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
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'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 Parliamentary democracy is out-of-date?
No. He's internationalist - sees the issues of exploited farmworkers in the Caribbean and polluting mining companies in Africa as part of the same general problem as misbehaviour by some multinationals in Britain, and he'd rather spend £1 million building clinics in Zaire than developing a few hundred yards of HS2. But that's true of most of the Guardian wing of Labour.
But he feels that Parliamentary democracy is important but insufficient: by voting every few years you are not acquiring much influence over the course of events in Britain, and essentially you experience politics as something that is done to you rather than something you influence yourself. It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth.
I'm not sure how far that's realistic - I somewhat agree with Ken Clarke's view that local groups tend to be dominated by the same small slice of the electorate who get involved with everything, and most people are happy to delegate government to Parliament so long as they don't cock it up. But it misrepresents Corbyn to think of him as anti-Parliament (he's been there for decades, after all).
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.
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.
@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.
I think this is the "competence factor". In the UK we do not have major parties of Right and left with very different visions of society. There is quite a strong consensus about many things that are quite contraversial in other countries: a Welfare State, State Old Age Pensions, an NHS free at the point of use, a military that participates overseas, abortion and other rights according to conscience rather than religious dogma, to pick just a few. As such managerialism "the competence factor" does matter.
Corbyn is completely lacking in it. Any fool can criticise the way things are done, but having a coherent plan for running them takes a bit more thought.
May's government will be on rocky ground with much of the above. She will pander to her right wing, and struggle because of demographics with much else. An ageing, fat population will be hard to provide for, even with (seemingly) the deficit being ignored. Losing the "competence factor" is very possible for the Tories, indeed their Brexit plans seem to be losing it already.
Populist politics here are focussed mostly on Brexit and immigration, but the paradox is that if May does kill these as issues, then populist politics will most likely shift to the left, as globalisation takes its toll of the post war settlement of the welfare state.
Moderate Labour should be able to harness this, but it will have to be a new generation, either from younger MPs becoming a little more practical, or newer MPs being chosen. It will be a long road back though.
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
In my view anyone should be allowed to express an opinion on anything. Whether saying to a sovereign government unless you do x we will do y counts as expressing an opinion or a threat is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.
But I suspect you and I will never come to an agreement on this point and we have both expressed our opinion. So shall we leave it there?
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
In my view anyone should be allowed to express an opinion on anything. Whether saying to a sovereign government unless you do x we will do y counts as expressing an opinion or a threat is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.
But I suspect you and I will never come to an agreement on this point and we have both expressed our opinion. So shall we leave it there?
Was this event supposed to be a somewhat private forum for companies to discuss it? If so, I think the comments weren't inappropriate. In fact, I think the government needs to know what the repercussions of various decisions would be.
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
In my view anyone should be allowed to express an opinion on anything. Whether saying to a sovereign government unless you do x we will do y counts as expressing an opinion or a threat is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.
But I suspect you and I will never come to an agreement on this point and we have both expressed our opinion. So shall we leave it there?
Was this event supposed to be a somewhat private forum for companies to discuss it? If so, I think the comments weren't inappropriate. In fact, I think the government needs to know what the repercussions of various decisions would be.
Yes, and it's up to the government to calculate a) are they telling the truth and b) even if they carry through with what they say, is it something we want to avoid at all costs? That's what our politicians get paid the big bucks for.
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.
The PB computer chair militia have this taped to the wall beside their PCs.
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
Question for you @rcs1000 - would you have still voted Leave if you had known how things would transpire since the vote, given that the hard Brexiters seem to be in the ascendancy and (as we can see above) happy to see the City wrecked? I must admit I was expecting the free trade Brexiters win the day having used the anti-immigration UKIP wing as a convenient ally, but the reverse seems to have happened.
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
In my view anyone should be allowed to express an opinion on anything. Whether saying to a sovereign government unless you do x we will do y counts as expressing an opinion or a threat is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.
But I suspect you and I will never come to an agreement on this point and we have both expressed our opinion. So shall we leave it there?
Was this event supposed to be a somewhat private forum for companies to discuss it? If so, I think the comments weren't inappropriate. In fact, I think the government needs to know what the repercussions of various decisions would be.
Yes, and it's up to the government to calculate a) are they telling the truth and b) even if they carry through with what they say, is it something we want to avoid at all costs? That's what our politicians get paid the big bucks for.
