Saturday 6th and Sunday 7th August 2016

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 6:54 am

Good morfternoon.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 7:02 am

Morning

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... p-11711417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Could you pass a Scouse Citizen test?"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 7:16 am

I know every street in Liverpool.It's in Kensington,just off West Derby Road.

I lived in Balmoral,just off Prescot Road,before that Kremlin .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 7:36 am

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 9:01 am

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The mother of all worries: why do women fret about their children more than men do?

FWIW I think seem is the operative word,I am not a Father,certainly my dad worried/worries as much if not more,just deals with/presents it differently.I worry all the time,if I am not about something I worry why I'm not.

Lost Soul · Post by **Lost Soul** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 9:15 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters

...adding to my worries...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 9:41 am

I was advised to pick a worrying time specific to that purpose,of course it just resulted in more self debate as to when they would be.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 9:43 am

"I worry therefore I am"

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 9:52 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters

‘Refugees are here to stay, let’s deport Theresa May,’

Strangely, this reminds me of the rhymes from Rupert Bear cartoons.

pala · Post by **pala** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:10 am

From Peter Kilfoyle interview in the Gaurdian:

What do you make of Corbyn?
“Well, I knew Jeremy, obviously, for the years I was in parliament. He seems an amiable kind of a bloke. I would never have described him as a leader. I never voted for him. I would not have nominated him. But the fact is he seems to be sort of riding this wave in which he encapsulates everything that a lot of people in the party aspire to and on another level he rejects those things that they reject. I have had this conversation with people, including people in the party leadership, and I have made the point very simply. He did not draw up the rules. He stood. He was elected. You accept that. He is the leader. In the same way I didn’t nominate [Gordon] Brown. I thought Brown was a very destructive force in the Labour party. But once he became leader, I accepted him as a leader. That’s called party discipline. Unfortunately, too many people feel that they can’t do that in the case of Corbyn.”

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:15 am

Campaign win on tactile paving

http://www.rnib.org.uk/campaign-win" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Campaign For Accessible Streets

http://www.rnib.org.uk/campaigning/curr ... /my-street" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:18 am

Lost Soul wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters
...adding to my worries...

Good on the shortcomings of Corbyn and his supporters, but skims over those of his internal opponents - and why he was ever elected in the first place.

(in particular, the events of last summer barely get a mention)

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:19 am

https://www.opendemocracy.net/steven-ca ... -discourse

Social media encloses us in a bubble of similar opinions, whilst debate-style shows fail to really challenge us. How can we break this pattern?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:35 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... 1470474393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Child benefit has been changing lives for 70 years. Let’s not forget the woman behind it
Selma James
Eleanor Rathbone’s idea that mothers should be paid for the work of bearing and raising children was radical in its time – and inspires to this day

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:44 am

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

Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy is smarter than his critics realise

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 10:47 am

Good-morning, everyone.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:21 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... cs-realise

Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy is smarter than his critics realise

Not completely convinced. As the piece says, the papers - despite their steadily declining circulation - still have a great deal of influence.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:21 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Someone just posted this excerpt from Yes Prime Minister on Twitter:

"Don't tell me about the press. I know who reads the papers. The Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run it, the Times is read by the people who do run the country, the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people that run it, the Financial Times is read by the people who own the country, the Morning Star is read by the people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

"What about the people who read The Sun?"

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."

It predates YPM Robert. I remember reading it in the late sixties.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:26 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... cs-realise

Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy is smarter than his critics realise
Not completely convinced. As the piece says, the papers - despite their steadily declining circulation - still have a great deal of influence.

Indeed. They set the BBC's agenda for starters.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:35 am

HindleA wrote:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters

Fascinating account.
The thing that leaps out at me is how Nuneaton voted Tory at the last election and then voted leave in the EU ref. A very stark example of how Cameron "bought" the last election with his offer of a referendum. Yet what else could Ed Miliband do? He understood the strain an EU referendum would place on an already pummeled economy and the danger of getting an answer he wasn't personally supportive of and reluctant to act upon. If he had won by promising a referendum, the campaign to remain may have been better under a Labour government, but could it have won out over decades of anti-EU propaganda in the vast majority of the print media? Decades of anti-EU propaganda in the press has brought us to this point. If Ed had won the election and implemented the Leveson recommendations in full, it could have marked an important turning point for this country.

