politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour – A Party of Government?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour – A Party of Government?

Assume that in the next 4 years Britain elects Labour led by Corbyn. What governing challenges might it face? We do not know what the world will be like in 2022. But conditions are unlikely to be propitious. With such caveats in mind, here goes.

Read the full story here

RobD

Thanks, TSE

Morris_Dancer

It's a deeply alarming prospect.

MarqueeMark

QWTWTAIN

Philip_Thompson

FPT

PClipp said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades

For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.

Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.

Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case

How much luck did our representative have last time?

The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson

Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.

How could I have "binned Cameron"?

Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.

Same way we binned Brown, Major and Callaghan. By electing an alternative government.

williamglenn

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

RobD

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

That's the partnership bit. It's not contingent on membership of the EU.

TheScreamingEagles

I think a no deal Brexit will be ideal preparation for a Corbyn government.

Short term pain for long term gain their adherents argue.

williamglenn

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

That's the partnership bit. It's not contingent on membership of the EU.

No, it's the citizenship bit. If Ireland is in the EU, then people born in part of the UK also have a right to EU citizenship, which as I said at the beginning means that the definition of "us" and "them" is necessarily fuzzy.

John_M

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think a no deal Brexit will be ideal preparation for a Corbyn government.

Short term pain for long term gain their adherents argue.

Certainly some of the Corbynite Ultras exhibit a lot of the same paranoia as many of the more loop-de-loop Brexiteers.

AndyJS

"'Dumb phone' sales on the rise as smartphone users hope to switch off

Mobile handsets that simply make calls are being marketed as an escape from constantly being connected to social media and apps."

https://news.sky.com/story/dumb-phone-sales-on-the-rise-as-smartphone-users-hope-to-switch-off-11476323

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

The North West Angle

Big_G_NorthWales

Very interesting and thought provoking but I see it lasted a couple of post and then back to the polarised Brexit debates, boring us whitless.

Thank you Cyclefree, I always enjoy reading your posts

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

The North West Angle

Very good, but that's US territory.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think a no deal Brexit will be ideal preparation for a Corbyn government.

Short term gain for long term gain their adherents argue.

More like short term pain for long term pain

oxfordsimon

Labour in government would be propped up by McCluskey

Leader of a union threatening legal action against a former member for the language used in his resignation email

Kinder/Gentler etc etc etc

The resignation

https://twitter.com/Jasmin_Beckett/status/1031545951947771904

The threat

https://twitter.com/unitetheunion/status/1031563556234383360

Richard_Nabavi

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Nigel_Foremain

Morris_Dancer said:

It's a deeply alarming prospect.

On that subject, Mr Dancer, we are completely at one

DecrepitJohnL

Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.

Corbyn's character is deeply flawed. He is also 69 years old so would be 73 at the time of the 2022 general election. Probably he will have stepped down before then.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think a no deal Brexit will be ideal preparation for a Corbyn government.

Short term gain for long term gain their adherents argue.

More like short term pain for long term pain

Hurrah for the edit button.

Big_G_NorthWales

oxfordsimon said:

Labour in government would be propped up by McCluskey

Leader of a union threatening legal action against a former member for the language used in his resignation email

Kinder/Gentler etc etc etc

https://twitter.com/Jasmin_Beckett/status/1031545951947771904

You despair at how far down the abyss labour have descended under Corbyn

DecrepitJohnL

We may be missing the main political story which is the proposal to fine all speeding motorists, removing the unofficial 10% buffer zone.

I do not drive but given the effect on the polls that petrol prices have, this could move more votes than Momentum's next campaign video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/drivers-face-100-fine-going-1mph-speed-limit-police-urge-end/

RobD

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

That's the partnership bit. It's not contingent on membership of the EU.

No, it's the citizenship bit. If Ireland is in the EU, then people born in part of the UK also have a right to EU citizenship, which as I said at the beginning means that the definition of "us" and "them" is necessarily fuzzy.

