Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn: Winning the election but losing the argument?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn: Winning the election but losing the argument?

I’ve cast my vote and I’m pretty sure I’m backing a loser. I’m also fairly certain that we are winning the argument.By we I mean Paul Flynn and me (and a few others) who don’t believe Jeremy Corbyn is a credible Labour leader because he is unelectable as Prime Minister.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited August 2015
    Good piece Don however is it better to win an argument and lose the election?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    FPT, but relevant to this one:

    JC has drifted out a little bit on Betfair today: currently 1.44-1.45 compared with around 1.37-1.38 at lunchtime yesterday.
  • FPT, but relevant to this one:

    JC has drifted out a little bit on Betfair today: currently 1.44-1.45 compared with around 1.37-1.38 at lunchtime yesterday.

    There was (maybe still is) a YouGov poll on the Labour leadership election in the field yesterday.

    Last two times the YouGov polls were released to the public, there were major price moves before the poll was formally released.

    Add in Peter Kellner's performance the other day....
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    FPT

    The #LabourPurge is going to backfire - it only has value if it will change the outcome, in which case there will be complaints no matter who wins.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    The trouble is that Comrade Jeremy is winning the argument at the moment, or at least his supporters are not listening to any other arguments. More fool them, of course, but that's how it is.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    The trouble is that Comrade Jeremy is winning the argument at the moment, or at least his supporters are not listening to any other arguments. More fool them, of course, but that's how it is.

    Or, as this thread indicates, that both sides think that they are winning the argument and neither side is thinking about backing down.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349

    Labour Uncut have the measure of Jezza ... "The only thing Corbyn has been loyal to in the last 30 years is himself and his own political ideals, certainly not the Labour party."

    A parasitic, not a symbiotic relationship.

    A prefect leader.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Corbo driftage

    Laid 1.37 last night and just matched backing 1.47
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    antifrank said:

    The trouble is that Comrade Jeremy is winning the argument at the moment, or at least his supporters are not listening to any other arguments. More fool them, of course, but that's how it is.

    Or, as this thread indicates, that both sides think that they are winning the argument and neither side is thinking about backing down.
    What argument?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Good article Don. Made me smile.

    Also made me want Brown back.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Banksy's dystopian theme park "Dismaland" in Weston-super-Mare:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33999495
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    Corbo driftage

    Laid 1.37 last night and just matched backing 1.47

    Twitchy market.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited August 2015
    Consider the last sentence of Don's piece, which I think actually argues against the very point he's making:

    You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.

    That's basically saying that the moderate, 'Blairite' Labour figures are wrong, and that by implication there's some alternative set of credible policies, distinct from the government's, which don't 'damage millions of people' (as the ludicrous hyperbole common in Labour circles has it).

    Unfortunately if there is any such alternative, it doesn't seem to have been advocated by Andy, Yvette or Liz in any coherent form. You can see how people who've convinced themselves that reality is some kind of Tory plot will end up going for the one candidate who does actually claim to offer an alternative.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

    @TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    Good piece Don however is it better to win an argument and lose the election?

    The two seem to have become synonymous in recent years!
  • Roger said:

    Good article Don. Made me smile.

    Also made me want Brown back.

    If Brown is the answer you're asking the wrong question. It just shows how far and how fast Labour have fallen that Brown is now seen as an expert on election winning credibility.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    Just spoke to friend about mandatory reselections - he said they'd be 'good' because they would 'help purge the blairites'.
    If they're going for JC they may as well go all in.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I witnessed quite an unpleasant row in my local pub last night. One guy referred to Cilla Black as 'a Tory cow' and went on to say 'Bloody Good Riddance'. This prompted furious exchanges from a couple of others. The first guy argued that she was a mega rich ardent Thatcherite who cared only about her tax cuts and who did not give a toss about Thatcher having caused more devastation to her own community in Liverpool than the Luftwaffe ever did. It became very heated with a lot of support for both sides. Did not descend to a brawl - but not far off!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    FPT, but relevant to this one:

    JC has drifted out a little bit on Betfair today: currently 1.44-1.45 compared with around 1.37-1.38 at lunchtime yesterday.

