Wednesday 27th July 2016

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:19 pm

Owen Smith's 20 pledges

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/o ... 7c426e0a8d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I am to the right of Smith, and those he has to appeal to, I inevitably disagree with some of it.

So 2 (scrapping DWP) probably isn't sensible. You have to separate what the DWP has done and whether that department makes sense in terms of government machinery. It does, and splitting it up would be wasteful

4 again isn't sensible. There are good reasons why both sides may agree to zhcs. That doesn't mean they don't need regulation, the way SportsDirect have exploited them so as to avoid the minimum wage is a disgrace, but that is a long way away from an outright ban. Regulation is tricky and being heavy handed is counterproductive.

9. You shouldn't commit to unless you are nostradamus. There are actually other areas of the public sector in far worse condition than the NHS.

16 seems to confuse capital and income, but a party called Labour is supposed to be the opponent of capital.

17 is very sensible, and he should focus on by being more specific about the goodies that can be produced. Greens will kick though (as they do over Heathrow).

Some of it (eg 1) is a bit vague.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:20 pm

And remember - fine words butter no parsnips. (I just wanted to shoehorn that in somewhere.)

Edited to add -

That applies to Jeremy Corbyn, too.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:24 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I refer again, as I did yesterday, to the "sense of entitlement" he and so many others in the Labour "aristocracy" convey. It is genuinely toxic.

I was taught no one is more important than nobody. And I believe it too.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:28 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
refitman wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Oh, and in view of early posts, if anyone on here is a fan of nautical fiction, I can suggest a novel that some feel may not have got the attention it deserves
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ?
Thanks Refitman, what would I do without you?

I don't like to blow my own trumpet, but when you attempt to make a living from writing, any dignity soon goes out the window.

I enjoyed the book. A bit out of my normal genres, but a good read*.

*The bookmark and postcard in no way swayed my opinion

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:28 pm

I notice that Owen Smith is proposing reversing the cuts to corporation tax rates.

Just in case anyone is unclear about where the direction of receipts over the last few years...anyone trying to claim that cuts in rates have brought higher receipts needs to be able to show workings between level of business profits and effect of rate cuts (the kind of analysis I used to do in my sleep).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:29 pm

You all believe that Adam Smith Institute? Good lord!

In praise of Britain's flexible labour market

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/in-praise ... our-market

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:32 pm

PorFavor wrote:And remember - fine words butter no parsnips. (I just wanted to shoehorn that in somewhere.)

Edited to add -

That applies to Jeremy Corbyn, too.

I love parsnips. A fine, sweet flavour to lentil stews.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:42 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
yahyah wrote: But hey ho, Im now obviously regarded as the enemy for some here because I dare hold the view that Corbyn has issues as a leader, despite voting for him, and that the infighting is helping no-one.
Hey, you aren't *my* enemy for saying that - and never will be.

#jesuisyahyah

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:43 pm

HindleA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
HindleA wrote:D is for donkey,duck,daisy and Dot according to Lucie Attwell.
My favourite children's illustrator...I have one of her books still...

I was quoting from one I received in my first year of school when you got presented with them for attendance.Excellent ending Z is for Zebra and that is the Last ,part of the Little Poppet series.Moving on to another book I received for perfect attendence at a parish church Sunday School the excellent "The Boy Who Wanted Everything,1967 Lutterwith Press illustrated by Tansy Baran.I did wonder why they wanted to make us vicious old men though as in "I will make you Fishers of men"

Just William books were also another favourite and I liked stories set in girls boarding schools. It's probably why I don't object to people sending their kids to public schools if they can afford it. Not that I'd have liked going to one, and I do though, as a good Labour voter heartily object to tax payer money propping them up.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:44 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:My problem with Smith is not so much what he says (in terms of policy, anyway) so much as whether he means it, and has the ability to carry it out. I acknowledge Corbyn has problems (though I believe TM they could be significantly mitigated with a co-operative PLP) but I've seen little to suggest Smith would improve on those. As such, it would be ludicrous to alienate the membership and threaten the new, better relationship Labour has with the unions on a gamble.

