Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joff Wild says the key to a Labour moderate fightback is un

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joff Wild says the key to a Labour moderate fightback is understanding the Corbyn tribes

Just because you know something bad is going to happen does not make it less painful when it does. Since the day that the Labour leadership contest was announced I had been pretty sure that Jeremy Corbyn would win again.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    edited September 2016
    First, like the LibDems in 2020
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124
    On the subject of Labour and fighting fish, this is no doubt how it would play out for Corbyn:

    http://tinyurl.com/z3t6n5n
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    At the next election, Labour will lose seats. The left-wingers mostly have safe seats; the incompetent plotters are in marginals. With fewer seats the proportion of left-wingers will be greater, and the threshold for nominations for the leadership will be smaller. So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat. Labour is now a left left party; it's just a question of how long Mr Wild wishes to remain in denial...
  • Sorry SO/Joff. The numbers are just too stacked again you and the moderates. Thats not going to change, as political involvement these days is for those on the fringes not in the political centre.
  • In addition, Corbyn has now legitimately won the right to lead labour into the next election. I don't think the moderates have a right to oppose him anymore. They can shut up or get out, but he's your leader, he's been backed by the rules. If they now work again him,then labour have a right to remove those malcontents
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    edited September 2016
    Claire Jeffrey has left the Labour Party. She was the only Labour councillor in Folkestone and was general candidate in Folkestone & Hythe.

    http://www.shepway.gov.uk/moderngov/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=1763
    twitter.com/ericsegal86/status/779774742689611776
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,547
    edited September 2016
    I'm not sure how it'd be possible for moderates to come up with a policy platform that could top Corbyn's in the eyes of members. Anything that remotely resembles Tory party policy or involves compromise with the electorate would be dismissed as Tory lite. Corbyn can make unrealistic, uncosted promises like 500 billion investment, National Education Service etc. knowing he'll never have to implement them. Corbyn has also done a good job of 'owning' the most popular aspects of Miliband's platform- rail renationalisation, investment banks, taking on big business...they're all his ideas now..
  • Way behind like Owen Thingy....
  • In addition, Corbyn has now legitimately won the right to lead labour into the next election. I don't think the moderates have a right to oppose him anymore. They can shut up or get out, but he's your leader, he's been backed by the rules. If they now work again him,then labour have a right to remove those malcontents

    Am I ever glad I let my Party membership quietly lapse in 1990 :o

  • The NEC seem key to this.
    Joff wrote "If, as expected, this week’s conference votes to give specific representation to the Scottish and Welsh front benches then the non-Corbyn bloc on the NEC looks like being in a majority for the foreseeable future"
    On BBC Sunday Politics discussion with 1 present member and 1 former NEC member the balance without these extra 2 was said to be +1 for anti Corbyn. Add in the Welsh and Scots if approved and its +3 for anti. But could the following happen?
    1. Jonathan Ashworth MP chosen from front bench - AFAIK anti. Swap for a pro and the majority is then +1 anti.
    2. Keith Vaz in the BAME group - said to have recently voted more anti than pro AFAIK. Again swap him for a pro-Corbyn and the majority becomes +1 for pro Corbyn.
  • Heinrich Brüning probably thought the same when he was chancellor of the Weimar republic.

    It will be alright..the rule book will keep them in check..they can't do much if they don't have people in all the key posts..we'll be alright..just you see..These brownshirts will blow themselves out of hot air eventually.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124
    "My contention is that over the coming years Corbyn’s words and deeds will alienate more and more of his supporters"

    No. Just more and more of Labour's voters. The massed ranks of Momentum's Black Knights will just see an election loss as a mere flesh-wound.
  • I would add that the Welsh and Scots NEC selections, could come under local pressure from their own pro Corbyn members.
  • In addition, Corbyn has now legitimately won the right to lead labour into the next election. I don't think the moderates have a right to oppose him anymore. They can shut up or get out, but he's your leader, he's been backed by the rules. If they now work again him,then labour have a right to remove those malcontents

    A lot can happen between now and May 2020. Corbyn is safe for now - but I also think the PLP has the right to fight for their own vision of a Labour future. They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents - and I think it is fair to say that the polling evidence is that constituents don't see Corbyn as part of their future.

    It is a very difficult situation. Do you fight for the Labour Party you were elected to represent or walk away from a Party that has been transformed almost beyond recognition?

    The PLP should fight - falling into line with the violence and bullying at the heart of the Momentum/Corbyn project would be beyond dishonourable.
  • In addition, Corbyn has now legitimately won the right to lead labour into the next election. I don't think the moderates have a right to oppose him anymore. They can shut up or get out, but he's your leader, he's been backed by the rules. If they now work again him,then labour have a right to remove those malcontents

    A lot can happen between now and May 2020. Corbyn is safe for now - but I also think the PLP has the right to fight for their own vision of a Labour future. They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents - and I think it is fair to say that the polling evidence is that constituents don't see Corbyn as part of their future.

    It is a very difficult situation. Do you fight for the Labour Party you were elected to represent or walk away from a Party that has been transformed almost beyond recognition?

    The PLP should fight - falling into line with the violence and bullying at the heart of the Momentum/Corbyn project would be beyond dishonourable.
    Maybe,but i cannot see how you can legitimately campaign for a labour government if you think Corbyn is unfit to be PM
  • SeanT said:

    Nice analysis, but I'd add another category: the desperate and deluded.

    What I mean is: people who aren't particularly political, but despair of the world in general and maybe their own position, and see Corbyn (delusionally, to my mind) as a way of shaking things up.