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
Question for you @rcs1000 - would you have still voted Leave if you had known how things would transpire since the vote, given that the hard Brexiters seem to be in the ascendancy and (as we can see above) happy to see the City wrecked? I must admit I was expecting the free trade Brexiters win the day having used the anti-immigration UKIP wing as a convenient ally, but the reverse seems to have happened.
Free trade with who? Can't do it with the rest of the world if we are in the single market.
@Hurst Lama and others My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
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?
No. He's internationalist - sees the issues of exploited farmworkers in the Caribbean and polluting mining companies in Africa as part of the same general problem as misbehaviour by some multinationals in Britain, and he'd rather spend £1 million building clinics in Zaire than developing a few hundred yards of HS2. But that's true of most of the Guardian wing of Labour.
But he feels that Parliamentary democracy is important but insufficient: by voting every few years you are not acquiring much influence over the course of events in Britain, and essentially you experience politics as something that is done to you rather than something you influence yourself. It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth.
I'm not sure how far that's realistic - I somewhat agree with Ken Clarke's view that local groups tend to be dominated by the same small slice of the electorate who get involved with everything, and most people are happy to delegate government to Parliament so long as they don't cock it up. But it misrepresents Corbyn to think of him as anti-Parliament (he's been there for decades, after all).
Zaire? My, Labour's time clock is clearly running backwards!
Do you think that (and let's choose them as whipping boys of the day) Goldman Sachs has the right to have its offices where it likes, and according to whatever conditions it likes?
(Bear in mind, of course, that the moral duty of the CEO of Goldman Sachs is to his shareholders.)
He - and it's almost always a he - is morally obligated to let governments know the consequences of their decisions. If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
But if he is merely explaining what he will do, that that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Certainly, it is no different to what I would expect the CEO of Nissan or GM to say to the government if it was proposed that the UK was about to put a 50% tax on imported steel.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
Question for you @rcs1000 - would you have still voted Leave if you had known how things would transpire since the vote, given that the hard Brexiters seem to be in the ascendancy and (as we can see above) happy to see the City wrecked? I must admit I was expecting the free trade Brexiters win the day having used the anti-immigration UKIP wing as a convenient ally, but the reverse seems to have happened.
Free trade with who? Can't do it with the rest of the world if we are in the single market.
That's not true.
Norway is in the single market but has, for example, a free trade agreement with Canada.
If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
Would it be reprehensible? All of these things are a game of poker. If people want to bluff, then that's their decision. The problem, of course, is when your bluff is called. There have been many threats in the past about what would happen if we didn't join the Euro or if we even voted to leave the EU. Now it might be that we're getting towards something that would actually make a difference, but right now the general public hear these threats and think "heard it all before, do your worst."
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
Question for you @rcs1000 - would you have still voted Leave if you had known how things would transpire since the vote, given that the hard Brexiters seem to be in the ascendancy and (as we can see above) happy to see the City wrecked? I must admit I was expecting the free trade Brexiters win the day having used the anti-immigration UKIP wing as a convenient ally, but the reverse seems to have happened.
Free trade with who? Can't do it with the rest of the world if we are in the single market.
That's not true.
Norway is in the single market but has, for example, a free trade agreement with Canada.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
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.
Some trade union leaders in the 70s and early 80s, stated quite clearly that they, rather than the elected government should be in charge of a number of areas of policy.
Have just been canvassed by our local Labour city/county councillor - asking for my vote next May....
Given that she romps home with massive majorities every time, she must be worried
You aren't in Bootle by any chance?
Nope. Very much where you would imagine I was!
Which ward? I'd have thought bits of Oxford would be very supportive of a Corbyn led Labour Party. I think a ward I lived in elected a Green councillor when I was there.
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).
Other way around Mr Llama, surely? As a result of the war, under the leadership of a distinguished former soldier, Labour returned to government in 1940 and remained in power except for two months until 1951. That would have been near inconceivable given they barely cleared 150 seats in 1935. Indeed, it seems very likely that 1950/51 would have been the earliest they could hope to return to power under normal conditions, although much would have hinged on who replaced Chamberlain.
It would also have been inconceivable had Lansbury or one of his ilk remained leader and (a) fully endorsed appeasement (which is of course why he was sacked - he was opposed to rearmament) and (b) presumably refused to serve in the war cabinet. (Although the opposite wasn't true either - few politicians were as consistent in their opposition to Nazi Germany and appeasement as Sinclair, and not only was his party more than halved in 1945 but he lost his own seat.)