I don't think Corbyn's leadership difficulties are the fault of many Labour MPs. I doubt Smith would've took this here on if he hadn't parleyed first with his colleagues and got enough encouragement to do the thing. Labour party members are several hundred thousand members of the UK electorate. The entire UK electorate is made up of about forty million voters, if they'd all get registered, over thirty-five million on the books now. I don't know enough about Labour's relationship with unions to comment on that part of your post.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:45 pm

Q: You says[sic] you would allow minimum hours contracts, not zero-hours contracts. What would the minimum be?

Smith says we should reverse the status quo. A contract should offer a minimum number of hours.

Q: Could it be one hour?

It could, says Smith. But the important thing is that it is not zero. (Politics Live, Guardian)

I assume there's more to this than meets the eye (ie Owen Smith has some sort of plan for how this would work in practice). Otherwise, it's pretty meaningless.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:48 pm

FWiW although there may be a certain symbolism involved in abolishing a feared and rogue department and certainly there is a welcome return,if only in name,the concept of Social Security,rather than the work/retired/deviant categorisation implicit in the name and from thence all policy derives,needless to say it is far more important to look at policy.If this signals intent to at least have a more civilised(to me) and less fascistically intended approach (to me)it's a start at least IMHO

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:51 pm

I'm afraid Smith is just another politician. Padded expenses, ambitious, and saying whatever he thinks will get him more votes.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:54 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Q: You says[sic] you would allow minimum hours contracts, not zero-hours contracts. What would the minimum be?

Smith says we should reverse the status quo. A contract should offer a minimum number of hours.

Q: Could it be one hour?

It could, says Smith. But the important thing is that it is not zero. (Politics Live, Guardian)
I assume there's more to this than meets the eye (ie Owen Smith has some sort of plan for how this would work in practice). Otherwise, it's pretty meaningless.

I read that as wouldn't really change anything. Just the wording.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 12:59 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I'm afraid Smith is just another politician. Padded expenses, ambitious, and saying whatever he thinks will get him more votes.

You (and others) might be interested in this -

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comme ... omparison/

I can't vouch for its accuracy but, on the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Edited to try to make the link work.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:08 pm

Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:12 pm

yahyah wrote:@freedomofthepress.

It was a joke. You know trying to lighten things ups, and share stuff about ourselves as we used to do here before it became as it has recently.

Hugo used the word outrage. All the 'outrage' being expressed is part of the problem, not the solution.
If we feel outrage that Kinnock Jnr has sent his children to private school, what do we feel when something really bad happens ?

Corbyn has suggested lowering the political temperature.
Feeling outrage at every small thing, does not help that, particularly when it is something pretty predictable about Kinnock Jnr.

That's what I meant, as well as trying to be light.
I'm not the only one with health issues here, many do. Am sorry if the sharing of them doesn't suit some, but it is what makes FTN unique. If people want a cold, sweary outrage forum there are plenty around.

But hey ho, Im now obviously regarded as the enemy for some here because I dare hold the view that Corbyn has issues as a leader, despite voting for him, and that the infighting is helping no-one.

& I'm not staying away. Sorry if that disappoints some. You'll have to put up with my simplistic ways a little longer.

Quite agree yahyah. JC is not a great leader but what's the alternative?
What did make me cross was the BBC cutting away so that some MPs could discuss what OS had said so far

Anyway, I agree with what he said but I agreed with Theresa May outside no 10. I didn't believe her: should I believe Owen Smith?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:14 pm

Am I having one of my funny neurological turns ? Am sure I saw FrightfulOik's post earlier ?
Did I predict it ?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:15 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:This may be the time to remind people of an interesting fact - Kinnock Jnr only won selection to his present seat before the last GE by a single vote.

