Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How do you solve a problem like Jeremy?

124»

Comments

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Sadly not. He's learned *emphatic hand gestures* though.

    Miss Plato, has he not called for free owls yet?

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,786
    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[5] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[13][14][15][16][17]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Banking crisis in 2007/8 did not have its roots in the 1980s, it barely had its roots in the 1990s. It was a post 2000/2001 phenomena on both sides of the altantic.
    There are many causes of the Global Financial Crisis: political (the push for wider home ownership by the Democrats in the US), psychological (the belief that house prices only ever went up), regulatory (the end of Glass Steagall), and - perhaps most importantly of all - the massive creation of liquidity by central banks to alleviate the post 2000 recession.
    House prices are a bit of a red herring. Mortgage derivatives played a key role, but mainly because they were derivatives rather than mortgages.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    I don't think it helps however that there hasn't been a half-decent President in many decades - Kennedy enthused people, and was in many ways the worst of the lot, but the others have tended to be either very bland (Carter) or very divisive (Reagan, Clinton).

    Reagan and Clinton consistently poll as the most popular presidents since WW2 alongside JFK and IKE
    Which is my point. Reagan would also feature on a poll of most hated presidents - I'm not quite so sure about Clinton, but bearing in mind he was only the second president ever to be impeached, it gives some idea of the depths his unpopularity touched in certain quarters. Remember, the Democrats were so nervous about him they refused to let him campaign for them in 2000 (a monumental mistake, in my view, because he would have at least turned out the core vote, and Gore wasn't going to attract swing votes anyway).

    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).
    Not really, Reagan was never hated by the left in the way Nixon or George W Bush were and Clinton would easily have won a third term in 2000. The latest presidential ranking poll by Quinnipiac in 2014 had Reagan 1st with 35% saying he was the best and only 3% the worst, then Clinton with 18% saying the best 3% the worst then JFK with 15% saying the best 1% the worst then Obama with 8% the best then IKE with 5% the best 1% the worst. Obama was also the worst ranked though 33% saying the worst giving him a net negative score followed by George W Bush with 1% saying the best 28% the worst Nixon with 1% the best 13% the worst and Carter with 2% the best 8% the worst
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited August 2015

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).

    Sorry - add Johnson to that list (Eisenhower was in the original post). Careless oversight.

    He was a funny one, but I think we'll call him 'divisive' - there was a little number in Vietnam going on that made him a few enemies, culminating in the famous protests of 1968 were students stripped naked and had sex in front of the Democratic convention. He was also a bit eccentric. On being wished 'good morning' he replied 'thank you', and on being told by a junior officer at a USAF base 'That's your helicopter, Mr President,' replied, 'Son, they're all my helicopters.'
    Surely Johnson was bit more than just divisive and eccentric. Such as the most corrupt President in US history.

    Ahead of Jackson, McKinley, Grant, FDR and Hayes?

    Well, if you say so...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791

    Miss Plato, has he not called for free owls yet?

    Did someone say owls?

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/20/article-2662719-1EF1378D00000578-402_308x185.jpg
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,000
    Keep still man!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    kle4 said:

    calum said:

    Some of the comments are scary:

    " Such a commie RT @maxhawk4: @stuartpstevens @billpostmus @BernieSanders @IowaStateFair please shoot everyone of those communist "

    I do like the quote about what you cannot buy - what they don't list is 'an election'.

    Sanders actually does call himself a socialist, doesn't he? Is that why the communist comments are coming out, because 'socialist' isn't scary enough if they already refer to themselves as that?
    They've called Obama a socialist, so on their meter Sanders is to the left of Stalin.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    edited August 2015

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).

    Sorry - add Johnson to that list (Eisenhower was in the original post). Careless oversight.

    He was a funny one, but I think we'll call him 'divisive' - there was a little number in Vietnam going on that made him a few enemies, culminating in the famous protests of 1968 were students stripped naked and had sex in front of the Democratic convention. He was also a bit eccentric. On being wished 'good morning' he replied 'thank you', and on being told by a junior officer at a USAF base 'That's your helicopter, Mr President,' replied, 'Son, they're all my helicopters.'
    Surely Johnson was bit more than just divisive and eccentric. Such as the most corrupt President in US history.

