Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader

Thread: Purgatory: Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001301

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Looks like a landslide victory.

Some "New" Labour bods have already resigned. Others seem to be very disturbed by this turn of events.

Some Tory bods are very happy and feel like he may be another "image disaster" like Michel Foot. Others are worried he may prove to be a powerful opponent.

My personal view? I'm delighted that he seems intent on dragging Labour back to what it should have been and I feel like for the first time in years there will actually be a point to me voting in an election.

[Adjusted the title to remove the excess apostrophe. -Gwai]

[ 16. May 2016, 08:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

He will probably take voters away from my party (The Greens), but I still think he is a great choice. The reason is I am more committed to general socialist ideals being promoted than the particular focus of my party. I think the Greens can also work with him and others to provide a voice of the left.

A lot was made of why Labour lost the last election. I think one reason is that they were seen as Tory-lite - all the same ideas, just less confident. At least now they should have a clearer identity.

Can he win the next election? Actually, I think he might be able to. I am not saying he will, or that it will be an easy time for him, but I think he has a lot of integrity and honesty, and the electorate do respect that. I also think he might actually talk about policy, not just criticise this government.

I say part of The One Show in Guildford, where they asked random people on the street about certain policies which they agreed with, only to reveal that they were Corbyn policies. Most of the interviewees were shocked and appalled that they were agreeing with someone who wanted to destroy their families, their livelihood and their country.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I say part of The One Show in Guildford, where they asked random people on the street about certain policies which they agreed with, only to reveal that they were Corbyn policies. Most of the interviewees were shocked and appalled that they were agreeing with someone who wanted to destroy their families, their livelihood and their country.

Problem is, the Tories famously came up against this between Hague and Cameron - polls showing people agreed with them on a policy until they knew it was them. They eventually overcame this by coming up with a leader people didn't think that about...

Personally, I think that Labour are following the Tory stages-of-grief playbook. We're now immediately post the 2001 General Election, and they've elected IDS because he makes them feel good and pure about themselves. Meanwhile I suspect more than a few around the country, as with IDS in 2001, are thinking "what on earth are you doing?"

I wonder what the odds are on the next but one Labour leader being the next Labour prime minister?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

It may well be that the next Labour Prime Minister isn't yet a member of the House of Commons.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think there is something in the stages of grief theory. But I see it more as a nervous breakdown, when a party has been in power a long time, and then loses. There are the classic signs of mourning - denial, anger, sadness, eventual acceptance.

The Tories went through this after 1997, and Labour are going through it now. However, it is perhaps surprising how strong the revulsion against Blairism has been, and by extension, against neo-liberalism.

I think the political future is clear - if the world situation stays reasonably calm, and there is reasonable prosperity for 5 years, the Tories are a shoe-in next time. Labour can only win (with our without Corbyn), if there is some disaster in either area, e.g. a hideous war, an economic collapse, mass poverty, and so on. I suppose leaving the EU would be wild card for everybody.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Stays !?!

Have you not noticed the multiple wars, mass poverty and migration that are happening now ?

There are bodies washing up on the beaches of europe FFS

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

He'll probably win me back from the Greens [Smile]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Stays !?!

Have you not noticed the multiple wars, mass poverty and migration that are happening now ?

There are bodies washing up on the beaches of europe FFS

True enough, but Tory voters probably live in a bubble, where things like that don't impinge. I think for Labour to win will require some kind of big emergency, e.g. a really hideous war in Syria. Mass poverty exists, correct, but not enough yet, to produce revulsion agin the Bullingdon boys.

In a sense, starving the poor has become the lingua franca of British politics, although given a nicer name.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Stays !?!

Have you not noticed the multiple wars, mass poverty and migration that are happening now ?

There are bodies washing up on the beaches of europe FFS

Yeah, but not round here though. Said ignorant #$÷%s everywhere. Anyway, we should leave Europe cos they want us to have loads of immigrants, and so does that Corbyn bloke. Said the same group of people.

More seriously, his approach of "we should accept mass immigration" is likely to feature heavily in the coming days.

The rest of my thoughts are on the "future of socialism" thread.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Should have said 'a hideous war in Syria, where British troops are involved'.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Should have said 'a hideous war in Syria, where British troops are involved'.

Well, Corbyn has said he can't ever forsee circumstances where British troops would be deployed abroad hasn't he? So the government will do well to get any approval for that, but since we are now killing people in drone strikes, who cares...

Interesting to read how far apart Tom Watson and Corbyn are.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

I think the Tories would be making a mistake if they underestimated Corbyn. I think Peter Hitchens summed it up well today

quote:
Do not underestimate Jeremy Corbyn. Labour’s Blairites lie dead and dying all over the place because they made that mistake. Tory Blairites such as David Cameron might be wise to learn from this, especially given last week’s dismal, shrinking manufacturing and export figures, which were pushed far away from front pages by other stories, but which cast doubt on the vaunted recovery...

Actually, I dislike many of Mr Corbyn’s opinions – his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party. But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories’ slippery pretence of being what they’re not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3232372/PETER-HITCHENS-Labour-real-lefty-proper-conservatives.html

[ 13. September 2015, 16:14: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I have to say that I'm a bit impressed by the amount of doomsday predictions that have come up just because he's the party leader.

He must be good.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Is his success really caused by grief? All the signs seem to point to the fact that he simply provides an actual real alternative from the Tories rather than the "tori lite" Labour had been offering.

I don't see it as the outcome of grief but hope. People were just tired of not being given a meaningful choice.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

George Spigot and other Shipmates

We'd already started discussing the Corbyn factor in "The Future of Socialism" thread.

But I'm going to let this thread stand and do a bit of traffic redirection on the other one.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think my gut instinct leant slightly towards Cooper.
But to be honest, any Labour leader would be slaughtered by the right wing press for being a far left lunatic. You might as well have Corbyn slaughtered for a sheep as Kendall for a lamb. And frankly, I doubt Labour would get anywhere by playing within the rules the Tories were setting.

The other point is Scotland. I don't think Labour has much chance unless it can reestablish itself north of the border, and if it can't do so under Corbyn I doubt it could have done so under any other candidate.

The main thing though is that Labour's fortunes depend on Fallon making the Liberal Democrats electable in the seats that the Tories took off them last time.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

As an American I don't have much insight. However I do see some interesting parallels with the current American Presidential election marathon.

The Democrats had moved "centrist" and the Republicans further to the right in the past few elections. At some point though, when there are hard time, people start wanting a choice other than pro-wealthy right and pro-wealthy far right.
The Republican process is a debacle because of Trump, but if he's factored out, it does seem like there's not a great choice. The Democrats are watching as Hilary Clinton, heir to the centrist neo-liberal movement is fading in the polls, while an independent socialist is showing her a competitive race in the early pro-liberal states. Neither Trump or Sanders would have been imaginable as serious candidates in the past.

I chalk it down to the hard times making people realize that the major parties are aligned with the wealthy, and that the people aren't just "not-yet-wealthy-". It's taking some fumbling around to try to carve out a party that represents that group.

Does this seem similar to the British situation?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It appears Chuka Umunna has left the shadow cabinet "by mutual agreement"

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hmm. Well, I am no socialist but this is what I would advise Corbyn:

You will never be Prime Minister...

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(Is it possible to ask for removal of the grocer's apostrophe from the title? It's starting to hurt.)

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The British electorate have shown their willingness to flirt with a charismatic leader in the form of Ukip's ;farage.
I suppose there is a theoretical chance that it will throw out 30 years of politics-bland and go for Corbin 's Labour.

In reality, as has been said up-thread, without red reappearing N of the Scottish border an outright Labour majority is a bit of a fantasy regardless of who is leading it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Shadow cabinet appointments coming out now - so far:

Andy Burnham - Home Secretary
Lord Falkner - Justice Secretary
Rosie Winterton - Chief Whip
Hilary Benn - Foreign Secretary
Heide Alexander - Health Secretary
Ian Murray - Scottish Secretary

[ 13. September 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Stays !?!

Have you not noticed the multiple wars, mass poverty and migration that are happening now ?

There are bodies washing up on the beaches of europe FFS
True enough, but Tory voters probably live in a bubble, where things like that don't impinge. I think for Labour to win will require some kind of big emergency, e.g. a really hideous war in Syria. Mass poverty exists, correct, but not enough yet, to produce revulsion agin the Bullingdon boys.

In a sense, starving the poor has become the lingua franca of British politics, although given a nicer name.

But he doesn't need to convert the Tory voters. He'll never appeal there, neither would the other candidates. What he needs is to win back the ones who went to UKIP and the Greens. That, and the Scots (which is why Sturgeon was straight onto the attack) should put Labour back in power quite comfortably.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yvette Cooper has been canny - not taking a frontbench post, but will be chairing a taskforce on the refugee crisis. I wonder if he will find roles for the other two candidates.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Also, am I the only person to think it was extremely rude and ungracious of Jamie Reed to resign before Corbyn had even finished his victory speech ?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Personally, I think that Labour are following the Tory stages-of-grief playbook. We're now immediately post the 2001 General Election, and they've elected IDS because he makes them feel good and pure about themselves. Meanwhile I suspect more than a few around the country, as with IDS in 2001, are thinking "what on earth are you doing?"