    A couple of my friends fit this description. They never really talked politics until he came along. They were vaguely lefty or vaguely green or vaguely liberal but never discussed this stuff over drinks. Then suddenly they started going on marches??

    Must be thousands like that.

    Absolutely. The biggest Corbyn fan in my circle admitted to me that she would never want to live under a Corbyn regime but it is still a fan girl of the most deluded sort. She genuinely believes that Momentum is a positive group of people who just want to help people vote.

    Mad doesn't even come close.
  • Cheers Mr Observer, interesting. – As the far left entrenches itself further onto the party, when do you see the first wave of moderate Labour MPs standing down?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    SeanT said:

    Nice analysis, but I'd add another category: the desperate and deluded.

    What I mean is: people who aren't particularly political, but despair of the world in general and maybe their own position, and see Corbyn (delusionally, to my mind) as a way of shaking things up.

    A couple of my friends fit this description. They never really talked politics until he came along. They were vaguely lefty or vaguely green or vaguely liberal but never discussed this stuff over drinks. Then suddenly they started going on marches??

    Must be thousands like that.

    Half of them will probably forget to vote on election day.
  • IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
  • SeanT said:

    Nice analysis, but I'd add another category: the desperate and deluded.

    What I mean is: people who aren't particularly political, but despair of the world in general and maybe their own position, and see Corbyn (delusionally, to my mind) as a way of shaking things up.

    A couple of my friends fit this description. They never really talked politics until he came along. They were vaguely lefty or vaguely green or vaguely liberal but never discussed this stuff over drinks. Then suddenly they started going on marches??

    Must be thousands like that.

    Absolutely. The biggest Corbyn fan in my circle admitted to me that she would never want to live under a Corbyn regime but it is still a fan girl of the most deluded sort. She genuinely believes that Momentum is a positive group of people who just want to help people vote.

    Mad doesn't even come close.

    MAD - Momentum Assures Democracy?

  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Quango/Herr Von Papen.

    Good piece, Mr. Wild (and my sympathies).

    There's a timing issue, as per Ed Miliband coup murmurings. We've got likely just under four years until the next election. After the poor result of the rubbish Smith, the PLP may be very reluctant to try again unless they've got reason to be very confident.

    Too close to the election will perhaps do more harm than good in the short term even if they succeed. Too near the boundary changes and MPs risk getting turfed out by their constituency parties. Too near to today and it looks ridiculous and as if they're being sore losers.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Quango/Herr Von Papen.

    Good piece, Mr. Wild (and my sympathies).

    There's a timing issue, as per Ed Miliband coup murmurings. We've got likely just under four years until the next election. After the poor result of the rubbish Smith, the PLP may be very reluctant to try again unless they've got reason to be very confident.

    Too close to the election will perhaps do more harm than good in the short term even if they succeed. Too near the boundary changes and MPs risk getting turfed out by their constituency parties. Too near to today and it looks ridiculous and as if they're being sore losers.


    So no time is any good then.

    You're not being very helpful...

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    The YouGov finding that the only Labour demographic that Corbyn appears to have lost is the 18-24s appears to cut across the previous narrative that Corby had inspired a generation of younger activists (a la Sanders) and was poised to do well in the student seats?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,300
    I watched Corbyn on Marr this morning.

    He articulated some clear policies. He is in favour of investing in infrastructure in a big way to generate returns that will more than pay for it as well as as boosting employment and economic prosperity. He is against hard Brexit. He thinks more of the defence budget should be spent on emergency relief and that there should be more emphasis on diplomacy rather than force. We already know that he is in favour of the public sector being allowed to bid for railway franchises and against the private sector taking over more and more of the NHS and education.

    Clear policies. Not very left wing. Probably popular. What are the policies of the anti- Corbynistas? An empty space.

    He has shown he can win elections big time. The anti-Corbynistas have proven they can lose big time. Yet they accuse him of being an election loser!

    I suspect that the "lefties" as described by Joff are by far the biggest group of Corbyn supporters, and are far bigger than the "whiners" on the other side who have been left behind, with no clear policies, no ability to win elections, frustrated and angry. They need to catch up or depart the scene.
  • IanB2 said:

    The YouGov finding that the only Labour demographic that Corbyn appears to have lost is the 18-24s appears to cut across the previous narrative that Corby had inspired a generation of younger activists (a la Sanders) and was poised to do well in the student seats?

    That finding seems just totally off to me.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,390
    edited September 2016
    No antisemitism in Labour Party....there is an official report saying so...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347
    edited September 2016

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
  • Barnesian said:

    I watched Corbyn on Marr this morning.

    ...

    He has shown he can win elections big time.

    ....


    A specific leadership election, which can effectively be rigged by entryists, yes.

    Not much else.

  • Two teenage girls from Nice, 17 and 19, arrested over 'terror plot' directed by a notorious Syria-based French jihadist

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806455/Two-teenage-girls-Nice-17-19-arrested-terror-plot-directed-notorious-Syria-based-French-jihadist.html
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746

    IanB2 said:

    The YouGov finding that the only Labour demographic that Corbyn appears to have lost is the 18-24s appears to cut across the previous narrative that Corby had inspired a generation of younger activists (a la Sanders) and was poised to do well in the student seats?

    That finding seems just totally off to me.
    The explanation is Europe. They're the most pro-EU demographic and Corbyn clearly isn't heartbroken by the referendum result.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    Paul_Bedfordshire: thanks for your comment about the spreadsheet, if you were talking about the one I did.
  • I see that the initial claim by FBI that they were looking for a Hispanic in the Mall shooting was miles off. The guy is Turkish.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,019
    AndyJS said:

    Half of them will probably forget to vote on election day.

