Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jared O’Mara is what happens if your candidate is chosen by th

13»

Comments

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    If the leadership were serious about introducing that sort of change, they'd introduce postal votes for selections. I don't think they will because I don't think they'll think they'll need to: it'd be a lot of internal procedural argument for little benefit. The MPs are not going to oppose Corbyn after he's won an election for about three years - that's clear from how they've behaved since last June.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    What a pile of horse dung. Merkel would have no truck whatsoever with Corbyn's capital controls nor his £500bn of extra "investment" being added straight onto the national debt. Momentum would not be able to resist spending Germany's healthy budget surplus and plenty more besides.

    Pretty much the only policy alignment between Merkel and Corbyn is the one which lost her a huge number of votes - ie open door access for refugees.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    Fenman said:

    O'Mara is embarrassing the Labour Party by not speaking. While the rest do so.... by speaking.

    I think Denis Thatcher said it best...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Nonsense. Merkel is not a hard left socialist, and if you look at the history and statements of Momentum leaders it clearly is a Marxist and Trotskyite infilitration group. I would also remind you that these Momentum NEC candidates were voted for by a mere 12% of members.

    Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost on Momentum.
    Yes, the idea that Momentum is like the CDU-CSU and therefore is a champion of sound public finances and low fiscal deficits is, err, innovative. Bravo to @RochdalePioneers for sheer chutzpah in suggesting it.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    I have voted Labour for 40 years, and have never voted Tory in my life. You Corbyntrons really should stop characterising everyone who opposes you as a Tory. The chickens will eventually come to roost for Momentum which is Militant by another name.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    If Labour are the largest party, then they will undoubtedly form the Government. The window for it being a 'moral victory' and not yielding the PM after the GE is entirely a potential for the Tories and not Labour. Labour do not need to be the largest party in order for Corbyn to become PM.
    True though as you say the Tories could be largest party but still not form the government as happened in New Zealand recently where Labour came second but their leader still became PM with Green and NZ First support.

    If Corbyn did become PM having not won most seats it would be the first time that has happened since WW2
    Bill English is a bit unfortunate. In any other parliament in the world pretty much you'd be PM with 44.45 against 36.89/7.2/6.27 splits for the other major parties. Nevertheless it does demonstrate the importance of the electoral system you fight in to determine the result.
  • There won't be 'mass deselections' of Labour MPs. There will be (indeed already is) a slow process of nudging out some traditional centrist MPs and replacing them with extremists, and side-lining and silencing those who remain MPs.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.
    Under Cable the LDs certainly lean Labour
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    I can't see why he's bothering. Sadiq Khan is doing well.
    On some issues like crime for instance rather less so, if say Alan Sugar or a former senior policeman stood up as an independent they would have a real chance
    I think the Lib Dems tried the ex senior policeman. It was not a great success.
    Brian Paddick was just a left liberal Guardian candidate who happened to be a policeman.

    I was talking a proper, tough, zero tolerance, '3 strikes and you're out' candidate who fights minor crimes as hard as major ones ie a prosecutor or policeman in the Rudy Giuliani or Bill Bratton mode
    Let me know when you find a senior copper who is like that.
    I’m sure you’d find one in Dock Green
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038
    HHemmelig said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    What a pile of horse dung. Merkel would have no truck whatsoever with Corbyn's capital controls nor his £500bn of extra "investment" being added straight onto the national debt. Momentum would not be able to resist spending Germany's healthy budget surplus and plenty more besides.

    Pretty much the only policy alignment between Merkel and Corbyn is the one which lost her a huge number of votes - ie open door access for refugees.
    I think (that last line) is pretty much the first thing he'll do.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    Paul Mason on quite a journey to the PBTories I guess :)

    In practice I doubt MPs would have much to fear. Well regarded non Corbynite MPs such as Wes Streeting (And even outspoken Corbyn opponents such as Jess Phillips) would be well backed by their local party I suspect.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    If Labour are the largest party, then they will undoubtedly form the Government. The window for it being a 'moral victory' and not yielding the PM after the GE is entirely a potential for the Tories and not Labour. Labour do not need to be the largest party in order for Corbyn to become PM.
    True though as you say the Tories could be largest party but still not form the government as happened in New Zealand recently where Labour came second but their leader still became PM with Green and NZ First support.

    If Corbyn did become PM having not won most seats it would be the first time that has happened since WW2
    Bill English is a bit unfortunate. In any other parliament in the world pretty much you'd be PM with 44.45 against 36.89/7.2/6.27 splits for the other major parties. Nevertheless it does demonstrate the importance of the electoral system you fight in to determine the result.
    Yes, though under a FPTP system in New Zealand most of the Green votes would have gone to Labour with NZ First split
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    The Tories can certainly only count on the DUP as more likely than not to back them to stay in power
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    welshowl said:

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah,
    I’ve .
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    Hang on, the pension fund is a separate trust, not an asset of the company. Are you suggesting that money should be confiscated from the pension fund for the benefit of creditors (usually in practice HMRC and the banks, who have a charge on the assets?)
    In the case of highly-paid staff, yes.
    The Pension Protection Fund, in the case of DB schemes that enter it, pays 90% up to £30K. So if the chief exec were in the DB scheme and had a notional entitlement of a £squillions pension, they are not going to get most of it anyway.


    Thanks for that. So my own suggestion only expands that principle a little further.