And how many people hold this status, relative to the size of the UK and EU populations?

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

PClipp said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades

For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.

Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.

Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case

How much luck did our representative have last time?

The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson

Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.

How could I have "binned Cameron"?

Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.

Same way we binned Brown, Major and Callaghan. By electing an alternative government.

In answer to the rather ridiculous suggestion that the European Commission was questionable as it cannot be removed through a "general election) it is worth pointing out that it has considerably more democratic accountability than many of our institutions(see my posts earlier): The Monarchy (sorry Ma'am), The House of Lords, numerous QUANGOs. We do not have general elections for these bodies (some might argue we should) and it is extreme of ignorance and arrogance for us to accuse the EU of being "undemocratic". The Commission is more akin to the Secretary General and supporting staff of the UN and NATO. They draw their authority by delegated powers through heads of government. We pool a lot more sovereignty through NATO than we ever have through EU.

John_M

On topic, another top-quality article from PB's finest contributor.

I can't think of another PM-in-waiting so unqualified by both experience and temperament to be this country's leader, bar possibly Richard Cromwell.

As I've been thinking a lot about Pascal's wager lately...hail Jezza!

RobD

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

PClipp said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RobD said:

PClipp said:

Don`t you think that all the criticisms you level at the EU can be leveled at the UK, in spades

For example, I cannot "fire the people that make the laws". Most of us cannot.

Not can you sack members of your local town council, but I suspect that people are less bothered about that than having zero input on the members of the commission, for example.

Another Leave deception. "You" cannot, but the Commissioners (clue in the name) report to the Council of Ministers that are the elected leaders of the member states. You do not directly elect the Commissioners, but they are appointed by your elected reps. It is a bit like you don't directly elect your Prime Minister, though I wish that were not the case

How much luck did our representative have last time?

The same luck as all 28 have. It is not luck, it is called International diplomacy and it takes tact and diplomatic skill - something that is necessary in high office and traits that are demonstrably completely lacking in the charlatan Boris Johnson

Doesn’t change the fact that the leadership of the EU is not elected, and you, as a voter, have zero recourse on the matter. We could have even binned Cameron and Juncker would still have be President.

How could I have "binned Cameron"?

Certainly not, with the UK`s failed electoral system.

Same way we binned Brown, Major and Callaghan. By electing an alternative government.

In answer to the rather ridiculous suggestion that the European Commission was questionable as it cannot be removed through a "general election) it is worth pointing out that it has considerably more democratic accountability than many of our institutions(see my posts earlier): The Monarchy (sorry Ma'am), The House of Lords, numerous QUANGOs. We do not have general elections for these bodies (some might argue we should) and it is extreme of ignorance and arrogance for us to accuse the EU of being "undemocratic". The Commission is more akin to the Secretary General and supporting staff of the UN and NATO. They draw their authority by delegated powers through heads of government. We pool a lot more sovereignty through NATO than we ever have through EU.

But the real power in the UK is the Commons, which is elected. The same cannot be said for the Commission which is, for example, the source of all legislation for the EU parliament.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Whilst a cabinet containing Fox, Grayling, Mundell, Leadsom and Williamson is not in a great position to gloat the Labour front bench is almost beyond belief. Just maybe some of the more competent currently sitting on the back benches might help if they were asked but I am not sure they would be.

AndyJS

"South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms

South Africa has targeted the first two farms for unilateral seizure after the owners refused an offer of one-tenth of the land’s value."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-begins-seizing-whiteowned-farms/news-story/8937f899bd3f131bfc4ffb648ea5c53b

williamglenn

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

That's the partnership bit. It's not contingent on membership of the EU.

No, it's the citizenship bit. If Ireland is in the EU, then people born in part of the UK also have a right to EU citizenship, which as I said at the beginning means that the definition of "us" and "them" is necessarily fuzzy.

And how many people hold this status, relative to the size of the UK and EU populations?