    Lyndon Johnson corrupt???? Aren’t you thinking of his 19thC namesake?

    And as I read it Johnson realised he’d got himself into a deep hole over Vietnam and wasn’t sure how to get out.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Miss Plato, could be worse. At least he isn't smiling.

    He isn't smiling, is he?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    I don't think it helps however that there hasn't been a half-decent President in many decades - Kennedy enthused people, and was in many ways the worst of the lot, but the others have tended to be either very bland (Carter) or very divisive (Reagan, Clinton).

    Reagan and Clinton consistently poll as the most popular presidents since WW2 alongside JFK and IKE
    Which is my point. Reagan would also feature on a poll of most hated presidents - I'm not quite so sure about Clinton, but bearing in mind he was only the second president ever to be impeached, it gives some idea of the depths his unpopularity touched in certain quarters. Remember, the Democrats were so nervous about him they refused to let him campaign for them in 2000 (a monumental mistake, in my view, because he would have at least turned out the core vote, and Gore wasn't going to attract swing votes anyway).

    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).
    Not really, Reagan was never hated by the left in the way Nixon or George W Bush were and Clinton would easily have won a third term in 2000
    I will also take your word for that Hyufd. It doesn't match what my American friends say, but then most of them are Democrats and therefore biased. (Clinton's third term - after the Lewinsky saga? Again, perhaps, but Grant and Truman were unable to run again after rather lesser scandals.)
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[5] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[13][14][15][16][17]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Banking crisis in 2007/8 did not have its roots in the 1980s, it barely had its roots in the 1990s. It was a post 2000/2001 phenomena on both sides of the altantic.
    There are many causes of the Global Financial Crisis: political (the push for wider home ownership by the Democrats in the US), psychological (the belief that house prices only ever went up), regulatory (the end of Glass Steagall), and - perhaps most importantly of all - the massive creation of liquidity by central banks to alleviate the post 2000 recession.
    The real shame about the GFC was that it was allowed to infect the real economy, which resulted in a unnecessarily deep contraction in the world's economy. If Lehman's had been saved I think much of this infection could have been avoided.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015

    Miss Plato, could be worse. At least he isn't smiling.

    He isn't smiling, is he?

    No, he's crying or close to crying.
    He's delivering an obituary actually.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,089
    ydoethur - Gore wasn't going to attract swing votes? Well he got more votes than Bush so it can't all have been wrong.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Not yet. He's got his thumb and index finger together though. And wiggling his fist. As he completes each circuit of the very small stage.

    It's EIGHT paces before he turns around and repeats. It's like very slow tennis.

    Miss Plato, could be worse. At least he isn't smiling.

    He isn't smiling, is he?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    But you don't have one world currency and countries are not all pursuing balance of trade policies as Keynes said they should. As for it being good for everyone in the long run, it's interesting how the opening of global markets has not been that wonderful for living standards across the west (so they're higher in 2015 than in 1980 - well they were higher in 1980 than in 1945). Perhaps you take the view that the living standards for the majority in the west need to be reduced as those in China rise until they meet?

    I don't understand why one world currency has anything to do with my ability to choose from whom I buy my wine.

    Regarding living standards. Your point seems to be: only by the government managing trade can living standards in the west continue to improve, otherwise, China and co. will become rich at our expense by undercutting our labour costs.

    It should be the choice of individuals - i.e. you and me - whom we buy from, not our government. The idea that wealth can be created by the government restricting my freedom to purchase is absurd.

    But let's pretend for a minute you're right. Let's pretend that globalisation makes Chinese richer at the expense of workers in the UK.

    Let's imagine what would happen if we cut China out of the trade system. Today - yay! - a factory doesn't move to China. Jobs stay here.

    Success? No. Because, even if you keep China out of the world trade system, the people there will keep getting richer. And they will keep taking a larger share of the world's oil and gas and food production.

    Whatever we do, the people of China will take a larger and larger share of the world economic pie, because they are genetically no different to you and I, and they are poorer and hungrier and work harder. And that means that all your protectionist measures, all your petty restrictions that impoverish consumers and strip them of their freedoms, are for nowt.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Speedy, he's probably worried he'll have to save the world again.