Iain Duncan Smith never filled concert halls with cheering supporters, though ...

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Rather mixed feelings. As someone cynical of politicians generally, it's good to have someone who isn't yet another Cameron/Clegg/Miliband/Osborne/Blair clone - I mean, how can you tell them apart. Perhaps the Tories will feel the need to have some slightly more human front-benchers. On the other hand...

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Shadow cabinet appointments coming out now - so far:

Andy Burnham - Home Secretary
Lord Falkner - Justice Secretary
Rosie Winterton - Chief Whip
Hilary Benn - Foreign Secretary
Heide Alexander - Health Secretary
Ian Murray - Scottish Secretary

So many shocking bad hats.

[ 13. September 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hmm. Well, I am no socialist but this is what I would advise Corbyn:

You will never be Prime Minister...
I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I am sure as eggs George S. I think he could do surprisingly well and perhaps shift the political climate somewhat, but I just don't see enough buyers for the total package.

What I think he has already succeeded in doing is shifting Labour's centre of gravity way over to the left. This leaves lots of room in the centre. The natural party to fill this would be the Lib Dems but they are so mauled at the moment that they may not be able to.

Who else could fill it? Well, a lot of the parliamentary Labour party are now sitting to the right of "new Old Labour" if I can put it like that. I think if there is no defenestration (and I don't think there will be) then it is quite likely that we will see a new SDP by 2020 if not before.

It might not do any better than the original SDP though. It would be even shorter of big names. There's no obvious David Owen figure. Except... and this is a way off beam idea... but let's put it out there... what about Tony Blair? Maybe he is fed up with being a has-been. Maybe he would like to see himself as the saviour of New Labour once again. Is this a mad idea? Probably. Forget I said it.

OK who else could fill the gap in the centre? What about a split in the Conservative party? I think that's quite likely too, with the European referendum coming up. It's just possible that you might get three Europhile centre parties and SNP campaigning for IN with Corbyn Labour, Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP campaigning for OUT.

What I'd really like to see would be a completely new part in the centre. I'd be up for some sort of Christian Democrat party like the one Elaine Starkey's husband tried to start, for example. Maybe. I think this is very unlikely though.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If he's going to be inclusive, that means accepting a mixed bag I guess.

The big appointment will be the chancellor - some are saying it might be Angela Eagle.

(I absolutely don't think Tony Blair will end up
leading another political party, for one thing I doubt he'd be prepared to take the pay cut.)

[ 13. September 2015, 21:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The big appointment will be the chancellor - some are saying it might be Angela Eagle.

It's John McDonnell.

Expect to hear much more about the time he said Bobby Sands should be 'honoured' and how IRA bombs brought peace to Northern Ireland.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

In reality, as has been said up-thread, without red reappearing N of the Scottish border an outright Labour majority is a bit of a fantasy regardless of who is leading it.

The New Old Labour will face their first real test in the Scottish Government elections next year. Of course, there isn't an SNP yellow-wash to overturn in Holyrood so Labour doesn't need as big a swing as it will for the next Westminster election. Part of the issue would be whether Scottish Labour is seen as being able to operate independently of the UK party or just be a "branch office". I think Corbyn will be seen as a lot less controlling than Milliband, and so let Scottish Labour have more independence in pursuing policies for Scotland without constantly checking with the Party down south (actually, I expect that to be more the case for party at local level across the country). Although, it could easily turn into a vote the SNP lose if their gamble of mentioning another referendum (even if it's just to identify the circumstances and timescale rather than actually hold one) in their manifesto back fires with a considerable ground swell of not wanting to go through that again in the next 10 years.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Let me be clear, I abhor the killing of innocent human beings. My argument was that republicans had the right to honour those who had brought about this process of negotiation which had led to peace. Having achieved this central objective now it was time to move on. The future for achieving the nationalists' goals is through the political process and in particular through the Northern Ireland assembly elections... Irish republicans have to face the fact that the use of violence has resulted in unforgivable atrocities. No cause is worth the loss of a child's life. No amount of political theory will justify what has been perpetrated on the victims of the bombing campaigns.".

John McDonnell

Nonetheless, I think it is rather good idea not to make him a shadow northern ireland minister.

[ 14. September 2015, 06:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

From the Guardian on 16th May 1999

quote:
"The idea that he sacrificed his family for his political career is misleading, because his prospects are limited, at best. There has never been any propect of a government job for him, and party loyalists are rumoured to be trying to bar him from standing as Labour candidate at the next election.

What he has going for him is the respect due to someone who never sold out."

The full article is here.

The article was about the sad news that he and his wife had split up because she wanted their son to go to a selective school in a different borough, and he did not approve.

Non UK Shipmates who have strayed into this thread will need to know that the Guardian is a broadly left newspaper and that selective v comprehensive schooling has long been a matter of major political acrimony to the UK left.

Obviously, 16 years later, this article has been proved wrong.

I've already said on a different thread that Jeremy Corbyn represents things I really detest in politicians. I see him as the negative image of John Redwood.

Corbyn has won because lots of people want someone who, as they would see it, 'has never sold out'. They admire an inflexible commitment to dogma and doctrinal principles as the highest integrity, more important than the practical or personal parts of life.

My question is this. Why? Why is this regarded as admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it about this that some people find so inspirational? It is very often the same people who would call those who apply the same approach to e.g. certain dead horses as bigots?

So why are they called bigots, but the political dogmatists get let off that accusation? I can't see the difference. It's the humourless dogmatism that is so alarming, in whatever cause, whether socialism, flat rate taxation, or religion. It's what killed Michael Collins, what underlay so much of the violence of the Reformation, and what attracts socially dislocated young men into ISIS (or whatever it calls itself this week).

This forcing the outside world to fit our own dogmatic spectacles because reality is easier that way, is something most of us have to grow out of. Those that don't, or those that use it to control others, should not be let anywhere near power.

So can Shipmates answer my questions. Why is this so admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it that people find so admirable about something so dangerous and destructive? Can somebody persuade me I'm wrong?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm pretty gobsmacked at him appointing Charlie Falconer to shadow at justice and as shadow Lord Chancellor.

I know JC says he is going to be inclusive but surely 'champagne' Charlie is a bridge too far? If you leave out his background (Edinburgh Academy, Glenalmond, Cambridge) there are still two serious issues:

1. He's never stood for election.
2. The reason he didn't get selected for a labour seat was because he refused to pull his children out of public schools, and he didn't apologise for them being there either.

Given JC's stand over the choice of a selective state school for his own child, I'm amazed.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Corbyn has won because lots of people want someone who, as they would see it, 'has never sold out'. They admire an inflexible commitment to dogma and doctrinal principles as the highest integrity, more important than the practical or personal parts of life.

My question is this. Why? Why is this regarded as admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it about this that some people find so inspirational? It is very often the same people who would call those who apply the same approach to e.g. certain dead horses as bigots?

The idea that there are simple, pure answers that don't need any kind of compromise is always attractive - I assume that's why fundamentalism is attractive.

Almost no politicians get anywhere without seeming to compromise - Jeremy Corbyn has and that makes him novel and novelty is attractive.

On the assumption that it will be impossible to function as leader of a major political party for any length of time more than about a week without compromise I presume Mr Corbyn is about to lose his USP.

(Appointing Lord Falconer may be the first of the compromises.)

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

So can Shipmates answer my questions. Why is this so admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it that people find so admirable about something so dangerous and destructive? Can somebody persuade me I'm wrong?

Dogmatism and inflexibility are not admirable, but I don't yet know that Corbyn is like that. If he is, he will struggle. He seems, though, to be a man who builds bridges, who strives to be consensual, and he has declared his intention to have an inclusive approach as leader in terms of his team and policy making. I will be interested to see how he does. My fear is not that he will be too single-minded, after all, he has no formal power at all, but that he will be too easily distracted, manipulated, stitched-up and watered down. I fear the next few months could be very painful to watch; a good and likeable man being minced by the press and his own party.

But I hope for something different. I am encouraged that pretty much all of the criticism directed at him is of the 'well he's obviously no good and could never be popular' variety. Itself the evidence of rigid thinking in the face of abundant evidence.

There's very little reasoned and evidenced criticism of him. His economic position, the reverse of Labour's position a month ago seems to be self-evidently sensible, supported by pretty much all economists, and gives him a big message to attack the Tories with. The lack of this was what lost the election, most people agree. I've heard little discussion of this from opponents, though. All I hear are voices still saying, we just know he's going to be a disaster.

I look forward to hearing him questioning Cameron and being interviewed by Humphreys. I think he will wrong foot them both by answering questions with reasons, turning off the spin and giving honest opinions and evidence.

I am sick of hearing Cameron trying to persuade me that he's concerned about the poor and needy, when we all know he's not. I am furious at Labour trying to persuade the country that they're as tough and rigorous on economics as the Tories, and that they want to end immigration just as much, too, when we all know that's not true. The Conservatives' priority is the rich, and Labour's priority is the poor.

