I think if Dan Jarvis wanted to run for Shadow Cabinet elections then the Corbyn lot would be delighted. They need to demonstrate he can bring in people from the centre of the party. This is the conundrum for those who want to run for leader in the future. Are they better off keeping their distance from the Corbyn era or would 'going on strike' in Shadow Cabinet elections be seen by party members (who presumably will have voted for him) as a negative for another election in possibly 2 years' time. My gut reaction is those that play a role will benefit in the medium to longer term and steal a march on those who withdraw like Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall etc.
Given Corbyn and the hard left views on the military, does anything think a ex-soldier is going to win when the Corbynites are done with the party?
Especially as he served in both Iraq and Agfanistan?
That's a good point, even the supposedly good candidates for leader (Jarvis is unproven) will have to take the party back not from the current members, but from the hard-left who will shortly be in control. Who knows what rules and hurdles might apply in future leadership elections? For all we know the unions might be back in charge.
I think the real problem of a few years of Corbyn as far as Mr Jarvis is concerned may not be the movement of the centre of the party so much as he has no chance of getting position during those years that will give him the experience he needs to make a pitch before the next election.
In becoming a shadow minister, they will probably have to promote policies that are anathema to the centre ground. It's alright Corbyn rebelling as a backbencher; very different for a shadow minister.
If Corbyn is going to be as bad as LOTO as people are saying (and I am not convinced by that), then his cabinet will be stained as well.
Straw: "the person most worried about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn..."
I don’t get this line of argument – To me, Corbyn appears to be flogging his guts out to win.
No doubt Straw and others are implying something negative, not sure it will work however.
I could have believed it several weeks ago - Corbyn surely did not expect this level of momentum, and perhaps there was a moment of panic - but not now. Expected or not, Corbyn seems to realise this is the moment for his type of politics - it seems pretty divorced from his own actual qualities, to be frank - and he's played it very well so far. Maybe he thinks in the back of his mind that it will come crashing down, but he's passed any fear of that happening I think, he knows this is the chance a lot of people have wanted, and he's got to go for it come what may.
Straw: "the person most worried about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn..."
I don’t get this line of argument – To me, Corbyn appears to be flogging his guts out to win.
No doubt Straw and others are implying something negative, not sure it will work however.
I could have believed it several weeks ago - Corbyn surely did not expect this level of momentum, and perhaps there was a moment of panic - but not now. Expected or not, Corbyn seems to realise this is the moment for his type of politics - it seems pretty divorced from his own actual qualities, to be frank - and he's played it very well so far. Maybe he thinks in the back of his mind that it will come crashing down, but he's passed any fear of that happening I think, he knows this is the chance a lot of people have wanted, and he's got to go for it come what may.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
I agree that these are not main issues but the impression it gives is that Corbyn is not a patriot and is happy to side with our enemies. If he is elected I would expect the Mail to dust off the man who hated Britain article about Miliband's Dad and apply it to Corbyn
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Labour MPs will work to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn “from day one” if members and supporters elect him as leader, a disgruntled MP has said.
Simon Danczuk, a figure on the right wing of the Labour party, has said the leadership race should be halted because of the way it had been conducted.
Asked on LBC Radio this morning whether plotting against Mr Corbyn “on day one” he said: “Yeah, if not before. As soon as the result comes out.
UKIP defection please, ta.
Genuine question - With Corbyn leading Labour, If Danczuk defects to UKIP would he hold Rochdale in a by-election? My instinct would be Yes, but I don't know Rochdale at all.
This would be a betting post if I knew who this would benefit the most, Khan?
The number of Londoners set to vote in Labour’s mayoral contest has more than doubled on the back of the Jeremy Corbyn leadership bandwagon, party sources have told the Standard.
Patrick, you really shouldn't take the P out of the Labour Party.
Oh, go on then - everyone else is!
The Labour Party is a malign destructive cancer. I have no problem with a coherent, principled, sensible left wing party - in fact I'm sure the country needs one as opposition right now. But Labour have ruined the public finances every time they get in,
(BTW I don't like Labour much)
How about paying some attention to the facts? Labour left the Tories a Budget Surplus in 1951 and again in 1970.Perhaps you would like to give an example of the Tories having left Labour such a surplus. Since 1945 Britain has had 11 years of Budget Surplus - 9 were under a Labour Government.
