I wonder why Press TV invited Nick Palmer on to defend Israel and not someone slightly more confrontational or willing to question the motives of his host's funders. Fox has similar useful Democrats.
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
Mr. Royale, maybe Labour's vetting of voters is proving surprisingly effective.
Mr. Financier, I, for one, welcome the war on fallopian-deprived albino apes of mature years.
Miss Plato, there was a science programme hosted by Dara O'Briain [trying to be Top Gear meets science]. Good idea, but I had to stop watching when Brigstocke was doing a piece on nothingness, and kept on banging on about how crap Clegg and Osborne were (fair enough as an opinion, but I didn't watch a science programme, even a light one, for leftwing political commentary).
It's pretty clear that there is a huge desire for an idological leader who doesn't fit the establishment stereotype. It's so tangible it's almost exciting. The nasty Tories the sleazy Blairites the opportunist Lib Dems....
People want to believe that somewhere out there is somebody different. Someone who wont kow tow to the corporatist agenda that all our politicians now subscribe to.
I'm all for it. The only pity is that I don't think Corbyn will live up to expectations but what he might do is encourage somebody else who isn't an establisment clone to get the confidence tostep forward
A huge number of my facebook friends, who are not left wing activists but by and large natural labour material being young (in spirit if not in body), intelligent, and minded towards a better world, but have lost any interest in labour as it was, have been signing up in droves at the last minute. The sheer uniformity of this response suggests that this can't be an anomaly. This isn't some terrifying plot by the evil unions and reds under the bed, it's genuine interest from people who were sick of mainstream Westminster politics as was.
My Facebook feed is pretty similar from my old med school mates. Clearing out the private sector parasites in the NHS counts for a lot with them. The IRA is history, of little more interest to them than the Chartists or Jacobites.
But the older electorate do remember the IRA and they do vote.
And what happens if/when there is an Islamist atrocity targeted at a synagogue, as has happened in Belgium, cheered on by his Hamas "friends" and JC finds himself unable - as with the IRA - to condemn it? Might your Facebook friends wake up then?
I think that the Corbynists have a blindspot about Islamofascism. It needs to be rooted out and opposed at every turn by progressives on the left. It is the single biggest threat to liberal values and social justice in the world.
Indeed - and poor old Roger thinks that being on the side of such people is thinking out of the box. Really thinking out of the box would be listening to those who really understand what they are talking about, like Maajid Nawaz - whose article on the Daily Beast I referenced a few days ago - who has so eloquently and repeatedly exposed the facile thinking of people like Roger.
I am all in favour of challenging the corporatist and blindly pro-American thinking followed to excess by New Labour but I would like this done from a liberal position not one which will hearten those whose default position is fundamentally anti-liberal and anti-democratic.
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
Cooper has no answers.
Given such a weedy 'fightback' as an option on the ballot paper, it's no wonder the loon is going to sweep the board.
Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Unite, wiped out any serious leadership opposition within Labour, and destroyed the party. Genius.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
Tend to agree
Toby Young joined and voted Corbyn because he thought it would make a Conservative win next time more likely
Mark Steel seems to have joined and voted Corbyn because he agrees with Corbyns vision for the Labour Party. Fair enough
I campaigned for UKIP last time, so against Labout in Dag and Rajnham. If Jon Cruddas, prob the most Ukip labour MP, were on the ballot paper and I joined the Party to vote for him I wouldn't say that was crooked
Camilla Long said he spoke a lot of words without actually saying anything beyond cliches. She was really disappointed in his speech/expected something more than student union reasoning.
On the subject (from the previous thread) about whether Jeremy Corbyn is thick (or not): in Croydon last week he said that he couldn't, as leader of the party, write every detail of a manifesto or list of policies on his own. They would have to be worked out by masses of ordinary people discussing in community halls, not posh people in focus groups in exclusive hotels.
Maybe that's subconscious lefty code meaning that he's a thicko who hasn't got a clue about any details? He just knows a few lefty slogans of the type which are enough to get a rebellious backbencher on TV, but not enough to build proper policies for being LOTO or PM.
So how I don't the thick posh like yourself and camilla long are really his target audience.
Ah, Mr Wisemann, stepping in to fill that some time vacant pb.com Misogynist post?
Another of the full four asterisks....
Erm... No - I don't think I've ever been known for holding back on calling PB Tory men thick or posh where deserved (ie very often). I'm for equal opportunities and treatment in this regard, as in all others.