    MI5 will erase their votes anyway.

  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,390
    edited September 2016
    AndyJS said:

    IanB2 said:

    The YouGov finding that the only Labour demographic that Corbyn appears to have lost is the 18-24s appears to cut across the previous narrative that Corby had inspired a generation of younger activists (a la Sanders) and was poised to do well in the student seats?

    That finding seems just totally off to me.
    The explanation is Europe. They're the most pro-EU demographic and Corbyn clearly isn't heartbroken by the referendum result.
    That seems like a logical reason, just the crowds we see for the Messiah and twitter Loud Howards (yes I know I know that twitter isn't representative) are predominantly youngsters and a sprinkling of haggered Trots.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,776

    Barnesian said:

    I watched Corbyn on Marr this morning.

    ...

    He has shown he can win elections big time.

    ....


    A specific leadership election, which can effectively be rigged by entryists, yes.

    Not much else.

    What about that by-election to Ramsgate Town Council?
  • Essexit said:

    Barnesian said:

    I watched Corbyn on Marr this morning.

    ...

    He has shown he can win elections big time.

    ....


    A specific leadership election, which can effectively be rigged by entryists, yes.

    Not much else.

    What about that by-election to Ramsgate Town Council?

    LOL yes. And that one.

  • No antisemitism in Labour Party....there is an official report saying so...
    My favourite bit was Argclu's husband.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,300

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124



    A lot can happen between now and May 2020. Corbyn is safe for now - but I also think the PLP has the right to fight for their own vision of a Labour future. They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents - and I think it is fair to say that the polling evidence is that constituents don't see Corbyn as part of their future.

    It is a very difficult situation. Do you fight for the Labour Party you were elected to represent or walk away from a Party that has been transformed almost beyond recognition.

    The PLP needs to organise a strike - a strike against voting for Corbyn's Momentum. Picket lines at polling stations. Anyone still voting Labour branded a scab. Withdrawal of labour at Westminster until all their demands are met.

    I'm sure the other Party's will be fully behind them.
  • Mr. Hopkins, it's not my fault that time itself is against Labour.

    Fighting against the fourth dimension is a difficult prospect.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,124

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Quango/Herr Von Papen.

    Good piece, Mr. Wild (and my sympathies).

    There's a timing issue, as per Ed Miliband coup murmurings. We've got likely just under four years until the next election. After the poor result of the rubbish Smith, the PLP may be very reluctant to try again unless they've got reason to be very confident.

    Too close to the election will perhaps do more harm than good in the short term even if they succeed. Too near the boundary changes and MPs risk getting turfed out by their constituency parties. Too near to today and it looks ridiculous and as if they're being sore losers.


    So no time is any good then.

    You're not being very helpful...

    OK then, the fightback starts at 8.24 am, February 11th, 2018. How does that sound?
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,776
    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    Was Corbyn elected because of a genuine leftward shift or the unintended consequences of Miliband changing the leadership election rules, to allow entryists who had always been present to get their way?
  • Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    How were the TUs ever "over dominant" except in Far Right fantasy-land?

    In my earlier comment I was thinking of the ability of new media to propagate abuse and otherwise promote selfishness.

    The big thing that is happening, alas, is the eventide of representative democracy.

  • tysontyson Posts: 4,536
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-has-an-odd-little-habit-and-it-says-a-lot-about-hi/

    What a stupid article. It is so obvious that Corbyn is fighting off a cold during the Marr interview.
  • tyson said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-has-an-odd-little-habit-and-it-says-a-lot-about-hi/

    What a stupid article. It is so obvious that Corbyn is fighting off a cold during the Marr interview.

    Not sure that it has anything to do with a cold - it is the way he speaks and it has been apparent for a while
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Given the present woes of the Labour Party I suspect MIlliband sincerely regrets the purchase of the now infamous bacon butty.

    Should have gone for a hot pasty instead.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,969
    edited September 2016
    Artist said:

    I'm not sure how it'd be possible for moderates to come up with a policy platform that could top Corbyn's in the eyes of members. Anything that remotely resembles Tory party policy or involves compromise with the electorate would be dismissed as Tory lite. Corbyn can make unrealistic, uncosted promises like 500 billion investment, National Education Service etc. knowing he'll never have to implement them. Corbyn has also done a good job of 'owning' the most popular aspects of Miliband's platform- rail renationalisation, investment banks, taking on big business...they're all his ideas now..

    What the heck is "non-Corbynite Labour" anyway? What is it for? What does it think? What is the vision?

    No group is homogeneous if you drill down deep enough - at the end of the day, we are all individuals and no two individuals think exactly alike. On that basis, the realisation that the "Corbynites" are heterogeneous brings a total sense of false security. Yes, they have factions with different outlooks. Like every single coherent political movement in the history of mankind! Way to go for spotting a weak-point...

    But what about the non-Corbyn group? The non-Corbynites are in such a mess they don't really form a faction except by the negative definition of "the lot who don't fit into any of the Corbynite categories". In fact they're in such a mess they can't even be decomposed into sub-factions. They are just a useless, pathetic, undirected, ideologically-bereft, jellylike, vacuous, amorphous blob. And that's the second-kindest thing I can think of saying about them, after "Well, 38% ain't all that bad - third time lucky?"

    They don't stand for anything. They don't have a clear identity to promote. They don't even seem to think anything.

    Sometimes a lack of ideology is dressed up as a bonus, it's "pragmatic". But even pragmatism forms a coherent system of moral and political thought. This isn't pragmatism. It's an ideas vacuum.