Some of my antipathy to Corbyn stems from my perception that the left clique to which he belongs were as guilty of undermining Ed from the left as others were of undermining him from the right. I've mentioned it before, but Diane Abbott trashing Ed's mansion tax all over the tv just before the election was a defining moment for me of why Labour lost. It may be that his refusal to hold an EU ref had already lost it for him, but such open criticism of a flagship policy from his own side did not help and is why, for me, Corbyn and his allies do not occupy any kind of moral superiority on loyalty or party unity. Indeed people who have always been loyal and "on message" whoever is leader, such as Andy Burnham who was loyal to everyone including Harriet Harman, seem to come in for the greatest level of criticism from those who support Corbyn, for not having strong enough principles. Yet I'm expected to accept that Corbyn genuinely changed his mind on the EU at the 11th hour and is genuinely able to represent people like me who would vote to rejoin the EU if ever given the opportunity? Personally I think flexibility and adaptability are positives, but I get confused when Burnham is attacked for being adaptable as opposed to the principled, inflexible Corbyn who always sticks to his ideals, apart from on the EU when I'm expected to believe he didn't. I know I'm not explaining myself well, but it was an interesting article which threw up some thoughts, I guess not least of which was that I responded to and supported Ed Miliband and his fight against the press in a similar way some people are responding to Corbyn right now. I happen to think Ed is decent and principled too, yet some on the left couldn't get behind him despite his personal qualities, and that reflects the way I can't get behind Corbyn now.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:47 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Someone just posted this excerpt from Yes Prime Minister on Twitter:

"Don't tell me about the press. I know who reads the papers. The Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run it, the Times is read by the people who do run the country, the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people that run it, the Financial Times is read by the people who own the country, the Morning Star is read by the people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

"What about the people who read The Sun?"

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."
It predates YPM Robert. I remember reading it in the late sixties.
I see - either YM or YPM must have appropriated it then, as they have the clip with subtitles on Twitter. I can see why though - chuck in a few more expletives and you can imagine it as a Malcolm Tucker rant from The Thick Of It.

The routine also used to include "The Daily Express is read by people who think the country should be run the way it was fifty years ago" and in this version the Telegraph was "read by people who think it still is."

I was most impressed to hear it updated (in the Eighties) to add in "The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country."

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:48 am

Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n16/tom-crewe/we-are-many

We Are Many
Tom Crewe goes among the Corbyn supporters
Fascinating account.
The thing that leaps out at me is how Nuneaton voted Tory at the last election and then voted leave in the EU ref. A very stark example of how Cameron "bought" the last election with his offer of a referendum. Yet what else could Ed Miliband do? He understood the strain an EU referendum would place on an already pummeled economy and the danger of getting an answer he wasn't personally supportive of and reluctant to act upon. If he had won by promising a referendum, the campaign to remain may have been better under a Labour government, but could it have won out over decades of anti-EU propaganda in the vast majority of the print media? Decades of anti-EU propaganda in the press has brought us to this point. If Ed had won the election and implemented the Leveson recommendations in full, it could have marked an important turning point for this country.

Some of my antipathy to Corbyn stems from my perception that the left clique to which he belongs were as guilty of undermining Ed from the left as others were of undermining him from the right. I've mentioned it before, but Diane Abbott trashing Ed's mansion tax all over the tv just before the election was a defining moment for me of why Labour lost. It may be that his refusal to hold an EU ref had already lost it for him, but such open criticism of a flagship policy from his own side did not help and is why, for me, Corbyn and his allies do not occupy any kind of moral superiority on loyalty or party unity. Indeed people who have always been loyal and "on message" whoever is leader, such as Andy Burnham who was loyal to everyone including Harriet Harman, seem to come in for the greatest level of criticism from those who support Corbyn, for not having strong enough principles. Yet I'm expected to accept that Corbyn genuinely changed his mind on the EU at the 11th hour and is genuinely able to represent people like me who would vote to rejoin the EU if ever given the opportunity? Personally I think flexibility and adaptability are positives, but I get confused when Burnham is attacked for being adaptable as opposed to the principled, inflexible Corbyn who always sticks to his ideals, apart from on the EU when I'm expected to believe he didn't. I know I'm not explaining myself well, but it was an interesting article which threw up some thoughts, I guess not least of which was that I responded to and supported Ed Miliband and his fight against the press in a similar way some people are responding to Corbyn right now. I happen to think Ed is decent and principled too, yet some on the left couldn't get behind him despite his personal qualities, and that reflects the way I can't get behind Corbyn now.