And it's not the fact that she went to Atlantic, it's the fact that he didnt mention it when asked during his selection. Whether it would have changed the selection is moot, but it is conteptuous of his CLP.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:17 pm

Sorry about double post. Bus wifi again.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:18 pm

frightful_oik wrote:Sorry about double post. Bus wifi again.

I liked your second post better than the first.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:19 pm

HindleA wrote:Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.

Speaking of pissing in the wind -

Oh! The white cat peed in the black cat's eye
And the black cat said, "Gor blimey!"
And the white cat said, "You silly old fool!
You shouldn't have stood behind me."

There. Got that out of my head, at least.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:21 pm

frightful_oik wrote:Sorry about double post. Bus wifi again.

That's a relief. Seriously, deja vu is one of the prodrome symptoms for my condition.
Was just wondering whether to resort to prophylaxis meds.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:21 pm

HindleA wrote:Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.

Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:25 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
HindleA wrote:Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.
Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.

It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:25 pm

Labour need to be in government to change Tory policies.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:39 pm

CitizenJA 10.54

On that c.25% total of lost income growth in the UK

The OECD "This may be linked to the growth in jobs with low-hours and intermittent work."

You bet !

I've become very tired of politicians quoting or rather parroting headline figures which are so far away from any reality . ( I always adjust the figures comparing the Wonderful UK and Germany and the Terrible France. ) The US U3 and U6 were an attempt at getting closer, but even they got watered down some time ago -

"The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.

Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to abo

ut 12.5%."

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/employment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:39 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Labour need to be in government to change Tory policies.
No they don't. I refer you to Jonny's post yesterday.

I'm sure I read it but I can't call it to mind right now. But I believe that, without being in government, Labour is limited to doing only a limited amount of remedial work.

Edited to, hopefully, make more sense.

Ah - mitigation! That's the word I was groping for.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:44 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
HindleA wrote:Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.
Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.
It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.

Sorry, but I see a lowering of standards. Yes Labour is better than Conservative, but by how much more? And at what cost if we just settle for gaining power when that power is likely to be misused or abused?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:46 pm

It helps greatly for Labour to be in government nationally, "even" Corbyn himself would have no disagreements with that.

(and I note there, not without approval, that yesterday's email from him was titled "a movement serious about *winning power*")

But saying that they can do *nothing* without that is an irritating rhetorical trope, even if I do understand why people deploy it.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:47 pm

From a quick shufti at the Live thread

" During the Labour leadership campaign last year Corbyn produced a dozen or so policy papers that were reasonably substantial. But since then, in most areas, the party has done almost nothing to develop those proposals, as the tax campaigner Richard Murphy, who used to be a Corbyn cheerleader, pointed out last week in a blog explaining why he has lost faith in Corbyn. Smith has identified what is probably Corbyn’s biggest weakness and today’s speech showed that he is prepared to capitalise on it as hard as he can."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... cfc0a5bff7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:47 pm

ohsocynical wrote:I'm afraid Smith is just another politician. Padded expenses, ambitious, and saying whatever he thinks will get him more votes.

That is it.
I simply don't trust Smith.I don't believe he is telling the truth.
I believe Corbyn is telling the truth.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:50 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.
It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.
Sorry, but I see a lowering of standards. Yes Labour is better than Conservative, but by how much more? And at what cost if we just settle for gaining power when that power is likely to be misused or abused?

I know what you mean and (correct me if I'm wrong) you're thinking of some of the wasted opportunities of the Tony Blair era. But I don't see that in Owen Smith. I think with Tony Blair a lot of us bit the bullet, especially in 1997, and convinced ourselves that "he can't come out and say he'll do it, but he will do it". And he was, domestically at least, better than what went before.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:51 pm

I see it as: You want my vote which I consider a privilege to have, but from now on, you're going to have to prove you're worthy of it.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:51 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
HindleA wrote:Of course he is.I am not naive,and I know I am pissing in the wind as regards my views,but if it is a signal of intent even if he is justing saying it,as they all do,it is a start for someone to say,even if he is lying through his teeth,he has made a calculation that there may be votes in it.Even if only done for garnering votes for leadership,it has entered the debate,it's a start.
.
Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.
It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.