    Since the Brown government ran out of steam, it's as if all the ideas have run out. For all the Corbynista witch-hunting of "Blairites", they mostly left the scene when Blair did. If Labour actually had a coherent group of thirty or so hardcore ideologically-committed Blairites, perhaps under a different name, it would be a good thing. At least they could push some ideas or policy proposals out, form an alternative narrative, and if the left-wing project fails then there's a seed there for the next wave of Labour's history to grow from.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,536
    I have to say Joff, aside from the times I think you pander too much to the pbCOM Tories...I think your analysis of the Labour Party is the most coherent I read across the board, including the likes of Rawnsley. I also think your articles for pbCOM are some of the best, if not the best, the site produces. You possess an excellent brain.

    So a very big well done from me...it is something that I've meant to say for a long time, but I wanted to say it after being suitably impressed by one of your articles as per today.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Corbyn: 'I want to increase corporation tax to around the 20% mark'
    Marr: 'it's 20% now'

    #marr

    Ye gods.... I mean WTF?

    Labour are not in a bad place they are in a all consuming black hole which they insist they keep digging. They are done, they are never coming back ever. The worm has turned fully left now.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Moses_ said:

    Given the present woes of the Labour Party I suspect MIlliband sincerely regrets the purchase of the now infamous bacon butty.

    Should have gone for a hot pasty instead.

    Neither butties nor bananas come within a million miles of doughnuts

    http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton-holding-donuts-with-chloe-moretz-large-hole-small-hole.jpg
  • Post-government, the 2010 contest brought us EdMilibandism. In fact in 2010 it sounded like he might have some idea about a fresh direction. In fairness DavidMilibandism also sounded like a direction, albeit reheated rather than fresh, but it wasn't fully-formed, and post the decapitation of its leader, it seems to have been a movement without acolytes. And how coherent was the Milibandism we did get? After 5 years to get a policy position together, Axelrod's description of Vote Labour and Win a Microwave was spot-on.

    How about 2015's contest? Cooper somehow couldn't put a package before the selectorate that was more solid or coherent than Andy Burnham's. Couldn't even get more votes than him either. A risible showing from someone who probably had the intellectual heft to frame a new direction. I can only think she was trying to second-guess the preferences of the membership while third-guessing the long-run impact of her positions among the wider GE-voting public, and ended up sloganeering in an effort to sell the wishy-washy and the meaningless. Kendall was braver - stuck her colours to a mast - just a shame she wasn't about in the early/mid 90s. Notably she had few MPs behind her and hasn't formed the nucleus of a new ideas-powerhouse for MPs setting out alternatives to Project Corbyn.

    With 2016, Owen Smith didn't repeat the Kendall "mistake". When addressing the membership, he at least pretended to be "socialism in a better suit" who would cut out the internecine warfare. But there were no "Smithites" because there's no such thing as "Smithism". As James Forsyth says, it was an intellectual surrender. It didn't get her v. far but at least one can imagine such a beast as a Kendallite.

    When commentators talk about "Labour moderates", "Labour centrists" or "Labour social democrats" rebuilding, who exactly is to do the rebuilding? The non-Corbynite part of the PLP lacks clear leaders or uniting ideas. It is basically just a large but disorganised and rudderless rabble of marooned MPs. They may want to reach out to the two fifths of the membership who opposed Corbyn, but lack the organisation and communicational connections to do so. The three fifths who supported Corbyn may come from different backgrounds, but we know they are all left-wing (to varying degrees) and what kind of agenda they can get behind. The two fifths deemed to be the base for regeneration are spread out far wider across the political spectrum, so lining them up behind a common agenda is going to be a very hard slog. Who out there is going to put the necessary shift in - and do they even have the political nous to pull it off? The big beasts have moved on, and if Owen Smith is the best they can do then it just isn't going to be good enough.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,464
    Essexit said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    Was Corbyn elected because of a genuine leftward shift or the unintended consequences of Miliband changing the leadership election rules, to allow entryists who had always been present to get their way?
    If they had always been present how come they are entryists?
  • Good lad....

    Sorry, one doesn't high five with commoners: Canada's PM is left hanging as he attempts an awkward greeting with a VERY unimpressed Prince George at the start of the Royal tour

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805952/Welcome-Canada-Kate-Wills-George-Charlotte-touch-Victoria-royal-tour-family-four.html
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,969
    edited September 2016
    Charles said:

    Essexit said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    Was Corbyn elected because of a genuine leftward shift or the unintended consequences of Miliband changing the leadership election rules, to allow entryists who had always been present to get their way?
    If they had always been present how come they are entryists?
    In 2015, Corbyn won among members, not just "registered supporters". And if I remember the polling correctly, even had a lead among existing members not those who'd joined post the 2015 election. But in 2016, he seems to have lost fairly narrowly (according to Yougov, but there's a margin of error on that) among pre-2015 members. That would give more hope to the non-Corbynites if the membership hadn't grown so dramatically, of course.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,732
    Good luck Joff / Southam.

    I really think you are going to need it.

    The Trot end of the party will be looking to make it uncomfortable for the moderate members.

    You can see it in see it in some local meetings already, shouting down, the acts of intimidation etc.

    You guys are going to be in for a rough ride but I think the country actually needs you to win.

    Or Labour needs to die and be replaced by a party where the entrists cant take over the asylum.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,776
    Charles said:

    Essexit said:

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    Was Corbyn elected because of a genuine leftward shift or the unintended consequences of Miliband changing the leadership election rules, to allow entryists who had always been present to get their way?
    If they had always been present how come they are entryists?
    Ah, reading that again it is slightly ambiguous. I mean entryists in society at large who had been voting Green/SNP/SWP/PFJ or indeed not voting at all, and were attracted (back) to Labour by the opportunity to elect Corbyn.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 7,732

    I see that the initial claim by FBI that they were looking for a Hispanic in the Mall shooting was miles off. The guy is Turkish.