I don't think the left undermined Miliband to anywhere near the same extent as those from the right did and I think most ire was directed at Ed Balls and his inability to stand up to Osbornomics

Your point about Diane Abbott is fair though - I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to see her with much power, but needs must when most of the PLP refuse to serve in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not sure she would not be at the bottom of the list of members if that wasn't the case

I too am happy to criticise Corbyn's inflexibility and it is a weakness.....it is a very difficult balance to maintain principles whilst staying flexible enough to adapt. I said in a post a few days ago that if he wins the next leadership election that he has to show he can listen to other views and adapt his thinking. Mind you, it has not as though he has been given much of a chance by the PLP, and the one area where he did show an ability to adapt his message was the EU (I am not anywhere as critical of his performance in the referendum as some on here)

Miliband would have been by far the best choice to be PM at the last election, and the reason he didn't win cannot be blamed on Diane Abbott - the mansion tax complaints were focused on London and Labour did well there....not much property in Nuneaton would have been affected.

What lost it for Labour, in my view, was the continued undermining, mainly from the right. The lies promoted in the press about Labour policies and the easy ride given to the Tories. The destruction of the LD by the Tories and also the SNP fear factor. Very, very little to do with the left wingers....I don't remember them being in the press much to be honest

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:50 am

mbc1955 wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
frightful_oik wrote: It predates YPM Robert. I remember reading it in the late sixties.
I see - either YM or YPM must have appropriated it then, as they have the clip with subtitles on Twitter. I can see why though - chuck in a few more expletives and you can imagine it as a Malcolm Tucker rant from The Thick Of It.
The routine also used to include "The Daily Express is read by people who think the country should be run the way it was fifty years ago" and in this version the Telegraph was "read by people who think it still is."

I was most impressed to hear it updated (in the Eighties) to add in "The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country."

That's right. I also think it used to say the Daily Mail was read by people who thought women should run the country.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 11:59 am

Miliband might still have prevailed at the last GE had all the other "progressive" parties not mistakenly believed the polls and thus thought they could have "free hits" at him and Labour, rather than concentrating their fire on the Tories. In retrospect, it is clear that in England/Wales (if not Scotland) this had a negative effect on the turnout amongst left-leaning voters (overstating that was, in fact, a significant reason why the pollsters got it "wrong" - certainly much more so than largely mythical "shy Tories")

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:18 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband might still have prevailed at the last GE had all the other "progressive" parties not mistakenly believed the polls and thus thought they could have "free hits" at him and Labour, rather than concentrating their fire on the Tories. In retrospect, it is clear that in England/Wales (if not Scotland) this had a negative effect on the turnout amongst left-leaning voters (overstating that was, in fact, a significant reason why the pollsters got it "wrong" - certainly much more so than largely mythical "shy Tories")

I rather think that had Miliband's Labour offfered genuine progressive socialism instead of rehashed neoliberalism but a bit kinder, then other 'progressive parties' would not have had the moral duty to point such failings out to the electorate.

The blaming of other parties really misses the point yet again as to why Labour lost. It lost on the left because it did not offer the left anything, it lost to the greens because it did not offer the greens anything, it lost to the SNP because it stopped offering the scots real change twenty years ago and it is losing in wales for the same reason. And, I said this multiple times on here before the election and was castifgated for it. Not being as bad as the tories is not a winning strategy, as has now been proven twice over.

Labour kept looking to Nuneaton for what voters want and ignoring vast swathes of the north, scotland and wales and what their supporters actually wanted. It chased nuneaton tories and lost its soul and core voters.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:24 pm

@howsillyofme
Diane Abbott has been put forward to speak for Labour on tv under Corbyn's leadership almost as frequently as McDonnell right from the very beginning as opposed to other shadows - Burnham, Eagle, Alexander, Smith, Powell etc - so I assume she's part of Corbyn's core team. She has spoken on everything, not just her shadow brief in a manner that suggests she is speaking for Corbyn.

As for the left not attacking Ed as much as the right, I'm sure that's true, but there is no denying they are capable of acting in the same manner. The Greens using Tory lies to attack Labour particularly disappointed me and shows that people with left wing ideals are equally capable of dirty politics and this is the point I'm making, really. I'm not convinced by the gentler, kinder politics. I'm not convinced Corbyn is offering much different to Ed policy wise and I'm less convinced of his ability to win support in the general population or deliver anything in government.

Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland. That the left demonizing people who represent and support different aspects of the Labour spectrum is, in effect, destroying the Broad Church necessary to win in a FPTP system and I hold both sides responsible. This is an old war, the article HindleA linked refers to this, between old Labour and New Labour. I saw Ed Miliband as representing a step to move Labour on from that war, with new MPs untainted by such labels, but with Corbyn's election I feel we have been propelled back into past fights which stop the party moving forward.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:26 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband might still have prevailed at the last GE had all the other "progressive" parties not mistakenly believed the polls and thus thought they could have "free hits" at him and Labour, rather than concentrating their fire on the Tories. In retrospect, it is clear that in England/Wales (if not Scotland) this had a negative effect on the turnout amongst left-leaning voters (overstating that was, in fact, a significant reason why the pollsters got it "wrong" - certainly much more so than largely mythical "shy Tories")
I rather think that had Miliband's Labour offfered genuine progressive socialism instead of rehashed neoliberalism but a bit kinder, then other 'progressive parties' would not have had the moral duty to point such failings out to the electorate.