For those on the left, what a joy it will be to hear someone say that we should be proud to pay benefits to the disabled, because it's the right thing to do. To say that we should play our part in solving Europe's refugee crisis, because we can be better than the fearful, selfish and callous nation the Conservatives want us to be. And for everyone, politics can become about choices, morality and the sort of society we want to build, rather than a fashion parade: which of these people do you think would make the best leader? The tallest one?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I want to like Jeremy Corbyn. He’s a proper lefty socialist who looks like Obi Wan Kenobi. So far, so good.

But is anyone else bothered by his lack of ministerial experience?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Lack of experience is an argument to never let anyone new do anything. I think his age is against him adapting to a new role, because it seems to me that we become less flexible. I think Owen Jones' role as an advisor could be key. He seems to have found a fresh voice and could help Corbyn argue his policies.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Corbyn has won because lots of people want someone who, as they would see it, 'has never sold out'. They admire an inflexible commitment to dogma and doctrinal principles as the highest integrity, more important than the practical or personal parts of life.

My question is this. Why? Why is this regarded as admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it about this that some people find so inspirational?

Admirable or not, I don't think it applies to Mr Corbyn anyway. Mr Corbyn is accused of being too friendly with Hezbollah and the IRA and the defence to this is that peaceful solutions require dialogue with unpleasant people. This is not IMV an unreasonable defence but it is also a description of compromise.

FWIW I am very ambivalent about this result. He is the only one willing to provide a genuine alternative to Tory economics but he has taken strong lines on a lot of secondary issues that are likely to be red lines for voters.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Lack of experience is an argument to never let anyone new do anything. I think his age is against him adapting to a new role, because it seems to me that we become less flexible. I think Owen Jones' role as an advisor could be key. He seems to have found a fresh voice and could help Corbyn argue his policies.

I'm sorry, but I think a large number of people around the country will think those two are made for each other. Jones in particular is a first class example of the sort of person who falls into student politics, enjoys the shallow end, and never finds his way out into the real world at the end of his degree...

God knows I've no time for Alistair Campbell but his put-down to Jones on Twitter at the weekend (which was in response to Jones' showboating and not unprovoked) was withering perfection:

something along the lines of "come back and tell me how to win when you've won 3 elections"

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

It will be interesting to see how the newest member of the 1% deals with the matter of the Privy Council oath of loyalty to Her Majesty.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Presumably in his career he's had to take the Parliamentary oath to her majesty on quite a few occasions. If he could honestly swear loyalty to the legal head of state, swear to abide by the constitution that puts her in that position, even while wanting to change the constitution to replace her with an elected head of state then what's the problem?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Possibly no problem, Possibly problem. It's for Jeremy Corbyn to say. But the PC is (technically) a group of personal advisers to the Monarch, which is a bit different to being an elected Member of Parliament. 'Sources close to' Corbyn suggested not long ago that he wouldn't take the Privy Council oath. Personally I suspect he will. As I said, 'interesting'.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've already said on a different thread that Jeremy Corbyn represents things I really detest in politicians.

Sorry if I skipped the context for this. I've read the Socialism thread but may have missed it. Would you mind going into a little more detail about what things he represents that you detest?

quote:
Corbyn has won because lots of people want someone who, as they would see it, 'has never sold out'. They admire an inflexible commitment to dogma and doctrinal principles as the highest integrity, more important than the practical or personal parts of life.

My question is this. Why? Why is this regarded as admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it about this that some people find so inspirational? It is very often the same people who would call those who apply the same approach to e.g. certain dead horses as bigots?

So why are they called bigots, but the political dogmatists get let off that accusation? I can't see the difference.

Do we have any evidence that he would be inflexible and dogmatic as a PM? Also I'm not convinced that's why Corbyn won. I think he's popular simply because people are desperate for an alternative to the right wing, and possibly they hope he will put an end to the unsuccessful austerity policy.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've already said on a different thread that Jeremy Corbyn represents things I really detest in politicians.

Sorry if I skipped the context for this. I've read the Socialism thread but may have missed it. Would you mind going into a little more detail about what things he represents that you detest?

quote:
Corbyn has won because lots of people want someone who, as they would see it, 'has never sold out'. They admire an inflexible commitment to dogma and doctrinal principles as the highest integrity, more important than the practical or personal parts of life.

My question is this. Why? Why is this regarded as admirable in Jeremy Corbyn? What is it about this that some people find so inspirational? It is very often the same people who would call those who apply the same approach to e.g. certain dead horses as bigots?

So why are they called bigots, but the political dogmatists get let off that accusation? I can't see the difference.
Do we have any evidence that he would be inflexible and dogmatic as a PM? Also I'm not convinced that's why Corbyn won. I think he's popular simply because people are desperate for an alternative to the right wing, and possibly they hope he will put an end to the unsuccessful austerity policy.

To your second point, are they desperate though?

Over 400,000 people voted in the leadership contest, and he got just over 59% in the first ballot, so somewhere over 200,000.

Now we know, thanks to the £3 members, that a lot of people (although still in the tens of thousands) joined Labour to vote for him - so entryists joined to make this happen (admittedly the other 2 categories of voter in the contest also voted for him clearly.

So, the best we can say with any certainty is that he's popular with Labour members new and old who are desperate for an alternative to the right wing.

Unfortunately those who voted for him are about 0.4% of the electorate (give or take).

Unless you're suggesting that many people voted Tory in May because Labour was insufficiently left wing?

If (and it's a big if) he makes it through to 2020, and getting my crystal ball out, I would suggest that he's going to pile up votes in seats that Labour weigh the vote in anyway, and get destroyed elsewhere.

I just look at the Nuneatons, Burton on Trents, Worcesters, Wyre Forests, (other Midland marginals are available) etc and think there's no way on earth that they're going to go for him.

The SNP will be doing their damnedest to destroy him north of the border (because the last thing they need is Labour resuscitating and outflanking them from the left). In fact, one of Sturgeon's more interesting comments over the weekend was that if he goes full-on Old Labour then that will be another argument for independence!

If he achieves a coalition of Labour, Green, and northern UKIP voters then he might make inroads such that someone else has got a chance in 2025, however.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Unless you're suggesting that many people voted Tory in May because Labour was insufficiently left wing?

Yes. Isn't that obvious?

People were frightened by the economic problems and by immigration, so they voted for the big stick party.

Labour presented themselves as the slightly smaller stick party. Why on earth would anyone have voted for them?

Labour needed, and still needs, to present alternative policies to the Conservatives and to do so unapologetically. Not 'yes, immigrants are nasty, but we'd better let a few in.' Not 'yes, paying benefits makes the country poor, but we have to make sure that disabled people have a minimal standard of living, so, yes we'd better pay some of them, just a little bit, whilst obviously trying to pressure them into work like the Tories rightly say.' Not, 'yes, we overspent and ran out of money, so the answer is to shrink the economy for a decade or two until the markets forgive us for being naughty, and we'd be nearly as good as doing that as the Tories.'

We need policies that are promoted with pride, because the Tory ones are wrong and stupid and unjust. We need an opposition that loudly and convincingly claims we'd all be much happier in a strong, confident and generous society.

[ 14. September 2015, 15:32: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Unless you're suggesting that many people voted Tory in May because Labour was insufficiently left wing?

The Tories got about a third to two fifths of the vote overall. So it's theoretically possible for Corbyn to win without picking up any Tory votes if he can gather a broad enough coalition.

I doubt anybody decided against voting Labour because they looked at Miliband's campaign and thought it's just too clear what Miliband stands for, and he's obviously not prepared to compromise his principles.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

We need policies that are promoted with pride, because the Tory ones are wrong and stupid and unjust.

Right to be clear then, the Tories just won because the British people, whilst aching with every bone in their body to vote for an acceptable left wing party, looked at the options and thought "you know what, it's the wrong and stupid and unjust one for me."

The Conservatives spent 1997 to 2005 arguing that the electorate had made a mistake, would see the error of their ways and come home and you know what? Eventually they had to go to where the people were.

I still think this represents a retreat away from the majority and into the comfort zone a la the Tories in 2001 (IDS even won with about the same percentage of the ballot by the way).

Incidentally, I know Labour wouldn't be expecting to win many rural seats, and also that opinions can be just as divided in rural areas as they are in cities, but if you're looking to pick a fight the appointment of a vegan vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports as the Shadow Defra secretary is a stroke of either genius or lunacy.... (I'm making no judgment either way about either veganism or hunting, but this is hardly "hello troubled waters, have some oil" let's be honest).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Unless you're suggesting that many people voted Tory in May because Labour was insufficiently left wing?
The Tories got about a third to two fifths of the vote overall. So it's theoretically possible for Corbyn to win without picking up any Tory votes if he can gather a broad enough coalition.