Labour's problem at the moment, to get back to the thread header, is that there is no Attlee - even Watson would admit he doesn't measure up. And even if there were there is no Bevin to act as the assassin. And finally, Tyson is right that Labour's vacuity, which I commented on yesterday, means there is no big issue to rally the party around in any case.
The situation is desperate and it is hard to see how it improves unless as has been said, Corbyn dies. In fact, it's hard to see how things could be worse.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
It's not just a one-off. Trump has constantly led in that district in polls, and is polling better in Maine than any Republican since George Bush won it in 1988.
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?
No. He's internationalist - sees the issues of exploited farmworkers in the Caribbean and polluting mining companies in Africa as part of the same general problem as misbehaviour by some multinationals in Britain, and he'd rather spend £1 million building clinics in Zaire than developing a few hundred yards of HS2. But that's true of most of the Guardian wing of Labour.
But he feels that Parliamentary democracy is important but insufficient: by voting every few years you are not acquiring much influence over the course of events in Britain, and essentially you experience politics as something that is done to you rather than something you influence yourself. It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth.
I'm not sure how far that's realistic - I somewhat agree with Ken Clarke's view that local groups tend to be dominated by the same small slice of the electorate who get involved with everything, and most people are happy to delegate government to Parliament so long as they don't cock it up. But it misrepresents Corbyn to think of him as anti-Parliament (he's been there for decades, after all).
That's interesting, thanks Nick.
Much to say about it, but the following is an example of where I think he is unrealistic.
" It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth."
I've been a member of charitable and volunteer organisations in the past. The people they attract are generally - and this is a generalisation - the people who have time and money to spare - as I did at the time. In addition, the people who rise to the top of the organisations are not necessarily doing it for altruistic reasons, and are not necessarily the best people for the job. In addition, the groups can become very cliquey, non-inclusive and even intimidating.
Time's the important one. As an example, though I've done a fair bit of this sort of thing in the past, there's no way I could consider doing any volunteer work for another decade at least. My time's too precious.
Essentially, Clarke's right: you'd generally not get the don't-votes, and would give the politically and socially active *more* say.
If you want to engage people, move to compulsory voting. Though it might engage them *against* the system
If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
Would it be reprehensible? All of these things are a game of poker. If people want to bluff, then that's their decision. The problem, of course, is when your bluff is called. There have been many threats in the past about what would happen if we didn't join the Euro or if we even voted to leave the EU. Now it might be that we're getting towards something that would actually make a difference, but right now the general public hear these threats and think "heard it all before, do your worst."
Isn't the problem that all these questions are put as "certainties"? As in "if you do this, we will do this". Whereas the reality is usually "if you do this, we will be more likely to do this" (but after weighing up all the other factors, it may still be in our interests not to do it).
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?
Ideas from an Evul Righty....
1) Fabian, top down, command-and-control from Whitehall type socialism doesn't work very well.
2) Even in the Soviet Union at the height of Communism, they used competition. Mikoyan vs Sukhoi etc.
3) The mantra of "we must spend more on public service x" sounds to the public like "throw some money at the problem and not care what it is spent on". In the real world, either you need to clean out the Augean stables at intervals to deal with waste and excess spending getting out of hand, or you use competition....
Hmmmm..
What about democratic decentralisation? Schools run by locally elected boards..... Competition in providing public services - competition between cooperatives providing services better and cheaper than each other? Define the cooperatives so that they have to be locally democratic, rather than just another kind of mega corp.
Ironically perhaps not far from what Corbyn is claiming he wants - but I suspect that he either wouldn't let go of control or would rapidly re-assert it if the outcome wasn't what he wanted ideologically.
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
Sorry, been out all afternoon. As you say though astonishing that the dominant political issue of our times, perhaps the last half century, will not even be debated at the Labour conference. As if Labour have not gifted the Tories and UKIP and LDs enough already this weekend, this is giftwrapped and tied with a bow!
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
Yes, it's a publicly listed company in the S&P500. Your pension fund likely owns shares.
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
Question for you @rcs1000 - would you have still voted Leave if you had known how things would transpire since the vote, given that the hard Brexiters seem to be in the ascendancy and (as we can see above) happy to see the City wrecked? I must admit I was expecting the free trade Brexiters win the day having used the anti-immigration UKIP wing as a convenient ally, but the reverse seems to have happened.