    There was (maybe still is) a YouGov poll on the Labour leadership election in the field yesterday.

    Last two times the YouGov polls were released to the public, there were major price moves before the poll was formally released.

    Add in Peter Kellner's performance the other day....
    Trouble is, there is no-one snapping at Corbyn's heels. Even if Jezza falls back a bit, it really needs one of Cooper or Burnham to materially move forward. Hoping that the second and third preferences will come to their aid seems a forlorn hope.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Fair play to this piece for pointing out that Corbyn is not above giving standard political statements, for all his 'difference'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Roger said:

    Good article Don. Made me smile.

    Also made me want Brown back.

    If Brown is the answer you're asking the wrong question. It just shows how far and how fast Labour have fallen that Brown is now seen as an expert on election winning credibility.
    How many elections did Brown win again?

    Re-election? No.

    Ok, how about to become the PM? No.

    Well he must have won an election to become Labour leader? Er, No.

    But STILL better for Labour than Corbyn. Oh dear.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Consider the last sentence of Don's piece, which I think actually argues against the very point he's making:

    You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.

    That's basically saying that the moderate, 'Blairite' Labour figures are wrong, and that by implication there's some alternative set of credible policies, distinct from the government's, which don't 'damage millions of people' (as the ludicrous hyperbole common in Labour circles has it).

    Unfortunately if there is any such alternative, it doesn't seem to have been advocated by Andy, Yvette or Liz in any coherent form. You can see how people who've convinced themselves that reality is some kind of Tory plot will end up going for the one candidate who does actually claim to offer an alternative.

    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    kle4 said:

    Fair play to this piece for pointing out that Corbyn is not above giving standard political statements, for all his 'difference'.

    Not at all. The standard would-be-LOTO political answer to "Will you fight the next general election" or "Do you want to be PM?" is "Yes."
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:

    Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

    @TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

    Given his wildly fluctuating emotions over the course of this leadership campaign, I'm beginning to suspect he uses his blogs as a form a self therapy.
  • Corbyn's freedom from a megalomaniacal drive to be Labour leader and then PM is precisely why he is so desirable in those roles.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    You don't see snowflake any more. Climate change.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    Wouldn't surprise me if snowflake5 was Yvette. Both humourless, painfully earnest - and wrong.

    snowflake also stopped posting around the time TSE pointed out for the first time that Yvette would never prosper because she had almost certainly fellated Ed Balls....

  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    Roger said:

    Good article Don. Made me smile.

    Also made me want Brown back.

    If Brown is the answer you're asking the wrong question. It just shows how far and how fast Labour have fallen that Brown is now seen as an expert on election winning credibility.
    How many elections did Brown win again?

    Re-election? No.

    Ok, how about to become the PM? No.

    Well he must have won an election to become Labour leader? Er, No.

    But STILL better for Labour than Corbyn. Oh dear.
    To give Brown his due, he did manage to deny the Tories an outright majority in 2010...

    ...thereby forcing them into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and so helping to set up an outright win in 2015.

    His failures dwarf other men's successes.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Politics is about power and the ability to make what you consider are the right decisions. Everything else is arsing about, self-indulgence and vanity. Corbyn has been arsing about for 30 years. Anyone who thinks this is likely to change if he wins the leadership of the Labour party is deluding themselves.

    It will be unfortunate if the Labour party is reduced to that. We can all only hope something better comes out of ashes, ideally the sort of party that Southam Observer was describing this morning.
  • Scott_P said:

    Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

    @TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

    "But I have a horrible, gut wrenching feeling that what the Labour Party is about to do can never be undone. "

    He could be right (often is). Don Brind appears to think that this Corbyn era will only lead to a GE election loss in 2020. But all these new hard left people and the engaged union ones have radically altered the Labour party, forever.