    It is fundamentally wrong that senior executives, who are probably the ones primarily to blame for a company going to the wall, can still walk away with pensions worth hundreds of thousands a year while low-paid employees have very little and small businesses creditors - for example - end up with a fraction of what they're owed. I don't think it's unreasonable that the individual pension funds of senior staff, beyond some protected level, are included in the company's assets (or, in the first instance perhaps, the pension fund's assets, if it's in deficit).
    And, it's stories like these that push people to the political Left. Heck, it even makes me feel a bit man the barricades.

    The Right need an answer. We know "because I'm worth it" is horseshit.

    Something in the market and corporate governance isn't working.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited January 2018
    New Online Graun Flash: they have put boxing back onto their sports section.

    I know, you will all be relieved to hear.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    The Lebo-Norpoth 'PM and pendulum' is normally a decent guide. Nevertheless all the pre 2017 models indicated a decent Tory majority (The local election results backed this up). So just because Labour is only 1 pt ahead doesn't necessarily mean they're stuffed.

    https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/people/professors/norpoth/NorpothForecast.pdf
  • stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    But that's the point. I mean to do a proper assessment but those oppositions that had 15 point leads did not have them a year and a half after the election.

    It's the lead in a year to be considered.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    There won't be 'mass deselections' of Labour MPs. There will be (indeed already is) a slow process of nudging out some traditional centrist MPs and replacing them with extremists, and side-lining and silencing those who remain MPs.

    Surely you mean EXTREMMMIIIISSSTTTTS
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... And the vacuum in the Labour Parliamentary Party, sucked in Corbyn. Remember, Mr F, Corbyn did not expect to be elected, and I suspect was very surprised to be on the first ballot. That the membership of the party thought he was the best by far of the candidates on offer, twice, and has shown to be one of the best electioneering leaders of any party in recent times, means that you have some very serious questions to ask yourself. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    The Lebo-Norpoth 'PM and pendulum' is normally a decent guide. Nevertheless all the pre 2017 models indicated a decent Tory majority (The local election results backed this up). So just because Labour is only 1 pt ahead doesn't necessarily mean they're stuffed.

    https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/people/professors/norpoth/NorpothForecast.pdf
    The Tories actually got 4% more in the general election in 2017 than in the local elections the same year.

    It was just the LD local vote collapsed from 18% to 7% at the general election almost entirely to Labour's benefit
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    But the examples you give there relate to midterm - or later! - rather than just a few months after a General Election has been held.
  • There won't be 'mass deselections' of Labour MPs. There will be (indeed already is) a slow process of nudging out some traditional centrist MPs and replacing them with extremists, and side-lining and silencing those who remain MPs.

    Surely you mean EXTREMMMIIIISSSTTTTS
    No, I mean extremists, as I wrote.
  • TOPPING said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    So what practical difference will the NEC results have on Labour's policy/direction?
    None. There is a whole NEC election in 2018. Nominations for that election open in a fortnight. The elected term of the new three is measured in months not years.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    The Tories can certainly only count on the DUP as more likely than not to back them to stay in power
    In office I agree - but the DUP would act independently were Labour to take office itself as a minority Administration.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    On the issue of what happens when an MP is rubbish, the core flaw in the current system is that there's only 1 MP covering each area, so if your MP is shit then you're SOL. This wouldn't really get fixed by increasing recall powers or making a standard employment contract, because at best it would only catch extreme cases, and only after an extended period of failing.

    The optimal solution is to get rid of bureaucrat-drawn constituencies and let the voters vote for whoever they like, and let the MPs specialize on a particular locality if that's what the voters appreciate. But multi-member constituencies would also work.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    Nobody had ever lost a 20pt lead 4 weeks before a GE and ended up in minority territory till Jezza arrived,

    How many times have you ubderestimated him so far?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    DavidL said:

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.
    Government policy is contradictory.

    On the one hand they want established providers who can provide a one-stop-shop service, and can clear their financial resilience hurdles. So relatively few big firms get appointed as framework providers.

    There is then a limited amount of competition on the framework (typically between 3-8 providers). Those that play the game know how to play it, and having been winning big contracts for years, mostly know how to meet the quality hurdles, but beat all the others to be awarded contracts on "value". They then rely on bulk work (lots of contracts) to make a small profit overall.

    The trouble is that, when one goes down, it takes a lot with it.

    On the other hand, the Government want more British SMEs to bid for Government contracts and be awarded the work. This would give much more diversity, and possibly innovation too, but they are poorly set up to support such a procurement approach.

    At the heart of it is that there are very few contract and commercial experts within the civil service, because they can earn much more elsewhere in the private sector, and the Government don't want to run the risk of the wrath of the tabloids by paying a market rate for the right staff.
    +1

    The government want SMEs to bid for contracts, but then bury them in an overly bureaucratic procurement process that assumes they have half a dozen people on the “bid team” willing to spend weeks preparing documentation rather than doing the job.

    Most SMEs understandably run a mile from government contracts as a result, so you end up with the likes of Carillion as an intermediary. And when they fall over having left their suppliers (who actually provide the service) in a hole then everyone’s screwed.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... And the vacuum in the Labour Parliamentary Party, sucked in Corbyn. Remember, Mr F, Corbyn did not expect to be elected, and I suspect was very surprised to be on the first ballot. That the membership of the party thought he was the best by far of the candidates on offer, twice, and has shown to be one of the best electioneering leaders of any party in recent times, means that you have some very serious questions to ask yourself. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
    and one of the main reasons (in a VERY simplistic sense) that Blair and New labour were able to become the mainstream in labour was that labour were tired of losing in the 80s and 90s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2018

    stevef said:

    The actual result of a general election has never been reflected in the between election polls beforehand, and certainly never four and a half years in advance.