There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Straw: "the person most worried about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Leader of the Labour Party is Jeremy Corbyn..."
I don’t get this line of argument – To me, Corbyn appears to be flogging his guts out to win.
No doubt Straw and others are implying something negative, not sure it will work however.
I could have believed it several weeks ago - Corbyn surely did not expect this level of momentum, and perhaps there was a moment of panic - but not now. Expected or not, Corbyn seems to realise this is the moment for his type of politics - it seems pretty divorced from his own actual qualities, to be frank - and he's played it very well so far. Maybe he thinks in the back of his mind that it will come crashing down, but he's passed any fear of that happening I think, he knows this is the chance a lot of people have wanted, and he's got to go for it come what may.
Labour is turning into our Syriza or Podemos. It's no longer Tory-Lite. Unless Corbyn loses of course.
Not going to happen! Thankfully. The big unions have backed Sadiq and I think he'll get in with this selectorate. Diane Abbott is a permanent reminder to the Left that the individual candidate does actually matter. The Left needs to remember this in future.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
Sadiq Khan 6-4 for the Labour nomination at both Hills and SkyBet looks like very nice value right now tbh. I've gone in for another £80.
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
It is really quite remarkable how poorly thought out this election has been. Many people on here joked about Tories signing up to vote for the worst candidate, but I don't think anybody anticipated a massive influx of hard-left voters hijacking the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins, and that now looks likely, it will be very difficult for the moderates to regain control of the party.
The election process was reasonably thought out - encourage as wide a participation as possible, while 'protecting' the party from an unacceptable candidate gaining traction by limiting the candidates with the 35 MP nomination limit. That would screen out 'undesirbales' and limit the amount of mischief from engaging with the public as Tories and hard left entryists would not have a candidate they were genuinely enthusiastic about, so would not join in as large numbers (although Corbyn appears to be doing well with existing members in any case).
It's just the process was subverted by those who thought the intent behind it was not as important as a broad debate. I don't question the right or wrongs of that, but the process itself was sound, had it been followed.
Labour MPs will work to overthrow Jeremy Corbyn “from day one” if members and supporters elect him as leader, a disgruntled MP has said.
Simon Danczuk, a figure on the right wing of the Labour party, has said the leadership race should be halted because of the way it had been conducted.
Asked on LBC Radio this morning whether plotting against Mr Corbyn “on day one” he said: “Yeah, if not before. As soon as the result comes out.
UKIP defection please, ta.
Genuine question - With Corbyn leading Labour, If Danczuk defects to UKIP would he hold Rochdale in a by-election? My instinct would be Yes, but I don't know Rochdale at all.
I don't think so - I think the Labour vote would be up due to a Corbyn honeymoon.
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator.
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the PLP have walked into it.
God, Ed Miliband really was crap.
It is really quite remarkable how poorly thought out this election has been. Many people on here joked about Tories signing up to vote for the worst candidate, but I don't think anybody anticipated a massive influx of hard-left voters hijacking the Labour Party. If Corbyn wins, and that now looks likely, it will be very difficult for the moderates to regain control of the party.
What's your reasoning that it is a massive influx hard left voters? The people selling the newspapers outside the Corbyn meetings look like the traditional 80s hard left, but the audiences appear to be a very broad cross section of society, if the news reports are anything to go by. Labour's strength in adversity has always been that it is the largest actual party. It might all go to pot. Who knows? But if I were a Tory I'd be worried where this is leading. A rejuvenated Labour Party could well give them a a run for their money in 2020, and the playbook that worked this time could prove to be next to useless.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
The union sign ups have killed off the chances of any of the other 3. And besides, they're all rubbish. The inept way in which they've conducted their respective campaigns simply proves that they're not up to the task of leading the party.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
If he was a candidate and the Tories had the three quid membership idea, they might have quarter of a million kippers sign up to vote for him... hopefully lessons will have been learned
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
I don't think that's quite true. Thatcher was the only credible figure, as in Cabinet-level figure, who took the plunge and opposed Heath (Hugh Fraser was not credible)! Because the PCP were desperate to oust Heath - something that people did not quite realise - she picked up a huge number of votes more or less by default. That was what built her momentum. Woman or no woman, if Whitelaw had stood against Heath in that first round she would have come at best third.
