his politics. It's always been his politics. Just as it was with Miliband's ever so slightly not as right wing as the PLP wanted him to be politics.

Smith will be dragged right wards irrespective of whether or not he believes in right ward politics. If he doesn't go there, he'll be forced out. Just like Miliband. Just like Corbyn. And then we'll be back where we started, probably with someone as utterly hopeless as Chuka Umunna as the leader in waiting.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 10:54 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Simon Wren-Lewis on who to vote for

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... hange.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

It seems a clear vote for Smith to me, with reasons why he shouldn't slide to the right on the main issues, being leaving the EU and austerity. Even says why he thinks it would be better for Smith to lose in 2020 than Corbyn.

Another consequence of a bad defeat in 2020 is that the left within Labour will again lose its influence for a generation. Defeat and a divided party will not be the springboard on which a successor to Corbyn, such as those mentioned by Justin Lewis here, can win. Ironically their chances if Owen Smith wins in 2016, then reverts to the pre-2015 strategy and fails are much better. Keeping Corbyn until 2020 simply delays the date of his departure, with nothing achieved and much lost in the meantime.

I'm not saying I agree with him, just that I think his meaning is clear.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:00 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Simon Wren-Lewis on who to vote for

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... hange.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

He endorses voting for Smith. The argument is to try and explain why those who voted for Corbyn should now change their minds as the fact have changed.

From the article:

"The political landscape after the Brexit vote has changed substantially. May's cabinet appointments effectively put the Brexit side in charge of negotiations. That might be clever politics by May as far as her position in the Conservative party is concerned, but it is bad for the UK. Smith can provide a convincing pro-Europe opposition to that, which has to include headlining the benefits of immigration. "

From the Guardian today:

"He said immigration was too high in some places. Asked if there were too many immigrants in Britain, he replied: “I think it depends where you are.” He went on:

In some places, the way in which we saw rapid influx of - in particular - eastern European migrants after accession of those countries to Europe definitely caused downward pressure on wages, definitely caused changes to local terms and conditions for some workers in some sectors.

Areas affected by high immigration should be given extra resources, he said."

Well, that's filling me with confidence that he's going to headline the message that immigration is beneficial...

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:04 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Can anyone please tell me just what the hell Michael Foster hopes to achieve by getting Corbyn removed from the leadership election via the courts? If he wins, there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. MPs lend him their votes to get over the 51 threshold in order to prevent uproar and a revolt by the Labour membership, which delays the contest, increases its costs unnecessarily, and makes even more people likely to vote for Corbyn just to spite Foster and the PLP, or,
2. Corbyn is forced out of the competition, Smith is crowned without challenge and a massive chunk of the Labour membership stick their fingers up and kiss goodbye to the Labour Party, both as a member and with their votes, for good.

Just what the hell is the point?

PS. Patriotism, last refuge of a scoundrel. Smith is dragging himself into the gutter. It's almost as though Zac Goldsmith didn't happen.
Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'

Rather thin gruel, that last one.

I think that Corbyn is going to be there in person today, to argue his case?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:08 am

HindleA wrote:Freely admit I have lied,manipulated,and been devious in pursuance of defence of family and self.If someone asked me would I be willing to kill,i'd have to say yes.I'm not comparing the two situations,it just made me think.Would I throw my principles re.private medicine into the bin with alacrity if I thought that was the only way to save a life,of course I would.Personally,I would call that prioritising principles and living in the real world rather than the one I would like.

The problem with living in the real world and not the one you would like is that nothing will ever change and that real world that you don't like is with you for ever. Change happens by standing against the things that are wrong, not by meekly acquiescing to them.

Also, pushing the button is not an act of killing to protect your family, it's a wholly pointless act of bloody-minded revenge. An act of spite. Unless you are truly advocating for being the country that pushes it first?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:09 am

ICM today

Conservatives 43% Labour 27% LibDems 8% UKIP 13% SNP 4% GreenParty 4% Plaid_Cymru 1%

Methodological changes of course, but there should have been a mid-term dip. Labour was 6-7 points ahead in 2011.

An outlier it should be emphasised.

Tables here

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content ... poll-3.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:11 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:Can anyone please tell me just what the hell Michael Foster hopes to achieve by getting Corbyn removed from the leadership election via the courts? If he wins, there are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. MPs lend him their votes to get over the 51 threshold in order to prevent uproar and a revolt by the Labour membership, which delays the contest, increases its costs unnecessarily, and makes even more people likely to vote for Corbyn just to spite Foster and the PLP, or,
2. Corbyn is forced out of the competition, Smith is crowned without challenge and a massive chunk of the Labour membership stick their fingers up and kiss goodbye to the Labour Party, both as a member and with their votes, for good.