Just about, although IIRC Tories + UKIP added up to over 50%. The really interesting question (among many interesting questions) is which way the northern UKIP vote goes now - does it go back to Labour?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The Conservatives spent 1997 to 2005 arguing that the electorate had made a mistake, would see the error of their ways and come home and you know what? Eventually they had to go to where the people were.

Did they? In what respect did the Tories move leftwards between Iain Duncan Smith and 2010?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

We need policies that are promoted with pride, because the Tory ones are wrong and stupid and unjust.
Right to be clear then, the Tories just won because the British people, whilst aching with every bone in their body to vote for an acceptable left wing party, looked at the options and thought "you know what, it's the wrong and stupid and unjust one for me."

The Conservatives spent 1997 to 2005 arguing that the electorate had made a mistake, would see the error of their ways and come home and you know what? Eventually they had to go to where the people were.

I still think this represents a retreat away from the majority and into the comfort zone a la the Tories in 2001 (IDS even won with about the same percentage of the ballot by the way).

Incidentally, I know Labour wouldn't be expecting to win many rural seats, and also that opinions can be just as divided in rural areas as they are in cities, but if you're looking to pick a fight the appointment of a vegan vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports as the Shadow Defra secretary is a stroke of either genius or lunacy.... (I'm making no judgment either way about either veganism or hunting, but this is hardly "hello troubled waters, have some oil" let's be honest).

No, the Tories won because people were scared and liked the big stick party.

Opposition needs to point out that we needn't be so scared, and Tory policies are daft, counterproductive and stink.

Do you really think that being vegan is a confrontational thing?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The Conservatives spent 1997 to 2005 arguing that the electorate had made a mistake, would see the error of their ways and come home and you know what? Eventually they had to go to where the people were.

Did they? In what respect did the Tories move leftwards between Iain Duncan Smith and 2010?

they replaced a borderline caricature of a 1950s hard-liner with firstly a get-a-grip-and-stop-the-rot leader (Howard) and then a much younger Tory leader who not only dropped the party's opposition to Gay marriage, but put in a manifesto commitment to examine how to equalise marriage (and then went further and legislated for it), ringfenced international aid, ringfenced the budgets of departments that people actually cared about, more women and ethnic minority MPs.

If you want to be genuinely terrified, take a wander over to ConservativeHome and read the comments from Tory members who've never accepted Cameron and believe the party has been captured by ringing wet metropolitan socialists who are hobbling the Conservatives' ability to move in any way right of the centre.....! Comments that they didn't get a bigger majority because they weren't right wing enough in either 2010 or 2015 are legion.

This is why (as a palest of pale Blue municipal socialist one-nation extreme left Tory - and let me tell you there aren't many of us left...) I think Labour have got problems. I've seen these idiots over on the right and I've been fighting them all my adult life. The equivalent on the left could be about to do the same thing to Labour.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Do you really think that being vegan is a confrontational thing?

Of course I don't, but then I'm not the NFU or big agribusiness. Presentationally, it's like I say, either genius or witless. Like putting a CND member in at Defence, the headmaster of Eton at education, or Ernest Marples at transport (one for the connoisseurs there...).

[ 14. September 2015, 16:17: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think it is partly about accurately identifying the problem. Take UKIP and immigration / EU.

A large part of the problem is that people think that a) immigration shrinks the available resources via shroedinger's immigrant - though economic evidence suggest otherwise and needs to be more widely publicised, b) the wider labour pool drives down wages and employment conditions, c) the foreigners will destroy our way of life because they are somehow so alien.

a) is just not true, and the costs of taking in refugees could be ameliorated by given them limited work permits whilst they wait for their cases to be heard
b) is true to an extent for low skilled work, but can be tackled through effective unionisation (this is the left wing solution to the same problem, and frankly is no more anti-free market than restricting the movement of labour)
c) is based upon false beliefs about others and may be something that can be tackled through public engagement

[ 14. September 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
c) the foreigners will destroy our way of life because they are somehow so alien.

c) is complicated by the Syria factor. There are always going to be people who look askance at anyone speaking Arabic or who looks like a Muslim (whatever a Muslim might look like in their conception) because that means they're probably a terrorist. Therefore they're obliged to destroy our way of life, it's in their job description.

It probably wouldn't matter how many nice, hard-working refugees they met, they'd always be waiting for that one exception to prove that there were rotten apples in the barrel.

I completely agree that refugees should be allowed to do some work. The alternative is having groups of bored, restless young men hanging around being intimidating, whether they mean to or not, and a lot of people not being able to keep their skills up to date and be marketable.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I had the satisfying thought this afternoon, that Blairism is dead, and these are the funeral rites. I may even pour myself a small libation in honour of this, and mentally empty its stinking corpse into somewhere satisfyingly rotten and stinking.

I suppose it may try to return, vampirically. I shall have cross and garlic ready to hand, plus stake and mallet.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had the satisfying thought this afternoon, that Blairism is dead, and these are the funeral rites. I may even pour myself a small libation in honour of this, and mentally empty its stinking corpse into somewhere satisfyingly rotten and stinking.

I suppose it may try to return, vampirically. I shall have cross and garlic ready to hand, plus stake and mallet.

Enjoy your Marxist discussion group. So much purer and more gratifying to a certain sort of ego than wielding actual power and improving actual lives.

Meanwhile the Tories have a free run for the next 10 years.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had the satisfying thought this afternoon, that Blairism is dead, and these are the funeral rites. I may even pour myself a small libation in honour of this, and mentally empty its stinking corpse into somewhere satisfyingly rotten and stinking.

I suppose it may try to return, vampirically. I shall have cross and garlic ready to hand, plus stake and mallet.
Enjoy your Marxist discussion group. So much purer and more gratifying to a certain sort of ego than wielding actual power and improving actual lives.

Meanwhile the Tories have a free run for the next 10 years.

Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.*

I'm not a Marxist.

(*I am a Marxist, of the Groucho tendency).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As an American I don't have much insight. However I do see some interesting parallels with the current American Presidential election marathon.

The Democrats had moved "centrist" and the Republicans further to the right in the past few elections. At some point though, when there are hard time, people start wanting a choice other than pro-wealthy right and pro-wealthy far right.
The Republican process is a debacle because of Trump, but if he's factored out, it does seem like there's not a great choice. The Democrats are watching as Hilary Clinton, heir to the centrist neo-liberal movement is fading in the polls, while an independent socialist is showing her a competitive race in the early pro-liberal states. Neither Trump or Sanders would have been imaginable as serious candidates in the past.

I chalk it down to the hard times making people realize that the major parties are aligned with the wealthy, and that the people aren't just "not-yet-wealthy-". It's taking some fumbling around to try to carve out a party that represents that group.

Does this seem similar to the British situation?

There are certainly parallels between Corbyn and the current political situation in the U.S. Clinton (either of them) is the U.S. Blair-equivalent—a move away from the policies of the Carter-era Democratic Party and general acceptance of free markets and assertive foreign policy. Sanders is certainly our Corbyn-equivalent—an obscure senator from Vermont who has suddenly and unexpectedly been thrust into possible contention. Although I still cannot understand their reasoning, the general sentiment of Trump supporters is also similar—strong antipathy towards “politicians” and a desire for someone who is “authentic.” Maybe Sanders supporters are more motivated by the parties being supposedly beholden to the rich, but the broader impetus for these agitators is simply driven by exasperation with anything they see as tangentially related to Washington or “politics as usual.”

I still have a difficult time believing either are serious candidates, however. If Sanders became the nominee, that would be a disaster of even greater magnitude than Corbyn will be for Labour in the U.K. Just as the Labour voters are not a good proxy for the views of the general electorate in the U.K., Sanders and Trump supporters remain a distinct minority, if vocal. Proceeding to nominate them under the illusion that the broader electorate shares their fervor would be a grave mistake.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think in the UK, it's been partly desperation, by some people on the left. I mean, that their voice has been strangled and distorted by the Blairites, erased really.

So when someone spoke up, who seemed to voice that, there was a response.

No idea if this chimes in the US, as I don't know the political scene well enough.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.

You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.

You are very easily insulting. Stay away from other people.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.

Is it really so difficult to understand that many people do not want a right wing government. And therefore do not want a right wing Labour party.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've already said on a different thread that Jeremy Corbyn represents things I really detest in politicians.

Sorry if I skipped the context for this. I've read the Socialism thread but may have missed it. Would you mind going into a little more detail about what things he represents that you detest?

George, it was this on 12th September.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If that really were the only choice, I'm with Ariel on this. I don't reckon much to Osborne but Corbyn represents everything I detest about politics. He's the photographic negative of John Redwood.

The Labour Party has chosen Scarfolk. It didn't have to, but it has done.

As for this belief that he's a man of true principles, nobody could have spent the 1970s with the sort of people he mixed with and doesn't seem to have repudiated at the North London Polytechnic and elsewhere unless they have a very different concept of integrity to the one the rest of us have.

His vision has nothing to offer the rest of us who are not members of the Labour Party, were not among the 251,417, but do have votes.