    "nothing to do with terrorism" appears still to be the line to take.

    How about they take a neutral line until they have sufficient facts.

    There seems to be a trend by Western governments to play down events.
  • Floater said:

    Good luck Joff / Southam.

    I really think you are going to need it.

    The Trot end of the party will be looking to make it uncomfortable for the moderate members.

    You can see it in see it in some local meetings already, shouting down, the acts of intimidation etc.

    You guys are going to be in for a rough ride but I think the country actually needs you to win.

    Or Labour needs to die and be replaced by a party where the entrists cant take over the asylum.

    How long did the LDP govern uninterruptedly in Japan? That would seem to set a benchmark for a parliamentary system producing single-party rule.

  • SeanT said:

    Nice analysis, but I'd add another category: the desperate and deluded.

    What I mean is: people who aren't particularly political, but despair of the world in general and maybe their own position, and see Corbyn (delusionally, to my mind) as a way of shaking things up.

    A couple of my friends fit this description. They never really talked politics until he came along. They were vaguely lefty or vaguely green or vaguely liberal but never discussed this stuff over drinks. Then suddenly they started going on marches??

    Must be thousands like that.

    There are. But they are not there for the long-term.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,406
    Look on the bright side Mr Wild this could be the death of the Labour party. Only good can come form its demise.
  • AndyJS said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire: thanks for your comment about the spreadsheet, if you were talking about the one I did.

    Widely regarded as great.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,536
    @MyBurningEars
    I like your posts below...they offer some good analysis. I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself. Joff's articles are superb on the strategic analysis, but offer little practical advice about what policy platform a left of centre party should pursue.

    I am left of centre..on foreign policy I am pro Europe, agree to military intervention if it could help (particularly Libya now). I think the NHS (mixed market) needs much more funding via a combination of personal contributions for those who can afford them (GP's etc..) and taxation. I believe in means testing of pensioner benefits and free education from early years to university. I really do not know what the best rates of corporation or personal taxation are...I would like to see the Govt use ones that generate the most income. I am happy to cede some of my civil liberties around data etc...if I know this helps deal with criminals. I do not think renationalising anything offers something else.

    And I would like to see more green subsidies and an end to the badger cull.

    The Labour Party needs to slaughter some sacred cows and change it's rhetoric.

    I still think the Labour Party best reflects what I want above, but someone with some charisma needs to package that up in a coherent platform and sell it to Joe Public.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,666
    O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.
  • tyson said:

    I have to say Joff, aside from the times I think you pander too much to the pbCOM Tories...I think your analysis of the Labour Party is the most coherent I read across the board, including the likes of Rawnsley. I also think your articles for pbCOM are some of the best, if not the best, the site produces. You possess an excellent brain.

    So a very big well done from me...it is something that I've meant to say for a long time, but I wanted to say it after being suitably impressed by one of your articles as per today.

    Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate it. Also take your point on policy. I am going to take a bit of time to try and come up with some ideas. What should a moderate, left-of-centre Labour party look like and how can it fill as big a tent as possible? You're right - it's a challenge, a big one. But we have to try.

  • tyson said:

    @MyBurningEars
    I like your posts below...they offer some good analysis. I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself. Joff's articles are superb on the strategic analysis, but offer little practical advice about what policy platform a left of centre party should pursue.

    The line about managerialism being fine in government, but leaving a vacuum when you're out of government, really cuts to the heart of what I was trying to say about the tail-end of the Brown administration in particular. Great observation.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    I don't think Mr. Observer and like minded people should despair. Firstly because Labour's polling seems to be holding up remarkably well, barely moved from the last GE, despite all the prognostications of doom. There is a long way to go of course but at present there seems to be no evidence that Corbyn is leading Labour to disaster.

    Secondly and primarily, Labour have been in a similar position before when George Lansbury lead the party. Ok, the specific circumstances were different as were party rules but he was a pacifist, "extreme" left-winger, popular with the party membership but wholly unattractive to the electorate at large. The Labour party managed to get rid of him and went on to win back power (though the war probably did delay that a bit).

    So nil desperandum, Mr. O., it will probably take a few years, but Labour may once again have an electable leader. God only knows who that might be though.

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    edited September 2016
    Sean_F said:

    O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.

    Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,836

    I don't think Mr. Observer and like minded people should despair. Firstly because Labour's polling seems to be holding up remarkably well, barely moved from the last GE, despite all the prognostications of doom.

    This time five years ago, Labour were polling between 40% and 42%.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    tyson said:

    @MyBurningEars
    I like your posts below...they offer some good analysis. I posted here during the Brown years that managerialism is fine for Govt, but once out of Govt Labour were going to hit a problem which is now all too evident. I really do not know what Labour moderates are about, and I'm one myself. Joff's articles are superb on the strategic analysis, but offer little practical advice about what policy platform a left of centre party should pursue.

    I am left of centre..on foreign policy I am pro Europe, agree to military intervention if it could help (particularly Libya now). I think the NHS (mixed market) needs much more funding via a combination of personal contributions for those who can afford them (GP's etc..) and taxation. I believe in means testing of pensioner benefits and free education from early years to university. I really do not know what the best rates of corporation or personal taxation are...I would like to see the Govt use ones that generate the most income. I am happy to cede some of my civil liberties around data etc...if I know this helps deal with criminals. I do not think renationalising anything offers something else.

    And I would like to see more green subsidies and an end to the badger cull.