    Associating with anti-semites and people that welcome the death of our soldiers is not something easy to wash away. The stains remain as Macbeth discovered. It is far far worse than the foolish Conservatives that tolerated the anti-gay elements. The nasty party smear could be mild compared to what is about to hit the Labour party. Throw in reselections, CLP takeovers, purges etc etc and the Labour party may not exist as a national party in the 2020s.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Consider the last sentence of Don's piece, which I think actually argues against the very point he's making:

    You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.

    That's basically saying that the moderate, 'Blairite' Labour figures are wrong, and that by implication there's some alternative set of credible policies, distinct from the government's, which don't 'damage millions of people' (as the ludicrous hyperbole common in Labour circles has it).

    Unfortunately if there is any such alternative, it doesn't seem to have been advocated by Andy, Yvette or Liz in any coherent form. You can see how people who've convinced themselves that reality is some kind of Tory plot will end up going for the one candidate who does actually claim to offer an alternative.

    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.
    Indeed - the key cause of the Labour 'shambolection' is their inability to square the most simple of circles - what are you actually going to cut when you systematically opposed every single one since 2010? The failure to answer this is why they remain untrusted by the electorate.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    I am Spartacus Yvette
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Fair play to this piece for pointing out that Corbyn is not above giving standard political statements, for all his 'difference'.

    Not at all. The standard would-be-LOTO political answer to "Will you fight the next general election" or "Do you want to be PM?" is "Yes."
    The quoted bit in this piece may not be the best example, but the video I've seen of Corbyn is as riddled with meaningless cliches as anyone else. He's not as different as his supporters claim, it's just a tactic.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited August 2015
    In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

    He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

    What more can this utter shambles have in store?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    To want Brown back must be the absolute bottom of the pit of desperation..very sad..
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

    He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

    What more can this utter shamble have in store?

    Yes in fairness Corbyn thoroughly deserves to win this contest, and is entitled to have a couple of years to test out his ideas. I can't see them attracting more than about 28% support with the public though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    RodCrosby said:
    Man can't be bothered to shave on holiday, and it becomes a news story. Is it #beardgate yet?

    That's how I look all of the time.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    JEO said:

    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?
    Are you trying to get me hanged?

    I was unaware that the strict ban on discussing such matters had been lifted...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    He's making a list
    He's checking it twice
    And then he's gonna purge all you Trotskyites
    Man-Del-Son is coming to town.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

    He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

    What more can this utter shamble have in store?

    Really?

    Imagine a Boris-Osborne-May-Truss contest. Boris is likely to wipe the floor with the others in terms of interest and buzz.

    Says absolutely nothing about the fitness of the other three to govern.


  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Jonathan said:

    In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

    He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

    What more can this utter shamble have in store?

    Really?

    Imagine a Boris-Osborne-May-Truss contest. Boris is likely to wipe the floor with the others in terms of interest and buzz.

    Says absolutely nothing about the fitness of the other three to govern.
    This is why the MPs won't be presenting Boris to the members. If only Labour had had a similar mechanism. Oh.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    A wicket at last. At the moment I fear we are heading into the realms of dodgy classical allusions to describe Cook's decision to bowl.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Jonathan said:

    In terms of motivation, inspiration, policies, canvassing and sheer number of hustings, Jeremy Corbyn has wiped the floor with Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.

    He may never be PM, or even Labour leader, but he’s certainly highlighted the unfitness of the other three candidates to govern the country.

    What more can this utter shamble have in store?

    Really?

    Imagine a Boris-Osborne-May-Truss contest. Boris is likely to wipe the floor with the others in terms of interest and buzz.

    Says absolutely nothing about the fitness of the other three to govern.