I stand by that and what I said this morning. I'm not a convinced Socialist. I'm not a Conservative either. Can you, or anyone else answer the questions I posed this morning? I just don't get it why so many people are so struck by the man. Otherwise, for the indefinite future, this simplifies my decision for whom to vote, by reducing the options by one.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.
Is it really so difficult to understand that many people do not want a right wing government. And therefore do not want a right wing Labour party.

I fully understand that people do not want a right wing government. I do not want one myself. (Do I need to make this any clearer FFS?) That is why I think that Corbyn will be a disaster. Labour has effectively said to the Tories "you can do whatever you want, because you'll win next time come what may."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But Labour previously had accepted the neo-liberal set of ideas, that is, economic liberalization, via deregulation, privatization, austerity, cuts to welfare, low wages, and so on. This leads eventually to so-called financialization, which led to the 08 crash, and may well lead to more, since it can easily morph into casino-type dealings.

Is that what Labour should stand for?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@Enoch

I've always liked the Scarfolk website but I really don't understand what it has to do with Corbyn. Hopefully he plans to do things a lot differently than Blair or Cameron would do. In short bring change. Change does not equal going back to the 70's.

@Touchstone

quote:
Labour has effectively said to the Tories "you can do whatever you want, because you'll win next time come what may

And your evidence for this is...?

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.
You are very easily insulting. Stay away from other people.

The place to be insulting - easily or otherwise - and the place to respond if you feel insulted is Hell, not Purgatory.

Stop the personal comments immediately, or take them to Hell.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've already said on a different thread that Jeremy Corbyn represents things I really detest in politicians.

Sorry if I skipped the context for this. I've read the Socialism thread but may have missed it. Would you mind going into a little more detail about what things he represents that you detest?

George, it was this on 12th September.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If that really were the only choice, I'm with Ariel on this. I don't reckon much to Osborne but Corbyn represents everything I detest about politics. He's the photographic negative of John Redwood.

The Labour Party has chosen Scarfolk. It didn't have to, but it has done.

As for this belief that he's a man of true principles, nobody could have spent the 1970s with the sort of people he mixed with and doesn't seem to have repudiated at the North London Polytechnic and elsewhere unless they have a very different concept of integrity to the one the rest of us have.

His vision has nothing to offer the rest of us who are not members of the Labour Party, were not among the 251,417, but do have votes.
I stand by that and what I said this morning. I'm not a convinced Socialist. I'm not a Conservative either. Can you, or anyone else answer the questions I posed this morning? I just don't get it why so many people are so struck by the man. Otherwise, for the indefinite future, this simplifies my decision for whom to vote, by reducing the options by one.

You mention the people he mixed with in the 1970s, to whom are you referring ?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Enoch wrote:

I stand by that and what I said this morning. I'm not a convinced Socialist. I'm not a Conservative either. Can you, or anyone else answer the questions I posed this morning? I just don't get it why so many people are so struck by the man. Otherwise, for the indefinite future, this simplifies my decision for whom to vote, by reducing the options by one.

I think he has articulated an opposition to neo-liberalism, and people have responded. All main parties have embraced it, and there is massive propaganda in favour of it, in all the media. TINA lives again.

However, some people in Labour and outside it, have been voicing opposition - this was quite clear in the Scottish independence vote. Labour seemed to have blocked its ears to this, but maybe not.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

Is it really so difficult to understand that many people do not want a right wing government. And therefore do not want a right wing Labour party.

Not at all. It is many, just not enough to win a general election in the foreseeable future.

Humiliating though the analogy may be, there are parallels with the Republican party in the US. It can't win a Presidential election without recovering the centre ground it has lost. But in order to do that, it would have to adopt more moderate, in their eyes more compromised, policies than its WASP grassroots want. So GOP members vote to select candidates who press their preferred (and in their eyes purist) right wing buttons.

It's a paradox. Under certain circumstances, the sort of candidate who has the best chance of winning the smaller election is precisely the sort of candidate who has little chance of winning the bigger one. And in Jeremy Corbyn's case, he's going to have enough problems holding together the disparate views within Labour, without even looking at what he might have to do to win the centre ground.

Without the sort of pragmatism which recognises the need to woo the centre in order to get the necessary majority, you just can't get into power in the first place. However much such a reality may get up folks' noses, that's just the way it is in democracies.

[ 14. September 2015, 20:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.
Is it really so difficult to understand that many people do not want a right wing government. And therefore do not want a right wing Labour party.

Yeah, kinda is, actually. As a Tory, this is all popcorn for me, but I'm still confused by the logic. Labour tacked to the left and lost. And lost again. And lost again. Now, if you think that tackling stuff like poverty is something the government should spend a lot of time solving, and if you think that your political opponents are the sort of folk who create poverty rather than reduce it, why would you put yourself in a place where you make yourself unelectable and keep your supposedly evil opponents in government, with their hands on the levers of power?

On this logic, might one not say that one has built one's ideological purity on the backs of the poor?

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

@Touchstone

quote:
Labour has effectively said to the Tories "you can do whatever you want, because you'll win next time come what may
And your evidence for this is...?

The evidence of previous general elections is that the party that has the most convincing candidate for PM, and is most trusted with the economy, wins. This is what did for Milliband - although he was consistently ahead in the headline polls, the Tories always retained a significant lead on these crucial questions.

I'm afraid that JC will be a big negative on both counts in 2020: Who would you trust with the economy: George Osborne (it will likely be him), who has seven years experience as chancellor and 3 as PM on the one hand; on the other a hard left contrarian who's never even held a shadow ministerial portfolio before being catapulted into the leadership of his party and his sidekick who can't even spell "foment"?

For most people who are not particularly committed politically, this will be a no-brainer.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Anglican't

It's understandable. I think you're arguing that it isn't very sensible.

I suppose both us, arguing from positions of different political persuasion, could be wrong. History doesn't always provide a good guide on these things. But there would need to be some remarkable, unprecendented, switches in popular opinion in this country for that to happen - possibly stimulated by some unprecedented global economic or political events. It just looks very much odds-against.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[crosspost to the assertion about economic credibility]

You are, quite literally, begging the question. Most people have never heard of the new shadow chancellor and he has yet to make a detailed public argument for his policies.

There is a serious economic argument to be made for a different approach.

[ 14. September 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I guess the basic questions is: do you want a party that represents your views, or one that will win? I realise that the situation is never ideal and that there often will be a trade-off between them. And in the UK this is exacerbated by the electoral system you have.

But I can say that in my case, the balance would be towards the former of these two criteria.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Barnabas62 wrote:

Without the sort of pragmatism which recognises the need to woo the centre in order to get the necessary majority, you just can't get into power in the first place. However much such a reality may get up folks' noses, that's just the way it is in democracies.

Yes, but the pragmatism in this context means neo-liberal policies, and cuddling up to big business, and trying not to upset them. Why else did the 3 other candidates abstain on the Tory Benefits Bill?

Labour haven't just wooed the centre, they've gone full tilt into neo-liberal mode, and become Tory-lite.

If you want that, fine. But I think a lot of people had despaired about Labour being Tory-lite. It's quite possible that Corbyn will crash and burn, and Labour will revert to neo-liberalism. Then we will be like the US, with two parties who are both right-wing.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone

Your phrase 'to a certain sort of ego' is very fucking insulting. Blairite rhetoric, I suppose.
You are very easily insulted - don't go into politics.

I am not a Blairite. But Labour will not win a general election under Corbyn, and anyone who goes along with the current mass hysteria surrounding him is putting their own needs for emotional comfort before the needs of people in this country who will be literally starved to death by the Tories, while armchair lefties arse around trying to be more doctrinally pure than everyone else.
Is it really so difficult to understand that many people do not want a right wing government. And therefore do not want a right wing Labour party.
Yeah, kinda is, actually. As a Tory, this is all popcorn for me, but I'm still confused by the logic. Labour tacked to the left and lost. And lost again. And lost again. Now, if you think that tackling stuff like poverty is something the government should spend a lot of time solving, and if you think that your political opponents are the sort of folk who create poverty rather than reduce it, why would you put yourself in a place where you make yourself unelectable and keep your supposedly evil opponents in government, with their hands on the levers of power?

On this logic, might one not say that one has built one's ideological purity on the backs of the poor?

By embracing policys that create poverty rather than reduce it?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Policies that starve the poor - that is the neo-neo-liberal position. Starve the poor and enrich the rich.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Those kind of statements will, of course, not win votes from the middle ground.

Labour will need to explain, how, not just that - they will grow the economy.

Austerity is easy to explain, we have less money so spend less money. Its simplicity hides the underlying problem, about trying to grow whilst cutting. And that neither the economy nor money are fixed resources etc etc.

But we need clear explanations of why we think specific policies will work. Likewise we need to argue with the faulty logic of austerity.

And this applies to all policy areas - slogans are not enough.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In what respect did the Tories move leftwards between Iain Duncan Smith and 2010?
they replaced a borderline caricature of a 1950s hard-liner with firstly a get-a-grip-and-stop-the-rot leader (Howard) and then a much younger Tory leader who not only dropped the party's opposition to Gay marriage, but put in a manifesto commitment to examine how to equalise marriage (and then went further and legislated for it), ringfenced international aid, ringfenced the budgets of departments that people actually cared about, more women and ethnic minority MPs.