Oh, you're a class act. "So what if I punch my missus? I punch blokes too...." Is that your level of equal opportunity for all?
Interestingly, on that pigeon motion, Peter Bottomley attempts to amend it with a modicum of sanity and common sense. But is unsupported by Corbyn or either of the other two pillocks:
The voting begins in two days or so and most of the ballots will be returned quickly ; they must Blitz Corbyn NOW !...they must humiliate him and burst the bubble of fantasy that he promotes ; the King really is wearing no cloths , this Gandhi -like figure is a total fantasist living in a bygone era ...unfortunately the LP seem to lack the willpower and killer instinct to stop this nutter , indeed they seem to have accepted their fate that he is going to win and will have to endure him for a year or so until he is humiliated and discredited by the Tories and print media
The damage is done no matter who wins. Labour are exposed. Labour are split. Labour are rudderless.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
Tend to agree
Toby Young joined and voted Corbyn because he thought it would make a Conservative win next time more likely
Mark Steel seems to have joined and voted Corbyn because he agrees with Corbyns vision for the Labour Party. Fair enough
I campaigned for UKIP last time, so against Labout in Dag and Rajnham. If Jon Cruddas, prob the most Ukip labour MP, were on the ballot paper and I joined the Party to vote for him I wouldn't say that was crooked
So Lab can't take yes for an answer?
Toby Young joined to vote for JC. So did hundreds of thousands of others by all accounts. So Toby Young wants to help these hundreds of thousands achieve their aim. And he was not allowed to.
The reason? Of course because those running the ballot, the hierarchy, don't want JC to win.
This barring is going to make Labour's situation even worse.
I thought he supported the Greens? I'm sure he has done benefit gigs for the party.
It was interesting that even these Leftie comics couldn't couldn't come to the defence of Ed Miliband. You knew Labour was doomed in May when there was just too much good material on their leader...
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
Cooper has no answers.
Given such a weedy 'fightback' as an option on the ballot paper, it's no wonder the loon is going to sweep the board.
Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Unite, wiped out any serious leadership opposition within Labour, and destroyed the party. Genius.
I think it highly likely we will still have a deficit 'issue' by 2020, following the recession in 2017-18. See China for details.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
I'm against anyone who actively campaigned against Labour in May from voting in this election. If they want to join up after it has taken place that's fine. As I understand it, those are pretty much the rules and that's why Mark Steel has been excluded. Others will get through because they are less high profile. That just shows how ridiculous the whole process is. But it's not a reason to let Steel in.
Have you read "Lords and Ladies" by T. Pratchett Esq ?
“… people didn't seem to be able to remember what it was like with the elves around. Life was certainly more interesting then, but usually because it was shorter. And it was more colorful, if you liked the color of blood.”
“They'd smash up the world if they thought it would make a pretty noise.”
Like the Hamas controversy, this reflects a wider disagreement on whether one should engage with enemies or boycott them. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
Nick you really aren't getting it are you? It has nothing to do with whether you should engage with your enemies.
It has everything to do with whether you think they are enemies or not. JC evidently doesn't think they are enemies.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
I'm against anyone who actively campaigned against Labour in May from boting in thid election. If they want to join up after it has taken place that's fine. As I understand it, those are pretty much the rules and that's why Mark Steel has been excluded. Others will get through because they are less high profile. That just shows how ridiculous the whole process is. But it's not a reason to let Steel in.
He probably has a second application in a Mrs Scratchit or something which will never be noticed. I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
"I am all in favour of challenging the corporatist and blindly pro-American thinking followed to excess by New Labour but I would like this done from a liberal position not one which will hearten those whose default position is fundamentally anti-liberal and anti-democratic."
So we should all aspire to have a government like your heroes the Israelis!
Corbynism is primarily about defeatism ; it is in fact the once mighty labour party throwing in the towel and accepting that they are now unelectable ; their gormless supporters are trying to convince themselves that it is about principle or convictions or any other sanctimonious drivel but it's not ; it is about DEFEAT
The LP are about to become a professional protest party of failure , ironically , a mirror image of their future leader Jeremy Corbyn , who has failed to achieve anything at all after 33 yrs of being an MP
...it seems to me that there is cruel irony and rough justice at work here ...a self inflicted Darwin award ...there must have been something rotten at the core of the LP for them to collapse so quickly like the French army in 1940
Us PBtories have said for many years now that labour where more and more in hock to the unions, and this was the ultimate outcome. Remember Falkirk which led to some of the leadership election changes....guess just another thing we were wrong about.