Free trade with who? Can't do it with the rest of the world if we are in the single market.
That's not true.
Norway is in the single market but has, for example, a free trade agreement with Canada.
Single market != customs union.
Yes - that's a bummer. There's a big trade off between being able to negotiate free trade agreements and incurring the cost in terms of bureaucracy and time of being outside the customs union.
Being outside the customs union will put off big companies wanting the UK to be a key part of their supply chain within the EU, and will also damage small businesses exporting to the EU.
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
It's their choice of course but it Would be interesting to know what we're the other top 8 motions that were considered more important than the Brexit debate.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. Trump leads by 14% in Maine 1, but is 22% behind in Maine 2. I suppose that's explained by the rural/urban divide.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
If I were a Democrat, I would be very worried at what the +14% in Maine 2 portends. There are a lot of working class white voters in the rust belt. Most of whom would not be regarded as regular voters. You know - the ones in the coal industry that Clinton said she would destroy on the altar of Global warming.
Trump said he would destroy the coal industry too, just more obliquely by saying he would champion shale gas as the forefront of an energy revolution.
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
I see Keir Starmer wants it to terminate at OOC, he really is a complete idiot.
Not really.
He doesn't want the project, but knows that Labour are for it. Therefore he chooses a compromise position that, if it is adopted, will mean the death of the project. It makes him appear reasonable whilst still allowing him to oppose.
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
After the scintillating, incontrovertible, comprehensive finality of 'Brexit means Brexit', perhaps they felt there was nothing left to debate.
Theresa May's conference speech will give us the full conjugation. I mean Brexit, we mean Brexit and above all Brexit means Brexit [pause for standing ovation].
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
After the scintillating, incontrovertible, comprehensive finality of 'Brexit means Brexit', perhaps they felt there was nothing left to debate.
Theresa May's conference speech will give us the full conjugation. I mean Brexit, we mean Brexit and above all Brexit means Brexit [pause for standing ovation].
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
I too think that Brexit is not worth a debate at the moment, the referendum result is final and should be respected in my opinion.
It's a ship that has sailed.
The process of withdrawal begins in about 6 months, for the principal opposition to have absolutely nothing to say about what happens next is farcical and a gift to UKIP, the Tories and LDs who have or will discuss the process extensively at their conferences
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
After the scintillating, incontrovertible, comprehensive finality of 'Brexit means Brexit', perhaps they felt there was nothing left to debate.
Theresa May's conference speech will give us the full conjugation. I mean Brexit, we mean Brexit and above all Brexit means Brexit [pause for standing ovation].
Does Labour mean Brexit? Who knows......
Does Theresa mean Brexit? Did Theresa mean Remain? Who knows...
I see Keir Starmer wants it to terminate at OOC, he really is a complete idiot.
Not really.
He doesn't want the project, but knows that Labour are for it. Therefore he chooses a compromise position that, if it is adopted, will mean the death of the project. It makes him appear reasonable whilst still allowing him to oppose.
Killing by compromise.
Okay, that's a fair point, I'd settle for that outcome. What worries me is the way this project has made it this far. Let's remember it started off as a Labour idea championed by Lord Adonis. The Tories picked it up as a vehicle for Cameron ruling out a 3rd runway at Heathrow - even if the logic of that was stupid.
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
I too think that Brexit is not worth a debate at the moment, the referendum result is final and should be respected in my opinion.
It's a ship that has sailed.
The referendum may have happened, but what happens next hasn't. Surely Labour want to discuss what they will be presurising the government to focus on during negotiations.
Mr.Wild must understand that being moderate no longer carries the lustre of competence, since the New Labour experiment didn't end well for the country.
I may not agree with every policy of Corbyn but compared with his opponents he has proven to be more competent than them, or the least incompetent.
The moderates will have to prove their worth and gain the trust of people like me, and they will never do that with the clown circus of the failed coup and Owen Smith.
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.
Wasn't Florida, it was Washington State.
Never said anything about terrorism. The reports seem to be that he had worked at the Mall and had some beef with people there. My point was that the FBI got it all wrong again.
Have just been canvassed by our local Labour city/county councillor - asking for my vote next May....
Given that she romps home with massive majorities every time, she must be worried
You aren't in Bootle by any chance?
Nope. Very much where you would imagine I was!