    Miss Plato, maybe he's got a pedometer on? Could be doing the Walking To Mordor challenge.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).

    Sorry - add Johnson to that list (Eisenhower was in the original post). Careless oversight.

    He was a funny one, but I think we'll call him 'divisive' - there was a little number in Vietnam going on that made him a few enemies, culminating in the famous protests of 1968 were students stripped naked and had sex in front of the Democratic convention. He was also a bit eccentric. On being wished 'good morning' he replied 'thank you', and on being told by a junior officer at a USAF base 'That's your helicopter, Mr President,' replied, 'Son, they're all my helicopters.'
    Surely Johnson was bit more than just divisive and eccentric. Such as the most corrupt President in US history.

    Lyndon Johnson corrupt???? Aren’t you thinking of his 19thC namesake?

    And as I read it Johnson realised he’d got himself into a deep hole over Vietnam and wasn’t sure how to get out.
    He probably refers to the way Johnson governed both as a senator and as president, to get all those bills through he needed a particular style to convince people.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    Plato said:

    Ace. Can we skip the Nutella this time? :wink:

    Financier said:

    @Plato: This may help.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11595121/Election-2015-second-place-results-How-it-all-could-have-been-so-different.html

    Will remit my usual fee.

    Plato said:

    It may well be my failing nous here - does anyone have the Kippers second place list to hand?

    Ah, if the AV referendum had gone the other way ...........

    Of course, in some of the seats the winners got over 50% of the vote, so it would have been academic!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015

    Mr. Speedy, he's probably worried he'll have to save the world again.

    Miss Plato, maybe he's got a pedometer on? Could be doing the Walking To Mordor challenge.

    He's speaking about Keir Hardie's leadership election.
    Gordon is 100 years behind at the moment.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015
    Who is Maxton that Brown talks about in the 1920's or something?

    Now he is repeating quotes from every labour leader he remembers.
    Now he's at Kinnock the Movie.

    "I was a friend of Mandela"
    He's really babbling like he's on a late night show, or like a really lonely old man.
    " Amy Winehouse was there"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    Scott_P said:

    @kevverage: The SNP's dubious back-hander to T-in-the-Park organiser - expertly dissected by @euanmccolm

    > http://t.co/edToAuzMlj

    Ha Ha Ha
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Speedy, significant improvement, given Miliband's price freeze policy was denounced by a 4th century historian.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Has Gordon saved the world again or is he still babbling on
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015
    Nice slip from Brown "power is not in government but in global institutions" .
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    Speedy said:

    Who is Maxton that Brown talks about in the 1920's or something?

    Now he is repeating quotes from every labour leader he remembers.
    Now he's at Kinnock the Movie.

    "I was a friend of Mandela"
    He's really babbling like he's on a late night show, or like a really lonely old man.
    " Amy Winehouse was there"

    IIRC Maxton would probably have backed Corbyn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited August 2015
    Is this a leadership election speech or a rather rambling lecture on the political history of the Labour party?

    EDIT - unemployment in 1979, 1.3 million. In 1997, 1.9 million. The second was lower than the European average. If he can't even get his figures right...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
    There is no Tory hubris. I for one view Corbyn with shock and horror. I regard him as really quite nasty. And quite old.
    Labour is in a mess - that is a plan fact.
    There is a long way to go before the next general election but that bridge can be crossed if possible when it arrives - the tories need to be successful in pursuing a 40% policy.
    what an idiot, "I think he is quite old". He would surely recognise you as a spotty juvenile half witted simpleton.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Oh no, Brown on the global financial crisis.
    'it was not a mistake"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,988
    Mr. Doethur, Brown, get his figures wrong?