All labour pigeons are coming home to roost.
It's not so much the unions. This is a genuinely popular contest. Tens of thousands have joined Labour or registered as supporters.
Labour appears to be a party at war with common sense.
I see FPT that some think that "Iran is a more inclusive democracy" for instance. Well of course JC has shilled for Iran's propaganda TV station, Press TV. So in a few weeks we could have as Leader of the official Opposition a man who has appeared on the propaganda arm of a country which ordered the murder of a British citizen. A British citizen our security services then had to spend years and much money protecting.
Cyclefree, I've been on Press TV several times, explicitly as a supporter of Israel and critic of Iran - I argued there for Western policy of sanctions on Iran, suggesting that they were the peaceful way of the West's expressing dislike of the nuclear programme without going to war. Press TV is of course financed by the regime, but they think it useful to appear to be open to different viewpoints, so they give an airing to them. I think you'd probably feel that accepting is being a useful idiot? - but I felt that any opportunity to put across an alternative view should be taken.
Like the Hamas controversy, this reflects a wider disagreement on whether one should engage with enemies or boycott them. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
Ok - let's take the "engagement vs boycott" argument one stage further. There have been pro-JC posters on this site who have expressed a wish to have a boycott of Israel. Why doesn't the "let's engage with our enemies" argument apply to Israel (assuming for the purpose of this argument that Israel is our enemy's)?
What you choose to ignore is that as an MP your association with causes and groups will give them some credit, some of your credit as an MP. MPs should use that credit wisely. JC is not arguing with Hamas: he's not saying that violence is wrong or trying to persuade them to adopt democracy or to stop threatening to kill every Jew in the world Nor was he trying to persuade the IRA to stop blowing up children.
When British Parliamentarians side with violent people - and do not challenge or argue with them - they cloak them in a bit more respectability and devalue their own worth. They show that they do not understand or do not value their own liberal Parliamentary traditions. This is not an honourable position to take.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
I'm against anyone who actively campaigned against Labour in May from boting in thid election. If they want to join up after it has taken place that's fine. As I understand it, those are pretty much the rules and that's why Mark Steel has been excluded. Others will get through because they are less high profile. That just shows how ridiculous the whole process is. But it's not a reason to let Steel in.
He probably has a second application in a Mrs Scratchit or something which will never be noticed. I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
I've seen a couple of points saying this - surely Labour are doing at least the basic check of matching the persons name and address to the Electoral Register from May?
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
There's the paradox. Economic growth cannot generate enough money if cuts have choked off any growth. It is complicated which is why Labour needed to be making its case for the last five years.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons.
Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
I'm against anyone who actively campaigned against Labour in May from boting in thid election. If they want to join up after it has taken place that's fine. As I understand it, those are pretty much the rules and that's why Mark Steel has been excluded. Others will get through because they are less high profile. That just shows how ridiculous the whole process is. But it's not a reason to let Steel in.
He probably has a second application in a Mrs Scratchit or something which will never be noticed. I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
Quite a few in Falkirk? Anyway this is getting silly. Sane people need to leave Labour to get on with its game of Russian Roulette and concentrate on making sure the whole gang of inept incompetent idiots are never let near the levers of government ever again.
Like the Hamas controversy, this reflects a wider disagreement on whether one should engage with enemies or boycott them. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
Nick you really aren't getting it are you? It has nothing to do with whether you should engage with your enemies.
It has everything to do with whether you think they are enemies or not. JC evidently doesn't think they are enemies.
I raised this in response to Nick's comment the other day. Despite the fact he responded to comments immediately before and after, he clearly avoided mine. He is deliberately not hearing the argument being made, because he doesn't have a response to it. It's a very politician-like thing to do.
Like the Hamas controversy, this reflects a wider disagreement on whether one should engage with enemies or boycott them. There are reasonable arguments both ways.
Nick you really aren't getting it are you? It has nothing to do with whether you should engage with your enemies.
It has everything to do with whether you think they are enemies or not. JC evidently doesn't think they are enemies.
I raised this in response to Nick's comment the other day. Despite the fact he responded to comments immediately before and after, he clearly avoided mine. He is deliberately not hearing the argument being made, because he doesn't have a response to it. It's a very politician-like thing to do.
I'm not entitled to vote, but unlike Mark Steel and Toby Young I did not actively and demonstrably campaign against Labour in May.