Alan Clark isn't a very reliable source and he had a strange habit of inventing things to make himself look big and powerful when he wasn't (it was all one with his compulsive womanising).
Mr. Barber, then you're accepting my argument. Victory is mine, huzzah!
I'm still not a feminist. Equality doesn't start with a female prefix.
As far as I can see MD, all you seem to be saying is that you don't like the term "feminist" but agree with the principals of feminism. It is like me saying that I am not an atheist due to the actions of some extremists who happen to also call themselves atheist. It is like the media then latching on to the extremists and say that this is what atheism must be. You saying that feminism must be more than the accepted definition of the advancement of equality because some "feminists" have extreme views is exactly the same.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
I agree that these are not main issues but the impression it gives is that Corbyn is not a patriot and is happy to side with our enemies. If he is elected I would expect the Mail to dust off the man who hated Britain article about Miliband's Dad and apply it to Corbyn
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Whatever the mistakes of the Iraq War, you really believe that the side of evil in a war between the USA/UK versus Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was the US/UK?
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator.
Actually 'full spectrum dominance' is exactly the aim of US foreign policy.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
Angela Merkel also talks about the Schwabian Hausfrau as well, of course. But that's hardly a good counter-example given the current fiasco that is the Eurozone (even allowing for the Greeks having a slight uptick in growth).
Not going to happen! Thankfully. The big unions have backed Sadiq and I think he'll get in with this selectorate. Diane Abbott is a permanent reminder to the Left that the individual candidate does actually matter. The Left needs to remember this in future.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
Sadiq Khan 6-4 for the Labour nomination at both Hills and SkyBet looks like very nice value right now tbh. I've gone in for another £80.
Following a Hamas-supporter as leader, putting up a man who wants to privilege his own race in the employment market would really screw Labour.
I always struggled to fathom how Labour went so stupid in the 1980s, but put it down to it being a product of the times. Now it's happening right before my eyes, but even more so.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
Not going to happen! Thankfully. The big unions have backed Sadiq and I think he'll get in with this selectorate. Diane Abbott is a permanent reminder to the Left that the individual candidate does actually matter. The Left needs to remember this in future.
It would be funny if Diane Abbott scooped the Labour nomination on the back of Corbynmania... but that's perhaps asking for one wish too many from the Tooth Fairy.
Sadiq Khan 6-4 for the Labour nomination at both Hills and SkyBet looks like very nice value right now tbh. I've gone in for another £80.
Following a Hamas-supporter as leader, putting up a man who wants to privilege his own race in the employment market would really screw Labour.
I always struggled to fathom how Labour went so stupid in the 1980s, but put it down to it being a product of the times. Now it's happening right before my eyes, but even more so.
But if I were a Tory I'd be worried where this is leading. A rejuvenated Labour Party could well give them a a run for their money in 2020..
A rejuvenated Labour party that is very much left-wing will result in the blue areas on the map turning a deeper shade of blue and the red areas a deeper shade of red.
Essentially we are returning, in England, to the classic two-party stand-off, with UKIP in a similar situation as the Liberal party was in, taking millions of votes and turning them into near-zero seats.
And that means either decent Tory majorities or poor Labour minorities (propped up by the SNP).
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator.
Actually 'full spectrum dominance' is exactly the aim of US foreign policy.
Not quite the same thing. The US desires to have military hegemony so it can guarantee national security, true. Hitler aimed to reduce all other nations outside Europe to economic subjugation where their assets would be essentially confiscated and use the non-Aryan peoples of Europe as slaves to support the German economy under the direct rule of the SS. (There are different arguments to be had about US economic subjugation, which does exist and is a problem.)
I haven't George W. Bush saying how much he was looking forward to annexing Mexico and putting the Mexicans under control of the CIA on 500 calories a day while being whipped to work in the Detroit factories, and simultaneously forcing the French and the Arabs to surrender their goods/oil for worthless pieces of paper signed by the cashier at the bank on Chicago's main street.
My key point was that it was an OTT comparison, and it tends to diminish not the target but the person making it. I always advise people to be careful about comparing things with Hitler - he genuinely was the epitome of evil and there are very very few people who have even attempted all his crimes. Which is fortunate.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
A bit like Quantitative Easing then?