To be honest I'm struggling to recall IDS' policies. Google isn't much help* but does suggest he oscillated between 'we care about social justice and aren't the nasty party any more' and hardline 'tallyho hang and flog the asylum seekers'.

So going from memory**:

Spending - Mr Hague made a vague pledge to cut tax and spending by a number that according to Mr Blair was insignificant enough to fall within the margin of error on Treasury accounts. Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne came into power on an explicit pledge to slash public spending as much as possible and to keep state spending down even once the economy is in good health.

Education - I remember Mr Hague and/or IDS wanted to abolish LEA's - though Mr Gove hasn't quite done that, he has circumvented them as much as possible via academies. Would IDS have raised tuition fees to £9,000 a year, though? Would he have cut EMA for sixth-formers?

Europe - Mr Hague was obsessed with keeping the pound - Mr Cameron doesn't need to bang on about this because the question is basically settled. I vaguely recall either Mr Hague, IDS and/or Mr Howard promising to fly out to Brussels to renegotiate various treaties - very much like Mr Cameron - but did any of them explicitly promise an in-out referendum?

(Granted this isn't necessarily a left/right issue but it is one where public concern has moved to match Tory euro-headbanging rather than the other way round.)

Health - I understand Mr Mitchell's plan was essentially a continuation of one of Mr Major's government's ideas that they never had time to implement. I don't think Mr Hague or IDS produced anything comparable, but if they did I don't think it was on the right of Mr Mitchell. (In fact I don't think they had any coherent ideas on health at all, despite those 'you've paid the tax so where is my whatever' posters.)

I will accept ringfencing of NHS funding but I also think this is a slightly misleading pledge given that related budgets such as social care have not been protected - meaning that in effect NHS cash is being diverted to fix problems that should have been fixed out of other budgets.

Foreign policy - IDS wanted war on Iraq. Mr Cameron wanted war on Libya (and got it) and Syria (which he didn't). I'll give you international development but this is such a tiny fraction of the budget that I would see it mostly as tokenism.

Equality - I'll give you the greater diversity of MPs. I don't think gay marriage was on anyone's agenda in IDS' time but I do recall he supported civil partnerships (in fact I vaguely recall there was briefly a period when the Tories were ahead of Labour in this respect).

* Google seems to think that if I'm searching for information about a current public figure I must want to know what he said yesterday regardless of what search terms I use.

** So this may be full of inaccuracies but if a policy has stuck in my mind that suggests it's where they wanted to position themselves.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
You mention the people he mixed with in the 1970s, to whom are you referring ?

In the early 1970s, the North London Polytechnic was repeatedly and unpredictably being closed down by politically activist student militants, disrupting the education of ordinary students doing sandwich courses, on day release etc. Very often these were young people who would have travelled long distances to get there, only to find when they arrived that their classes had been shut down by others who were using political organisation to bully them. Those responsible claimed that they were acting in the interests of democracy because their caucus was what truly represented the people, and they decided what was democratic and what wasn't.

This is not the same dispute as the one there in the mid eighties.

It's this sort of history that underlies David Blunkett's recent warning about the risk that the new regime, with its backing in the party but not Westminster, might seek to manage its MPs by manipulating moves to get constituency parties to deselect MPs who don't toe the line.

It's a tradition that sees the true democratic mandate as lying in the party, not in the electorate.

[ 14. September 2015, 21:34: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

(From the other thread)

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In what way do you think the social and economic structure of the UK is similar to Greece ?

It isn't. That's the point.

The point being that our economy will get to their level of shambolic, if John McDonnell gets his hands on it. I mean John McDonnell? Does the nation really want probably the most important job in the country, that can dramatically affect everyone else's lives, being given to an economic extremist lightweight, an IRA supporter (“bravery of the IRA”) whose interests run to “generally fermenting [sic] the overthrow of capitalism”?

Listening to the actually talented Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn repeatedly refuse to endorse his own Shadow Chancellor on the radio says it all.

I get a sick feeling to think Corbyn and McDonnell could be running the UK economy. I get seriously worried. Because it won't be the rich who'll suffer most when the economy falls off a cliff. It will be the ones who are least well off.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I can find nothing on the web about it, only the Harrington affair in the eighties.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?

Since it's very unlikely that there's ever going to be a 100% fit between a party's programme and what you, me or any other elector would actually like to see, that's a compromise we all have to make.

Besides, something you political enthusiasts don't understand is that us ordinary electors assess parties and administrations primarily on how competent we think they will be or have been at the basic job of running the country. If they can get on with that without messing our lives up, then we feel we've a great deal to be thankful for.

We don't want to live in interesting times. Other things are more important to us. In this, I believe that our hearts are in the right place, and the political enthusiasts' hearts are not.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Well all I can find in some questions in Hansard about a cleaners strike over asbestos: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1977/jan/17/north-east-london-polytechnic

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
(From the other thread)

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In what way do you think the social and economic structure of the UK is similar to Greece ?

It isn't. That's the point.

The point being that our economy will get to their level of shambolic, if John McDonnell gets his hands on it. I mean John McDonnell? Does the nation really want probably the most important job in the country, that can dramatically affect everyone else's lives, being given to an economic extremist lightweight, an IRA supporter (“bravery of the IRA”) whose interests run to “generally fermenting [sic] the overthrow of capitalism”?

Listening to the actually talented Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn repeatedly refuse to endorse his own Shadow Chancellor on the radio says it all.

I get a sick feeling to think Corbyn and McDonnell could be running the UK economy. I get seriously worried. Because it won't be the rich who'll suffer most when the economy falls off a cliff. It will be the ones who are least well off.

You think the entire public service will start taking bribes and no one will pay taxes ? That the retirement age will be cut to 55 ?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I can find nothing on the web about it, only the Harrington affair in the eighties.

There may well not be. There was a lot of student disruption in those days and if reported, it would have only been middle pages stuff.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?
Since it's very unlikely that there's ever going to be a 100% fit between a party's programme and what you, me or any other elector would actually like to see, that's a compromise we all have to make.

Besides, something you political enthusiasts don't understand is that us ordinary electors assess parties and administrations primarily on how competent we think they will be or have been at the basic job of running the country. If they can get on with that without messing our lives up, then we feel we've a great deal to be thankful for.

We don't want to live in interesting times. Other things are more important to us. In this, I believe that our hearts are in the right place, and the political enthusiasts' hearts are not.

I don't think the tories are doing a decent basic job of running the country. Neither by my values or theirs. They said the budget would be in balance by here, no here, no here, no another 5 years. They said net migration would come down - it is at a historical peak. I could go on.

Meanwhile, it made the national news the other day when a trust couldn't find an adult mental health bed in the whole of England. Hundreds of thousands of people are using food banks. In the midst of a massive economic shitstorm, we still can't recruit enough nurses because the government failed to plan the training regime properly. I could go on.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, but the pragmatism in this context means neo-liberal policies, and cuddling up to big business, and trying not to upset them. Why else did the 3 other candidates abstain on the Tory Benefits Bill?

According to Tom Watson, because there were two or three policies buried in there that Labour actually supports, and they didn't want Osborne sneering at them that they'd voted against them for the next five years.
So there was some sort of reason there. Whether it was a sound reason is another matter.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I can find nothing on the web about it, only the Harrington affair in the eighties.
There may well not be. There was a lot of student disruption in those days and if reported, it would have only been middle pages stuff.

Assuming your characterisation of what went on is correct, we know Corbyn was involved because ?

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?
Since it's very unlikely that there's ever going to be a 100% fit between a party's programme and what you, me or any other elector would actually like to see, that's a compromise we all have to make.

Besides, something you political enthusiasts don't understand is that us ordinary electors assess parties and administrations primarily on how competent we think they will be or have been at the basic job of running the country. If they can get on with that without messing our lives up, then we feel we've a great deal to be thankful for.

We don't want to live in interesting times. Other things are more important to us. In this, I believe that our hearts are in the right place, and the political enthusiasts' hearts are not.
I don't think the tories are doing a decent basic job of running the country. Neither by my values or theirs. They said the budget would be in balance by here, no here, no here, no another 5 years. They said net migration would come down - it is at a historical peak. I could go on.

Meanwhile, it made the national news the other day when a trust couldn't find an adult mental health bed in the whole of England. Hundreds of thousands of people are using food banks. In the midst of a massive economic shitstorm, we still can't recruit enough nurses because the government failed to plan the training regime properly. I could go on.

The Blair/Brown governments don't seem so terrible now, eh?

[ 14. September 2015, 22:14: Message edited by: Touchstone ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think the tories are doing a decent basic job of running the country. ...

Nor do I, but that isn't what this thread is about.

If you tell me that somebody else's snake oil doesn't work, then even if that's true, it's no reason why I should think your snake oil does work.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I always rather liked Gordon Brown, Basically I think its a shame we lost John Smith though.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think the tories are doing a decent basic job of running the country. ...
Nor do I, but that isn't what this thread is about.