Toby Young is clearly in a different category -- he entered for malevolent reasons. Even if Mark Steel did campaign against Labour in 2015, I just don’t see that his position as unreasonable. He wants to see a more left-wing Labour Party. He has been offered the choice of doing for 3 pounds and making his wish a reality by voting for Corbyn, He takes the opportunity.
You wouldn’t be objecting if, say, someone from the centre who had campaigned for the LibDems (like the good Foxinsox) paid 3 pounds and joined up because he wished to see a more centrist Labour Party and wanted to vote for Liz Kendall (whom I gather he rather admires).
I'm against anyone who actively campaigned against Labour in May from boting in thid election. If they want to join up after it has taken place that's fine. As I understand it, those are pretty much the rules and that's why Mark Steel has been excluded. Others will get through because they are less high profile. That just shows how ridiculous the whole process is. But it's not a reason to let Steel in.
He probably has a second application in a Mrs Scratchit or something which will never be noticed. I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
Quite a few in Falkirk? Anyway this is getting silly. Sane people need to leave Labour to get on with its game of Russian Roulette and concentrate on making sure the whole gang of inept incompetent idiots are never let near the levers of government ever again.
It seems a mite self indulgent to dust off the mantle for the honourable member for Islington North and so I shall confer an element of self restraint and constrain my observation to a pre luncheon guffaw of gargantuan proportions.
"I wonder why Press TV invited Nick Palmer on to defend Israel and not someone slightly more confrontational or willing to question the motives of his host's funders. Fox has similar useful Democrats."
Very unfair. He's one of Labour's 'friends of Israel' so quite natural to invite him on.
"I am all in favour of challenging the corporatist and blindly pro-American thinking followed to excess by New Labour but I would like this done from a liberal position not one which will hearten those whose default position is fundamentally anti-liberal and anti-democratic."
So we should all aspire to have a government like your heroes the Israelis!
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never described the Israelis as my heroes. I would like a liberal government like the ones we have had in Britain for most of the 20th and 21st centuries - whether Labour or Tory or Liberal. They were governments that stood up to bullies and fascists and the use of violence against civilians and theocratic fascists and those who wanted the overthrow of liberal democracy. You seem to want to embrace them. And in your hatred of Israel you want to get into bed with the sorts of people who despise you and will use you and then without a second thought discard you.
Last piece by John Cruddas on his post 2015 GE review
"The fourth message from our Independent Review is that Labour has never been so far from political reality for a generation. On a series of measures on the economy, business and welfare, Labour has marched decisively away from the views of voters in each of the last two general elections, but particularly in May, 2015......
Increasingly Labour attracts voters who want to see redistribution of wealth from rich to poor but who also hold views that are out of step with the wider electorate. This reinforces the Inquiry’s finding of a growing cultural divide between the socially liberal, progressive Labour Party and its 2015 voters, and large parts of the electorate who either vote pragmatically or who are socially conservative.
This divide is growing and it is evident across a number of areas that are fundamental to the Party’s electoral prospects: the deficit, the welfare system, public services, personal financial interest, and business. I’ll take each in turn, beginning with wealth redistribution."
For those that missed it a classic John McT v Owen J bitch fight - I like the bit where Owen says - not to rub your face in it John but you did just lose 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland with his hand stretched out in front of him making a circular motion:
Maybe we could have these guys doing battle every day for the next month - tomorrow I vote for them to try mud wrestling in mankinis on the Victoria Derbyshire show !!
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
There's the paradox. Economic growth cannot generate enough money if cuts have choked off any growth. It is complicated which is why Labour needed to be making its case for the last five years.
Just because there's a feedback effect doesn't mean there's a paradox. What happens in reality is that cuts of £Xbn reduces revenue a bit, but by less than £Xbn. Therefore you need cuts of £Xbn and a bit.
What Corbynists are trying to argue is that cutting by £Xbn reduces revenue by >£Xbn, That means, in their logic, that cutting increases the deficit, and spending reduces it.
Left wing people like to think they are enlightened because they recognise the feedback effect. But they are just wrong because that feedback effect isn't as big as they think it is. They are being challenged because their argument works in words, but when you actually put numbers on it, the idea that cuts increase the deficit is just nonsense.
The Corbyn case is clearly just voodoo economics and is recognised by the public as such. No amount of "case making" will change their mind, because they're not idiots.
Last piece by John Cruddas on his post 2015 GE review
"The fourth message from our Independent Review is that Labour has never been so far from political reality for a generation. On a series of measures on the economy, business and welfare, Labour has marched decisively away from the views of voters in each of the last two general elections, but particularly in May, 2015......