Just what the hell is the point?

PS. Patriotism, last refuge of a scoundrel. Smith is dragging himself into the gutter. It's almost as though Zac Goldsmith didn't happen.
Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'
Rather thin gruel, that last one.

I think that Corbyn is going to be there in person today, to argue his case?

Is he? Why? he has been joined as a third party but he'll just be represented surely?

FWIIW I expect Corbyn to win this case easily. Opposite is now unarguable IMO.

Much more difficult is the decision on the deadline for voting.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:13 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:That Corbyn doesn't really 'get' patriotism is one of the few things I like about him. I don't either.

This is good on an optimistic future for Labour

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

it is, of course, by someone with the same kind of perspective as me.
I find it hard to get past the first few paras. The preconditions for Smith to win seem... Well, two might be possible, all three are highly unlikely. Most of all though, this idea that until recently Labour was a soft left social democratic party and now it's a hard left socialist one (and it's necessary to 'get back' to the previous state). I don't buy either premise. Democratic socialism is not 'hard left' and in any case, Labour has always encompassed a range from the socialist to the centrist. (If Labour was a soft left party more or less in its entirety, I doubt Ed Miliband would have faced such a sustained onslaught on his right flank). It's not a case of getting back to some mythical state that never existed by having a leader who initially pretends to be a lefty, but by actually balancing the elements that are there. Otherwise the membership is just going to realise they have been betrayed again.

Interesting that a commentator who supports Smith is positing the view that scares me most about him - that Smith is more or less just posing as a leftwinger and begin a move to the right when he feels strong enough in his position.

Corbyn's Labour isn't hard left, even if some people around him are. It's barely different from Ed, because so little new policy has been developed. If Richard Murphy is to be believed, what little that was radical on the economy has already been jettisoned leaving very little. If Owen Smith has any chance of winning it's by coming up with solid policy proposals which can clearly achieve the things members want, but with people joining to keep Corbyn, even this is pretty futile. As for SpinningHugo's hope for the future, I think his ideal of the Labour Party died in 2010 with the election of Ed Miliband. Ed recognised that the Thatcherite consensus was over and something new will be forged in its place and the battle now is to win that new ground, that new direction for the left. I don't think the future of Labour lies with either the old Labour of Corbyn or the new Labour of Blair, but something different entirely and, tbf, no one can ever really predict where that something might come from. Owen Smith needn't be shackled by the Labour of the past, he can pitch for any future he wants, the key being whether he can resist the Corbyn left or the media on the right constraining him by putting him in a box. This is what has depressed me most about the reaction to Smith from the Corbyn left, the desire to define Smith in the context of how he fits into Labour's historical divisions, despite only becoming an MP in 2010. I see no hope of moving forward, while so many in Labour (of all ideological persuasions) keep clinging to the past.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:19 am

SpinningHugo wrote:ICM today

Conservatives 43% Labour 27% LibDems 8% UKIP 13% SNP 4% GreenParty 4% Plaid_Cymru 1%

Methodological changes of course, but there should have been a mid-term dip. Labour was 6-7 points ahead in 2011.

An outlier it should be emphasised.

Methodology changes, again? Why??

I can't help noticing how most of these changes seem to benefit the Tories, as well......

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:19 am

Willow904 wrote:As for SpinningHugo's hope for the future, I think his ideal of the Labour Party died in 2010 with the election of Ed Miliband.

I think that is probably true. The terrible performance of the 'Blairite' in 2015, and the change in the party since have killed it for me. I don't belong in a party led by Corbyn, which is why I immediately quit.

So, for someone like me, the future is bleak. Labour is too weak to ever win, but too strong to ever die. I can't even paint an optimistic scenario.

One thing I will disagree with is about the position of the party itself. The author is writing about the change in the makeup of the membership, not policy. On that there hasn't really been anything. The fiscal policy for example is nearly indistinguishable from Balls' (it is what I would do).

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:21 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

He endorses voting for Smith. The argument is to try and explain why those who voted for Corbyn should now change their minds as the fact have changed.
You think that's an endorsement? Wren-Lewis practically has a fencepost up his backside.

What do you think the *argument* is?

Wren-Lewis is a Keynesian.

What is Keynes' most famous quote?

Look at the title. Read the last paragraph. Who is he trying to persuade?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:28 am

Freedomofthepress wrote:
yahyah wrote:Ok, as has been pointed out I do see things like a simple soul, but is what Smith said really that bad ?

It doesn't seem news to anyone that someone on the left may not be strong on what is usually seen as patriotism. Maybe Smith should have been clearer on how he defines patriotism.
I wouldn't define myself as patriotic in a YouGov survey for example, because the word carries too much ambiguity.

