Tuesday 26 July 2016
Posted: Tue 26 Jul, 2016 6:43 am
Yo
Am sitting down to enjoy my "holiday"
Am sitting down to enjoy my "holiday"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... f-mandates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
A tale of two countries: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/brexit-and-the-lef ... countries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
Sorry Refitman!tinyclanger2 wrote:Yo
Am sitting down to enjoy my "holiday"
http://www.refractory-online.com/post-b ... s-monster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
Little or nothing can be done on gun control by the president given Heller.RobertSnozers wrote: little or nothing on gun control etc.
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;
Agree.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!
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.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.
RobertSnozers wrote: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.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.
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.
Theresa May's talk of social justice is just that, talk.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
I think Option 2 is what they want though.......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.
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.howsillyofme1 wrote:I think Option 2 is what they want though.......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.
RobertSnozers wrote:The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!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;
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.RobertSnozers wrote:Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'
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.RobertSnozers wrote:The claim that Putin is helping Trump? Please.
RobertSnozers wrote:The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!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;
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.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
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.RobertSnozers wrote:The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!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;
I'm not saying I agree with him, just that I think his meaning is clear.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.
From the article:SpinningHugo wrote:RobertSnozers wrote:The one thing he does not address is who to vote for!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;
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.
Rather thin gruel, that last one.RobertSnozers wrote:Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'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.
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.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.
Is he? Why? he has been joined as a third party but he'll just be represented surely?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rather thin gruel, that last one.RobertSnozers wrote:Option 3 - Corbyn wins, and the Tories and press are able to claim that he won the leadership 'in the courts'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 that Corbyn is going to be there in person today, to argue his case?
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.RobertSnozers wrote: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.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.
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.
Methodology changes, again? Why??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.
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.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.
RobertSnozers wrote:You think that's an endorsement? Wren-Lewis practically has a fencepost up his backside.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.
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.Freedomofthepress wrote:It is bad, particularly because of the political climate we are living in at the moment.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;
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.
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.JonnyT1234 wrote:From the article: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.
"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...
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.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.