Increasingly Labour attracts voters who want to see redistribution of wealth from rich to poor but who also hold views that are out of step with the wider electorate. This reinforces the Inquiry’s finding of a growing cultural divide between the socially liberal, progressive Labour Party and its 2015 voters, and large parts of the electorate who either vote pragmatically or who are socially conservative.
This divide is growing and it is evident across a number of areas that are fundamental to the Party’s electoral prospects: the deficit, the welfare system, public services, personal financial interest, and business. I’ll take each in turn, beginning with wealth redistribution."
And predictably a lot of people below the line rubbishing the data and saying the questions were loaded or it was done for propaganda purposes. The complete death wish by many supposed Labour supporters is baffling, it sounds like they want to elect Corbyn and then when they end up on 150 seats in 2020 will be lead away in one of those coats with the fasteners at the back still screaming that they lost because they were not left wing enough, and that the public would vote for it if only they could be made to understand.
Incredibly, the Corbyn price is continuing to drift on Betfair this morning. Now at 1.44...
Madness.
Jeremy Corbyn can lose if the contest if called off through some procedural means. Otherwise, it's hard to see what's going to stop him now.
Does anyone have the authority to call off a leadership election?
If Ed Miliband had stayed, I could see he might have the authority.
But, surely such an action by a group of doubtful legitimacy is even more dangerous than letting Corbyn win ?
Oh - here I go again... Suppose the other 3 candidates all withdrew? Then Corbyn would be morally obliged to call another election because ''it’s important to remember that the Labour party has to be a broad coalition of ideas and beliefs.'' However having had a near death experience in May the Labour Party seem intent on making a proper job of it now and are booking tickets to Dignitas.
For those that missed it a classic John McT v Owen J bitch fight - I like the bit where Owen says - not to rub your face in it John but you did just lose 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland with his hand stretched out in front of him making a circular motion:
Maybe we could have these guys doing battle every day for the next month - tomorrow I vote for them to try mud wrestling in mankinis on the Victoria Derbyshire show !!
This is the problem the Labour moderates have. They have such a terrible record in both government and elections in recent years that they don't have any credibility to combat even bad arguments from the Corbyn supporters. It's noteworthy that none of them have actually engaged him on policy of why capitalism works better than Marxism, or why the US is morally better than Hamas, or why printing money to fund infrastructure might be a bad idea.
It seems a mite self indulgent to dust off the mantle for the honourable member for Islington North and so I shall confer an element of self restraint and constrain my observation to a pre luncheon guffaw of gargantuan proportions.
JackW, I didn't know that smugness could be such a debilitating illness, but your weeks away from us in rehab show recovery is a slow process...
For those that missed it a classic John McT v Owen J bitch fight - I like the bit where Owen says - not to rub your face in it John but you did just lose 40 out of 41 seats in Scotland with his hand stretched out in front of him making a circular motion:
Maybe we could have these guys doing battle every day for the next month - tomorrow I vote for them to try mud wrestling in mankinis on the Victoria Derbyshire show !!
McT posing as a hard-headed winner is laughable. He's lately been involved in Labour/Labor failures in Australia and Scotland. Lord Prescott was unusually eloquent in expressing his contempt for this moronic upstart in a recent interview.
I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
The names are being checked against the electoral register, which is an easy check to make, so TBH I don't think that is a problem.
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
I wonder how many people are going to be making multiple votes under assumed names.
The names are being checked against the electoral register, which is an easy check to make, so TBH I don't think that is a problem.
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
It's all just a ruse to get rid of Corbyn. When he is checked out by Labour HQ's thought police, it will be found that he has constantly criticised the Labour party and publicly voted against them on no fewer than 500 occasions. He will therefore be ineligible to vote, and stand, in the election. Andrew Burnham will be elected and Labour will still lose by an almighty margin because the left will be so embittered nobody will campaign for him.
The other (serious) thought is what absolute moron allowed new supporters to sign up until the moment the ballots went out? They should have allowed at least a fortnight's grace for checking if they were going to check at all.
Deficit reduction: Tories are resorting to "punishment not prudence". Nice line. Me thinks Gordon has been on the phone.
Its an absurd line. Just how does Cooper plan to cut 40 billion out of public expenditure. The economy cannot generate the revenue to fill the gap, so how does she propose to cut spending? Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply. And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
There's the paradox. Economic growth cannot generate enough money if cuts have choked off any growth. It is complicated which is why Labour needed to be making its case for the last five years.