No, quantitative easing was done to increase the money supply to combat deflation during the recession, after interest rates could not be moved any lower. That is the job of a central bank: to ensure stability. Not to fund government.
Stormin' Corbyn @OffencePolice 19m19 minutes ago Dunno why people are surprised lefties aren't upset about my palling around with Jew haters. It never put them off Ken Livingstone either!
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
Strange then, that her economics saw the country turned round from the poor man of Europe in the 1970s to a thriving hub of growth in the 1990s.
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
Issues like support for Hamas or the IRA are not ones that primarily affect peoples’ votes (rightly or wrongly).
I think a Corbyn-led, anti-austerity Labour Party will do better in Wales & Scotland & London 2016 than the alternatives (a Cooper or Burnham led party). So, I’d expect Labour to tighten their grip on Wales, and begin to recover slowly in Scotland. What happens in 2020 is too far ahead to predict with any certainty.
The Guardian have re-opened comments on Tony Blair’s article. There are already 110 pages of rage and anger.
Could this become the largest outpouring of mass hatred & bile on the web?
I agree that these are not main issues but the impression it gives is that Corbyn is not a patriot and is happy to side with our enemies. If he is elected I would expect the Mail to dust off the man who hated Britain article about Miliband's Dad and apply it to Corbyn
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Whatever the mistakes of the Iraq War, you really believe that the side of evil in a war between the USA/UK versus Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime was the US/UK?
It's more nuanced than that, but if you look at the bald figures, more have been killed in post-war Iraq than Saddam managed in his tenure. We also have the weakened post-war Iraqi state to thank for the rise of terrorists in the region.
US actions in the Middle East may have been against despots, but they were not in any way altruistic - they were to re-shape and balkanise the region in favour of US interests. Arab nationalist leaders have been toppled in favour of religious and ethnic rivalry. Would that strike you as 'evil' if it was happening to your country? It would me.
I have to say that Yvette Cooper's speech this morning is very well-written. Far too late, of course.
Reading it on paper it certainly is good. Watching her deliver it it suddenly becomes mind-numbing - which in some way encapsulates part of her problem - I don't know if that's because her hearts not really in it, or because she's just really bad at public oratory.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
A bit like Quantitative Easing then?
Not even a little bit. QE creates a liability as well as an asset, printing money only creates an asset.
Miss Plato, dissent from the creed is a capitalist plot!
Mr. Barber, being serious, I do think those two issues (definitive and etymological) are serious. You cannot have an equality movement named after a single demographic, as per my whiteism example. I agree entirely with some feminists, partially with some feminists and not at all with some other feminists. The dictionary definition and reality are at odds. In truth, those who define themselves as feminist have such a broad range of views that it's a useless descriptive term (like calling someone human: it's technically true but of no use whatsoever).
You should listen to the PB Tories, we've been right about how crap Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband would be.
PB Tories, always right, nothing more to learn, as we know everything
And Falkirk...
Have the PB Tories ever thought a Labour leader was good?
It depends on whether you mean good at politics, or good at governance. In the case mentioned by TheScreamingEagles, it seems to be discussing politics. Blair was certainly good at that.
There's different criteria to judge on being good leaders, here's why I consider these Labour leaders good, in no particular order
1) Keir Hardie - Helped set up/establish the Labour party
2) Ramsay MacDonald - Showed briefly Labour could be a government
3) Arthur Henderson - Was given the shittiest hand that any Labour leader has ever received and did well, relatively speaking
4) Clement Attlee - Excellent Deputy PM who ran domestic affairs during WW2 and when he became PM set up the welfare state (which is some achievement, whether or not you agree with it)
5) Wilson - Helped bring in quite a lot of liberalism
6) Callaghan - Living Standards improved by 8% - Had he called an election in late 78, he would have won a majority, that's how well he was doing, so we'd have no Thatcherism, just think about that
7) I didn't include Kinnock, but for all his flaws, he did take on militant, and that deserves praise
8) Blair - His majorities showed he was a great politician.
Callaghan was a poor party leader - if not a bad PM. He messed up the timing of the General election and proceeded to hang on far too long after his defeat and effectively denied Denis Healey the leadership. He also served his party badly by failing to make concessions to the Ulster Unionists to win the March 1979 Confidence Vote. The Tories owe him a great deal.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
No it isn't.