    Not nothing - if they cannot find a way to counter that interest and buzz, or be effective despite it, it says something about their inherent quality. The ABC trio have been variously bland, over cautious or bumbling, bar a few instances, and that does not speak well of them when they surely should know how to take on a Corbyn like figure.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited August 2015


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    I think there are two reasons the Prime Minister suitability element doesn't seem to be a main consideration for Labour members. 2020 seems like an eternity away, being strong opposition comes first and in theory you could have three years of Corbyn and still have nearly two whole years for a new leader to prepare for an election.
    The second reason is after the poor result in the last election, the route back to power doesn't seem clear. No party being able to govern seems like the most realistic target for Labour and thus Labour could do pretty well but the leader still wouldn't become Prime Minister.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    DavidL said:

    A wicket at last. At the moment I fear we are heading into the realms of dodgy classical allusions to describe Cook's decision to bowl.

    The way they've batted the last few games, you'd expect the aussies to be put in to bat no matter the pitch in fairness.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    RodCrosby said:

    JEO said:

    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?
    Are you trying to get me hanged?

    I was unaware that the strict ban on discussing such matters had been lifted...
    The ban has not been lifted...

    But it is usually fairly easy for the admins to find out who posters are if we really care. (Which we don't, by and large.)

    (If you wanted to give us no hints, then always access the site through Tor, and use a disposable email address.)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The #LabourPurge tweets keep coming thick and fast. This one is rather undermined by the account name though:

    Why to vote Green ‏@WhyToVoteGreen · 44s45 seconds ago
    Never mind Tory-lite, how about Stalinism-lite?
    #LabourPurge #Corbyn #ControlFreakery
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    You sound like a high-up in Labour's economic team. Everything becomes clear.
  • Scott_P said:

    Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

    @TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

    "But I have a horrible, gut wrenching feeling that what the Labour Party is about to do can never be undone. "

    He could be right (often is). Don Brind appears to think that this Corbyn era will only lead to a GE election loss in 2020. But all these new hard left people and the engaged union ones have radically altered the Labour party, forever.

    Associating with anti-semites and people that welcome the death of our soldiers is not something easy to wash away. The stains remain as Macbeth discovered. It is far far worse than the foolish Conservatives that tolerated the anti-gay elements. The nasty party smear could be mild compared to what is about to hit the Labour party. Throw in reselections, CLP takeovers, purges etc etc and the Labour party may not exist as a national party in the 2020s.
    I think this death of the Labour stuff is getting a bit overdone. Let's say it goes badly in 2020 and Corbyn loses 70 seats. Looking at Lab defence and who is in 2nd place my guess is this means 40 seats lost to Con, 20 to UKIP, 10 to LDs and maybe 1-2 to the Greens.

    Despite everything Lab would still be in a clear 2nd place and the opposition. It's hard to see who could overhaul Lab from the present position. Eventually the public will be looking for a change and Lab are the only realistic alternative
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    #labourpurge is top trending..
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited August 2015
    I miss Snowflake. She kind of disappeared.

    I think if all did an IQ test, IMO pbCOMers (past and present) with the highest IQ would be a toss between Snowflake and RodCrosby, with perhaps JackW challenging. Dr Nick Palmer is astronomically bright too, as is Tissue Price who I've met.

    I've got straight A's at O's and A's three Masters degrees, have written two novels locked in drawers, financially self made, was a very young Director of Service at work- all done pretty effortlessly I must say (I wrote a highly scored and original 12,000 word MBA thesis- from to finish in 4 days) - and I have a such a ridiculously low IQ that I'm embarrassed to say.
    JEO said:

    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.

    The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    I think this death of the Labour stuff is getting a bit overdone. Let's say it goes badly in 2020 and Corbyn loses 70 seats. Looking at Lab defence and who is in 2nd place my guess is this means 40 seats lost to Con, 20 to UKIP, 10 to LDs and maybe 1-2 to the Greens.

    Despite everything Lab would still be in a clear 2nd place and the opposition. It's hard to see who could overhaul Lab from the present position. Eventually the public will be looking for a change and Lab are the only realistic alternative

    Majorities < 10%: 49
    Majorities < 20%: 97
    Majorities < 30%: 152
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Scott_P said:

    Dan is in apocalyptic mode...