Just because there's a feedback effect doesn't mean there's a paradox. What happens in reality is that cuts of £Xbn reduces revenue a bit, but by less than £Xbn. Therefore you need cuts of £Xbn and a bit.
What Corbynists are trying to argue is that cutting by £Xbn reduces revenue by >£Xbn, That means, in their logic, that cutting increases the deficit, and spending reduces it.
Left wing people like to think they are enlightened because they recognise the feedback effect. But they are just wrong because that feedback effect isn't as big as they think it is. They are being challenged because their argument works in words, but when you actually put numbers on it, the idea that cuts increase the deficit is just nonsense.
The Corbyn case is clearly just voodoo economics and is recognised by the public as such. No amount of "case making" will change their mind, because they're not idiots.
Obviously it is actually more subtle/specific than you make out here as it depends 'what' you cut. To take an extreme example, you could 'save' £XMn by scrapping HMRC and just assuming that everyone will pay the taxes that they owe without checks or reminders. Clearly I would expect this to lose a great deal more than £XMn. On the other hand there are almost certainly extremes on the other side as well.
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
Good luck with checking that 97,000 that joined yesterday quick enough to make a difference
Which will pale beside the effect of them "halting" the leadership elections because of all the supposed entryists. Labour stops election because too many people want it to become a leftwing party... not sure that plays too well with the press or the supporters.
"Saying that “there’s a battle on for the soul of our party”, she will challenge to those supporting Corbyn’s bid for the leadership, she will ask them to “tell me what you think is more radical: spending billions of pounds we haven’t got switching control of some power stations from a group of white middle aged men in an energy company to a group of white middle aged men in Whitehall as Jeremy wants, or extending Sure Start [the early years programme Cooper helped set up in government]; giving mothers the power and confidence to transform their own lives and transform their children’s lives for years to come.”
Racism and sexism in one paragraph. Nice going Yvette. Nice to see her elide the importance of fathers in raising children as well. She really is as mad as Corbyn, just in a different way.
It seems a mite self indulgent to dust off the mantle for the honourable member for Islington North and so I shall confer an element of self restraint and constrain my observation to a pre luncheon guffaw of gargantuan proportions.
JackW, I didn't know that smugness could be such a debilitating illness, but your weeks away from us in rehab show recovery is a slow process...
Smug .... Little old Moi ....
I am a picture of eloquent decorum with perhaps just a slight hint of electoral premonitionitis - a minor affliction that I contracted on PB in 2004.
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
Good luck with checking that 97,000 that joined yesterday quick enough to make a difference
Which will pale beside the effect of them "halting" the leadership elections because of all the supposed entryists. Labour stops election because too many people want it to become a leftwing party... not sure that plays too well with the press or the supporters.
which does raise an interesting question, who 'owns' the labour party, presumably it's members, but parties are complex things with many different heads.
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
Good luck with checking that 97,000 that joined yesterday quick enough to make a difference
Which will pale beside the effect of them "halting" the leadership elections because of all the supposed entryists. Labour stops election because too many people want it to become a leftwing party... not sure that plays too well with the press or the supporters.
Obviously it is actually more subtle/specific than you make out here as it depends 'what' you cut. To take an extreme example, you could 'save' £XMn by scrapping HMRC and just assuming that everyone will pay the taxes that they owe without checks or reminders. Clearly I would expect this to lose a great deal more than £XMn. On the other hand there are almost certainly extremes on the other side as well.
Your HMRC case is articulating a different mechanism than is made in the Corbynista case. They argue that cuts reduce GDP and therefore reduce tax revenue. Your HMRC case is not about multiplier effects on GDP but on reducing tax collecting capability.
Mr. L, harsh criticism, given that there's not exactly a shining beacon of hope amongst them (some of us have been calling Burnham a lightweight for years).
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, no rain but it's quite overcast. Not very dark, just a bit gloomy.
Obviously it is actually more subtle/specific than you make out here as it depends 'what' you cut. To take an extreme example, you could 'save' £XMn by scrapping HMRC and just assuming that everyone will pay the taxes that they owe without checks or reminders. Clearly I would expect this to lose a great deal more than £XMn. On the other hand there are almost certainly extremes on the other side as well.
Your HMRC case is articulating a different mechanism than is made in the Corbynista case. They argue that cuts reduce GDP and therefore reduce tax revenue. Your HMRC case is not about multiplier effects on GDP but on reducing tax collecting capability.