That's irrelevant given that Northern Ireland is what defines the meaning of the UK as a state. If we get to the point where Ireland is unified, the continuing state would be the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Nigel_Foremain

John_M said:

On topic, another top-quality article from PB's finest contributor.

I can't think of another PM-in-waiting so unqualified by both experience and temperament to be this country's leader, bar possibly Richard Cromwell.

As I've been thinking a lot about Pascal's wager lately...hail Jezza!

Sir Oswald Mosley? He didn't like Jews either

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and the disgraced national security risk Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

Whilst a cabinet containing Fox, Grayling, Mundell, Leadsom and Williamson is not in a great position to gloat the Labour front bench is almost beyond belief. Just maybe some of the more competent currently sitting on the back benches might help if they were asked but I am not sure they would be.

They need to be in a position to pick up the pieces of the Labour Party after the disaster has run its course, so I don't think they would want to taint themselves with being involved. Alternatively they might have already left, although in that scenario there probably wouldn't be a Corbyn government.

Richard_Nabavi

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and the disgraced national security risk Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Yes.

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Is rabies worse than a cold?

RochdalePioneers

Look. You really have to stop sneering at the singular most important political crisis to hit Britain since Suez. Brexit? Don't be daft. I'm talking about the (from what I read) Jewish BBC Blairite conspiracy to make up fake new photos of the Jeremy posing with Hamas and other freedom fighters. Thank God we have patriots like Len McClusky to sort out the liars from the liars.

Mrs Pioneers resigned from Unite because of Len MadClusky - didn't manage to "libel" him though. Poor show really, must try harder next time

John_M

Nigel_Foremain said:

John_M said:

On topic, another top-quality article from PB's finest contributor.

I can't think of another PM-in-waiting so unqualified by both experience and temperament to be this country's leader, bar possibly Richard Cromwell.

As I've been thinking a lot about Pascal's wager lately...hail Jezza!

Sir Oswald Mosley? He didn't like Jews either

Mosley's military career was, to put it mildly, inglorious, but he did serve King and Country. So, sadly, I can't accept your suggestion.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, except that a great many countries prosper outside the EU, whereas the current socialist situation is 61,000% inflation Venezuela, and the past record of the Corbynite creed is the Soviet Union.

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Is rabies worse than a cold?

Even I would have to say yes. The worry for the country is that we go into a spiral of self-harm. First Brexit then a quasi-Marxist government. What next after that, military coup?

RoyalBlue

AndyJS said:

"South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms

South Africa has targeted the first two farms for unilateral seizure after the owners refused an offer of one-tenth of the land’s value."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-begins-seizing-whiteowned-farms/news-story/8937f899bd3f131bfc4ffb648ea5c53b

White South Africans should leave South Africa while they can. As long as they remain, they will be blamed for the country’s problems, and the focus will be on redistribution rather than growth.

Judging by experience in East Africa, Asians would also be wise to leave.

Nigel_Foremain

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Is rabies worse than a cold?

Even I would have to say yes. The worry for the country is that we go into a spiral of self-harm. First Brexit then a quasi-Marxist government. What next after that, military coup?

PS, that was yes to the former (ie Labour front bench v the three twateteers). I have no doubt that rabies is worse than a cold, though the disgraced former GP might suggest that getting rid of rabies will be the easiest cure in history

Fenster

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

John_M

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Is that any worse than Boris, David Davis, and Liam Fox in charge of Brexit?

Is rabies worse than a cold?

Even I would have to say yes. The worry for the country is that we go into a spiral of self-harm. First Brexit then a quasi-Marxist government. What next after that, military coup?

If we're going to go off the rails completely, we should take a turn at being the baddies. The French have had their go, the Krauts twice. How about an alliance with Russia, an Islamified Turkey and just for lols, Iran? The war will be over by Christmas. I baggsie the Dordogne.

rottenborough

Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.

All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.

What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?