The blaming of other parties really misses the point yet again as to why Labour lost. It lost on the left because it did not offer the left anything, it lost to the greens because it did not offer the greens anything, it lost to the SNP because it stopped offering the scots real change twenty years ago and it is losing in wales for the same reason. And, I said this multiple times on here before the election and was castifgated for it. Not being as bad as the tories is not a winning strategy, as has now been proven twice over.

Labour kept looking to Nuneaton for what voters want and ignoring vast swathes of the north, scotland and wales and what their supporters actually wanted. It chased nuneaton tories and lost its soul and core voters.

Miliband moved Labour significantly to the left - that was why Blairites hated him and still do, and openly gloated at his defeat.

This, at least, could have been acknowledged.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
HindleA wrote:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... cs-realise

Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy is smarter than his critics realise
Not completely convinced. As the piece says, the papers - despite their steadily declining circulation - still have a great deal of influence.

Yes, I noted that too.

"...while social media are valuable organising tools, they do not constitute the spaces where, by and large, people get
their news. Mainstream news outlets remain extremely influential – though not decisive, as I have already suggested –
in shaping agendas and in legitimising specific perspectives...

Legacy news organisations – especially the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 – remain by far the top news sources for adults
in the UK, with BBC One alone used by some 48 per cent of the population."

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:41 pm

Re Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy -

I didn't notice, in the article, any acknowledgement that Jeremy Corbyn actually has a strategy.

As this paragraph, taken from the article, seems to indicate -

The implication of this is not that we ought to develop a media strategy (let alone as set of policies) focused on the priorities and routines of the major news outlets. Labour ought not to accommodate to media power but to challenge it. This would involve curbing the influence of the biggest media moguls, addressing the systemic bias towards vested interests inside some of our biggest newsrooms, and supporting the creation of new, independent sources of journalism. Media reform needs to be a central part of any progressive political strategy – as Corbyn himself has alluded to. (New Statesman)

Edited - made a bit of a typographical mess of that one
Edit (again) - stubborn one, this

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:44 pm

Willow904 wrote:...I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland. That the left demonizing people who represent and support different aspects of the Labour spectrum is, in effect, destroying the Broad Church necessary to win in a FPTP system and I hold both sides responsible.

(cJA edit)

I agree with this especially, Willow904, thank you.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:52 pm

PorFavor wrote:Re Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy -

I didn't notice, in the article, any acknowledgement that Jeremy Corbyn actually has a strategy.

As this paragraph, taken from the article, seems to indicate -
The implication of this is not that we ought to develop a media strategy (let alone as set of policies) focused on the priorities and routines of the major news outlets. Labour ought not to accommodate to media power but to challenge it. This would involve curbing the influence of the biggest media moguls, addressing the systemic bias towards vested interests inside some of our biggest newsrooms, and supporting the creation of new, independent sources of journalism. Media reform needs to be a central part of any progressive political strategy – as Corbyn himself has alluded to. (New Statesman)
Edited - made a bit of a typographical mess of that one
Edit (again) - stubborn one, this

Can 'curbing the influence of the biggest media moguls' be achieved outside government? Serious question.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:54 pm

citizenJA wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Re Jeremy Corbyn's media strategy -

I didn't notice, in the article, any acknowledgement that Jeremy Corbyn actually has a strategy.

As this paragraph, taken from the article, seems to indicate -
The implication of this is not that we ought to develop a media strategy (let alone as set of policies) focused on the priorities and routines of the major news outlets. Labour ought not to accommodate to media power but to challenge it. This would involve curbing the influence of the biggest media moguls, addressing the systemic bias towards vested interests inside some of our biggest newsrooms, and supporting the creation of new, independent sources of journalism. Media reform needs to be a central part of any progressive political strategy – as Corbyn himself has alluded to. (New Statesman)
Edited - made a bit of a typographical mess of that one
Edit (again) - stubborn one, this
Can 'curbing the influence of the biggest media moguls' be achieved outside government? Serious question.

I expect Ed Miliband can answer that one!