Ah OK. Apologies - was just trying to make the point that it's not black and white - you can't just cut indiscriminately and expect to save money (Which some on the Tory side give the appearance of believing) - but equally, the multiplier effect is never going to be greater than 1 so the Corbynistas are equally wrong if that is the point they are making.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/thousands-of-polish-workers-to-take-part-in-the-first-ever-migrant-workers-strike-in-britain-10445970.html
I would prefer it if immigrants to this country started identifying as British rather than their country of origin.
Even as it is this govt have leant over backwards to spread out the cuts, quite the opposite of what Cooper and labour imply.
And by 2020 the cuts will be over and spending under control. Are labour promising to turn on the taps again? Lets ignore Corbyn's lunacy for a minute - just what would labour do in 2020? Spend spend spend again?
Mr. Financier, I, for one, welcome the war on fallopian-deprived albino apes of mature years.
Miss Plato, there was a science programme hosted by Dara O'Briain [trying to be Top Gear meets science]. Good idea, but I had to stop watching when Brigstocke was doing a piece on nothingness, and kept on banging on about how crap Clegg and Osborne were (fair enough as an opinion, but I didn't watch a science programme, even a light one, for leftwing political commentary).
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, can't both be true?
I am all in favour of challenging the corporatist and blindly pro-American thinking followed to excess by New Labour but I would like this done from a liberal position not one which will hearten those whose default position is fundamentally anti-liberal and anti-democratic.
Given such a weedy 'fightback' as an option on the ballot paper, it's no wonder the loon is going to sweep the board.
Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and Unite, wiped out any serious leadership opposition within Labour, and destroyed the party. Genius.
Toby Young joined and voted Corbyn because he thought it would make a Conservative win next time more likely
Mark Steel seems to have joined and voted Corbyn because he agrees with Corbyns vision for the Labour Party. Fair enough
I campaigned for UKIP last time, so against Labout in Dag and Rajnham. If Jon Cruddas, prob the most Ukip labour MP, were on the ballot paper and I joined the Party to vote for him I wouldn't say that was crooked
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1255
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/guest-post-why-elves-are-total-bastards.html
Toby Young joined to vote for JC. So did hundreds of thousands of others by all accounts. So Toby Young wants to help these hundreds of thousands achieve their aim. And he was not allowed to.
The reason? Of course because those running the ballot, the hierarchy, don't want JC to win.
It's exquisite.
It has everything to do with whether you think they are enemies or not. JC evidently doesn't think they are enemies.
"I am all in favour of challenging the corporatist and blindly pro-American thinking followed to excess by New Labour but I would like this done from a liberal position not one which will hearten those whose default position is fundamentally anti-liberal and anti-democratic."
So we should all aspire to have a government like your heroes the Israelis!
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government
Corbynism is primarily about defeatism ; it is in fact the once mighty labour party throwing in the towel and accepting that they are now unelectable ; their gormless supporters are trying to convince themselves that it is about principle or convictions or any other sanctimonious drivel but it's not ; it is about DEFEAT
The LP are about to become a professional protest party of failure , ironically , a mirror image of their future leader Jeremy Corbyn , who has failed to achieve anything at all after 33 yrs of being an MP
...it seems to me that there is cruel irony and rough justice at work here ...a self inflicted Darwin award ...there must have been something rotten at the core of the LP for them to collapse so quickly like the French army in 1940
What you choose to ignore is that as an MP your association with causes and groups will give them some credit, some of your credit as an MP. MPs should use that credit wisely. JC is not arguing with Hamas: he's not saying that violence is wrong or trying to persuade them to adopt democracy or to stop threatening to kill every Jew in the world Nor was he trying to persuade the IRA to stop blowing up children.
When British Parliamentarians side with violent people - and do not challenge or argue with them - they cloak them in a bit more respectability and devalue their own worth. They show that they do not understand or do not value their own liberal Parliamentary traditions. This is not an honourable position to take.
Oh, ELVISH.....
Anyway this is getting silly. Sane people need to leave Labour to get on with its game of Russian Roulette and concentrate on making sure the whole gang of inept incompetent idiots are never let near the levers of government ever again.
If Ed Miliband had stayed, I could see he might have the authority.
But, surely such an action by a group of doubtful legitimacy is even more dangerous than letting Corbyn win ?
It has everything to do with whether you think they are enemies or not. JC evidently doesn't think they are enemies.