    Remember the polls in 2012 gave Miliband a 12 point lead and a 80 seat majority.

    The polls in 1986 and 1990 gave Kinnock a 13 point lead and a 90 seat majority.

    The polls gave Cameron a 20 point lead in 2009 and a landslide majority.

    So why oh why do people go into orgasmic excitement when Corbyn Labour has a 1 point lead four and a half years before an election -a figure which even if it led to a minority Labour government would make it virtually impossible for Corbyn to get his programme through?

    Remember : no opposition has ever ever formed a government in the UK without being at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections.

    Nobody had ever lost a 20pt lead 4 weeks before a GE and ended up in minority territory till Jezza arrived,

    How many times have you ubderestimated him so far?
    That was more to do with the dementia tax and the Tory manifesto than anything else though Corbyn did mobilise the left and the student vote in opposition to tuition fees
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... And the vacuum in the Labour Parliamentary Party, sucked in Corbyn. Remember, Mr F, Corbyn did not expect to be elected, and I suspect was very surprised to be on the first ballot. That the membership of the party thought he was the best by far of the candidates on offer, twice, and has shown to be one of the best electioneering leaders of any party in recent times, means that you have some very serious questions to ask yourself. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
    You are again playing the old Corbynista trick of presenting to us a simple binary choice between Blairism and Corbynism as if there is nothing inbetween the hard left and the Blairite right. But there is: there is a Labour mainstream which is neither Corbynite or Blairite, the Labour I grew up with, the Labour of Harold Wilson, the Labour of John Smith. Corbynism is not just a break with Blairism, it is a break with Smith, Wilson and yes even Attlee.

    No party that wants to survive electorally for very long ever gives too much power to its members. It has to balance power between members and MPs who represent millions of voters.

    Remember that even against this awful government, even against the worst Tory campaign in memory, Corbyn could only win a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010-and even now can only muster a tiny 1% lead.

    Beware. What turns around, comes around........
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... And the vacuum in the Labour Parliamentary Party, sucked in Corbyn. Remember, Mr F, Corbyn did not expect to be elected, and I suspect was very surprised to be on the first ballot. That the membership of the party thought he was the best by far of the candidates on offer, twice, and has shown to be one of the best electioneering leaders of any party in recent times, means that you have some very serious questions to ask yourself. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
    and one of the main reasons (in a VERY simplistic sense) that Blair and New labour were able to become the mainstream in labour was that labour were tired of losing in the 80s and 90s.
    Plus Macron only won in France as Hollande was headed for a heavy defeat
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited January 2018
    Momentum moving swiftly (though I tend to agree with others that they won't on deselections. Why would they with the moderates so quiescent?)

    The new head of Labour's Disputes Panel was a Lutfur Rahman supporter. You couldn't make it up, as they say.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/christine-shawcroft-replaces-ann-black-as-chair-of-labours-nec-disputes-panel_uk_5a5dfb3be4b04f3c55a5e19c?k4t
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    Could you be specific on what you mean please by "wackier elements of Corbyn's programme"?
    There are so many exciting ideas for policy,it's hard for me to see which ones you refer to because it's best to have the debate now.For example,I'm more than happy to defend putting Royal Mail back within the purview of Her Majesty.I agree with Mrs Thatcher-the privaisation of Royal Mail is "a step too far" and the posties will get to keep their free stamps at Christmas as stipulated by Her Majesty.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... lf. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
    You are again playing the old Corbynista trick of presenting to us a simple binary choice between Blairism and Corbynism as if there is nothing inbetween the hard left and the Blairite right. But there is: there is a Labour mainstream which is neither Corbynite or Blairite, the Labour I grew up with, the Labour of Harold Wilson, the Labour of John Smith. Corbynism is not just a break with Blairism, it is a break with Smith, Wilson and yes even Attlee.

    No party that wants to survive electorally for very long ever gives too much power to its members. It has to balance power between members and MPs who represent millions of voters.

    Remember that even against this awful government, even against the worst Tory campaign in memory, Corbyn could only win a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010-and even now can only muster a tiny 1% lead.

    Beware. What turns around, comes around........
    Ed Miliband and Brown arguably both fought from the Labour mainstream and lost after Blairism thus opening the way for Corbynism
  • Who says the BBC are the broadcasting wing of the Guardian...

    The Guardian redesign: A review

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42689777
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    Could you be specific on what you mean please by "wackier elements of Corbyn's programme"?
    There are so many exciting ideas for policy,it's hard for me to see which ones you refer to because it's best to have the debate now.For example,I'm more than happy to defend putting Royal Mail back within the purview of Her Majesty.I agree with Mrs Thatcher-the privaisation of Royal Mail is "a step too far" and the posties will get to keep their free stamps at Christmas as stipulated by Her Majesty.
    OK here's my top-7

    Capital controls
    £500bn extra public spending
    Massive renationalisation programme, likely with little or no compensation
    Abolition of student debt
    Abolition of income thresholds for spousal/family immigration
    Garden tax
    Compulsory state appropriation of empty homes

    There must be others.

    All the above are likely to happen unless the Liz Kendalls and Chuka Umunnas stand in the way.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    'tis chilly outside.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2018
    HHemmelig said:



    OK here's my top-7

    Capital controls
    £500bn extra public spending
    Massive renationalisation programme, likely with little or no compensation
    Abolition of student debt
    Abolition of income thresholds for spousal/family immigration
    Garden tax
    Compulsory state appropriation of empty homes

    There must be others.