    Surely not.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,791
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
    There is no Tory hubris. I for one view Corbyn with shock and horror. I regard him as really quite nasty. And quite old.
    Labour is in a mess - that is a plan fact.
    There is a long way to go before the next general election but that bridge can be crossed if possible when it arrives - the tories need to be successful in pursuing a 40% policy.
    what an idiot, "I think he is quite old". He would surely recognise you as a spotty juvenile half witted simpleton.
    Old in the sense of his politics, no doubt.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    They were a bunch of two faced lying creeps, got exactly what they deserved and hopefully they will remain in the gutter where they belong. Unprincipled charlatans.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    calum said:

    rcs1000 said:

    notme said:

    Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[5] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[13][14][15][16][17]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Banking crisis in 2007/8 did not have its roots in the 1980s, it barely had its roots in the 1990s. It was a post 2000/2001 phenomena on both sides of the altantic.
    There are many causes of the Global Financial Crisis: political (the push for wider home ownership by the Democrats in the US), psychological (the belief that house prices only ever went up), regulatory (the end of Glass Steagall), and - perhaps most importantly of all - the massive creation of liquidity by central banks to alleviate the post 2000 recession.
    The real shame about the GFC was that it was allowed to infect the real economy, which resulted in a unnecessarily deep contraction in the world's economy. If Lehman's had been saved I think much of this infection could have been avoided.
    Lehmans had to go bust pour encourager les autres, a few UK banks could have been allowed to go bust too like Northern Rock
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    Speedy said:

    Oh no, Brown on the global financial crisis.
    'it was not a mistake"

    Has he said he saved the world yet?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    They were a bunch of two faced lying creeps, got exactly what they deserved and hopefully they will remain in the gutter where they belong. Unprincipled charlatans.
    Do I take it you’re not likely to vote LD in the near future then?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,863
    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.
  • As a fairly typical member willing to give JC a try, I'd see an immediate resignation or defection simply as a sign of disloyalty to the membership - "I don't like your choice so I'm going to throw my toys out". If Labour suffered as a result, I'd simply blame the defector.

    If some MPs want to show that JC is unpopular, they need to give it some time to demonstrate itself without giving an excuse to blame it on them. However, most MPs want to win - they won't be actively hoping for a disaster, though they may fear that it could happen.

    How do you square this willingness with urging your Twitter followers to sign up to support Cooper a month ago? You surely can't be taking a principled state against defection here!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,443
    edited August 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    In a dramatic act of defiance against neoliberal globalization, South Korean farmer and former president of the Korean Advanced Farmers Federation Lee Kyung-hae committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart during a meeting of the WTO in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. Prior to his death he expressed his concerns in broken English:

    "My warning goes out to the all citizens that human beings are in an endangered situation that uncontrolled multinational corporations and a small number of bit WTO members officials are leading an undesirable globalization of inhuman, environment-distorting, farmer-killing, and undemocratic. It should be stopped immediately otherwise the failed logic of the neo-liberalism will perish the diversities of agriculture and disastrously to all human being."[198]


    My sympathy for his worldview is, essentially, zero.

    Globalization means that I get to choose from whom I buy my books, my rice, my laptop, my music, my wine. I, the consumer, get to choose.

    This is hard on people in protected markets (French pop singers, South Korean farmers and the like). But it is both good for everyone in the long run, and it is morally right to allow me to choose with whom I spend the fruits of my labours.
    British milk farmers too, RCS!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited August 2015
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33950405

    Labour leadership: Gordon Brown says party must be credible.

    Like it was under his leadership. :wink:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:


    I don't think it helps however that there hasn't been a half-decent President in many decades - Kennedy enthused people, and was in many ways the worst of the lot, but the others have tended to be either very bland (Carter) or very divisive (Reagan, Clinton).

    Reagan and Clinton consistently poll as the most popular presidents since WW2 alongside JFK and IKE
    Which is my point. Reagan would also feature on a poll of most hated presidents - I'm not quite so sure about Clinton, but bearing in mind he was only the second president ever to be impeached, it gives some idea of the depths his unpopularity touched in certain quarters. Remember, the Democrats were so nervous about him they refused to let him campaign for them in 2000 (a monumental mistake, in my view, because he would have at least turned out the core vote, and Gore wasn't going to attract swing votes anyway).