The paradox of thrift says you are wrong.
The experience of countries that earn more than they spend becoming rich and powerful says he is right.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
A bit like Quantitative Easing then?
No, quantitative easing was done to increase the money supply to combat deflation during the recession, after interest rates could not be moved any lower. That is the job of a central bank: to ensure stability. Not to fund government.
Hey, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but look it's still printing money. If the money were used to fund infrastructure projects, such as superfast broadband, rather than propping up banks it could be justified.
I have to say that Yvette Cooper's speech this morning is very well-written. Far too late, of course.
On the quality of campaign fought, by any measure, Corbyn deserves to win.
Legal challenges, coups, election suspensions and infiltrations are all irrelevant. The mood of the Labour electorate is clear, and it's overwhelmingly for Jezza.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
A bit like Quantitative Easing then?
No, quantitative easing was done to increase the money supply to combat deflation during the recession, after interest rates could not be moved any lower. That is the job of a central bank: to ensure stability. Not to fund government.
Hey, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but look it's still printing money. If the money were used to fund infrastructure projects, such as superfast broadband, rather than propping up banks it could be justified.
There's a difference between using QE temporarily whilst cutting spending with the aim of eventually running a balanced budget, and pledging to spend ever more amounts on lefty pet projects.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
A bit like Quantitative Easing then?
No, quantitative easing was done to increase the money supply to combat deflation during the recession, after interest rates could not be moved any lower. That is the job of a central bank: to ensure stability. Not to fund government.
Hey, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but look it's still printing money. If the money were used to fund infrastructure projects, such as superfast broadband, rather than propping up banks it could be justified.
Which part of, 'after interest rates could not be moved any lower' do you not understand? QE was not used to prop up banks. it was used as negative interest rates to prop up the economy. Even now people are unsure of the long term effects, yet Corbyn simply wants it to be used instead of a balanced budget. Insane.
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
No it isn't.
The paradox of thrift says you are wrong.
The experience of countries that earn more than they spend becoming rich and powerful says he is right.
The US accrued masses of debt during WW2, didn't seem to do them much harm, it was a huge stimulus that enabled them to become the dominant post war power.
Stormin' Corbyn @OffencePolice 19m19 minutes ago Dunno why people are surprised lefties aren't upset about my palling around with Jew haters. It never put them off Ken Livingstone either!
The US accrued masses of debt during WW2, didn't seem to do them much harm, it was a huge stimulus that enabled them to become the dominant post war power.
You would be better off with Reagan as a comparison, because in WWII America was also building up massive foreign credits through Lend-Lease, and subsequently it did get quite favourable terms on trade and debt repayment in Western Europe that helped its economy grow exponentially through the late 1940s and early 1950s. Reagan, on the other hand, just spent money he didn't have in the vague hope of getting it back at some point.
The progrom starts... the unclean shall be purged!
The Kulaks and other wreckers must be liquidated.
Danczuk wants to overthrow the newly elected leader, Mann wants to redraw the rules because he doesnt like the democratic result and Kendall would just be a better Tory MP than a Lab one IMO
Lots of ex-army officers have served as MPs and there are others still in the Commons, I think, but that doesn't make them automatically suitable candidates for leadership of a party. An officer who doesn't know where he wants to lead his people will find that they do not want to follow him and an officer who cannot do, or at least in the past has not done, what he demands of his people will find even fewer prepared to offer respect.
Agreed. My point (and hence the GoT reference) was that people follow candidates that look like they can win, and people with lots of followers look like winners, its all about getting the bandwagon started, which means he needs a credible job under whoever runs the show next, but without getting damaged by them if its Corbyn (so he probably wants to stay well away from the Defence portfolio!)
It's Thatcher all over again. No MPs thought she would win (or particularly wanted her to), but they voted for her as it would look bad on the party if a woman got no votes (Alan Clark went around explicitly telling them to do it for this reason). Then she gained momentum, became a realistic prospect, and thoughts turned to how good she'd be. Same as Corbyn. Only this time is actually appears that rather than an Airey Neave figure pulling the strings, the Corbyn insurrection has actually just been walked into by all concerned.