    The Labour Party needs to slaughter some sacred cows and change it's rhetoric.

    I still think the Labour Party best reflects what I want above, but someone with some charisma needs to package that up in a coherent platform and sell it to Joe Public.

    Good heavens, Mr. Tyson, with the exception of Europe, I agree with all of your policy positions (I am not sure we should get further involved with Libya mind).

    I am particularly attracted to the idea that those who can should cough up some personal contribution to the NHS. Charging for a visit to the GP seems very sensible to me. I also don't fully understand why I as a person richer in years should be deemed worthy of free prescriptions simply because of my age. Surely some form of contribution would not be unreasonable to expect. Just imagine the outcry if a Conservative government proposed such things.

    I really do think that the difference between people like yourself and an awful lot of Conservative voters is one of nuance and prejudice. There have I think been several studies done in which people favoured a policy until they found out which party were proposing it.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 44,385
    My contention is that over the coming years Corbyn’s words and deeds will alienate more and more of his supporters: this is a man who cannot unite, cannot lead, cannot collaborate and cannot engage with non-believers

    But other than that, he's ok.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,422
    I agree with chunks of Joff's comments, especially the last paragraph. To put it more critically: I though Tony and Gordon had interesting programmes that did a lot of good despite the obvious failures, but at present I do not see a centre-left programme at all, and I will not consider supporting a vacuum. Nor will most people who bother to join a party.

    Two amendments: there is a sixth group - people who really like Corbyn. They are not all left-wing, and some are not even normally Labour. They find him honest, fair and hugely refreshing after an era of spin from all sides. They would not necessarily vote for another left-wing candidate. As Professor Curtice recently observed, people who approve of Corbyn personally (32% in his poll though it depends on the wording) exceed the level who approved of Cameron after he'd led the Tories for a year. I'm in this group (as well as the "left" group), though it's from long personal acquaintance so a bit of an unusual case.

    And the the Owen Smith vote was also not monolithic. Many of my friends voted Smith even though they actually prefer Corbyn, because they are of the "we must win at all costs" school of thought and they don't think Corbyn will win. One of Owen's fundamental errors was that he attacked Corbyn personally - I know several potential Smith voters who reacted against that.



  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,836
    Knees up Mother Brown, West Ham going down!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,347

    tyson said:

    I have to say Joff, aside from the times I think you pander too much to the pbCOM Tories...I think your analysis of the Labour Party is the most coherent I read across the board, including the likes of Rawnsley. I also think your articles for pbCOM are some of the best, if not the best, the site produces. You possess an excellent brain.

    So a very big well done from me...it is something that I've meant to say for a long time, but I wanted to say it after being suitably impressed by one of your articles as per today.

    Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate it. Also take your point on policy. I am going to take a bit of time to try and come up with some ideas. What should a moderate, left-of-centre Labour party look like and how can it fill as big a tent as possible? You're right - it's a challenge, a big one. But we have to try.

    You're going to go away, have a think, and come back with the Liberal Democrats?
  • Charging for a visit to the GP seems very sensible to me. I also don't fully understand why I as a person richer in years should be deemed worthy of free prescriptions simply because of my age.

    Charging for a GP visit would be wrong. We should all be able to access healthcare when we need it - not when we can afford it.

    Of course, it would be set up so that those who get free prescriptions get free GP visits (or a similar scheme. But that would mean than only 12% of people pay for their GP consultations.

    How much money would really be generated from this? How many people would be put off from seeking medical attention and who would go on to develop more serious conditions that cost even more to treat because they didn't seek help at the earliest point?

    And when it comes to means-testing for prescription costs - how much would the bureaucracy cost to administer such a scheme cost and would there really be a net saving as a result?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    On a happy note Goldman Sachs, amongst other US banks, are reported to have threatened HMG that they will move operations off-shore unless it complies with their wishes. I hope TM has told them not to let the door hit them on their way out.

    How many billions have corrupt and crooked banks been fined in recent years? Where the feck do they get off demanding anything?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    tyson said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/25/jeremy-corbyn-has-an-odd-little-habit-and-it-says-a-lot-about-hi/

    What a stupid article. It is so obvious that Corbyn is fighting off a cold during the Marr interview.

    mobile pneumonia ? Lot of it about apparently.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,384
    @SouthamObserver

    Joff, I really admire you & other like-minded people. All I've ever done is to stand on the side-lines & wish that Labour would become a party I could vote for.

    Thanks for this article. I wish you well in your undertaking.

    Good evening everyone - I'm just off out but wanted to get this comment in before the next thread.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,506
    edited September 2016
    Dr Palmer,

    I'd be interested in your opinion of Jeremy's political views. Is he a true Trot? Internationalism trumps nationalism. Communism must be world-wide? Parliamentary democracy is out-of-date?

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Sky News

    "John McDonnell defends 'stain on humanity' attack sparking abuse row. Yvette Cooper says the shadow chancellor should apologise as failing to do so "sets a climate of hostility and abuse"

    Be interesting if McVey reported this as a hate crime under the "other prejudice" line. Keep in mind the rules, as ridiculous as they are , only need the victim to perceive it as a hate crime.

    Can you also just imagine the uproar across the left wing and their media had a Tory made a similar remark and then went onto endorse it on a national political programme.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    Another Labour councillor decides to leave the party:

    twitter.com/CllrLeonSpence/status/779712582492024832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Charging for a visit to the GP seems very sensible to me. I also don't fully understand why I as a person richer in years should be deemed worthy of free prescriptions simply because of my age.

    Charging for a GP visit would be wrong. We should all be able to access healthcare when we need it - not when we can afford it.