    @TelePolitics: If Jeremy Corbyn is Labour's leader there may not be a way back http://t.co/uu9Yw2X8do

    "But I have a horrible, gut wrenching feeling that what the Labour Party is about to do can never be undone. "

    He could be right (often is). Don Brind appears to think that this Corbyn era will only lead to a GE election loss in 2020. But all these new hard left people and the engaged union ones have radically altered the Labour party, forever.

    Associating with anti-semites and people that welcome the death of our soldiers is not something easy to wash away. The stains remain as Macbeth discovered. It is far far worse than the foolish Conservatives that tolerated the anti-gay elements. The nasty party smear could be mild compared to what is about to hit the Labour party. Throw in reselections, CLP takeovers, purges etc etc and the Labour party may not exist as a national party in the 2020s.
    I think this death of the Labour stuff is getting a bit overdone. Let's say it goes badly in 2020 and Corbyn loses 70 seats. Looking at Lab defence and who is in 2nd place my guess is this means 40 seats lost to Con, 20 to UKIP, 10 to LDs and maybe 1-2 to the Greens.

    Despite everything Lab would still be in a clear 2nd place and the opposition. It's hard to see who could overhaul Lab from the present position. Eventually the public will be looking for a change and Lab are the only realistic alternative
    Probably true - it's notable that only about half the 'death of labour' stuff is from Tories, the rest from Labour people, and both are probably over egging it for different reasons.
  • Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    Correction: Policies to cut the deficit. Plus the deficit did fall.

    Just because you don't know the difference doesn't mean the Tories are being ideological.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    The great and the good all at Cilla's funeral, including Nigel Evans MP.
    Wonder what the connection was there... On behalf of the Tory party?
    http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/nigel-evans-arrives-at-cilla-blacks-funeral-at-st-marys-news-photo/484561502
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    @Oliver_PB

    Do you really believe that? The reductions in spending by the Coalition and this government are incredibly modest in real terms and keep real public spending way, way above where it was in the early noughties:

    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/government-spending-real-1967-2012.png

    The real difference is that the absurd, unsustainable increases that were brought in by Brown have stopped but that was inevitable. A public sector used to such increases has not found this easy to cope with but to describe these inevitable changes as a "far right agenda" is frankly ridiculous.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Labour won't die, but it might be very sick for 5 to 10 years.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    Very little here that's convincing. If I were a Labour supporter I'd be quite glad to elect someone who was reluctant to be PM rather than slavering at the jaws with dripping ambition for the top job and thinking they'd be 'rather good at it'. It's part of his appeal. As is everything else mentioned here. I still don't believe it will happen though.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    edited August 2015
    @seant
    I think if this was the 80's when the Trots were prepared to do the long yards to take control of the Labour party you could well be right.

    But we are in the post naughties- to take over a constituency party requires effort. Many of the newbies who signed up for 3 quid- if they turned up to just one constituency meeting would be scared off.

    This is the age of immediacy- social networking, the Voice. These new members will not have the staying power to change the fundamentals of the Labour party as a party that wants to govern.

    All Labour is doing is having it's IDS moment. It needs to get it out of its system and thats that. All parties have these moments.





    "But what if Labour's shift leftwards proves permanent? An influx of new members and activists from the Greens, TUSC, Stop the War, Respect, Hamas, ISIS, Plaid Cymru and the Khmer Rouge (Tamworth branch) will change the party forever. The members might never elect a centrist/centre leftist leader again. Meaning they will have no chance of ever winning a GE.

    At some point the voters will seek an Opposition they CAN support, to replace the Tories, and if Labour look permanently unelectable....

    I agree it is unlikely, but the death of Labour is far from impossible."
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Thomas Mulcair has got a beard and could soon be PM of Canada. On that basis alone, JC is the only logical choice.

    BTW, I don't think I've been purged. Yet.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    I love posts like this. This exactly reflects Labour's economic strategy at the General Election: criticise the Tories for austerity, then criticise them for not doing it properly and fast enough, and then, on almost the eve of the election, admit you'd have to do a bit of that anyway, just more nicely than the Tories, without saying how or where.