Which ward? I'd have thought bits of Oxford would be very supportive of a Corbyn led Labour Party. I think a ward I lived in elected a Green councillor when I was there.
Some of the students, perhaps the estates of Oxford East. But not of the trendy lefties that used to return greens in Jericho (etc)
An interesting piece and for those of us not in the Happy Clappy Corbyn camp it makes for interesting times. I'd have us make a go of it again but we wont: 1. There is no way back politically for enough MPs to fill the empty shadow roles. Being elected to serve was the elegant solution but (McDonnell?) Corbyn has refused 2. The ravine between (broadly) pre and post 2015 membership positions is increasingly irreconcilable. Yes there is a policy difference between some in the pre-15 group but most have moved on from New Labour 2doctrines and are looking at how we engage 2016 voters with 2016 solutions. Too much bad blood has flowed to all kiss and make up - and the peace of yesterday has already been shattered from what I can see on social media 3. We could stop being a bunch of amateur hour chances and hire the best media people money can buy but that sounds too much like spin and the "old politics" so I guess He will keep making it up as he goes along and dig another few tunnels to China through the earth's crust
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.
Wasn't Florida, it was Washington State.
Yes, I realise know. I don't know why I thought it was Florida, but I was completely wrong
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
I too think that Brexit is not worth a debate at the moment, the referendum result is final and should be respected in my opinion.
It's a ship that has sailed.
The process of withdrawal begins in about 6 months, for the principal opposition to have absolutely nothing to say about what happens next is farcical and a gift to UKIP, the Tories and LDs who have or will discuss the process extensively at their conferences
It certainly makes a mockery about the whole idea of "giving the membership a greater say over policy". Last year they decided to avoid debating Trident to avoid embarrassing Corbyn (and now the ship has sailed on that one) and this year Brexit.
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Trump is now at an all time high at the betting markets, it's not just some polls this weekend are favourable for him, this is actually the true cause:
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
On the face of our this looks like a massive win for Trump (especially in light of the Trump lie-or-perjury revelation about the Republican debate) but I wonder if not having a distraction to argue with will work against Trump. This will be the first time he has gone 1-on-1. It all cones down to if Hilary is any good and been preparing for the right thing.
I've got mixed feelings about them, although I do have a £20 note from a few months back in my wallet that is slowly falling apart. The polymer and new slightly smaller size would have definitely helped!
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Why not? Emily Thornberry and Paul Flynn wear multiple hats already, including a fake colonel's beret in Nugee's case!
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
Uniforms cannot be worn in the Commons.
Going to be interesting to see if Eddie knows this and how it will all go down. I see trouble ahead, But while there's moonlight and music and love and romance,
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
I think the only time hats were permitted is when you wanted to speak during a division to raise a point of order and you had to put n a top hat. But that stopped in 1998
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
After the scintillating, incontrovertible, comprehensive finality of 'Brexit means Brexit', perhaps they felt there was nothing left to debate.
Yeah, except the Tory party has a whole day on the matter IIRC.
I think debating it prior to finding out what Brexit means is just setting up hostages to fortune, like the Lib Dems did.
Keeping the powder dry is probably wise.
Or it could seem like they have no idea what they want to do with it, except for rerunning the referendum.
How does policy on a new issue get formulated, if not debated and agreed at Party conference? Does this mean that Labour officially have no policy on Brexit, or is the Leadership free to claim the policy is whatever they want it to be in the absence of any contradicting approval? Or does it have to go through the NEC?
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
I too think that Brexit is not worth a debate at the moment, the referendum result is final and should be respected in my opinion.
It's a ship that has sailed.
The only debate that has any consequence today is within the backbench Cameroons, vis a vis Brexit, grammar schools, or whatever else they choose. They hold alot of power.
Sadly, it makes no difference at all what the Labour party, or Lib Dems debate. The LD's should go back to legalising cannabis or reducing the age of consent to 2 years, perhaps allowing a spot of incest, and the Labour party to Zaire, and to decide whether it was worth it in retrospect to host the rumble in the jungle.
Well the other candidates in that constituency will be cheering. Pity the voters who have to put up with his campaign twaddle.
Actually, it's a sensible move. You see, Labour don't have enough unfunny comedians with the intellectual sophistication of five year olds. Corbyn and Thornberry are feeling lonely and want someone to join them.
At least he wouldn't be allowed to wear a beret in the chamber
Won't he? Will he not claim discrimination if that is the case?