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 12:58 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Miliband might still have prevailed at the last GE had all the other "progressive" parties not mistakenly believed the polls and thus thought they could have "free hits" at him and Labour, rather than concentrating their fire on the Tories. In retrospect, it is clear that in England/Wales (if not Scotland) this had a negative effect on the turnout amongst left-leaning voters (overstating that was, in fact, a significant reason why the pollsters got it "wrong" - certainly much more so than largely mythical "shy Tories")
I rather think that had Miliband's Labour offfered genuine progressive socialism instead of rehashed neoliberalism but a bit kinder, then other 'progressive parties' would not have had the moral duty to point such failings out to the electorate.

The blaming of other parties really misses the point yet again as to why Labour lost. It lost on the left because it did not offer the left anything, it lost to the greens because it did not offer the greens anything, it lost to the SNP because it stopped offering the scots real change twenty years ago and it is losing in wales for the same reason. And, I said this multiple times on here before the election and was castifgated for it. Not being as bad as the tories is not a winning strategy, as has now been proven twice over.

Labour kept looking to Nuneaton for what voters want and ignoring vast swathes of the north, scotland and wales and what their supporters actually wanted. It chased nuneaton tories and lost its soul and core voters.
Miliband moved Labour significantly to the left - that was why Blairites hated him and still do, and openly gloated at his defeat.

This, at least, could have been acknowledged.

Hmm I wonder if we will see any athletes slow down and let a russian win at the olympics cos he's not actually on drugs anymore?

I believe it was 12 seats where the percentage of green voters would have given Labour the seat. That would have been Cameron's majority gone. Now you can blame the Greems as much as you want, but those voters - including me - gave up on Milliband's labour in our millions because we were sick to death of Labour's snivelling acceptance of the status quo. And when Milliband was gone, what did they do but abstain on welfare, absolutely justifying our decision not to vote tory-lite.

Thr British people are not going to vote Tory-lite when they can have the real thing, and its pretty clear that the labour members arent going to vote Corbyn-lite when they can have the real thing there either.

Owen Smith isnt genuinely even that, hes gone through so many alleged damascene conversions it's frightening how stupid he thinks people are. Two weeks ago 'Austerity is right' now he's up in anti-austerity. In 2006, he didnt know how he would have voted in Iraq, likening it to the Spanish Civil War FFS. Now hes all about Iraq being terrible, Suddenly he wants a fully nationalised NHS, yet a couple of years ago was intensely relaxed about PFI and private involvement, he abstained on the welfare vote, shall we just ignore that?

He's a chameleon, Pfizer's wormtounge. He tried to cloak himself in Nye's raiments and a welsh crowd - who understood Nye better than he has ever demonstrated - treated it with the contempt it deserved.

As for electable, he lost Blaenau Gwent - my god even Blaenau Gwent - in Pontypridd he so turned off the electorate that Kim HOwells' 52% of the vote collapsed to 39% under OS - that is the worst performance in ponty for a labour candidate ever, not a single other one has had a % of less than fifty in over a century! And Kim Howells was widely regarded as an arsehole in the valleys.

But don't worry he will still murder millions of innocents with the press of a button. there is a moral vacuum at the heart of Labour that Owen Smith perfectly expemplifies, thats why labour lost two elections and Scotland, and its why Corbyn - no great orator or leader - will win again.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 1:37 pm

Temulkar wrote: Two weeks ago 'Austerity is right' now he's up in anti-austerity.

I became interested in Owen Smith when Corbyn made him shadow DWP and followed his time there to see what he was like and was generally impressed with him in the role, as I was with Heidi Alexander at Health and Lucy Powell at education. I formed this impression from my own observations. Did you form your impression that Owen Smith was for austerity two weeks ago from your own observation or did your form it from the video clip doing the rounds on Twitter that was edited to show the bit where he said "austerity" and not the bit where he corrected himself and said "anti-austerity" in an interview? I only ask because I've been quite surprised at how knowledgeable people seem to be about exactly what kind of person Smith is already, when I have seen way too little of him to really feel I know much about him at all. I didn't really get behind Ed until he'd been leader for a couple of years and I got a feel for what he was about. I admit I've been less open minded about Corbyn, but my opinions are based on my response to his actual speeches and actions, not on the media on the whole. I stayed ok this forum precisely so I wouldn't be influenced by those hostile towards him and to try to maintain a balanced view. I find myself defending Smith, not so much because I particularly like or rate him above other Labour MPs, but because of the ferocity and misinformation of those attacking him, much of which I suspect is being spread by those who wish to promote friction and a split within Labour rather than genuine supporters of Corbyn, but when those genuine supporters (of either 'side' - and how did we come to 'sides'?) readily accept the caricature rather than seek the facts, I worry where Labour is headed.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 1:37 pm

Willow904 wrote:@howsillyofme
Diane Abbott has been put forward to speak for Labour on tv under Corbyn's leadership almost as frequently as McDonnell right from the very beginning as opposed to other shadows - Burnham, Eagle, Alexander, Smith, Powell etc - so I assume she's part of Corbyn's core team. She has spoken on everything, not just her shadow brief in a manner that suggests she is speaking for Corbyn.