    All the above are likely to happen unless the Liz Kendalls and Chuka Umunnas stand in the way.

    Ban on new driverless trains, and reintroduction of drivers on current driverless ones.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018

    Could you be specific on what you mean please by "wackier elements of Corbyn's programme"?
    There are so many exciting ideas for policy,it's hard for me to see which ones you refer to because it's best to have the debate now.For example,I'm more than happy to defend putting Royal Mail back within the purview of Her Majesty.I agree with Mrs Thatcher-the privaisation of Royal Mail is "a step too far" and the posties will get to keep their free stamps at Christmas as stipulated by Her Majesty.

    The market capitalisation of Royal Mail is £4.59bn. What problem do you think is so urgent to solve that makes you think it would be worth spending that much on nationalising it rather than, for example, spending £4.59bn on the NHS?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    HHemmelig said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largestection effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhe would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    Could you be specific on what you mean please by "wackier elements of Corbyn's programme"?
    There are so many exciting ideas for policy,it's hard for me to see which ones you refer to because it's best to have the debate now.For example,I'm more than happy to defend putting Royal Mail back within the purview of Her Majesty.I agree with Mrs Thatcher-the privaisation of Royal Mail is "a step too far" and the posties will get to keep their free stamps at Christmas as stipulated by Her Majesty.
    OK here's my top-7

    Capital controls
    £500bn extra public spending
    Massive renationalisation programme, likely with little or no compensation
    Abolition of student debt
    Abolition of income thresholds for spousal/family immigration
    Garden tax
    Compulsory state appropriation of empty homes

    There must be others.

    All the above are likely to happen unless the Liz Kendalls and Chuka Umunnas stand in the way.
    Plus reversal of Osborne's inheritance tax cut and a higher top income tax rate
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.
    Under Cable the LDs certainly lean Labour
    Absolutely. Were Blair, Miliband or Brown leading Labour, it'd be a very easy call. Corbyn? Not quite so easy. If pushed, I think Cable would actively vote against the Tories remaining in power but would abstain re Labour to 'give change a chance'.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought
    Carillion paid dividends didnt they

    https://capx.co/carillions-losses-were-the-taxpayers-gains/
    Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.
    Government policy is contradictory.

    On the one hand they want established providers who can provide a one-stop-shop service, and can clear their financial resilience hurdles. So relatively few big firms get appointed as framework providers.

    There is then a limited amount of competition on the framework (typically between 3-8 providers). Those that play the game know how to play it, and having been winning big contracts for years, mostly know how to meet the quality hurdles, but beat all the others to be awarded contracts on "value". They then rely on bulk work (lots of contracts) to make a small profit overall.

    The trouble is that, when one goes down, it takes a lot with it.

    On the other hand, the Government want more British SMEs to bid for Government contracts and be awarded the work. This would give much more diversity, and possibly innovation too, but they are poorly set up to support such a procurement approach.

    At the heart of it is that there are very few contract and commercial experts within the civil service, because they can earn much more elsewhere in the private sector, and the Government don't want to run the risk of the wrath of the tabloids by paying a market rate for the right staff.
    +1

    The government want SMEs to bid for contracts, but then bury them in an overly bureaucratic procurement process that assumes they have half a dozen people on the “bid team” willing to spend weeks preparing documentation rather than doing the job.

    Most SMEs understandably run a mile from government contracts as a result, so you end up with the likes of Carillion as an intermediary. And when they fall over having left their suppliers (who actually provide the service) in a hole then everyone’s screwed.
    +1
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
  • BBC Radio Merseyside are reporting that Police have contacted the Mayor of Liverpool - Joe Anderson - to tell him no criminal offence took place in Ross Barkley's move from Everton to Chelsea.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2018

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    The SNP will never directly put a Tory government in place (though as in 1979, they might kick a Labour one out if that means new elections). LDs more up for grabs but would probably back Lab in current circumstances, probably (IMO) passively.
    Under Cable the LDs certainly lean Labour
    Absolutely. Were Blair, Miliband or Brown leading Labour, it'd be a very easy call. Corbyn? Not quite so easy. If pushed, I think Cable would actively vote against the Tories remaining in power but would abstain re Labour to 'give change a chance'.
    Which means Tories+DUP need to be higher than Labour+SNP+Plaid+Green to stay in power
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2018
    Sandpit said:


    +1

    The government want SMEs to bid for contracts, but then bury them in an overly bureaucratic procurement process that assumes they have half a dozen people on the “bid team” willing to spend weeks preparing documentation rather than doing the job.

    Most SMEs understandably run a mile from government contracts as a result, so you end up with the likes of Carillion as an intermediary. And when they fall over having left their suppliers (who actually provide the service) in a hole then everyone’s screwed.

    Wait until Jezza gets in. For those companies he doesn't steal, you better have the right quota of BAME and LGBT+ managers, fully unionized staff, workers on the board, £15 minimum pay, max pay ratio of owner to workers in order to qualify to bid.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Corbyn did not dare to put a hard left manifesto to the voters in 2017. The man who approved the 1983 "suicide" manifesto, put forward a mainstream Labour manifesto in 2017 because he did not have the guts or honesty to tell voters what he really wanted to do. Instead he stole Blair's slogan "The Many Not the Few", and he made the Blairite promise that 90% of the population would pay no higher tax. He misled voters by making them think he could fund a massive rise in spending on tax revenues at the same level as Blair and Brown. And he misled ex students in debt by promising them that he would cancel their debts.