I think the only time hats were permitted is when you wanted to speak during a division to raise a point of order and you had to put n a top hat. But that stopped in 1998
And on Budget Day, by tradition. Labour members from the Valleys used to turn up in miners' helmets to make a point. Not sure whether the tradition continues but I only know of two miners in the house now anyway - Skinner and Macloughlin.
I see Keir Starmer wants it to terminate at OOC, he really is a complete idiot.
Not really.
He doesn't want the project, but knows that Labour are for it. Therefore he chooses a compromise position that, if it is adopted, will mean the death of the project. It makes him appear reasonable whilst still allowing him to oppose.
Killing by compromise.
Okay, that's a fair point, I'd settle for that outcome. What worries me is the way this project has made it this far. Let's remember it started off as a Labour idea championed by Lord Adonis. The Tories picked it up as a vehicle for Cameron ruling out a 3rd runway at Heathrow - even if the logic of that was stupid.
If people are going to oppose it they should be honest about opposing it.
And then explain why they're happy to look stupid in 20 years time when it has to be built anyway..
Sadly, it makes no difference at all what the Labour party, or Lib Dems debate. The LD's should go back to legalising cannabis or reducing the age of consent to 2 years, perhaps allowing a spot of incest, and the Labour party to Zaire, and to decide whether it was worth it in retrospect to host the rumble in the jungle.
Zaire stopped being the name of the country in 1997. it's the Democratic Republic of the Congo these days.
I see Keir Starmer wants it to terminate at OOC, he really is a complete idiot.
Not really.
He doesn't want the project, but knows that Labour are for it. Therefore he chooses a compromise position that, if it is adopted, will mean the death of the project. It makes him appear reasonable whilst still allowing him to oppose.
Killing by compromise.
Okay, that's a fair point, I'd settle for that outcome. What worries me is the way this project has made it this far. Let's remember it started off as a Labour idea championed by Lord Adonis. The Tories picked it up as a vehicle for Cameron ruling out a 3rd runway at Heathrow - even if the logic of that was stupid.
If people are going to oppose it they should be honest about opposing it.
And then explain why they're happy to look stupid in 20 years time when it has to be built anyway..
Talk about NIMBYism, he's only opposed to the bit in his constituency. Everyone else can lump it.
Labour MPS have been forced to run a gauntlet of hard-left activists calling them “traitors” and demanding that they were deselected because of their opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.
Group including the “Labour Party Marxists” and Socialist Labour were on Sunday stationed outside the entrance to the party conference in Liverpool demanding that moderates are not allowed to fight the next general election.
The groups called on its members to “use all the weapons at our disposal” to take on the MPs trying to depose Mr Corbyn.
It's been posted before but worth mentioning again. I'm gobsmacked.
After the scintillating, incontrovertible, comprehensive finality of 'Brexit means Brexit', perhaps they felt there was nothing left to debate.
Yeah, except the Tory party has a whole day on the matter IIRC.
I think debating it prior to finding out what Brexit means is just setting up hostages to fortune, like the Lib Dems did.
Keeping the powder dry is probably wise.
Or it could seem like they have no idea what they want to do with it, except for rerunning the referendum.
Isn't being clueless about what Brexit means par for the course for all the parties? I think history will look at this period with a strange sense of confusion. I actually found the French Revolution really quite perplexing, and anything I have read since studying it at A level and University has made me non the wiser.
@Hurst Lama and others My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
A military occupation of, even a chunk of, a foreign country? Are you sure? I think I can see where you are coming from in terms of the desired result, but history suggests that such occupations do not end well and the UK no longer has the manpower to do any such thing. It would require a significant expansion of the defence budget before any such open ended commitment could be entered into.
Of course there are those that say that Europe's best interests would have been better served if Cameron and Sarkozy had kept their paws out of Libya to start with, or a the very least confined themselves to the UN authorised actions.
Comments
But tell me. Do you think commercial entities should not be allowed to express preferences to governments?
Or is it just US investment banks that should be banned?
But he feels that Parliamentary democracy is important but insufficient: by voting every few years you are not acquiring much influence over the course of events in Britain, and essentially you experience politics as something that is done to you rather than something you influence yourself. It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth.
I'm not sure how far that's realistic - I somewhat agree with Ken Clarke's view that local groups tend to be dominated by the same small slice of the electorate who get involved with everything, and most people are happy to delegate government to Parliament so long as they don't cock it up. But it misrepresents Corbyn to think of him as anti-Parliament (he's been there for decades, after all).