    Of course, it would be set up so that those who get free prescriptions get free GP visits (or a similar scheme. But that would mean than only 12% of people pay for their GP consultations.

    How much money would really be generated from this? How many people would be put off from seeking medical attention and who would go on to develop more serious conditions that cost even more to treat because they didn't seek help at the earliest point?

    And when it comes to means-testing for prescription costs - how much would the bureaucracy cost to administer such a scheme cost and would there really be a net saving as a result?
    All good points, Mr. Simon, but other countries manage such arrangements without too much trouble and don't seem to have worse health outcomes than our own. We already have a system for charging for eye and dental appointments and the catastrophes that were predicted when they were introduced don't seem to have happened. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to introduce a scheme for GP visits (most of which I am informed by my quack are by the worried well).

    The age thing is a particular bugbear of mine. One day I was expected to pay about £120 a year as a contribution for the drugs I need to keep me alive. Then I had a birthday and suddenly they were all free. My financial circumstances had changed not a jot.

    There are a lot of other anomalies about prescription charges. For example, I have kidney problems and have needed drugs for a long time, for which I had to make a contribution. My friend, at about the same time my kidneys went wonky, was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes - all his medicines became free (including viagra - which being single he used to sell in the pub).
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,300

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    .
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    How were the TUs ever "over dominant" except in Far Right fantasy-land?

    In my earlier comment I was thinking of the ability of new media to propagate abuse and otherwise promote selfishness.

    The big thing that is happening, alas, is the eventide of representative democracy.

    You are probably too young (and innocent?) to remember the late 60s.

    "Wilson and Castle and the trade unions were engaged in talks on the Industrial Relations Bill. The final episode on 18 June 1969 involved a full day of meetings in the upstairs dining room at No 10, with Wilson and Castle on one side and the trade union leaders on the other. The Cabinet, waiting downstairs, were eagerly awaiting the outcome of this last round of negotiations." A bit over dominant?

    I agree with your last remark. I hope you are wrong.
  • tlg86 said:

    I don't think Mr. Observer and like minded people should despair. Firstly because Labour's polling seems to be holding up remarkably well, barely moved from the last GE, despite all the prognostications of doom.

    This time five years ago, Labour were polling between 40% and 42%.
    Anyone who thinks Labour's polling will hold up once the five week GE campaign begins is wrong imho. The anti-Corbyn artillery barrage will be astonishing.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    weejonnie said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.

    Maine is split into two regions - one much more urban than the other. When you look at the USA map as a whole, the rural areas are by default republican and the heavily urbanised areas Democrat. Or: Trump owns the land, Clinton the people.
    Also Trump is outperforming with non college whites which Maine has much more than national average.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,836

    tlg86 said:

    I don't think Mr. Observer and like minded people should despair. Firstly because Labour's polling seems to be holding up remarkably well, barely moved from the last GE, despite all the prognostications of doom.

    This time five years ago, Labour were polling between 40% and 42%.
    Anyone who thinks Labour's polling will hold up once the five week GE campaign begins is wrong imho. The anti-Corbyn artillery barrage will be astonishing.
    A good chunk of those saying they'd vote Labour in the polls are doing so with a hope that Corbyn will have gone by the time an election actually happens.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,455

    I see that the initial claim by FBI that they were looking for a Hispanic in the Mall shooting was miles off. The guy is Turkish.

    To be fair: it's Florida, and man who looks a little darkish, but not Arab... what do you guess first Hispanic or Turkish? And even on the terrorism front, there are probably more Hispanic Muslims than Turkish Muslims in Florida.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,300

    Charging for a visit to the GP seems very sensible to me. I also don't fully understand why I as a person richer in years should be deemed worthy of free prescriptions simply because of my age.

    Charging for a GP visit would be wrong. We should all be able to access healthcare when we need it - not when we can afford it.

    Of course, it would be set up so that those who get free prescriptions get free GP visits (or a similar scheme. But that would mean than only 12% of people pay for their GP consultations.

    How much money would really be generated from this? How many people would be put off from seeking medical attention and who would go on to develop more serious conditions that cost even more to treat because they didn't seek help at the earliest point?

    And when it comes to means-testing for prescription costs - how much would the bureaucracy cost to administer such a scheme cost and would there really be a net saving as a result?
    I think a visit to a GP should be a taxable benefit (along with winter fuel allowance and free transport for pensioners). Say £25 a visit. If you are under 18 or not earning enough to pay tax it would be free. If you are over 18 and don't have a NI number, i.e. a tourist, it would be £25. Otherwise it is £10 or £5 depending on your marginal rate of tax. Your NI number would have to be linked to your tax record and the benefit automatically added.

    It would raise funds and discourage the worried well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,455

    Barnesian said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    So there'll be enough left MPs to nominate McDonnell (or whoever) to take over from Corbyn, assuming he stands down after the defeat.

    Would he do that? As far as I can see there are only two ways now that Corbyn stops being leader: he dies or loses his seat in the Commons.
    I believe this week someone from Corbyn's side conceded he may well resign after a 2020 defeat. He'll be getting on a bit by then, as well, and the one thing the left will want to ensure is that all their efforts in winning back their party don't come to nothing if the party goes back to a Blairite 'Tory'. Plus Corbyn will be tired, arguably never wanted the job in the first place, and had to be persuaded to stick it out this year. Handing over to McDonnell or Lewis to keep the left in control is surely the sensible thing to do. Hence why our friend Joff is pissing in the wind with his dreams of ?.
    I agree.

    Also, Barnesian [3.25pm] ignores how far the "centre" has moved to the right in the least 20 years, largely due to technological change.
    I agree the "centre" has moved to the right, starting with Thatcher and Reagan, and is now the orthodoxy in the West.