Or close down the House of Lords?

There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.

Nigel_Foremain

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Have there been any comparison opinion polls suggesting someone like Hilary Benn v Corbyn? It would be interesting to see, provided it was only polled on someone that people recognised!!

Torby_Fennel

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

I can't see any particular problem with Nia Griffith - she's one of the few reasonable ones. The rest of your list is very scary indeed though.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, except that a great many countries prosper outside the EU, whereas the current socialist situation is 61,000% inflation Venezuela, and the past record of the Corbynite creed is the Soviet Union.

How many countries have left the EU and prospered?

For those of us who work in industries/sectors that work closely with countries in the EU all we see is a lot of disruption and no reward from Brexit.

HYUFD

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

rottenborough

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

TheScreamingEagles

AndyJS said:

"South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms

South Africa has targeted the first two farms for unilateral seizure after the owners refused an offer of one-tenth of the land’s value."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-begins-seizing-whiteowned-farms/news-story/8937f899bd3f131bfc4ffb648ea5c53b

Aren't the South Africans doing what the Israelis have been doing since 1948?

I mean they've been there since like 4,004 BCE.

*Lights blue touch paper and catches the train*

Nigel_Foremain

John_M said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

John_M said:

On topic, another top-quality article from PB's finest contributor.

I can't think of another PM-in-waiting so unqualified by both experience and temperament to be this country's leader, bar possibly Richard Cromwell.

As I've been thinking a lot about Pascal's wager lately...hail Jezza!

Sir Oswald Mosley? He didn't like Jews either

Mosley's military career was, to put it mildly, inglorious, but he did serve King and Country. So, sadly, I can't accept your suggestion.

Fair point, but similarly he was the preferred PM in waiting of a foreign despot who liked invading other countries

John_M

Nigel_Foremain said:

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Have there been any comparison opinion polls suggesting someone like Hilary Benn v Corbyn? It would be interesting to see, provided it was only polled on someone that people recognised!!

The last poll I saw was back in early '17 (by GFK). Unfortunately, Corbyn came out better than any other candidate bar Cooper and that was pretty much a wash.

Corbyn's pablum is popular. It just is. Whatever our personal patrician views, many plebeians think that renationalising rail, energy and water is the dog's bollocks.

RochdalePioneers

Richard Murphy takes the "shit-life syndrome" piece by Will Hutton n the Grauniad and extends it to "shit politician syndrome". And he's absolutely correct. For all that the Labour front bench fills some of you with fear they are hardly in contrast to a Tory front bench of superstars. Even the 2010 and 2015 administrations were hardly bastions of success (vast increase in public AND private debt, massive deterioration in local government solvency and services, more spending AND massive front line service cuts simultaneously etc etc)

And thats just the bug 2. The Yellow Pox - what was left of them after the "we're more Tory than the Tories" coalition was led by a Religious nut job then a doddering old fool. UKIP have had a succession of member lotteries where the loser gets to serve as leader. There are very very few politicians who look remotely like 1st rank in any party - and the few who do are a long way from even the faint hope of being given a role.

I am still waiting for the realignment of parties. That UKIP are now publicly inserting themselves into the Tories suggests their split is near, and we know how the Labour Party has already broken in two (albeit still co-habiting in the marital home) as did the LibDems when Clegg and his Orange Tory faction ignored the members and binned off the Soclai Liberalism wing.

ralphmalph

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Theuniondivvie

At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.

rottenborough

Hodge worried about the need for a packed suitcase ready at all times.

Today, a Corbynite said she should be deported.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, one might as well say "Well, no country has ever left the EU and suffered any bad consequences at all".

brendan16

TheScreamingEagles said:

AndyJS said:

"South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms

South Africa has targeted the first two farms for unilateral seizure after the owners refused an offer of one-tenth of the land’s value."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-begins-seizing-whiteowned-farms/news-story/8937f899bd3f131bfc4ffb648ea5c53b

Aren't the South Africans doing what the Israelis have been doing since 1948?