Thatcher had been in cabinet with a pretty senior post, she had also accepted the idea of collective responsibility. This is more like Bill Cash standing for the leadership and winning!
Thatcher also had basic economic understanding, unlike Corbyn's "the Bank of England should be printing money to fund government projects" tinpot economics.
Well she also used to compare the running of the nations economy to that of a thrifty housewife running a household, which is equally the economics of the mad house.
No it isn't.
The paradox of thrift says you are wrong.
The experience of countries that earn more than they spend becoming rich and powerful says he is right.
The US accrued masses of debt during WW2, didn't seem to do them much harm, it was a huge stimulus that enabled them to become the dominant post war power.
Patrick, you really shouldn't take the P out of the Labour Party.
Oh, go on then - everyone else is!
The Labour Party is a malign destructive cancer. I have no problem with a coherent, principled, sensible left wing party - in fact I'm sure the country needs one as opposition right now. But Labour have ruined the public finances every time they get in,
(BTW I don't like Labour much)
How about paying some attention to the facts? Labour left the Tories a Budget Surplus in 1951 and again in 1970.Perhaps you would like to give an example of the Tories having left Labour such a surplus. Since 1945 Britain has had 11 years of Budget Surplus - 9 were under a Labour Government.
There was a small surplus in 1951-52, not in 1951 itself. This was partly done by printing money to pay other bills, which meant the incoming government had to raise interest rates (it had also led to a major devaluation of the pound in the late 1940s). In 1970 there had been two years of surpluses, again partly by printing money which had required the infamous 'pocket or your purse' devaluation of 14.3%.
No - the Attlee Government ran a Budget Surplus in 1948/49 of £0.5bn - in 1949/50 of £0.8bn - in 1950/51 of £0.5bn - and in 1951/52 of £0.1bn.. Figures are from House of Commons Library.
The progrom starts... the unclean shall be purged!
The Kulaks and other wreckers must be liquidated.
Danczuk wants to overthrow the newly elected leader, Mann wants to redraw the rules because he doesnt like the democratic result and Kendall would just be a better Tory MP than a Lab one IMO
Carry on talking Kulaks
The rules were subverted to get Corbyn on the ballot, mind you. Not his fault, and it's worked out well for him and he's played it very well, but the spirit of the rules was ignored.
Even if true he would simply be following the example of Willy Brandt who certainly did side with Germany's enemies in World War 2. Surely decent people have to make some emotional and moral provision for the possibility that their own country is on the side of evil and deserves to be defeated for the greater good of humanity. I certainly felt that about the British/American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Justin, whatever the manifold and egregious faults of Tony Blair and George W. Bush, they were not mass killers bent on world domination and the genocide of racial groups they didn't approve of. It was perfectly possible to disagree flatly with their ideas and behaviour - I did - and it is possible to see them as hopelessly misguided and very unwise, but they are not actually evil to the extent that would justify taking up arms against them or working to sabotage or imperil our own armed forces.
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator.
I agree with most of that - but would not wish to see aggression by any country prevail. To condemn other countries for aggression and then proceed to turn a blind eye and say nothing when my own country does the same thing is nothing less than pure humbug and hypocrisy. For that reason, I wished to see the invading forces defeated in 2003. I did not wish UK forces any direct harm but any casualties I blame entirely on those who sent them there -a sentiment clearly shared by many relatives of the victims. At the end of the day, those being attacked had every right to defend themselves.
Comments
https://twitter.com/trousercake/status/494586292035125248
That was after he had made those slightly surreal remarks comparing different types of rape and inviting his critics to learn to understand English.
If Corbyn is going to be as bad as LOTO as people are saying (and I am not convinced by that), then his cabinet will be stained as well.
And so they all heaved, and dragged the big horse inside the gates....
I never said this! Jeremy Corbyn will be ousted 'on day one', Simon Danczuk
Or a prolapse. One or the other...
Unless Corbyn loses of course.
It's just the process was subverted by those who thought the intent behind it was not as important as a broad debate. I don't question the right or wrongs of that, but the process itself was sound, had it been followed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyns-rivals-must-unite-behind-one-candidate-to-stop-leftwinger-says-labour-mp-10453218.html
EDIT - and strange to reflect that the only person I met who fully supported the invasion was actually a Communist, who had been a great admirer of Khrushchev and regarded the Second Gulf War as a fully justified strike against an evil Fascist dictator.