As for the left not attacking Ed as much as the right, I'm sure that's true, but there is no denying they are capable of acting in the same manner. The Greens using Tory lies to attack Labour particularly disappointed me and shows that people with left wing ideals are equally capable of dirty politics and this is the point I'm making, really. I'm not convinced by the gentler, kinder politics. I'm not convinced Corbyn is offering much different to Ed policy wise and I'm less convinced of his ability to win support in the general population or deliver anything in government.

Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland. That the left demonizing people who represent and support different aspects of the Labour spectrum is, in effect, destroying the Broad Church necessary to win in a FPTP system and I hold both sides responsible. This is an old war, the article HindleA linked refers to this, between old Labour and New Labour. I saw Ed Miliband as representing a step to move Labour on from that war, with new MPs untainted by such labels, but with Corbyn's election I feel we have been propelled back into past fights which stop the party moving forward.

I am not sure Abbott was as prominent as you remember...I didn't see it that way but we are coming from this from different sides. She was Shadow International Development at the beginning...not particularly high profile and I remember the rumours saying she was goind to be Shadow Foreign Secretary......I wonder who was spreading that nonsense

She definitely has a bigger presence now but that is due to the others not being available anymore

The left can definitely behave very badly but they cannot be blamed for the losses in 2010 and 2015....I lived in Scotland and I know lots of Scots Nats.....they did not vote against Labour because of the 'Red Tory' label being used by Labour members - in fact I can't remember many Labour supporters using that much prior to the last few years.

Labour lost in Scotland because of a reticence to speak to the Scots concerns, the Indy referendum and the catastrophic leadership of Jim Murphy. They don't mind Corbyn but they are not coming back to Labour anytime soon

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 1:51 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Temulkar wrote: Two weeks ago 'Austerity is right' now he's up in anti-austerity.
I became interested in Owen Smith when Corbyn made him shadow DWP and followed his time there to see what he was like and was generally impressed with him in the role, as I was with Heidi Alexander at Health and Lucy Powell at education. I formed this impression from my own observations. Did you form your impression that Owen Smith was for austerity two weeks ago from your own observation or did your form it from the video clip doing the rounds on Twitter that was edited to show the bit where he said "austerity" and not the bit where he corrected himself and said "anti-austerity" in an interview? I only ask because I've been quite surprised at how knowledgeable people seem to be about exactly what kind of person Smith is already, when I have seen way too little of him to really feel I know much about him at all. I didn't really get behind Ed until he'd been leader for a couple of years and I got a feel for what he was about. I admit I've been less open minded about Corbyn, but my opinions are based on my response to his actual speeches and actions, not on the media on the whole. I stayed ok this forum precisely so I wouldn't be influenced by those hostile towards him and to try to maintain a balanced view. I find myself defending Smith, not so much because I particularly like or rate him above other Labour MPs, but because of the ferocity and misinformation of those attacking him, much of which I suspect is being spread by those who wish to promote friction and a split within Labour rather than genuine supporters of Corbyn, but when those genuine supporters (of either 'side' - and how did we come to 'sides'?) readily accept the caricature rather than seek the facts, I worry where Labour is headed.

Actually in that interview, Angela Eagle said after his comment: 'we agree on anti-austerity though,' and OS did not agree he merely smiled. He did not correct himself whatsoever after that, it was the end of the interview. So yeah I have watched all of that interview, Ive also been well aware of Owen Smith in Welsh politics before he actually became an MP. He has not been popular.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:05 pm

I also question his claims of going to Port Talbot to picket with the miners, given how little picketing actually happened at the steelworks - he certainly wasnt part of the direct action that took place there, and he must have been a pretty precocious socialist at 14 to get from Barry to Port Talbot. What little picketing there is described as 'of a token nature' and quickly abandoned after a couple of weeks. Strange he didnt just go up the Rhondda, far closer with direct transport links to Barry, and with active picket lines.

As I said, I think the man is a chamelon, a weathervane extrodinaire, yet another PR spin merchant who will say anything if he thinks it gives him an advantage.

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:24 pm

Afternoon all

A couple of points I think are really important about an explicit move to ant austerity and equality.