What,you would vote for someone knowing that he is lying to you?

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:56 pm

Rebecca -- you missed the analysis of the expenses , see 12.18 post .

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:56 pm

Can someone please explain what OS has "lied" about, I mean really lied, not just a quote from some dotty meme on twitter or FB?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:58 pm

I cannot help but feel that whatever rights and wrongs may or may not exist, the PLP were wrong to engage in internecine warfare when they did. Corbyn's leadership was announced on 12 September 2015, one week before conference. Surely he deserved another, politically as well as on the personal level.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:59 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:I'm afraid Smith is just another politician. Padded expenses, ambitious, and saying whatever he thinks will get him more votes.
You (and others) might be interested in this -

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comme ... omparison/

I can't vouch for its accuracy but, on the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Edited to try to make the link work.
Makes sense. On Corbyn's seemingly high cleaning costs, I dare say London prices come into it. Otherwise, it makes complete sense for the difference mainly to be made up of travel and accommodation for a non-London based MP. I think it's safe to say Smith isn't ripping off the taxpayer. These days any MP would be foolish to treat their expenses as additional income, in my humble opinion.

Just an fyi because it's well known that Corbyn is extremely parsimonious when it comes to expenses, so it isn't suprising in the least if another MP claims a bit more than him.

It's been a long while since I last walked or rode past it so am a bit fuzzy with recollection of its actual scale, but Corbyn's constituency office is a smallish, modern (i.e. 70s or 80s) building. I doubt it's just him and his team using it - it must have somewhere between 10 to 20 rooms in it (it'll be at the upper end if it has two floors) - so I suspect it's a shared space with a union or other community representative. I also assume/hope he pays the (real) living wage to his staff, which is higher in London than elsewhere. In other words, costs are going to be relatively high just because of the scale of the place.

It is located in a set of streets that were quite run down about 5 years ago, but gentrification has happened and the housing stock there (not very well built Georgian terraces) is probably now worth an arm and several legs, with the locals either selling and moving to make money from the better off middle classes who'll have been attracted by its proximity to Holloway Road and Finsbury Park stations, or being forced out by sky high rental costs (like me).

Incidentally, not too far down the street from his office there lived a very cute cat aptly called Chairman Miaow.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 1:59 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
citizenJA wrote: It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.
Sorry, but I see a lowering of standards. Yes Labour is better than Conservative, but by how much more? And at what cost if we just settle for gaining power when that power is likely to be misused or abused?

I know what you mean and (correct me if I'm wrong) you're thinking of some of the wasted opportunities of the Tony Blair era. But I don't see that in Owen Smith. I think with Tony Blair a lot of us bit the bullet, especially in 1997, and convinced ourselves that "he can't come out and say he'll do it, but he will do it". And he was, domestically at least, better than what went before.

I fully supported Blair. He was a welcome change from the Tories and I'd always voted Labour, but I didn't like the way he was taking the party, so went LibDem.

No way am I going to vote for a PLP that's drifted so far to the right and will stay that way if Smith gets in. Despite what he says.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:03 pm

I confess to being somewhat surprised that nobody seems interested in Smith's 20 point plan (or anything he said today).

That may tell us something of interest of course.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:05 pm

I almost feel for poor Owen. I suspect kicking Theresa between the legs wouldn't pass either.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:06 pm

Is it me, or is the fact that Labour has a democratically elected leader been carefully swept into a corner on this board?

What about that the PLP acted disgracefully? Neglected the job we elected them to do? Lost one of the best opportunities we've ever had to bring the Tories to heel?