The union sign ups have killed off the chances of any of the other 3. And besides, they're all rubbish. The inept way in which they've conducted their respective campaigns simply proves that they're not up to the task of leading the party.
Game Over.
The long knives are now out for a lovely civil war in the Labour Party. It makes what happened in UKIP after the GE mere child's play in comparison.
Alan Clark isn't a very reliable source and he had a strange habit of inventing things to make himself look big and powerful when he wasn't (it was all one with his compulsive womanising).
Bloomberg - Greek Economy Unexpectedly Surged Before Capital Controls http://bloom.bg/1MppK2T
It is like me saying that I am not an atheist due to the actions of some extremists who happen to also call themselves atheist. It is like the media then latching on to the extremists and say that this is what atheism must be.
You saying that feminism must be more than the accepted definition of the advancement of equality because some "feminists" have extreme views is exactly the same.
If that means you win, then huzzah.
Even to me Tories must be enjoying this.
Windows 10 is sending your personal data to Microsoft, even if you tell it not to http://ind.pn/1UELvwT
If anyone has installed Windows 10, watch out!
I always struggled to fathom how Labour went so stupid in the 1980s, but put it down to it being a product of the times. Now it's happening right before my eyes, but even more so.
Danczuk, Mann, Kendall
The Gang of 3
Essentially we are returning, in England, to the classic two-party stand-off, with UKIP in a similar situation as the Liberal party was in, taking millions of votes and turning them into near-zero seats.
And that means either decent Tory majorities or poor Labour minorities (propped up by the SNP).
So it'll be like the 2015 GE, albeit on steroids.
I haven't George W. Bush saying how much he was looking forward to annexing Mexico and putting the Mexicans under control of the CIA on 500 calories a day while being whipped to work in the Detroit factories, and simultaneously forcing the French and the Arabs to surrender their goods/oil for worthless pieces of paper signed by the cashier at the bank on Chicago's main street.
My key point was that it was an OTT comparison, and it tends to diminish not the target but the person making it. I always advise people to be careful about comparing things with Hitler - he genuinely was the epitome of evil and there are very very few people who have even attempted all his crimes. Which is fortunate.
Dunno why people are surprised lefties aren't upset about my palling around with Jew haters. It never put them off Ken Livingstone either!
US actions in the Middle East may have been against despots, but they were not in any way altruistic - they were to re-shape and balkanise the region in favour of US interests. Arab nationalist leaders have been toppled in favour of religious and ethnic rivalry. Would that strike you as 'evil' if it was happening to your country? It would me.
Mr. Barber, being serious, I do think those two issues (definitive and etymological) are serious. You cannot have an equality movement named after a single demographic, as per my whiteism example. I agree entirely with some feminists, partially with some feminists and not at all with some other feminists. The dictionary definition and reality are at odds. In truth, those who define themselves as feminist have such a broad range of views that it's a useless descriptive term (like calling someone human: it's technically true but of no use whatsoever).
There's too much of this nonsense in the Labour party.
If the money were used to fund infrastructure projects, such as superfast broadband, rather than propping up banks it could be justified.
Legal challenges, coups, election suspensions and infiltrations are all irrelevant. The mood of the Labour electorate is clear, and it's overwhelmingly for Jezza.
Meanwhile...
@rowenamason: Andy Burnham on WATO says attacks on Jeremy Corbyn misread the mood of the party when asked by undecided voter to persuade him
Is he throwing in the towel?
Talk of a coup by the losers is pathetic.
QE was not used to prop up banks. it was used as negative interest rates to prop up the economy. Even now people are unsure of the long term effects, yet Corbyn simply wants it to be used instead of a balanced budget. Insane.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Oh dear .... https://t.co/EF6oK3OsO1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33900268
Given the destruction wrought, I'd say that's an underestimate. Sadly, I fear the death toll will extend into triple figures.
New thread
''SteveHartUnite ex-bigwig. Steve got 'purged' by the McCluskeyites for dangerous moderation.''
BTW - as the poor deluded animals
labour electoratelook between Corbynites and McCluskyites - will they be able to see any differenceCarry on talking Kulaks