If you tell me that somebody else's snake oil doesn't work, then even if that's true, it's no reason why I should think your snake oil does work.

Of course, but you were earlier implying that they were.

I've yet to see a coherent argument on this thread as to why some of the economic policy ideas raised during Corbyn's campaign wouldn't work though.

[ 14. September 2015, 22:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?

Good luck with finding any party with policies you are completely in agreement with. That's never happened to me. If policies determine your choice (rather than party loyalty) you have to go for "best fit" - which is always a compromise.

I think the evidence is that something like three quarters of the electorate vote for reasons of party loyalty, regardless of policy. It's floating voters who determine outcome (that plus apathy amongst those who lose enthusiasm for their normal party of choice and just stay away).

So if you're serious about voting on policy grounds, George, that makes you sound like a potential floating voter to me. Perhaps there are sizeable numbers of floating voters out there who are open to persuasion that Corbynite Labour policies are the answer? Maybe open to education, as Doublethink suggests? I just haven't seen any evidence that that is the case, or sufficiently the case to reverse the move away from Labour.

My old dad would put it more succinctly. However well principled Corbynite Labour policies are, however much they may galvanise the party faithful, in electoral terms they are much more likely to be "pissing against the wind".

[ 14. September 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

George, that makes you sound like a potential floating voter to me. Perhaps there are sizeable numbers of floating voters out there who are open to persuasion that Corbynite Labour policies are the answer? Maybe open to education, as Doublethink suggests? I just haven't seen any evidence that that is the case, or sufficiently the case to reverse the move away from Labour.

From your own reasoning, the fact that the tories won the election (and the SNP won in scotland), 'proves' that there are sufficient floating voters to shift power one way or the other.

If we consider the current media environment where it pays to sound tough on certain policies (like immigration and europe) and where attempting to explain oneself on economic matters is seen as trying to make excuses.

Then it kind of gives lie to the idea that Labour can win by tacking to the centre - after all if the majority of the electorate have been persuaded that punitive policies are the way to go, they are always going to go for the party that is genuinely punitive, rather than the one that promises to only play at being punitive.

So in the scenario where everything goes well, Labour only ever wins if they manage to reshape the debate - something they can't do if they are aping the current position of the Tories with a slight emphasis to the centre.

If there is a big shake up - say the economic starts to shrink next year, or the Cameron succession is botched, or there's a huge bunfight over Europe. In that kind of situation a lot of things change - and Corbyn's successor would have had the benefit of a few years of genuine debate over ideas which are actually fairly popular in this country (such as re-nationalising some utilities and so on).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Unless you're suggesting that many people voted Tory in May because Labour was insufficiently left wing?

Yes. Isn't that obvious?

People were frightened by the economic problems and by immigration, so they voted for the big stick party.

Labour presented themselves as the slightly smaller stick party. Why on earth would anyone have voted for them?

As an imperfect analogy. People went into a pub and found that all that was available was Bud and Bud-lite. Given that choice, what's the point of Bud-lite? Many people would just turn around and decide they're not thirsty. Some would buy the Bud-lite simply because it has a red rose on the glass.

We saw what happened when another drink was offered. In Scotland we had the SNP saying things very different from the Tories, in England UKIP came in offering something different from the Tories. So, if Corbyn comes in and takes Bud-lite off the options and replaces it with a craft beer (I see from Google that Islington is home to a few micro-breweries producing a range of craft beers) he has given people a new choice. OK, so a lot of people would still want a G&T and the new craft beers are no more to their taste than the Bud-lite, or indeed the Bud.

Give people a choice in the ballot box. That way you'll have a better idea of what people want. It may not help Labour get back into government, but IMO it will help Parliament to better represent the people.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I honestly don't understand this position at all. Why would I vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with? Why would anybody?
Good luck with finding any party with policies you are completely in agreement with.

I'm not looking for a party who's policies I completely agree with. I'm asking why I would vote for a party whose policys I don't agree with.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The answer is, you don't. Find someone else to vote for. That's democracy.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

With whose policies you'll only be able to agree in part. Which was my point.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

So in the scenario where everything goes well, Labour only ever wins if they manage to reshape the debate - something they can't do if they are aping the current position of the Tories with a slight emphasis to the centre.

I think this overlooks the fact that the impact of economic globalisation and the power of multinational companies have already reshaped the debate conclusively. National governments don't have the same power over internal economic conditions that they once had. Any reshaping of the political debate, certainly over the next decade, has no option but to work within the new framework created by these realities. If you want to see what idealistic pissing against the wind does, look at Greece.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Humiliating though the analogy may be, there are parallels with the Republican party in the US. It can't win a Presidential election without recovering the centre ground it has lost. But in order to do that, it would have to adopt more moderate, in their eyes more compromised, policies than its WASP grassroots want. So GOP members vote to select candidates who press their preferred (and in their eyes purist) right wing buttons.

I apologize in advance for the digression - although your general sentiment is correct, the idea that the GOP grassroots are WASP is not. The Episcopal Church may once have been the Republican Party at prayer, but that ship set sail a very long time ago. Furthermore, the modern WASP-equivalent "country club Republicans" would be the so-called Republican "establishment," not the grassroots. When people speak of grassroots, they are generally speaking of highly religious, deeply conservative, rural residents that live everywhere other than the wealthy, cosmopolitan metropolises on the coasts.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There's an article by Anthony Lane in the New Yorker which explain Corbyn to Americans.

If your British you may find it amusing or painful. [Smile]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With whose policies you'll only be able to agree in part. Which was my point.

So instead of voting for a party who I mostly agree with I should vote for a party I mostly disagree with? No that really doesn't make any sense.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

People went into a pub and found that all that was available was Bud and Bud-lite. Given that choice, what's the point of Bud-lite? Many people would just turn around and decide they're not thirsty. Some would buy the Bud-lite simply because it has a red rose on the glass.

We saw what happened when another drink was offered. In Scotland we had the SNP saying things very different from the Tories, in England UKIP came in offering something different from the Tories. So, if Corbyn comes in and takes Bud-lite off the options and replaces it with a craft beer (I see from Google that Islington is home to a few micro-breweries producing a range of craft beers) he has given people a new choice. OK, so a lot of people would still want a G&T and the new craft beers are no more to their taste than the Bud-lite, or indeed the Bud.

Give people a choice in the ballot box. That way you'll have a better idea of what people want. It may not help Labour get back into government, but IMO it will help Parliament to better represent the people. [/QB]

To continue the pub analogy, landlords who stock a "dark hoppy craft beer with flavours of bitter chocolate, burnt toast and notes of horse manure" tend to find that that this is a very niche market, and given the choice most people prefer Bud. Which is why most pubs offer something in between, like Carling or John Smith's. (Pun intended)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[response to George Spigot - x-post]

I'm not sure I understand. There is a party where you mostly agree with their policies, and other parties where you mostly disagree with their policies. Is that right?

And, you are wondering about who you should vote for? The obvious answer is the party you mostly agree with.

But, presumably there's some unspecified problem with voting for that party. Perhaps a particular policy you could never vote for that's part of the package of policies which you otherwise basically agree with. Which is a bit of dilemma, I admit.

Your options are, ISTM:
1. Join that party so as to try and influence policy and get the policy you dislike so much changed
2. Look at the other parties who don't hold your disliked policy, and vote for whichever one of them is the best fit to your opinions on the rest of their policies
3. Form a new political party that encompasses your views entirely, and see if enough people agree with you
4. Hold your nose and vote for your prefered party despite the one policy
5. Don't vote

[ 15. September 2015, 06:21: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

The point being that our economy will get to their [the Greeks'] level of shambolic, if John McDonnell gets his hands on it.

I repeat the question from the other thread. Surely the experience of Greece, by the IMF's own admission, demonstrates the failure of austerity measures?

(Unless you mean how they got into the mess in the first place - which was largely due to industrial scale corruption and an absence of basic bookkeeping.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
To continue the pub analogy, landlords who stock a "dark hoppy craft beer with flavours of bitter chocolate, burnt toast and notes of horse manure" tend to find that that this is a very niche market, and given the choice most people prefer Bud. Which is why most pubs offer something in between, like Carling or John Smith's. (Pun intended)

At the moment, we'll have to wait and find out what the new beer on offer is. But, IMO, Carling or John Smiths is only a marginal improvement on Bud. But, then again I went to a friends wedding once and got to the bar to find that the only beer they had was Heiniken (I think - something undrinkable like that) and when I asked about whisky they had Southern Comfort. I left the bar empty handed muttering something about "real ale and single malt whisky" - and a few minutes later spotted one of the bar staff slipping back in with a bottle of Glenmorangie [Big Grin]

If that bar had a craft beer described as "dark hoppy with flavours of bitter chocolate, burnt toast and notes of horse manure" I'd have tried it.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I would also try such a beer - maybe just a half though.

Carling & JS do at least taste vaguely like beer, whereas Bud is just corn-flavoured fizzy pop.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With whose policies you'll only be able to agree in part. Which was my point.
So instead of voting for a party who I mostly agree with I should vote for a party I mostly disagree with? No that really doesn't make any sense.