    Do you not realise how ludicrously inconsistent that is?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

    All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited August 2015
    Sean_F said:


    The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.

    Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
    The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
    I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Oliver_PB said:

    Sean_F said:


    The deficit has indeed been cut; from 11% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2010 to 4% of GDP in the year to 31/3/2015.

    Using percentage of GDP is highly misleading in this context. In recessions, GDP falls and government spending rises. You would naturally expect deficit as proportion of GDP to naturally decrease at the UK exited recession without any government intervention.
    The national debt has of course increased over that period, because the deficit had not, for most of that period, been cut to the point where the national debt began falling as a percentage of GDP. Starting from an 11% deficit, the government would have had to implement enormous tax rises/and or spending cuts, to reduce the debt to GDP ratio from day one. I don't know whether or not you're arguing in favour of such a policy.
    I don't have the figures at hand (I'm trying to find them to no avail) but I imagine raising VAT, not cutting income and corporation taxes and freezing pensions would have almost certainly had a greater effect on the deficit than the policies the government did carry out, and that's without swinging government spending cuts.

    You think GDP has more than doubled between 2010 and 2015?
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    DavidL said:

    Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

    All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

    I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    Tis done. After a vote for policies trawl of the Guardian guide and assessment of the personalities involved, I ended up with:

    Cooper, Kendall, Burnham for leader (just a more rounded set of policies and arguments from Cooper on many things aside from ovaries)
    Flint, Bradshaw, Eagle, Creasy for deputy (nothing against Creasy, but deputy leader in this environment is a road to nowhere so best leave it to those further into their careers).
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pro_Rata said:

    deputy leader in this environment is a road to nowhere

    Seems to me like it might be a swift road to the leadership.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Pauly said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

    All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

    I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.
    Really can't see Suzanne Evans as leadership material. Woolfe, maybe
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Labour won't die, but it might be very sick for 5 to 10 years.

    Completely agree. All parties need to be out of power to rejuvenate. Holding power is exhausting, particularly so for left wing parties which appear to be particularly scarred by the ideological compromises that being in government entails.

    It seems that Labour requires a good three thumping election defeats to get its mojo back. The 70's was different because both the Tories and Labour acted like two heavyweight boxers clinging onto each other in the last round of a punch fest- i.e. they were both sick, until Thatcher turned up.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Thanks Don - a well reasoned piece. I remain calm, believing that you are not alone and when the ballots are counted the summer froth will have passed.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Labour won't die, but it might be very sick for 5 to 10 years.

    10 years? You call that an illness?!

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785

    Pro_Rata said:

    deputy leader in this environment is a road to nowhere

    Seems to me like it might be a swift road to the leadership.
    Acting leadership perhaps, but not a permanent stable leadership in anybody's reality other than Tom Watson's.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    tyson said:

    I miss Snowflake. She kind of disappeared.

    I think if all did an IQ test, IMO pbCOMers (past and present) with the highest IQ would be a toss between Snowflake and RodCrosby, with perhaps JackW challenging. Dr Nick Palmer is astronomically bright too, as is Tissue Price who I've met.

    I've got straight A's at O's and A's three Masters degrees, have written two novels locked in drawers, financially self made, was a very young Director of Service at work- all done pretty effortlessly I must say (I wrote a highly scored and original 12,000 word MBA thesis- from to finish in 4 days) - and I have a such a ridiculously low IQ that I'm embarrassed to say.


    JEO said:

    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @JEO

    Yvette Cooper used to post on this site under the pseudonym snowflake5. Allegedly.

    Other famous alumni include Louise Mensch. And whoever JackW is.

    You're supposed to ban yourself now. I got three months for saying that once....
    Where did the rumour come from that this commenter was Cooper?
    A ridiculously low IQ? Come on, you can tell us..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Pauly said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

    All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

    I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.
    There is also the possibility of someone with a large amount of money announcing the formation of New Democrats, or some such, and seeing which Lab MPs start to think twice about their loyalty.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    isam said:

    Pauly said:

    DavidL said:

    Anyone who thinks that the death of the Labour party is inconceivable has simply not been paying attention to what has happened to SLAB.