    The others have been Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, the Bushes and Obama. Hardly a great list (although Obama might be another one for the 'divisive' category).
    Not really, Reagan was never hated by the left in the way Nixon or George W Bush were and Clinton would easily have won a third term in 2000
    I will also take your word for that Hyufd. It doesn't match what my American friends say, but then most of them are Democrats and therefore biased. (Clinton's third term - after the Lewinsky saga? Again, perhaps, but Grant and Truman were unable to run again after rather lesser scandals.)
    A few liberal Democrats opinions do not match those of the US public (indeed Clinton had a 60% approval rating in 2000 while most liberals would have preferred Bill Bradley to Clinton or Gore). As the poll I gave showed Reagan and Clinton have high net favourables overall
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,443
    edited August 2015
    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Barr's Gordon-Bru - made in Scotland from girdles :lol:
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    ydoethur said:

    Speedy said:

    Oh no, Brown on the global financial crisis.
    'it was not a mistake"

    Has he said he saved the world yet?
    He's analyzing globalization, he's against anti-globalization and he's using Bernard Shaw vs Foot to explain it.
    He's veering into global finance and how to control it with global governance.
  • Southam Observer says: "What happens to the LDs if eight or more Labour MPs join them? The party could be taken over and moulded quite quickly. Even the name could be changed!"


    Well it won't happen because the party is run by the members not the MPs. Policies are decided by the vote of constituency member representatives at conferences.

    Of course if Labour supporters signed up to Lib Dem membership and went to conference as constituency representatives they could have a big influence. However, the local Lib Dem constituency Executive decides who the representatives should be and as they are currently original Lib Dems it would take some years for the new Labour people to take over.

    Of course the Lib Dems still suffer from the influx of SDP members who added significant amounts of illiberal intervenionist policies to the Liberal liberal policies. Hence the tension between SDP Vince Cable who is keen on interventions, and the likes of David Laws and Danny Alexander who are more traditional Liberal free marketeers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
    There is no Tory hubris. I for one view Corbyn with shock and horror. I regard him as really quite nasty. And quite old.
    Labour is in a mess - that is a plan fact.
    There is a long way to go before the next general election but that bridge can be crossed if possible when it arrives - the tories need to be successful in pursuing a 40% policy.
    what an idiot, "I think he is quite old". He would surely recognise you as a spotty juvenile half witted simpleton.
    Well, he is old. He would be the oldest leader since Foot in the 1980s - older than Callaghan when first elected, older than Wilson or Thatcher when they left office, older than Tony Blair is now.

    In fact since Attlee, Churchill and Clement Davies retired in the mid-1950s, only Macmillan and Foot have been older party leaders - even Menzies Campbell was (slightly) younger.

    I don't think his age is something that can just be ignored. In the late 60s, even apparently healthy people can suddenly start developing age-related problems (as I know from painful personal experience in my own family).
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    just caught some of Gordon..I guess the men in white coats are probably standing by..very sad tho..
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    "defeating Fashishism and Nancyism" ?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Brown's going super pro-EU.
    "Britain can save europe"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    edited August 2015
    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    The passion is undeniable. He's trying to name check everything he likes about Labour. They might need to add some substance to it though. Not him just ranting on about how much he hates things he can't control with some forced humour delivered with all the conviction of a BBC newscaster. Past achievements (even if accurate, which not all of his are) do not win elections.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    MJW said:

    Plato said:

    What does neo-liberalism mean in this context?

    It's an all purpose insult from what I've seen so far.

    Yorkcity said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    It's amazing that the myth of falling turnout is still being recycled on PB. The turning point was the millennium, and we are back up to 70%.

    Garglegoons of the Owen Jones stripe were using it (*) as mood music before the Election for their doom-mongering, but here's the graph to 2010

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Graph_1_UK_election_voter_turnout_1945-2010.jpg

    We are not back to 70% and we have not recovered from the massive fall caused by disillusionment with Blair post 97 at a time when the Tories were also not electable. Just as with the deficit fixing the problems caused by the last Labour government is a long term task.
    One of the reasons people aren't voting is that they see no reason to, as there is no real difference between the main parties - no proper choice to be made. Give people a stark and mightily important choice and they WILL vote in their millions, as we saw in indyref, which got Britain's biggest ever turnout.