Gordon Brown introduced a lot of anti poverty measures, many of them by stealth. Most of these have been removed first be the coalition and now by the Tories with a full media strategic call to arms under the undeserving, scrounger, they don't pay banner headlines. I would argue that the ease with which these have removed/ cut and the lack of compassion that has been shrieked as normal behaviour over the last six years would have been far more obvious and much more difficult if Brown's policy stream had been argued for explicitly. Even david Cameron had to pretend to a caring, compassionate side to take the Tories forward, while nick Clegg and co went for direct betrayal of a swathe of his members and voters.

Secondly, I agree Ed Miliband moved the party to the left. I think, to a great extent, his search for a unifying vision that could be argued got caught in trying to find the consensual way forward for the different viewpoints in the party. I reckon that the last ten months have shown that there is no middle ground the right have been prepared to even inch towards. As to Scotland the strategy for the Indy ref was the responsibility of the Scottish Labour party and they miss called it from the start, I would argue, because their most powerful weapons should have been about shared, collective history across the UK, as fundamental to Scotland's sense of social justice. People in Scotland did believe they were to the left of England and, whether it was true or not, that belief was an important part of the SNP strategy and needed to be countered effectively.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:30 pm

You're entitled to your opinion Temulkar, but a slip of the tongue doesn't constitute evidence that he is or ever was pro-austerity. If there is anything he has said in the past which contradicts what he is saying now, which isn't a straightforward (loyal) support of the party line of the time, I'm surprised it hasn't come to light. The fact a slip of the tongue is being used against him suggests that's all there is. I'm grateful for your contribution as someone who knows more about Welsh politics than me, but Yahyah also has more knowledge of Smith than me from the past, so I'm not overly swayed by one opinion of him over another at the moment. I would have voted for Angela Eagle if I had a choice between the two, but then I voted for her for deputy leader and was very much in the minority, so I can see why Smith won out as the most likely contender to Corbyn.

As an aside, it strikes me Smith is maybe pitching for the union vote and wondering what impact it might have if he's successful there, even if he loses overall. I've seen reports Corbyn has lost support with union members. If this is borne out by the leadership vote would this cause issues for union leaders who are keen to continue backing Corbyn?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:36 pm

Willow904 wrote:Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland.

Red Tories is a derogatory term for all Labour MPs - not just the right of the party - of the independence supporting Scottish, not the left per se. Only Hugo - and now you - have ever called or inferred the 172 MPs who voted against Corbyn are Red Tories on this forum.

For what it's worth.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:40 pm

Pardon my ignorance (again) but I asked on this forum a few(?) weeks ago about the 'Welfare Vote'. Apologies if I didn't see an answer at the time but seeing as it came up again today ... Unless it's a different one to the one I referred to wasn't it Mr Corbyn (and 'cronies') who was (were) absent or abstained against Labour's stand on preventing the Second Reading - failing to back the agreed Party line ... again?

I keep seeing mention of the 'Welfare vote' as though it signifies some 'neoliberal' treachery of socialism while it seemed like the sensible strategy before the 2015 election and, in light of some of the possible factors in Labour's defeat, even more sensible straight afterwards with an interim Leader? Which 'Welfare vote' is being referred to here?

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:40 pm

P.S. Since you've failed to notice it, Labour has not been a broad church for decades. The left of the party has been excluded, mocked and reviled throughout. What has changed is that the dial has shifted from one end of the party back towards its middle. The fact the right simply can't tolerate even this moderate a shift in that dial speaks volumes about how little they respect the Party being a 'broad church'. That is, they can't stand it.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:47 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:I find myself defending Smith, not so much because I particularly like or rate him above other Labour MPs, but because of the ferocity and misinformation of those attacking him, much of which I suspect is being spread by those who wish to promote friction and a split within Labour rather than genuine supporters of Corbyn, but when those genuine supporters (of either 'side' - and how did we come to 'sides'?) readily accept the caricature rather than seek the facts, I worry where Labour is headed.

I find myself defending Corbyn for exactly the same reasons. In an ideal world the party would have been able to use Corbyn's many strengths while mitigating his shortcomings through the skills of others. Instead, it seems as though the plan (if Hugo's suggestions yesterday are anything to go by) is to progressively weaken Corbyn with annual challenges and a permanent insurgency.