    All it takes is an alternative, not even a particularly credible one, and the edifice can come tumbling down.

    I think Farage resignation post-EU referendum and Steven Woolfe or Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader could exploit this opportunity potentially.
    Really can't see Suzanne Evans as leadership material. Woolfe, maybe
    Yeah I agree. I really like Woolfe though, maybe Suzanne deputy to appeal to female voters. :)
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Your stuff about “moving might and main” to oppose the Tories is pure guff. The fact is that an Opposition that isn’t led by a potential Prime Minister and which isn’t seriously looking to replace the Government becomes a weak and ineffectual Opposition. You may oppose austerity, cuts and anti-trade union laws but if don’t pose a real threat to the Tories you end up colluding with policies that will damage millions of people.
    The flaw in this argument is, when the government has a majority of just 6, it very much IS possible to stop Tory policies happening. All he has to do is whip up enough public outcry about various policies to force a few Tory MPs in marginal seats to go wobbly (in the way that UKIP did in the last parliament). But unfortunately, with the current leadership, grassroots members are sceptical of whether they can trust them to have the guts to try to make the arguments to apply that pressure, or indeed, after the Welfare Bill, not sure if they can trust them to even vote against Tory policies themselves.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited August 2015
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited August 2015

    Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    I love posts like this. This exactly reflects Labour's economic strategy at the General Election: criticise the Tories for austerity, then criticise them for not doing it properly and fast enough, and then, on almost the eve of the election, admit you'd have to do a bit of that anyway, just more nicely than the Tories, without saying how or where.

    Do you not realise how ludicrously inconsistent that is?
    That's because it's true.

    It's not a tough concept to grasp:
    1. Argue there's a need for deep austerity to cut the deficit

    2. Implement swingeing cuts, while implementing large tax cuts and pension increases to ensure you fail to cut the deficit.

    3. Return to 1.

    Labour struggled to articulate this and the press had no interest in doing so. Reshaping government is ideological, yet the Conservatives never decided to argue their case, instead arguing the need for "austerity" and "cutting the deficit" instead, despite having little interest in balancing the books.

    It's similar to policies by the GOP in the US, who run on a platform of 'fiscal competence' then cut taxes to unsustainable levels and run huge deficits to 'starve the beast'.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Also, get on Clive Lewis as the 2020 Labour leader. Left-wing, but younger than Corbyn and once served in the Reserves which would defuse the "traitor to Britain" argument which will be used against Jez.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.
    Barnesian said:

    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    Barnesian said:

    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

    Blimey.

    There's wishful thinking and then there is this.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    The lady who posted the Milibeard pic is now trolling the media quite amusingly:

    https://twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/with_replies
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    Oliver_PB said:

    Oliver_PB said:


    Correct. But the 'austerity' blarney from Labour and Corbyn is phoney. With a £160bn deficit and 7% wiped out of the economy - what is a viable option? Its one thing to argue about the pace of reducing the deficit but whatever the pace - and the govt have clearly not been over quick - there have to be massive cuts in spending. This is because spending increased in real terms by 50% over 10 years under Labour and all the while they were running deficits.

    This is not true.

    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Cutting the deficit and national debt has not remotely been a priority. Indeed, the national debt increased more under the first term under Osborne than it did under Darling, despite policies supposedly designed to cut the debt (e.g. the VAT increase, swathing government cuts)

    The press, captured by the right, has failed to point out this obvious truth. This has allowed for the government to sound moderate by selling a lie while implementing a far-right agenda. The average person thinks 'austerity' has been used to cut the deficit - which is basically a lie.
    I love posts like this. This exactly reflects Labour's economic strategy at the General Election: criticise the Tories for austerity, then criticise them for not doing it properly and fast enough, and then, on almost the eve of the election, admit you'd have to do a bit of that anyway, just more nicely than the Tories, without saying how or where.