    I criticise Corbyn not as Tory -I have never voted Tory in my life, and not as a Blairite -Labour was too right wing under Blair for my liking. I criticise him as a moderate Labour supporter who grew up under Harold Wilson as Labour leader. There is a midway position between Corbynism and Blairism and in those days it won elections.

    Beware Corbynistas. Your man will probably not win those essential marginals that Labour must win to form a government. Even against this government, he could only win a similar number of seats that Gordon Brown won in 2010, and even now can only muster a miserly 1% lead.

    But beware of him ever getting into Number Ten. He would bring Labour into
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Dura_Ace said:

    The Luftwaffe bomber force was superior, but the early variant BF 109's were slower than Hurricanes and Spitfires though much more numerous.

    Assuming we discussing Spitfire I/II vs 'Emil'...

    The relative speeds of the two aircraft are close enough to be irrelevant for the purposes of air combat. The crucial advantages the Spitfire had over the 109 were:

    Better sustained turn and roll rates. The 109 had higher wing loading but clawed some of that deficit by leading edge slats. In instantaneous turns that bled speed the Spitfire gave better warning of an imminent stall via wash out. Though this feature was a happy accident of its primitive wing design and was not anticipated or intended. As a result relatively few Emil pilots were willing to push it to the edge of a stall as it gave little warning. Once in a stall had very benign characteristics and was easy to recover without departing into a spin.

    The 109 also suffered from very poorly harmonised control forces. Once the member of the Herrenrasse got into high speed regimes he would have had to have been eating all his bratwurst to master the massive stick forces in the pitch axis. This problem was exacerbated by relatively small range of stick travel.

    Conclusion: the performance of the two aircraft were almost the same on paper but only the truly talented and brave could extract the last 5-10% of combat performance out of the Emil.

    I direct interested parties to "Testing for Combat" by Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, Hon FRAeS, RN. (RAF reject like me!)
    Awesome post, thanks :+1:
  • OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    The membership may be 650,000 but they still lost the election.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    the other downside is that Corbyn might well win.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?
    Unlike Ruth Davidson, they do.
    the invisible woman , and takes some doing for her to be sure.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

    And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

    Er sorry..what was your point?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    It's only a matter of time before the collapse we witnessed today of an outsourcing giant, is the collapse of a giant private health firm we handed £bns of contracts to. Think about that.

    I thought your case was that these private health firms were creaming off vast profits?
    Ah, but to where have those profits gone?
    Remember Carillion’s former chief executive is still currently entitled to a £660,000 salary, apparently.
    I’ve not actually seen whether it’s stated that he’s been paid January’s instalment yet, although presumably Decembers has gone through. Which is more than can be said for bills of smaller suppliers and sub-contactors.
    Carillion was "profitable" in the sense that RBS was "profitable"

    I am pretty sure that we are still paying (Sir) Fred's enormous pension. I am pretty sure that we will still be paying Carillon's management their huge pensions.

    Whoever is in power in the UK -- Labour or Tory -- serious fraudsters never seem to end up in prison.
    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.
    LOL , Tories now want the workers to pay their Toff pals carpetbagging debts out of their meagre pension funds.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    Sandpit said:


    +1

    The government want SMEs to bid for contracts, but then bury them in an overly bureaucratic procurement process that assumes they have half a dozen people on the “bid team” willing to spend weeks preparing documentation rather than doing the job.

    Most SMEs understandably run a mile from government contracts as a result, so you end up with the likes of Carillion as an intermediary. And when they fall over having left their suppliers (who actually provide the service) in a hole then everyone’s screwed.

    Wait until Jezza gets in. For those companies he doesn't steal, you better have the right quota of BAME and LGBT+ managers, fully unionized staff, workers on the board, £15 minimum pay, max pay ratio of owner to workers in order to qualify to bid.
    This is basically what has happened in South Africa, the BME quotas in any case. Amid the myriad of disasters it has made the white population who haven't emigrated much more enterprising. The only way for young whites to make money in SA now is to work for themselves.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    We know the membership is going up, that part works. The part that doesn't work is winning the election.

    May ran an astonishingly shit campaign and Labour still barely went forwards. Corbyn looked like he did well because expectations were that he'd do even worse, but he lost. If the Tories manage to pick someone capable of handling a televised debate for next time, where are Labour's extra votes going to come from?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    Pulpstar said:


    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.

    No, the pension should be completely outside the company. Everyone in both the private and public sector should be on defined contribution. Yesterday.
    Better, return to a SERPS.

    Brought in by Barbara Castle. Destroyed by Thatcher.

    The US has one. It looks to me as if a household/couple on $13,000 per month get a state pension of 29% of that, i.e. $4,000 per month

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

    Blimey ...

    Anyway, if that's the maximum state pension, you need invest in a personal pension only if you'd suffer a massive drop in living standards and want more than £35,000 per year. I suppose today's retired CEOs and Vice-Chancellors might complain.
    They do need half that for medical cover mind you.
  • This is an interesting development:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/16/britons-in-netherlands-take-fight-for-their-eu-rights-to-dutch-court

    “Article 20 gives EU citizenship rights to nationals of member states but it is silent on the issue of what happens to those rights if a member state ceases to be a member state,” he said. “Previous ECJ cases have suggested that EU citizenship rights have an independent reality, not just as an adjunct to national citizenship rights.