I mean they've been there since like 4,004 BCE.

*Lights blue touch paper and catches the train*

Or more like what Zimbabwe did next door - and we have seen how well that turned out for both blacks and white there.

Big_G_NorthWales

Latest you gov 41/38/8

Conservative lead at 3

Floater

A Corbyn government would be a very dangerous experiment.

oxfordsimon

rottenborough said:

Hodge worried about the need for a packed suitcase ready at all times.

Today, a Corbynite said she should be deported.

Presumably back to the country of her birth... Egypt. The country they had to flee because of the antisemitism they faced.

Lower and lower and lower...

JosiasJessop

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

We can expect more madness like Ken Livingstone's deal for cheap petrol and diesel from ... Venezuela. Yes, paying a poor country under the going rate for their key export, and giving in return dubious 'advice' on things like town planning.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/StefanRousseau/status/1031577610109771776

rottenborough

oxfordsimon said:

rottenborough said:

Hodge worried about the need for a packed suitcase ready at all times.

Today, a Corbynite said she should be deported.

Presumably back to the country of her birth... Egypt. The country they had to flee because of the antisemitism they faced.

Lower and lower and lower...

The suggestion was Gaza.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, except that a great many countries prosper outside the EU, whereas the current socialist situation is 61,000% inflation Venezuela, and the past record of the Corbynite creed is the Soviet Union.

How many countries have left the EU and prospered?

Greenland is doing ok: https://tradingeconomics.com/greenland/gdp

Richard_Nabavi

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.

Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.

Anorak

DecrepitJohnL said:

We may be missing the main political story which is the proposal to fine all speeding motorists, removing the unofficial 10% buffer zone.

I do not drive but given the effect on the polls that petrol prices have, this could move more votes than Momentum's next campaign video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/drivers-face-100-fine-going-1mph-speed-limit-police-urge-end/

"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.

This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."

Ummm. 35mph, no?

Floater

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Well said

I fear for the country if that lot get into power.

Anorak

Surely a declaration now. Surely?

Big_G_NorthWales

Anorak said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

We may be missing the main political story which is the proposal to fine all speeding motorists, removing the unofficial 10% buffer zone.

I do not drive but given the effect on the polls that petrol prices have, this could move more votes than Momentum's next campaign video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/drivers-face-100-fine-going-1mph-speed-limit-police-urge-end/

"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.

This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."

Ummm. 35mph, no?

Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2

RochdalePioneers

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

We aren't going to renationalise - thats not the policy. As you all know the utilities are heavily regulated, and the policy is to set up state / locally owned competitors which the regulatory framework will favour. I know that McDonnell said "renationalise" but thats just a blanket description for having state ownership.

Between you and me I set next to Andy McDonald at a recent wedding. He was very smug about being on top of his brief, having just demanded that GTR pay compensation out of their profits. "But GTR is a concession and doesn't make any profit from fares - they all go straight to the government" I pointed out. He looked at me blankly. I then asked him how we would renationalise something we already own (GTR) - when the contract expires of is terminated operating rights revert to the owner (the state) - so its already nationalised. Shouldn't we instead campaign for investment and better management by the DfT and Network Rail whose fault the GTR debacle is?

Whoosh... To be fair Chris Failing wouldn't have a clue either.

DavidL

Theuniondivvie said:

At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.

That is entirely possible. A Corbyn government dependent upon the SNP to get its legislation through the Commons might just be slightly less dangerous than one that isn't. It's that bad.

oxfordsimon

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.

Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.

The bond idea is what McDonnell has in mind. And yes, it would end up in the courts

surby

Floater said:

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Well said

I fear for the country if that lot get into power.

I fear for the country [ and what they are doing to it ] with the other lot in charge right now.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

The North West Angle

Very good, but that's US territory.

Sorry, you're right. Residents of the North West Angle are entitled to Canadian citizenship.