    Do you not realise how ludicrously inconsistent that is?
    That's because it's true.

    It's not hard:
    1. Argue there's a need for deep austerity to cut the deficit

    2. Implement swingeing cuts, while implementing large tax cuts and pension increases to ensure you fail to cut the deficit.

    3. Return to 1.

    Labour struggled to articulate this and the press had no interest in doing so. Reshaping government is ideological, yet the Conservatives never decided to argue their case, instead arguing the need for "austerity" and "cutting the deficit" instead, despite having little interest in balancing the books.
    There is nothing ideological in not wanting to spend what you don't have. Nor anything progressive in spending more on debt interest than either education or defence.

    But please: keep obfuscating as you are. The longer Labour have no economic credibility the better.

    I want the Tories to stay in power.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Barnesian said:

    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

    I'd lay that if it didn't involve tieing up cash for a 5% return in 3 or 4 years. I think odds of 22-1 are skinny.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    On Clive Lewis

    In April 2015, Lewis became involved in a scandal when, in an interview for the New Statesman, he said (in jest), in response to a question on whether he was taking his upcoming victory for granted, he would only lose if he was "caught with [his] pants down behind a goat with Ed Miliband at the other end". He subsequently apologised for the remark, saying he was "sincerely sorry" if anyone had been offended by the comment.


    That's not a gaffe, that's wonderful.
  • Oliver_PB said:


    The Conservatives have, and continue to use, the deficit as cover for implementing ideological policies to fundamentally change the role of the state - small government (eternal 'austerity'), unaffordable income tax cuts, increases to VAT, pension increases, increasing student fees, cutting student support etc.

    Why would the Tories need cover for implementing their ideology? They got voted in with a majority precisely because that was the ideology that the electorate wanted.

    People want a smaller state with lower spending, they also want the deficit to be reduced. The Tories are providing them with a double win.

    I can't understand the lefty outrage at the Tories enacting policies from their manifesto on which they got voted into power.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited August 2015
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, comrades.

    It still seems bloody odd that a friend of Hamas could become Leader of the Opposition.

    Spring time for UKIP? If Farage had toddled off it would be. Even with him, they have a perfect match for Corbyn's Labour when it comes to immigration.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    tyson said:

    Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

    Barnesian said:

    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

    But Burnham isn't a unity candidate. He will be someone who failed to win the leadership election - TWICE.

    That is not the profile of someone who offers unity.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    tyson said:

    Looking at the process that the Tories went through in the naughties, I think Labour will turn to Burnham as a unity candidate in 2018, as the Tories turned to Howard, but like Howard, Burnham's role will be damage limitation. The leader after Burnham will be Labour's next PM.

    Barnesian said:

    I've felt right from the start that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister or lead Labour into the next election. He wants to shake things up, change the agenda, show other potential Labour leaders how to challenge the Tories, how to enthuse followers etc. He is succeeding in that but run for PM - no, I don't think so.

    My guess is that he will form a close partnership with Burnham. Together they will develop a distinctive leftish set of policies with a vivid story that challenges Osborne's narrative, and at the right moment, with Corbyn's support, Burnham will take over the leadership to fight the next General Election and become the next PM after Cameron. I'm on at 22 on Betfair.

    Interesting. Pre-Corbynmania, I suggested that Burnham was Labour's IDS. Nothing I've seen in this leadership contest has caused me to revise that opinion upwards.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    :lol:

    @GrainneMaguire said Burnham reminded him of a haunted ventriloquist dummy...

    The lady who posted the Milibeard pic is now trolling the media quite amusingly:

    https://twitter.com/GrainneMaguire/with_replies

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Simon, not only that, IDS' tactical shenanigans got him the leadership. Burnham's tactical shenanigans appear to have cost him the leadership, and, even if they haven't, he's had to lurch Lenin-ward.
Sign In or Register to comment.