Corbyn is completely lacking in it. Any fool can criticise the way things are done, but having a coherent plan for running them takes a bit more thought.
May's government will be on rocky ground with much of the above. She will pander to her right wing, and struggle because of demographics with much else. An ageing, fat population will be hard to provide for, even with (seemingly) the deficit being ignored. Losing the "competence factor" is very possible for the Tories, indeed their Brexit plans seem to be losing it already.
Populist politics here are focussed mostly on Brexit and immigration, but the paradox is that if May does kill these as issues, then populist politics will most likely shift to the left, as globalisation takes its toll of the post war settlement of the welfare state.
Moderate Labour should be able to harness this, but it will have to be a new generation, either from younger MPs becoming a little more practical, or newer MPs being chosen. It will be a long road back though.
But I suspect you and I will never come to an agreement on this point and we have both expressed our opinion. So shall we leave it there?
Given that she romps home with massive majorities every time, she must be worried
http://tinyurl.com/zq3zta3
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/714102/Massive-explosion-rocks-Hungarian-capital-Budapest-multiple-casualties-reported
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/09/uk-completely-lost-post-brexit-and-will-plead-for-a-deal-top-bru/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/12/david-davis-says-process-for-leaving-the-eu-will-be-the-most-com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/eu-officials-believe-britain-will-give-up-on-brexit-if-they-make/
My outlook on foreign policy is really quite pragmatic.
An intervention on Libya would be to support some kind of occupation of the Libyan Mediterranean coast to stop the dangerous trakkifing of migrants through the Med which has a direct impact on Europe. It is madness that we spend all our energies on salvage operations which encourages these poor souls to make this disastrous, life threatening journey.
Do you think that (and let's choose them as whipping boys of the day) Goldman Sachs has the right to have its offices where it likes, and according to whatever conditions it likes?
(Bear in mind, of course, that the moral duty of the CEO of Goldman Sachs is to his shareholders.)
He - and it's almost always a he - is morally obligated to let governments know the consequences of their decisions. If he's lying to the government (as in, he has no intention of moving staff abroad in the event of Hard Brexit), that would be reprehensible.
But if he is merely explaining what he will do, that that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Certainly, it is no different to what I would expect the CEO of Nissan or GM to say to the government if it was proposed that the UK was about to put a 50% tax on imported steel.
Then I read this: And I realised that actually there are people (Rod Crosby?) who have access to more powerful narcotics than even the remaining Liberal Democrat.
But, even in 1, a 14% lead is the best by a Republican in ages. So, I guess 1 contains lots of fairly secular, but quite right wing, working class White voters. People who are perhaps not bothered by abortion, but are bothered by immigration?
Norway is in the single market but has, for example, a free trade agreement with Canada.
Single market != customs union.
It would also have been inconceivable had Lansbury or one of his ilk remained leader and (a) fully endorsed appeasement (which is of course why he was sacked - he was opposed to rearmament) and (b) presumably refused to serve in the war cabinet. (Although the opposite wasn't true either - few politicians were as consistent in their opposition to Nazi Germany and appeasement as Sinclair, and not only was his party more than halved in 1945 but he lost his own seat.)
Labour's problem at the moment, to get back to the thread header, is that there is no Attlee - even Watson would admit he doesn't measure up. And even if there were there is no Bevin to act as the assassin. And finally, Tyson is right that Labour's vacuity, which I commented on yesterday, means there is no big issue to rally the party around in any case.
The situation is desperate and it is hard to see how it improves unless as has been said, Corbyn dies. In fact, it's hard to see how things could be worse.
Much to say about it, but the following is an example of where I think he is unrealistic.
" It needs - he'd argue - to be supplemented by community engagement and local groups, unions, etc., to give a substantive meaning to democracy in depth."
I've been a member of charitable and volunteer organisations in the past. The people they attract are generally - and this is a generalisation - the people who have time and money to spare - as I did at the time. In addition, the people who rise to the top of the organisations are not necessarily doing it for altruistic reasons, and are not necessarily the best people for the job. In addition, the groups can become very cliquey, non-inclusive and even intimidating.
Time's the important one. As an example, though I've done a fair bit of this sort of thing in the past, there's no way I could consider doing any volunteer work for another decade at least. My time's too precious.