Sorry if it grates, but I haven't forgotten.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:09 pm

Rebecca wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: Doesn't that worry you? Raising people's hopes just to get votes? I am sick to the back teeth of the damage Politicians are doing, and I am angry about it. We've had six years of cruel Tory policies. I don't want to listen to Labour politicians coming out with the same old, same old.
It doesn't worry me, Ohso. Labour government is always better than Tory government. I'll support Labour no matter the leader. Future events might lead me to change my mind. But right now, I'm here.
What,you would vote for someone knowing that he is lying to you?

No.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:10 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Labour need to be in government to change Tory policies.
No they don't. I refer you to Jonny's post yesterday.

I'll reiterate it here: an opposition don't have to be in power to change the direction of the government's policies (e.g. Tax credit reversal, etc).

They do need to be in power, though, to implement their own.

If Labour had actually got fully behind Corbyn from day one, we would now be in a position to determine just how effective at the former his leadership would actually have been. It is somewhat ironic that because to many of them have been stabbing him in the back - and latterly the front - from prior to his winning the leadership election, we can't actually answer that. Has Corbyn been rubbish? If he has been rubbish, how much is down to him and how much is down to a chunk of the PLP behaving like a bunch of spoilt brats for 9 months? If Labour is unelectable, is it Corbyn or is it the PLP or is it both?

Because we can't say, it's diminished the chances of Smith winning, not increased them.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:12 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:. 'Wealth tax for higher earners' sounds economically illiterate to me.

I initially thought that, but it seems he is suggesting a 1% tax on investment income.

He did put flesh on it at the press con.

I am not sure how he answers the "Why won't you serve under Jeremy if that is who we elect?" question.

He obviously cannot state the truth.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:18 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:I confess to being somewhat surprised that nobody seems interested in Smith's 20 point plan (or anything he said today).

That may tell us something of interest of course.

I confess that due to the mechanism that this contest and his selection for it has come about, I am having a very hard time believing a goddamned thing he says. Plus his playing of appallingly gutter politics from the start has severely diminished my view of him that I don't actually care what he says. I hope he loses no matter what because I don't want someone that is so willing to pull a Goldsmith leading the Labour Party.

Anyway, I'm not voting in this contest, so my views are really neither here nor there.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:21 pm

@RobertSnozers

It's beyond me, at the moment, to successfully prune that ever-lengthening post which contains your comment -

but I agree with your observations about Tony Blair. But during his actual tenure, many things would have been worse under the Conservatives. I think he possibly got carried away with his own sense of omnipotence and thought that all the risks that he set up for the future would be subject to having what he saw as his (or his disciples') wise and benevolent hand on the tiller in perpetuity. He didn't leave a brilliant legacy for a (nominally?) Labour government.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:21 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I confess to being somewhat surprised that nobody seems interested in Smith's 20 point plan (or anything he said today).

That may tell us something of interest of course.
I confess that due to the mechanism that this contest and his selection for it has come about, I am having a very hard time believing a goddamned thing he says. Plus his playing of appallingly gutter politics from the start has severely diminished my view of him that I don't actually care what he says. I hope he loses no matter what because I don't want someone that is so willing to pull a Goldsmith leading the Labour Party.

Anyway, I'm not voting in this contest, so my views are really neither here nor there.

Yes. Views like that were my supposition as to why he was being ignored: people don't care.

Which means, of course, that if that persists thee is nothing the PLP can say or do to change people's minds.

Smith needs to get Miliband and others who have support among the base to endorse him.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 27 Jul, 2016 2:24 pm

A remark on the 'why didn't Smith enter last year' question:

1) he wouldn't have got the nominations - too inexperienced/unknown
2) even if he had, he would have been thinking - like everyone else in the PLP at the start - that it was a shoo-in for Cooper or Burnham and that Corbyn would have even less chance of winning than the greenhorn, wildcard that was Kendall.