    I don't understand how it is "largely due to technological change". I suspect it started with reaction against over dominant unions and the attraction of tax cuts by selling the family silver over the years. The "right" have also told their story more effectively until it feels like the truth. Many young people will not have heard any other story.

    But post 2008 there is a shift going on. The pendulum swings. Sanders and Corbyn (and Trump and Brexit) are indicators that something big is happening.
    How were the TUs ever "over dominant" except in Far Right fantasy-land?

    In my earlier comment I was thinking of the ability of new media to propagate abuse and otherwise promote selfishness.

    The big thing that is happening, alas, is the eventide of representative democracy.

    Have you read Tony Benn's diaries? They're genuinely scary.
  • Sean_F said:

    O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.

    Lumberjacks
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,300
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I don't think Mr. Observer and like minded people should despair. Firstly because Labour's polling seems to be holding up remarkably well, barely moved from the last GE, despite all the prognostications of doom.

    This time five years ago, Labour were polling between 40% and 42%.
    Anyone who thinks Labour's polling will hold up once the five week GE campaign begins is wrong imho. The anti-Corbyn artillery barrage will be astonishing.
    A good chunk of those saying they'd vote Labour in the polls are doing so with a hope that Corbyn will have gone by the time an election actually happens.
    I missed that poll.
  • George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
    Labour delegates have voted not to debate Brexit at conference (didn't make top eight motions).

    Labour - doing its best to be utterly irrelevant.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Labour uncut view of the Corbinista win.... Brutal.

    "He won’t ever win the chance to make his case. Like Ed Miliband before him, the public have already weighed and measured Jeremy Corbyn and found him lacking. Everyone who has knocked on a door for Labour over the last 12 months already knows this. They have him down as a weirdo who loves tyrants, hates Jews and wants to tax them, regulate them and boss them around. A typical nannying, gesture-politicking, 1980s throwback.

    A man who won’t sing the National Anthem at ceremonies for war veterans and can’t even do up a tie properly. And whose own colleagues nearly all agree that he’s useless.

    Someone surrounded by posh-boy hard left apparatchiks who are plying the same old Vanguardist nonsense, abusing the Labour party as a means to bring about their tin pot revolutionary socialist wet dream.

    It is fantasy, utter mind-bending LSD-induced fantasy, to imagine him stood on the steps of Downing Street............Unless it’s to hand over a petition."


    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/09/25/labour-mps-have-just-blown-their-best-chance-to-oust-corbyn/#more-21126

    So shall I put you down as a maybe then?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,456

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 2m2 minutes ago
    Labour delegates have voted not to debate Brexit at conference (didn't make top eight motions).

    Labour - doing its best to be utterly irrelevant.

    :o
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,746
    Sean_F said:

    O/T what explains Trump's popularity in Maine? Another poll today has him ahead in Maine 2, and running very close Statewide.

    Voters there probably like the fact that he isn't religious, unlike most Republican candidates.
  • Moses_ said:

    Labour uncut view of the Corbinista win.... Brutal.

    "He won’t ever win the chance to make his case. Like Ed Miliband before him, the public have already weighed and measured Jeremy Corbyn and found him lacking. Everyone who has knocked on a door for Labour over the last 12 months already knows this. They have him down as a weirdo who loves tyrants, hates Jews and wants to tax them, regulate them and boss them around. A typical nannying, gesture-politicking, 1980s throwback.

    A man who won’t sing the National Anthem at ceremonies for war veterans and can’t even do up a tie properly. And whose own colleagues nearly all agree that he’s useless.

    Someone surrounded by posh-boy hard left apparatchiks who are plying the same old Vanguardist nonsense, abusing the Labour party as a means to bring about their tin pot revolutionary socialist wet dream.

    It is fantasy, utter mind-bending LSD-induced fantasy, to imagine him stood on the steps of Downing Street............Unless it’s to hand over a petition."


    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/09/25/labour-mps-have-just-blown-their-best-chance-to-oust-corbyn/#more-21126

    So shall I put you down as a maybe then?

    Searing. And honest. The doorstep is the ultimate focus group. This is people's view now. Imagine after they have seen him in action during the actual GE campaign.

    The idea that Labour has a core, brand-based vote is going to be tested to destruction. The insanity of all this beggars belief. It really does.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,455

    On a happy note Goldman Sachs, amongst other US banks, are reported to have threatened HMG that they will move operations off-shore unless it complies with their wishes. I hope TM has told them not to let the door hit them on their way out.

    How many billions have corrupt and crooked banks been fined in recent years? Where the feck do they get off demanding anything?

    "Threatened"?

    They, like any commercial entity, with a legal and ethical duty to shareholders have expressed to the government their preferred outcome, and explained their options.

    In what way is that threatening? Would you rather they:

    (a) abrogated their duty their shareholders
    or
    (b) lied to the government

    I don't see any other alternatives.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    On a happy note Goldman Sachs, amongst other US banks, are reported to have threatened HMG that they will move operations off-shore unless it complies with their wishes. I hope TM has told them not to let the door hit them on their way out.

    How many billions have corrupt and crooked banks been fined in recent years? Where the feck do they get off demanding anything?

    "Threatened"?

    They, like any commercial entity, with a legal and ethical duty to shareholders have expressed to the government their preferred outcome, and explained their options.

    In what way is that threatening? Would you rather they:

    (a) abrogated their duty their shareholders
    or
    (b) lied to the government

    I don't see any other alternatives.
    Do read the article and make up your own mind.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/

    Does Goldman Sachs have shareholders?
This discussion has been closed.