    “The question is: would anyone who is a citizen of the UK on 29 March 2019 benefit from EU citizenship rights after that date? Of course, we cannot know what the [ECJ] might say. But I can see it taking the opportunity to give meaning and resonance to those rights.”

    Maugham conceded that a favourable ruling by the ECJ could throw up an “awkward asymmetry” between the way UK and EU citizens are treated on either side of the Channel.

    “The question whether UK citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the EU after Brexit is a question of EU law,” he said. “But the question whether non-UK EU citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the UK after Brexit is a question of UK law."


    IANAL, but the EU itself has been claiming that nationals of EU countries have rights as individual EU citizens, rather than purely through their nationalities, so the case does make some sense.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    And just look at the vacuum that Cameron left, that sucked May in to the Premiership, who then chose the best the Conservatives had, in to the Cabinet..... lf. The main one being, is why the membership feels that they are reclaiming the heart and soul of the party from the centre rightists of New Labour and Portland Communications?
    Employing Corbyn as an antidote to Blairism is like prescribing swallowing bleach as an antidote to tummy ache.
    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....
    You are again playing the old Corbynista trick of presenting to us a simple binary choice between Blairism and Corbynism as if there is nothing inbetween the hard left and the Blairite right. But there is: there is a Labour mainstream which is neither Corbynite or Blairite, the Labour I grew up with, the Labour of Harold Wilson, the Labour of John Smith. Corbynism is not just a break with Blairism, it is a break with Smith, Wilson and yes even Attlee.

    No party that wants to survive electorally for very long ever gives too much power to its members. It has to balance power between members and MPs who represent millions of voters.

    Remember that even against this awful government, even against the worst Tory campaign in memory, Corbyn could only win a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010-and even now can only muster a tiny 1% lead.

    Beware. What turns around, comes around........
    Ed Miliband and Brown arguably both fought from the Labour mainstream and lost after Blairism thus opening the way for Corbynism
    Agreed , however you would never have known it reading this website.The same argument was put to extreme .You reap what you sow.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 124, it's undoubtedly helpful for Corbyn/Labour. Ironic, given the PFI idiocy was such a large part of Brown's financial tomfoolery.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!
    1987 election

    Conservatives - 376 seats
    Labour - 229 seats.

    Cracking idea, Roy!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Mark, not the 1980s, though. There's a whole generation who don't remember and don't care to learn about the recent past, and profit from its lessons.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

    And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

    Er sorry..what was your point?
    Labour was not in the hands of the hard left in 1959 , and Labour was pretty united at that election - unlike in 1955. The Tory victory was based on a sense of material wellbeing reflected in their 'You have never had it so good' slogan and had very little to with Labour's internal state.
    Your final paragraph really makes little sense at all. Labour's polling position today is little different from what it was 7 months into the 1992 Parliament. I have never been a Corbynite - but he he has already achieved something denied to Kinnock - he has managed to get rid of an overall Tory majority!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Mr. 124, it's undoubtedly helpful for Corbyn/Labour. Ironic, given the PFI idiocy was such a large part of Brown's financial tomfoolery.

    It would be much more difficult for Brown or New Labour to make that much of it. Corbyn is far better positioned.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    justin124 said:

    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

    And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

    Er sorry..what was your point?
    Labour was not in the hands of the hard left in 1959 , and Labour was pretty united at that election - unlike in 1955. The Tory victory was based on a sense of material wellbeing reflected in their 'You have never had it so good' slogan and had very little to with Labour's internal state.
    Your final paragraph really makes little sense at all. Labour's polling position today is little different from what it was 7 months into the 1992 Parliament. I have never been a Corbynite - but he he has already achieved something denied to Kinnock - he has managed to get rid of an overall Tory majority!
    In addition, after the last few years of politics I wouldn't put too much weight on precedent!
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited January 2018
    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 124, indeed. His barking mad far left brand of lunacy gives him total room for manoeuvre on the left side of things.

    Plus he has the Jezbollah cult supporting his every utterance.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!
    1987 election

    Conservatives - 376 seats
    Labour - 229 seats.

    Cracking idea, Roy!
    Indeed - but no real evidence that the result was much influenced by that policy proposal.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    stevef said:

    OchEye said:

    OchEye said:

    Not me you have to persuade, it's the vast majority of the LP membership, 650,000(?) to whom New Labour is cyanide. And that is really the difficulty of the "centre rightists", they do not have an answer to Corbynism, except complain that life and politics is not fair....

    They do, it's to wait until the members get sick of losing.

    It'll work, too. The downside is that it takes 15 years.
    Perhaps the members had already got sick of losing, 2010 and 2015. After all the membership had been going downhill since 2004, till 2015, it was around 150,000. Now, 650,000? Er! Sorry, what was your point?
    Labour lost in 1959 because of the hard left. Other than under Blair, it never won an election after 1966 with a working majority (more than 5) again. It lost in 1979 after the Corbynista (then called Bennite) left held the Winter of Discontent. It lost massively in 1983 after its suicide hard left manifesto which Corbyn approved of, it lost again in 1987, and again in 1992.

    And even against this government and the worst Tory campaign of my life, it lost again in 2017, won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown, and even against this awful government has the lowest ever lead of a Labour opposition in the polls since 1945.