Essentially, Clarke's right: you'd generally not get the don't-votes, and would give the politically and socially active *more* say.
If you want to engage people, move to compulsory voting. Though it might engage them *against* the system
1) Fabian, top down, command-and-control from Whitehall type socialism doesn't work very well.
2) Even in the Soviet Union at the height of Communism, they used competition. Mikoyan vs Sukhoi etc.
3) The mantra of "we must spend more on public service x" sounds to the public like "throw some money at the problem and not care what it is spent on". In the real world, either you need to clean out the Augean stables at intervals to deal with waste and excess spending getting out of hand, or you use competition....
Hmmmm..
What about democratic decentralisation? Schools run by locally elected boards..... Competition in providing public services - competition between cooperatives providing services better and cheaper than each other? Define the cooperatives so that they have to be locally democratic, rather than just another kind of mega corp.
Ironically perhaps not far from what Corbyn is claiming he wants - but I suspect that he either wouldn't let go of control or would rapidly re-assert it if the outcome wasn't what he wanted ideologically.
https://www.twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/780080198456926208
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-and-john-mcdonnell-plan-to-whip-labour-into-backing-hs2-a6941451.html
Being outside the customs union will put off big companies wanting the UK to be a key part of their supply chain within the EU, and will also damage small businesses exporting to the EU.
https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/status/780079712345489408
If Trump doesn't have to fight the moderator his chances of victory at the debate rises, and if he wins the debate well you know the rest.
It's a ship that has sailed.
He doesn't want the project, but knows that Labour are for it. Therefore he chooses a compromise position that, if it is adopted, will mean the death of the project. It makes him appear reasonable whilst still allowing him to oppose.
Killing by compromise.
"Get serious, Labour rebels, and deal with the Brexit catastrophe"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/20/get-serious-labour-rebels-deal-with-brexit-catastrophe
You really don't need to have a heart of stone to laugh out loud at her ranting.
https://www.twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/780112121220702208
Keeping the powder dry is probably wise.
I belong in the last category of anti-Smiths.
Mr.Wild must understand that being moderate no longer carries the lustre of competence, since the New Labour experiment didn't end well for the country.
I may not agree with every policy of Corbyn but compared with his opponents he has proven to be more competent than them, or the least incompetent.
The moderates will have to prove their worth and gain the trust of people like me, and they will never do that with the clown circus of the failed coup and Owen Smith.
Wasn't Florida, it was Washington State.
Never said anything about terrorism. The reports seem to be that he had worked at the Mall and had some beef with people there. My point was that the FBI got it all wrong again.
1. There is no way back politically for enough MPs to fill the empty shadow roles. Being elected to serve was the elegant solution but (McDonnell?) Corbyn has refused
2. The ravine between (broadly) pre and post 2015 membership positions is increasingly irreconcilable. Yes there is a policy difference between some in the pre-15 group but most have moved on from New Labour 2doctrines and are looking at how we engage 2016 voters with 2016 solutions. Too much bad blood has flowed to all kiss and make up - and the peace of yesterday has already been shattered from what I can see on social media
3. We could stop being a bunch of amateur hour chances and hire the best media people money can buy but that sounds too much like spin and the "old politics" so I guess He will keep making it up as he goes along and dig another few tunnels to China through the earth's crust
Yes, I realise know. I don't know why I thought it was Florida, but I was completely wrong
http://tinyurl.com/zgs8ove
Sadly, it makes no difference at all what the Labour party, or Lib Dems debate. The LD's should go back to legalising cannabis or reducing the age of consent to 2 years, perhaps allowing a spot of incest, and the Labour party to Zaire, and to decide whether it was worth it in retrospect to host the rumble in the jungle.
And then explain why they're happy to look stupid in 20 years time when it has to be built anyway..
Labour MPS have been forced to run a gauntlet of hard-left activists calling them “traitors” and demanding that they were deselected because of their opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.
Group including the “Labour Party Marxists” and Socialist Labour were on Sunday stationed outside the entrance to the party conference in Liverpool demanding that moderates are not allowed to fight the next general election.
The groups called on its members to “use all the weapons at our disposal” to take on the MPs trying to depose Mr Corbyn.
Good luck Labour
Of course there are those that say that Europe's best interests would have been better served if Cameron and Sarkozy had kept their paws out of Libya to start with, or a the very least confined themselves to the UN authorised actions.