Sandpit

Finally India declare. 521 the target for England.

BannedInParis

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

... and so it goes on. This is by a country mile the most laughable, and unfortunately also sinister, team ever put forward by a major political party. There are maybe just four or so Shadow Cabinet ministers fit for office (Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, Jonathan Ashworth, John Healey).

But we all know that; sane Labour MPs know it better than anyone.

Just take today's 'rebuttal' by Burgon on Stewart as an example of the shining quality and charisma just a few rungs down the ladder on that shadow front bench.

Laugh?
I nearly farted.

rottenborough

Wow, the replies to this. Corbynites are becoming more anti-free press by the day.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1031562656254181378

surby

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.

Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.

Yup. In the UK [ once we get back control !!!!!! ], Parliament can do anything. Even courts cannot overturn an act of Parliament. It can only "interpret" it.

And, only a simple majority is needed. The Brexiters are really making it easy.

surby

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, except that a great many countries prosper outside the EU, whereas the current socialist situation is 61,000% inflation Venezuela, and the past record of the Corbynite creed is the Soviet Union.

How many countries have left the EU and prospered?

Greenland is doing ok: https://tradingeconomics.com/greenland/gdp

No. The ice shelf is melting!

DavidL

India declare a mere 520 ahead. And 2 days to get them. Piece of cake.

Sandpit

Good article Ms Cyclefree. Hopefully more scrutiny will be given to Corbyn’s policies at the next election, than was the case at the last election.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

The North West Angle

Very good, but that's US territory.

Sorry, you're right. Residents of the North West Angle are entitled to Canadian citizenship.

So territory that theoretically should belong to the smaller neighbour is actually controlled and officially part of the larger neighbour. However as a compromise the people born there are entitled to citizenship of the smaller neighbouring country that their land should be part of but technically isn't?

Sound familiar?

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, except that a great many countries prosper outside the EU, whereas the current socialist situation is 61,000% inflation Venezuela, and the past record of the Corbynite creed is the Soviet Union.

How many countries have left the EU and prospered?

Greenland is doing ok: https://tradingeconomics.com/greenland/gdp

They left the EC, not the EU.

They left before being a member of Thatcher’s finest achievement, the Single Market.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

FPT

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.

I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.

Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?

I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.

The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?

The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?

The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.

It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.

Yes it does:

recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?

The North West Angle

Very good, but that's US territory.

Sorry, you're right. Residents of the North West Angle are entitled to Canadian citizenship.

So territory that theoretically should belong to the smaller neighbour is actually controlled and officially part of the larger neighbour. However as a compromise the people born there are entitled to citizenship of the smaller neighbouring country that their land should be part of but technically isn't?

Sound familiar?

Population 119.

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

A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.

surby

Torby_Fennel said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

PM: Jeremy Corbyn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: John McDonnell
Home Secretary: Diane Abbott
Business Secretary: Rebecca Long-Bailey [Do stop giggling at the back]
Education Secretary: Angela Rayner [Did you hear me? ]
Justice Secretary: Richard Burgon
Defence Secretary: Nia Griffith

I can't see any particular problem with Nia Griffith - she's one of the few reasonable ones. The rest of your list is very scary indeed though.

Angela Rayner did not vote for Corbyn. I think she voted for Burnham.

Big_G_NorthWales

surby said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.

Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.

Yup. In the UK [ once we get back control !!!!!! ], Parliament can do anything. Even courts cannot overturn an act of Parliament. It can only "interpret" it.

And, only a simple majority is needed. The Brexiters are really making it easy.

I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts

surby

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Labour did not get 40% of the votes since 1997. Corbyn managed it.

Cyclefree

DecrepitJohnL said:

Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.

Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.

rottenborough said:

Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.

All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.

What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?

Or close down the House of Lords?

There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.

Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.

Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Anorak said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

We may be missing the main political story which is the proposal to fine all speeding motorists, removing the unofficial 10% buffer zone.