    Er sorry..what was your point?
    Steve who do you suggest to lead the Labour party into the next election ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    welshowl said:

    @david_herdson

    I take the point, but you are sort of chipping away at the notion of limited liability in a sense, and effectively making the directors have some of the shareholders' risk without necessarily getting the upsides. I could see the dangers of a raft of directors simply walking away en masse than take the risk.

    It's not an easy one, as for every bang to rights wrong 'un out there, that will grab headlines there's lots of unheralded difficult shades of grey or sheer bad luck ones that are far trickier.

    Limited liability is important, otherwise directors of (small) failing companies can lose the roof over their head.

    At a bigger level though, whatever is the latest incarnation of the Serious Fraud Office should be all over Carillion’s directors - and their email server.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:


    It ought to be the case that where any company goes bust, there should be a ceiling on what any employee can receive in future payments, including pensions. Beyond that protection, her or her entitlement should be settled alongside other creditors.

    No, the pension should be completely outside the company. Everyone in both the private and public sector should be on defined contribution. Yesterday.
    Better, return to a SERPS.

    Brought in by Barbara Castle. Destroyed by Thatcher.

    The US has one. It looks to me as if a household/couple on $13,000 per month get a state pension of 29% of that, i.e. $4,000 per month

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

    Blimey ...

    Anyway, if that's the maximum state pension, you need invest in a personal pension only if you'd suffer a massive drop in living standards and want more than £35,000 per year. I suppose today's retired CEOs and Vice-Chancellors might complain.
    They do need half that for medical cover mind you.
    Retired are eligible for Medicare, though they do need some money for prescriptions etc.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    malcolmg said:

    For we voters in Sheffield Hallam it is just like having a Sinn Fein MP.

    Don’t SF MP’s hold constituency surgeries?
    Unlike Ruth Davidson, they do.
    the invisible woman , and takes some doing for her to be sure.
    Ruth was probably hoping for a Vice Chairmen slot in the recent reshuffle, FWIW I think she was unfairly overlooked given her GE17 performance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    stevef said:

    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    I have voted Labour for 40 years, and have never voted Tory in my life. You Corbyntrons really should stop characterising everyone who opposes you as a Tory. The chickens will eventually come to roost for Momentum which is Militant by another name.
    If the Labour moderates keep being told they’re Tories, maybe a few will start voting that way ;)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Mr. 124, it's undoubtedly helpful for Corbyn/Labour. Ironic, given the PFI idiocy was such a large part of Brown's financial tomfoolery.

    Started by John Major in 1992.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. City, yes. On a far smaller scale, and (I could be wrong) mostly for things like bridges rather than schools and hospitals for decades, with terrible conditions in the contract (for the taxpayer).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sandpit said:

    stevef said:

    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    I have voted Labour for 40 years, and have never voted Tory in my life. You Corbyntrons really should stop characterising everyone who opposes you as a Tory. The chickens will eventually come to roost for Momentum which is Militant by another name.
    If the Labour moderates keep being told they’re Tories, maybe a few will start voting that way ;)
    Not while the Tories are calling them Quislings.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Hello. Does anyone know if there's a tracker out there for the Lynx farewell tour today? Bloody cold to stand outside for ages if they're not on schedule.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited January 2018
    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    LOL. From your mouth to the Labour party's ears, please.

    Con gain Bootle.

    Seriously.

  • justin124 said:

    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

    I'm sure you're right. Let's hope it's in the Labour manifesto.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    justin124 said:

    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.

    This sounds excellent, though perhaps the threshold could be increased to £750 for countries on the Solidarity List?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Momentum moving swiftly (though I tend to agree with others that they won't on deselections. Why would they with the moderates so quiescent?)

    The new head of Labour's Disputes Panel was a Lutfur Rahman supporter. You couldn't make it up, as they say.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/christine-shawcroft-replaces-ann-black-as-chair-of-labours-nec-disputes-panel_uk_5a5dfb3be4b04f3c55a5e19c?k4t

    I’m sure you’d be happy to see Mrs Flint replaced by a hardcore Corbynista. :)
  • NEW THREAD

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    Are you serious? Really????????????
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2018
    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    LOL....£500...have you been on holiday on a foreign holiday recently?

    As for most people do not go abroad on holiday regularly. That's why RyanAir just broke their passenger booking record....
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    Sandpit said:

    stevef said:

    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    And yet you can be damn sure that the extremists in Momentum who have just gained control of the NEC and are now planning the deselection of moderate MPs wont be deselecting O'Mara.
    Never before in Labour's history has the hard left been in such control of the Labour Party. Never before has moderation and mainstreamism been so unrepresented. Labour has locked itself into hard ideological extremism, and has locked out pragmatism and moderation.
    Millions of people like me who desperately want to get rid of the Tories but dont want them replaced by baying hard left extremists simply dont have anyone to vote for -and this stituation cant carry on forever for politics like nature abhors a vaccuum.

    1. Momentum aren't "extremists". The "hard left" policies they advocate have been the policies of Merkel's Conservative government in Germany for years.
    2. A vote to have mandatory reselection of MPs won't get past conference if proposed.
    3. The MPs that certain gobshites have it in for won't get deselected - the majority of members don't turn up to CLP meetings. The members who do turn up to CLP meetings only deselect their sitting Labour MP where communications have completely broken down.

    A world of difference between what the loud and shouty minority in Momentum claim the mass membership want, and with what happens at a local level
    Mass deselections of Labour moderatrs are a PB Tory perennial fantasy.

    It doesn't seem to happen though!