Which is why I respect your opinion and am more inclined to be swayed by it than the less nuanced arguments of others. I'm a little disappointed by your giving any special credence to a suggestion of SH's, however

. I think they've been wrong on enough occasions to not be considered especially insightful. At least, no more than the rest of us, in any case.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:51 pm

Willow904 wrote:You're entitled to your opinion Temulkar, but a slip of the tongue doesn't constitute evidence that he is or ever was pro-austerity. If there is anything he has said in the past which contradicts what he is saying now, which isn't a straightforward (loyal) support of the party line of the time, I'm surprised it hasn't come to light. The fact a slip of the tongue is being used against him suggests that's all there is. I'm grateful for your contribution as someone who knows more about Welsh politics than me, but Yahyah also has more knowledge of Smith than me from the past, so I'm not overly swayed by one opinion of him over another at the moment. I would have voted for Angela Eagle if I had a choice between the two, but then I voted for her for deputy leader and was very much in the minority, so I can see why Smith won out as the most likely contender to Corbyn.

As an aside, it strikes me Smith is maybe pitching for the union vote and wondering what impact it might have if he's successful there, even if he loses overall. I've seen reports Corbyn has lost support with union members. If this is borne out by the leadership vote would this cause issues for union leaders who are keen to continue backing Corbyn?

He said what he said ' Austerity is right, but we need a plan for prosperity.' Now that was a slip of the tounge? I note you are not so fogiving of Corbyn's claimed poor phrasing over article 50, I also note that despite your co,mplaints of 'misinformation' your claim thhat 'he corrected himself and said "anti-austerity"' is not born out by the video evidence whatsoever - who is peddling the misinformation?

Talking about misinformation, why are Smith supporters creating and posting fake yougove polls? or Liverpool football crowds and then claiming its a corbyn rally - yes Telegraph reporters I am looking at you! In fact why are the telegraph Mail and Sun so very supportive of Smith, you think they want a strong opposition?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 2:58 pm

JonnyT1234 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland.
Red Tories is a derogatory term for all Labour MPs - not just the right of the party - of the independence supporting Scottish, not the left per se. Only Hugo - and now you - have ever called or inferred the 172 MPs who voted against Corbyn are Red Tories on this forum.

For what it's worth.

To be fair I have called them red tories and tory-lite on here many times in the past.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 3:00 pm

From having watched that clip and the wider context, it is clear to me that Smith was "mis-speaking" then. Its quite easily done.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made of him, some of which you have mentioned yourself.

Pretending he is pro-austerity, however, is the sort of tactic more often used in this contest by Corbyn's opponents.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 3:04 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:From having watched that clip and the wider context, it is clear to me that Smith was "mis-speaking" then. Its quite easily done.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made of him, some of which you have mentioned yourself.

Pretending he is pro-austerity, however, is the sort of tactic more often used in this contest by Corbyn's opponents.

How did he vote on the second reading of the welfare bill AK? Ah, that's right he abstained. He says whatever he thinks will get him an advantage. He is a weathervane. Cornyn for all his faults, is a signpost.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 3:04 pm

Temulkar wrote:
JonnyT1234 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Furthermore I'm not convinced all 172 MPs are "Red Tories" and I feel the use of that phrase by the left was as damaging to Labour's prospects in 2015 as the undermining by the right, especially in Scotland.
Red Tories is a derogatory term for all Labour MPs - not just the right of the party - of the independence supporting Scottish, not the left per se. Only Hugo - and now you - have ever called or inferred the 172 MPs who voted against Corbyn are Red Tories on this forum.

For what it's worth.
To be fair I have called them red tories and tory-lite on here many times in the past.

Then I retract my claim. I have not seen you or anyone else saying it though. Must have been before I started frequently frequenting here instead of BTL at the graun. If that makes any sense.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 3:20 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:From having watched that clip and the wider context, it is clear to me that Smith was "mis-speaking" then. Its quite easily done.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made of him, some of which you have mentioned yourself.

Pretending he is pro-austerity, however, is the sort of tactic more often used in this contest by Corbyn's opponents.
How did he vote on the second reading of the welfare bill AK? Ah, that's right he abstained. He says whatever he thinks will get him an advantage. He is a weathervane. Cornyn for all his faults, is a signpost.

Seeing as nobody answered my post above (yet?), I hope you don't mind me jumping in here for clarification. From my reading this is exactly the other way round to the evidence. Smith did vote 'aye' to decline to give the Welfare Reform and Work Bill(?) a second reading. It was Mr Corbyn that was 'absent'. It's easy enough to check! I'll get the references if that's what's being talked about?

This seems like a typical piece of evidence-free astroturfing by some people and readily accepted by others to continue the 'anti-politics' FUD? Do people here honestly believe this is a workable strategy to win power?

thatchersorphan · Post by **thatchersorphan** » Sat 06 Aug, 2016 3:26 pm

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/brex ... oss-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Brexit means that Britain will be boss again
All we have to do to regain total sovereignty is repeal Sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 European Communities Act - Daniel Hannan

They really don't have a clue.....