I raised this in response to Nick's comment the other day. Despite the fact he responded to comments immediately before and after, he clearly avoided mine. He is deliberately not hearing the argument being made, because he doesn't have a response to it. It's a very politician-like thing to do.
ex-politician
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
It seems a mite self indulgent to dust off the mantle for the honourable member for Islington North and so I shall confer an element of self restraint and constrain my observation to a pre luncheon guffaw of gargantuan proportions.
"I wonder why Press TV invited Nick Palmer on to defend Israel and not someone slightly more confrontational or willing to question the motives of his host's funders. Fox has similar useful Democrats."
Very unfair. He's one of Labour's 'friends of Israel' so quite natural to invite him on.
"The fourth message from our Independent Review is that Labour has never been so far from political reality for a generation. On a series of measures on the economy, business and welfare, Labour has marched decisively away from the views of voters in each of the last two general elections, but particularly in May, 2015......
Increasingly Labour attracts voters who want to see redistribution of wealth from rich to poor but who also hold views that are out of step with the wider electorate. This reinforces the Inquiry’s finding of a growing cultural divide between the socially liberal, progressive Labour Party and its 2015 voters, and large parts of the electorate who either vote pragmatically or who are socially conservative.
This divide is growing and it is evident across a number of areas that are fundamental to the Party’s electoral prospects: the deficit, the welfare system, public services, personal financial interest, and business. I’ll take each in turn, beginning with wealth redistribution."
http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-stands-on-the-brink-of-becoming-irrelevant-to-the-majority-of-working-people/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/sticks-and-stones/
Maybe we could have these guys doing battle every day for the next month - tomorrow I vote for them to try mud wrestling in mankinis on the Victoria Derbyshire show !!
"Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister"
We've had this argument before. You have no polling evidence to support that claim.
So enough of your wishful thinking!
What Corbynists are trying to argue is that cutting by £Xbn reduces revenue by >£Xbn, That means, in their logic, that cutting increases the deficit, and spending reduces it.
Left wing people like to think they are enlightened because they recognise the feedback effect. But they are just wrong because that feedback effect isn't as big as they think it is. They are being challenged because their argument works in words, but when you actually put numbers on it, the idea that cuts increase the deficit is just nonsense.
The Corbyn case is clearly just voodoo economics and is recognised by the public as such. No amount of "case making" will change their mind, because they're not idiots.
But they appear to be multiplying like rabbits
Edit: Now they are not
Amused when Jones states whoever wins will have to win over Tory voters. I'm not necessarily convinced that Jeremy Corbyn is the chap for that.
Suppose the other 3 candidates all withdrew? Then Corbyn would be morally obliged to call another election because ''it’s important to remember that the Labour party has to be a broad coalition of ideas and beliefs.''
However having had a near death experience in May the Labour Party seem intent on making a proper job of it now and are booking tickets to Dignitas.
Why can straight white men have sex with men without social consequences?
White men have more room to push sexual boundaries without being immediately being treated like they have a pathological problem
http://bit.ly/1IN2QfC
The wishy-washy criterion about 'supporting the Labour Party' is a different matter. It is random in its effect (how do they know?), and intellectually nonsensical, as various examples of would-be Labour supporters put off by the recent state of the party have shown. It will provide endless scope for bitterness and recriminations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33898347
The other (serious) thought is what absolute moron allowed new supporters to sign up until the moment the ballots went out? They should have allowed at least a fortnight's grace for checking if they were going to check at all.
He [Corbyn] has also... dismissed the Serbian massacres in Kosovo as a 'genocide that never existed'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3194817/Labour-facing-growing-calls-abandon-leadership-contest-2-000-malign-infiltrators-caught-trying-hijack-election.html#ixzz3igYNY4c5
Which will pale beside the effect of them "halting" the leadership elections because of all the supposed entryists. Labour stops election because too many people want it to become a leftwing party... not sure that plays too well with the press or the supporters.
I am a picture of eloquent decorum with perhaps just a slight hint of electoral premonitionitis - a minor affliction that I contracted on PB in 2004.
(owns in a moral way, not a legal way)
I read that the Electoral Thingy wanted to halt the vote upthread - does anyone have a linky?
Miss Plato, the fondness for labels confounds me.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, no rain but it's quite overcast. Not very dark, just a bit gloomy.
I associate it with Greenham Common types who look like blokes with dangling earrings.
PB Tories, always right, nothing more to learn, as we know everything