    This is where Corbyn could help British politics. If he leads Labour into 2020 voters will have an important choice to make, between continued centre-right competence under the Tories, or insane socialist bankruptcy under Labour.

    I expect we would see turnout well over 70%.
    You are very confident this neo-liberalism economics will continue ?
    With 0% interest rates, continued QE and rising debt been transfered from banks to
    Individuals to keep the ponzi scheme going.
    The word 'neoliberalism' should be banned as it has become entirely meaningless through its overuse by the daft and has effectively become a synonym for capitalism. In fact, those who throw the word 'neoliberalism' about's main complaint isn't with that particular group of theories claiming that the market knows best but with crony capitalism - the perception that the market is rigged against them, which may be a valid complaint, with the question then being whether it's an ill that can be cured or an inevitable bug of a capitalist system...
    ''Infamy infamy! They've all got it in for me!''
  • MikeK said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33950405

    Labour leadership: Gordon Brown says party must be credible.

    Like it was under his leadership. :wink:

    Brown actually won 258 seats at GE2010 - young Ed only won 232 at GE2015 :lol:
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Speedy said:

    Brown's going super pro-EU.
    "Britain can save europe"

    Why should anyone trust Gordon Brown on the EU? He was the one that dodged a promised referendum on the last treaty, and then ducked the signing ceremony to avoid press coverage of how much he was surrendering to Brussels. Then he achieved absolutely no concessions over his entire premiership. He's the absolute worst example of a politician being duplicitious and weaselly when it comes to Brussels.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    ydoethur said:

    Anyone else depressed that there is only one Briton in Arsenal's team today... and only three in Man U's on Friday?

    To what extent is the Premier League a league of English football clubs (I think I'm right in saying they are all English?) and to what extent an international franchise-based sporting competition that happens to be held in English cities?

    Discuss.

    Edit - how wrong can one be? I had forgotten Abertawe.
    The money has ruined it, used to be a great league in the good old days. Too many fan dancers etc nowadays.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    "Gordon Brown the human face of globalization"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    Plato said:

    What on Earth is Gordon wibbling about. Is he going to talk sans cliches?

    I've never heard such empty speechifying

    The man is a cretin.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    He's almost walking out to the corridor now...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    "Without a Labour party we may not be able to tackle prejudice etc... "

    What utter tosh !
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015
    I can see that Brown doesn't have an original thought, he has to use quotes from others who have died long ago to describe his thoughts for him.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    Has Gordon saved the world again or is he still babbling on

    Totally Ga Ga now rather than the old 80%
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I actually laughed at that point.

    Name-droptastic
    Speedy said:

    Who is Maxton that Brown talks about in the 1920's or something?

    Now he is repeating quotes from every labour leader he remembers.
    Now he's at Kinnock the Movie.

    "I was a friend of Mandela"
    He's really babbling like he's on a late night show, or like a really lonely old man.
    " Amy Winehouse was there"

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    RodCrosby said:

    He's almost walking out to the corridor now...

    That might spark applause, even from his hand-picked audience.

    Is there a market on whether anyone nods off during this speech?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    JWisemann said:

    The Tory hubris on here is wonderful to behold. Very much looking forward to the moment when they realise a pathetic, barely workable majority, for the first time in decades, achieved on the back of stitching up their only friends in parliament, is as good as it gets, and its all downhill from here.

    LOL! Weren't you predicting disaster for Con's right up until Big Ben chimed at 10pm on 7th May?

    Many people were. Hubris is still a big risk for the Tories, perhaps their biggest risk at the moment. They should proceed as they were planning with any leader and only if Corbyn proves as troublesome for labour as they hope should they try something really bold to ake advantage.
    There is no Tory hubris. I for one view Corbyn with shock and horror. I regard him as really quite nasty. And quite old.
    Labour is in a mess - that is a plan fact.
    There is a long way to go before the next general election but that bridge can be crossed if possible when it arrives - the tories need to be successful in pursuing a 40% policy.
    what an idiot, "I think he is quite old". He would surely recognise you as a spotty juvenile half witted simpleton.
    Old in the sense of his politics, no doubt.
    sounded more like "old" as in "old " to me but happy to be corrected , no idea why his age is a concern as long as he still has his marbles.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015
    Well that didn't go down well with Sky, they just described him as "rambling about historical figures".
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    They were a bunch of two faced lying creeps, got exactly what they deserved and hopefully they will remain in the gutter where they belong. Unprincipled charlatans.
    Do I take it you’re not likely to vote LD in the near future then?
    I would rather vote Tory
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    If you watch 20 seconds of all three realistic candidate's speeches then you can sort of see why the market is as it is...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982
    Speedy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Speedy said:

    Oh no, Brown on the global financial crisis.
    'it was not a mistake"

    Has he said he saved the world yet?
    He's analyzing globalization, he's against anti-globalization and he's using Bernard Shaw vs Foot to explain it.
    He's veering into global finance and how to control it with global governance.
    Talking pure mince as usual then
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    'booo that's terrible' 'worst leadership election I've ever seen' pic.twitter.com/ObFyxBx37S

    — General Boles (@GeneralBoles) August 16, 2015
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    And that speaks volumes if you listened this appalling cliche quotastic name-drop fest.
    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    So would a LLDP [is that the right abbreviation?] membership have to accept a defector from Labour?

    Southam Observer says: "What happens to the LDs if eight or more Labour MPs join them? The party could be taken over and moulded quite quickly. Even the name could be changed!"


    Well it won't happen because the party is run by the members not the MPs. Policies are decided by the vote of constituency member representatives at conferences.

    Of course if Labour supporters signed up to Lib Dem membership and went to conference as constituency representatives they could have a big influence. However, the local Lib Dem constituency Executive decides who the representatives should be and as they are currently original Lib Dems it would take some years for the new Labour people to take over.

    Of course the Lib Dems still suffer from the influx of SDP members who added significant amounts of illiberal intervenionist policies to the Liberal liberal policies. Hence the tension between SDP Vince Cable who is keen on interventions, and the likes of David Laws and Danny Alexander who are more traditional Liberal free marketeers.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,940
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    They were a bunch of two faced lying creeps, got exactly what they deserved and hopefully they will remain in the gutter where they belong. Unprincipled charlatans.
    Do I take it you’re not likely to vote LD in the near future then?
    I would rather vote Tory
    What a thing to say!!!! You said some dreadful things but ........
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    TBH, he went all -isms in that bit. I don't think I've heard so many in a single paragraph.

    I expected him to say bigotism.
    RodCrosby said:

    "defeating Fashishism and Nancyism" ?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,982

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    JackW said:

    I’ve just caught the end of Broadcasting House. The May morning after Jeremy Corbyn wins the 2020 election.

    Must listen again on iPlayer!

    Apologies OKC, I missed your post re Clegg yesterday.

    Generally the yellow peril are pretty forgiving and most realize there really was little choice but to accept the suicide mission entrusted to them by the electorate after the 2010 GE.

    History will treat Clegg and the LibDems in government more kindly than the voters, not that will be much solace to them and defeated MP's presently.

    Thanks Jack. Would touch my forelock if I believed in doing such a thing!

    I think that you are right, and get the impression that the tide of forgiveness is already starting to turn.
    They were a bunch of two faced lying creeps, got exactly what they deserved and hopefully they will remain in the gutter where they belong. Unprincipled charlatans.
    Do I take it you’re not likely to vote LD in the near future then?
    I would rather vote Tory
    What a thing to say!!!! You said some dreadful things but ........
    LOL, it was difficult to hit the keys
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Quite. :lol:

    MJW said:

    Plato said:

    What does neo-liberalism mean in this context?

    It's an all purpose insult from what I've seen so far.

    Yorkcity said:

    SeanT said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    It's amazing that the myth of falling turnout is still being recycled on PB. The turning point was the millennium, and we are back up to 70%.

    Garglegoons of the Owen Jones stripe were using it (*) as mood music before the Election for their doom-mongering, but here's the graph to 2010

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Graph_1_UK_election_voter_turnout_1945-2010.jpg

    We are not back to 70% and we have not recovered from the massive fall caused by disillusionment with Blair post 97 at a time when the Tories were also not electable. Just as with the deficit fixing the problems caused by the last Labour government is a long term task.
    One of the reasons people aren't voting is that they see no reason to, as there is no real difference between the main parties - no proper choice to be made. Give people a stark and mightily important choice and they WILL vote in their millions, as we saw in indyref, which got Britain's biggest ever turnout.