I do not drive but given the effect on the polls that petrol prices have, this could move more votes than Momentum's next campaign video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/drivers-face-100-fine-going-1mph-speed-limit-police-urge-end/

"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.

This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."

Ummm. 35mph, no?

Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2

I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.

In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.

Richard_Nabavi

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts

They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.

oxfordsimon

rottenborough said:

Wow, the replies to this. Corbynites are becoming more anti-free press by the day.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1031562656254181378

The revolution requires sacrifices.

Cyclefree

Richard_Nabavi said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts

They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.

But affected parties can still take legal action under the ECHR.

HYUFD

surby said:

Fenster said:

A good post (as ever) by Cyclefree.

I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.

We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.

That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.

I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.

The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.

There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Labour did not get 40% of the votes since 1997. Corbyn managed it.

Blair got 40.7% in 2001, Corbyn got 40.0% in 2017

rottenborough

Cyclefree said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.

Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.

rottenborough said:

Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.

All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.

What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?

Or close down the House of Lords?

There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.

Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.

Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?

We know where Marxists end up. History has told us time and time again.

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

surby said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.

Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.

Yup. In the UK [ once we get back control !!!!!! ], Parliament can do anything. Even courts cannot overturn an act of Parliament. It can only "interpret" it.

And, only a simple majority is needed. The Brexiters are really making it easy.

I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts

More specifically article 1 protocol 1 of the convention which requires States who are signed up to it to respect property rights. But I think a Corbyn government might just ignore such a ruling (as, in fairness, the current government has in respect of prisoners voting rights).

HYUFD

ralphmalph said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.

A Corbyn government would simply try and pass a law that if shareholders refuse the price offered then the nationalisation would continue regardless

Big_G_NorthWales

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Anorak said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

We may be missing the main political story which is the proposal to fine all speeding motorists, removing the unofficial 10% buffer zone.

I do not drive but given the effect on the polls that petrol prices have, this could move more votes than Momentum's next campaign video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/drivers-face-100-fine-going-1mph-speed-limit-police-urge-end/

"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.

This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."

Ummm. 35mph, no?

Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2

I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.

In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.

Top speed of 80 is not unreasonable but dare I say it the move is down towards 60 because of climate change. 30 is plenty in town and even 20 in City centres

DavidL

oxfordsimon said:

rottenborough said:

Wow, the replies to this. Corbynites are becoming more anti-free press by the day.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1031562656254181378

The revolution requires sacrifices.

Just wait until the writer finds out that Sarah Smith, daughter of the late John Smith, is also a BBC journalist.

kle4

Fenster said:

If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.

Yes and No. He has baggage others do not, and inspires a more extreme negative reaction than many others. But I don't think the evidence supports that Benn or Cooper would be 10% ahead right now. The 40% he achieved can get overplayed (he still lost after all) but it was impressive nonetheless and there's a wealth of anecdotal evidence to suggest he personally fires up a lot of support and clearly didn't not put off that many people from voting Labour given the 40% they did get.

As if often the way more people seem energised by the dream of what Corbyn is than the reality (which is pretty clearly the case when his most extreme supporters label as smears things he himself has said) but they do appear to be on board for that dream, and enough other people are willing to go along for the ride. Enough to win? Maybe, maybe not. But he gets people on board who would not otherwise be, and the moderates can whinge all they like, they still want him to be PM and presumably most of their supporters do too, given the polling.

HYUFD

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.

At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same

We can expect more madness like Ken Livingstone's deal for cheap petrol and diesel from ... Venezuela. Yes, paying a poor country under the going rate for their key export, and giving in return dubious 'advice' on things like town planning.

With Mexico too now Corbyn's pal Lopez Obrador is its President

kle4

rottenborough said:

Wow, the replies to this. Corbynites are becoming more anti-free press by the day.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1031562656254181378

Are they seriously saying you're not allowed to have relatives working at a media organisation?