    I have voted Labour for 40 years, and have never voted Tory in my life. You Corbyntrons really should stop characterising everyone who opposes you as a Tory. The chickens will eventually come to roost for Momentum which is Militant by another name.
    If the Labour moderates keep being told they’re Tories, maybe a few will start voting that way ;)
    Not while the Tories are calling them Quislings.
    On the contrary Corbynistas are the real Red Tories since they keep the Tories in power. Ever wondered why the worst government since 1945 is only one point behind Labour in the polls? Ever wonder why Tory right wing Brexiteers toasted jeremy Corbyn in champagne the morning after Brexit.?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    welshowl said:

    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    Are you serious? Really????????????
    I am being serious here . Most people still holiday at home with an occasional trip overseas. Package holidays etc had become well established long before Geoffrey Howe abolished exchange controls in 1979, and I do not recall that people found the procedures involved in obtaining foreign currency to be that traumatic.Maybe I am wrong - but that is my memory. I really don't feel the issue would be anything like as salient as many on here clearly believe.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    LOL....£500...have you been on holiday on a foreign holiday recently?

    As for most people do not go abroad on holiday regularly. That's why RyanAir just broke their passenger booking record....
    I went to Germany last Summer and got by on much less than £500 on my 11 day trip.!
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:



    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!

    In 1987 most people still holidayed in Skegness and paid for things by cash and cheque. Globalisation was still a fair way off and financial services was a much smaller % of economy. E-commerce and debit cards didn't exist yet.

    It scares me that you think reintroducing the "take only £50 on holiday" laws of the 1970s could be anything other than an complete and utter disaster in 2018. It would close down the city of London at a stroke and deprive millions of ordinary working class people of their hard-earned holiday.

    It reinforces my hunch that we won't be able to rely on veterans of Labour governments past like yourself to restrain Corbyn and McDonnell.
    I think that is quite an exaggeration really. Debit cards - then called Cheque Cards - had been around since the early 1970s. Even today most people do not go abroad on holiday on a regular basis, and I am not sure that a restriction of foreign currency to - say - £500 per person would be particularly badly received.
    Are you serious? Really????????????
    I am being serious here . Most people still holiday at home with an occasional trip overseas. Package holidays etc had become well established long before Geoffrey Howe abolished exchange controls in 1979, and I do not recall that people found the procedures involved in obtaining foreign currency to be that traumatic.Maybe I am wrong - but that is my memory. I really don't feel the issue would be anything like as salient as many on here clearly believe.
    Business trips? What about N Ireland - popping over the border to do a bit of shopping in Dundalk? What about people who own a flat in say Spain?

    How would it work for companies paying bills? Paying to import a CD on the internet from the USA? Etc Etc Etc.

    Personally of all the bonkers suggestions for managing a 21st century economy this one comes top.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    justin124 said:

    HHemmelig said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:


    LAB: 41% (+1)
    CON: 40% (-2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 4% (-1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    ICM pinsticker

    Would be Labour 292 and Tories 295 and LDs 14
    So Corbyn even now cant lead Labour to most seats in the House of Commons
    No and he would need SNP backing to form a minority government
    I would be surprised if Labour failed to emerge as the largest party on those poll figures. In addition, they would be odds-on to win back Copeland as the by-election effect unwinds. There have also been issues there regarding the willingness of the new Tory MP to hold surgeries.
    So what? Largest party is only a moral victory it would still be the SNP and/or LDs who would determine who becomes PM
    In the same way that the DUP does at present!
    Yes and it hardly makes for a strong government
    I don't disagree there, though Labour could expect support from Plaid , the Green - and perhaps Lady Hermon . I doubt too that in such a scenario the DUP would join the Tories in all-out opposition to a minority Labour Government - and their attendance would probably become much more irregular.
    IMO the key question would be whether the remaining 50 or so unreconstructed Blairite Labour MPs would have the balls to block the wackier elements of Corbyn's programme. Bearing in mind that Momentum would unleash the forces of hell on any such traitorous behaviour, my hopes aren't high. Kendall, Umunna, Cooper etc must dread the prospect of a narrow Labour victory.
    I rather suspect that the impact of the collapse of Carillion will be to push the Overton window further to the left so that ideas which seemed 'wacky' a few years back will begin to appear much more mainstream. This has already happened under Corbyn but will now extend further.As far as reintroducing Capital Controls is concerned, we have been here before. It was a campaign pledge by Roy Hattersley as Shadow Chancellor prior to the 1987 election!
    Please please PLEASE can Labour propose capital controls at the next election.

    Signed.
    A. Conservative.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    calum said:
    I sold all my Bitcoin (well 99.5% of my holdings) in the last two months. The volatility has been great for people who want to earn a small amount of money doing little arbs.
  • DavidL said:


    Whilst that is true the reality with Carillion is that they were taking taxpayers money to provide the services, subcontracting the delivery of those services and then not paying their subcontractors. It really isn't obvious what they were bringing to the party at all other than the fact that governments and public bodies like to deal with big parties because they are, you know, safe. I think this is something we are going to have to look at quite carefully going forward. Intermediaries like this are parasitical.

    Sandpit said:


    The government want SMEs to bid for contracts, but then bury them in an overly bureaucratic procurement process that assumes they have half a dozen people on the “bid team” willing to spend weeks preparing documentation rather than doing the job.

    Most SMEs understandably run a mile from government contracts as a result, so you end up with the likes of Carillion as an intermediary. And when they fall over having left their suppliers (who actually provide the service) in a hole then everyone’s screwed.

    +1 for both
This discussion has been closed.