Some feel it is a positive thing, others see it as a 'my country right or wrong' jingoism, and there are many grey areas in between.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is bad, particularly because of the political climate we are living in at the moment.

Trident is currently an issue and O'Brien also questioned Smith on this and of course, he was more than happy to proclaim that (being the big man that he is), he would push the button and blow up innocent women and children as O'Brien had alluded to in his question. The issue of Trident has also been linked with the issue of patriotism and of course, we all know that Corbyn is anti-Trident.

Irrelevant of what we (FTN Forum members & readers) think about patriotism (basically, probably a load of crap), Smith knows how well it plays out in the media, need I remind you about all of "Call Me Dave's slurs against Corbyn because he apparently wasn't deemed to be patriotic - didn't wear a tie (in Parliament Dave's Mum would consider that unpatriotic), didn't sing the National Anthem etc, etc.

Smith made the point that unilateral nuclear disarmament isn't the traditional position of Labour. He's not wrong on this point and his position on this will be popular with some Labour supporters, especially some affiliated union members. I think it's reasonable for him to take the current Labour position on this and offer a clear choice in the leadership election. People should be able to choose a position which has been the position of Labour for decades without being accused of doing some kind of bad thing.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:48 am

JonnyT1234 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!

He endorses voting for Smith. The argument is to try and explain why those who voted for Corbyn should now change their minds as the fact have changed.
From the article:

"The political landscape after the Brexit vote has changed substantially. May's cabinet appointments effectively put the Brexit side in charge of negotiations. That might be clever politics by May as far as her position in the Conservative party is concerned, but it is bad for the UK. Smith can provide a convincing pro-Europe opposition to that, which has to include headlining the benefits of immigration. "

From the Guardian today:

"He said immigration was too high in some places. Asked if there were too many immigrants in Britain, he replied: “I think it depends where you are.” He went on:

In some places, the way in which we saw rapid influx of - in particular - eastern European migrants after accession of those countries to Europe definitely caused downward pressure on wages, definitely caused changes to local terms and conditions for some workers in some sectors.

Areas affected by high immigration should be given extra resources, he said."

Well, that's filling me with confidence that he's going to headline the message that immigration is beneficial...

It's Ed Miliband's stance of acknowledging that immigration, although being positive overall, can have negative impacts locally and that much more needs to be done and money needs to be spent to mitigate those impacts on local communities. I agreed with this when Ed said it and I still agree with it now. Everything Smith says about immigration above is backed up by the evidence, so I don't see how it's anything other than being truthful. The fact he is pro-EU means that he isn't going to offer complete exit and stop immigration completely in the way McDonnell seemed to at one point. Acknowledging immigration isn't problem free is not the same as saying we must respect the Brexit vote and stop it altogether because we have to respect the mandate of a small majority, including many right wingers, in a binary choice in which immigration didn't even figure in the actual question - which I appreciate isn't something Corbyn has actually said but he and McDonnell have certainly implied it.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 11:59 am

If you care to read my post again I did stress I wasn't comparing.It just set a train of thought.I really don't know what is contentious about saying sometimes in the real world,by which I mean the one I am in,to be clear, you may have to do things that transgress some principles,ie telling the truth etc,in defence of a higher priority.If you haven't had to you have been extremely lucky.Anybody that has but a fleeting knowledge of me would know I am not a meekly acquiescing sort of person.I have a habit of going off at tangents and this being misconstrued.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 12:00 pm

Willow904 wrote:It's Ed Miliband's stance of acknowledging that immigration, although being positive overall, can have negative impacts locally and that much more needs to be done and money needs to be spent to mitigate those impacts on local communities. I agreed with this when Ed said it and I still agree with it now. Everything Smith says about immigration above is backed up by the evidence, so I don't see how it's anything other than being truthful. The fact he is pro-EU means that he isn't going to offer complete exit and stop immigration completely in the way McDonnell seemed to at one point. Acknowledging immigration isn't problem free is not the same as saying we must respect the Brexit vote and stop it altogether because we have to respect the mandate of a small majority, including many right wingers, in a binary choice in which immigration didn't even figure in the actual question - which I appreciate isn't something Corbyn has actually said but he and McDonnell have certainly implied it.

In terms of acknowledging that immigration can have impacts, it is not one iota different to what McDonnell and Corbyn have said about immigration on this aspect of it. But it also isn't highlighting the benefits of immigration as Wren-Lewis suggests Smith should and will do. It's focussing solely on the negatives.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 26 Jul, 2016 12:05 pm

If that is all he had to say about it, yes. But was that actually the case?