    This is where Corbyn could help British politics. If he leads Labour into 2020 voters will have an important choice to make, between continued centre-right competence under the Tories, or insane socialist bankruptcy under Labour.

    I expect we would see turnout well over 70%.
    You are very confident this neo-liberalism economics will continue ?
    With 0% interest rates, continued QE and rising debt been transfered from banks to
    Individuals to keep the ponzi scheme going.
    The word 'neoliberalism' should be banned as it has become entirely meaningless through its overuse by the daft and has effectively become a synonym for capitalism. In fact, those who throw the word 'neoliberalism' about's main complaint isn't with that particular group of theories claiming that the market knows best but with crony capitalism - the perception that the market is rigged against them, which may be a valid complaint, with the question then being whether it's an ill that can be cured or an inevitable bug of a capitalist system...
    ''Infamy infamy! They've all got it in for me!''
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 54,335
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
    Former leaders never do well on these sorts of polls though. Especially not the last one. Roll forward 20 years and Gordo's polling will improve a bit probably though !
  • New thread.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited August 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
    Former leaders never do well on these sorts of polls though. Especially not the last one. Roll forward 20 years and Gordo's polling will improve a bit probably though !
    "History will be kind to him"

    Said many about unpopular leaders through history.

    Not necessary or true, but it's a comfort word. When people have a negative opinion, hiding behind the hope of history books is the last refuge.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,129
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
    Former leaders never do well on these sorts of polls though. Especially not the last one. Roll forward 20 years and Gordo's polling will improve a bit probably though !
    Has Callaghan's? Or Eden's? Or even Major's? I think it's optimistic to assume he will clamber off the floor - most people despise him and will simply forget him, rather than come to be grateful to him.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    How many were unfortunate enough to be in the audience? It sounds about 6.
    ydoethur said:

    RodCrosby said:

    He's almost walking out to the corridor now...

    That might spark applause, even from his hand-picked audience.

    Is there a market on whether anyone nods off during this speech?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Gordon Brown’s speech quoting celebrated past speakers rather highlights to paucity of anything said by a Labour speaker since 1997. And that insludes this effort by Mr G. Brown.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
    Former leaders never do well on these sorts of polls though. Especially not the last one. Roll forward 20 years and Gordo's polling will improve a bit probably though !
    A bit perhaps but he did not get Labour's second lowest vote share since 1918 for nothing
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,387
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    If any of the mainstream candidates could give a speech as passionate as Gordon's, they'd be cruising to the win.

    Though Comres had Brown polling worse than all of them, including Corbyn
    Former leaders never do well on these sorts of polls though. Especially not the last one. Roll forward 20 years and Gordo's polling will improve a bit probably though !
    Has Callaghan's? Or Eden's? Or even Major's? I think it's optimistic to assume he will clamber off the floor - most people despise him and will simply forget him, rather than come to be grateful to him.
    Major and Callaghan's are not that bad, although neither are great
  • Sandpit said:


    Whether a school should subsidise places for their own staff is clearly an edge case, one assumes that this would be treated as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes. One also assumes that this is for day pupils rather than boarders, as their parent is working at the school they obviously live nearby, the marginal cost to the school of the place is relatively low.

    To me, acceptable would be if for example a charity wants to send someone to Africa for a couple of years to implement a project, and can help with arranging a scholarship to a boarding school in the UK while they are away. Doing the same while the staff member is in London, not so much.

    IIRC as the son of a teacher in this situation (75% off my fees) there was income tax deducted and then refunded after one of the other teachers (ironically an ardent socialist who was dancing in the corridors the day Thatcher resigned) appealed against this confiscation. But of course the rules may well have changed in the last 25 years.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,496
    That was a great speech by Gordon Brown. But it's not a good idea to drop names so much. Bill Clinton told me that.
Sign In or Register to comment.