No, that wasn't what I meant. If you always meant 'mostly agree' rather than 'agree' I misunderstood you. On policies it's always about degrees of agreement. Principles and values are another matter.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

To make things clear. Corbyn looks like he may pull the Labour party away from the right wing. Therefore I'm now likely to vote Labour.

People seem to be saying that this will mean Labour will never win an election and will mean the Conservative party will stay in power.

This seems to suggest that I should either not vote or vote for the Conservatives or another blair style right wing party.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Have you ever thought that maybe most voters don't think like you do?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
The point being that our economy will get to their level of shambolic, if John McDonnell gets his hands on it. I mean John McDonnell? Does the nation really want probably the most important job in the country, that can dramatically affect everyone else's lives, being given to an economic extremist lightweight, an IRA supporter (“bravery of the IRA”) whose interests run to “generally fermenting [sic] the overthrow of capitalism”?

Listening to the actually talented Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn repeatedly refuse to endorse his own Shadow Chancellor on the radio says it all.

I get a sick feeling to think Corbyn and McDonnell could be running the UK economy. I get seriously worried. Because it won't be the rich who'll suffer most when the economy falls off a cliff. It will be the ones who are least well off.

Right. The thing is, as I said on the other thread, this is completely ridiculous.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

There is a massive logic failure here.

Greece's problems in 2010:
Poor productivity
Inefficient tax-collecting system
Widespread economic corruption
Large debt accumulated due to poor governance and A Euro policy run to the benefit of the centre at the expense of the periphery.
Not having its own currency
DEBT OWED TO PRIVATE BANKS

Greece's problems in 2015:
DEBT TAKEN OVER BY EUROZONE COUNTRIES AND IMF
Enforced austerity resulting in an astounding Shrinking of the economy and a deflationary spiral
Less economic corruption and improved tax collection
A Euro policy run to the benefit of the centre at the expense of the periphery.
Mass unemployment.

The thing is, that undeniably, Greece has done an heroic job of achieving austerity as massive social cost and as predicted by anyone who's looked at the data, this made everything far worse.

This from Paul Krugman is a good place to start - just look at the chart to see how neo-liberal thinking is so much a part of the problem.

Now, let us get back to some facts. Between 2003-2008, Britain ran small deficits. There is an argument that the UK could (should?) have been more prudent. But, and this is vital:
1) The effect on the current deficit/debt situation would be negligible.
2) NO one - least of all Cameron/Osborne - were arguing this pre-2008
3) If you compare the national finances of the Conservative government 1979-1997 and Labour 1997-2008, there are very similar (There's an LSE paper on this if you're interested). BUT, The Tories had peak North Sea Oil and privatisation revenues. Whatever the rights and wrongs of privatisation (and for the record, I think some are right and some are wrong) you can only sell them once. If you strip out those two, the management of the public finances by the Tories was appalling.
4) Pre-crisis Britain had the lowest debt/GDP ratio in the G7
5) Pre-crisis Britain has a lower debt/GDP ratio than in 1997.

I'm gonna stop now there is so much more to be said about this but there is something vital that will be the most important factor over the next few years: Corbyn's economic position is not radical, Osborne's is.

Let me explain: As Simon Wren-Lewis (Oxford economics professor) has pointed out. Corbyn's anti-austerity position is mainstream macro economics - much in line with the overall consensus of economists* Moreover if you read Martin Wolf (Senior economic reporter for the FT) he is unbelievably critical of Osborne. Not least because, as he points, out the UK economy is far weaker in 2015 than it was in 2010.

Osborne's 'expansionary contraction' is the radical position and its this that turned Greece's 2010 crisis into an absolute disaster.

The next few years are going to be interesting. The UK economy is gonna to slow and possibly go into recession. I say this because of the fiscal tightening done again this year, falling exports, China slowing and our overall weak position.

The Tories are going to be very divided over Cameron's ridiculous EU referendum.

The key is, in this crisis moment, will Labour cut-through? Will they be able to communicate the simple fact that you cannot cut your way to prosperity? It is only by investing.

I really don't know the answer to this. I think that there is a huge battle with the mainstream media and the false economic narratives that they've been peddling for the past 5 years. What Simon Wren-Lewis calls Mediamacro

BTW, Wren-Lewis has given fair analysis of Corbyn's economic policies (from his leadership campaign) pointing out strengths and weaknesses.

For me, I think what Corbyn needs to do is appoint a high-profile and well credentialed economic adviser (like Paul Krugman) and use that to take down Osborne's myths. It is a big argument to win - the received wisdom is very well established. However, I think, over time it is very achievable as the data is all there and Krugman, Stiglitz, Wren-Lewis etc. have been writing blogs and articles for sometime that are very accessible.

Corbyn wasn't my first choice but then no-one was. Time will tell.

AFZ

*Don't confuse and 'economist' with a 'city economist'

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Have you ever thought that maybe most voters don't think like you do?

Yes.

Sorry. It's probably me. I think I must be talking at completely cross purposes or I'm just very bad at explaining myself.

[ 15. September 2015, 07:57: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I found this interesting.

Guardian piece about Corbin being an opposition leader.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Have you ever thought that maybe most voters don't think like you do?
Yes.

Sorry. It's probably me. I think I must be talking at completely cross purposes or I'm just very bad at explaining myself.

Probably not.

There are a lot of people like you George who will come back to voting Labour under Corbyn.

However in terms of electoral success this is probably not the key:

In some marginals, the non-voters voting Labour could be enough to win but it's unlikely. (No more unlikely than the SNP Tsunami to be fair but...)

In most marginals Labour must win votes from the Tories - the conventional wisdom is that Corbyn will not be able to do this.

I don't think the conventional wisdom is right because there is a huge argument to be won on economics.

So I think it CAN be done.

Whether it will be done? Honestly, if you forced me to give an answer I would say no.

But - and I am a Labour party member who didn't vote Corbyn - I am gonna bloody try. We have a case to make and it's vital to do so. In the middle of this term in office the Tories will have a crisis and we need to be ready - making the arguments now and then to try to cut through.

AFZ

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFZ

I think the wheels came off classic Keynesian economics because in general governments followed the ideas in the down cycle but not in the up cycle. But I agree the economic argument that Osborne levels of austerity will probably be counter productive.

I read Corbyn to be arguing both anti-austerity and more progressive taxation (take more from the rich and from business to alleviate poverty). The rubber hits the road on the latter if the policies persuade e.g. Nissan to move production away from Sunderland and out of the UK. That's the sort of reality globalisation and multinational behaviour compel political parties to take note of these days.

There is a lot to be said in favour of appointing an economically literate adviser. Would the new Shadow Chancellor listen? Perhaps his current public image disguises his real worth? I guess we're going to find out.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

So in the scenario where everything goes well, Labour only ever wins if they manage to reshape the debate - something they can't do if they are aping the current position of the Tories with a slight emphasis to the centre.
I think this overlooks the fact that the impact of economic globalisation and the power of multinational companies have already reshaped the debate conclusively. National governments don't have the same power over internal economic conditions that they once had. Any reshaping of the political debate, certainly over the next decade, has no option but to work within the new framework created by these realities. If you want to see what idealistic pissing against the wind does, look at Greece.

I think you are shifting the goalposts slightly here - after all, Syriza actually came to power [and your original post was on whether JC could win an election - for the record I don't think he can either, but then I'm not sure he'll actually contest one]

I think you are also misunderstanding the sorts of shifts I am referring to - the problems facing the UK aren't the same as that of a bankrupt country without it's own currency trying to face down ordo-liberalism. Whilst there is consensus on a lot of things globally, there is also a particularly UK (and European) centric focus on immediate deficit reduction which isn't reflected elsewhere (the US running a far loose monetary policy as an example).

Neo-liberalism isn't an absolute constraint either - the 'markets' are generally very much against the UK leaving the EU - yet the media reflects the opinion that this is perfectly possible politically.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Barnabas,

I completely agree. Which is why I'm a little to the right of Corbyn.

I think your point about Keynesian economics has been misunderstood to mean 'Keynes was wrong' when what it actually means is that governments took economic theories to mean what they wanted it to mean in order to do what they wanted.

I happen to think that 2008-2015 vindicates the great man somewhat!

Moreover, the realities of a globalised economy have meant that big business hold governments to ransom (which is why we should oppose TTIP*) but I think in the UK, the government can call business's bluff - Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world for a start. Specifically in the case of Nissan, Sunderland is the world's most efficient car factory so I think it's pretty safe for now... YMMV

AFZ

*Free trade can be a force for good but TTIP contains provision for international tribunals above nation legal systems that corporations can use to challenge government decisions they don't like and this is ABHORRENT.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Fair points chris. The Greek throwaway aside is something I now regret!

My main point was the impact of globalisation and multinationals on the conduct of national economic policies. AFZ has made some good general points about Osborne levels of austerity and Doublethink makes a good case for at least trying to reshape the economic debate. I'd like to think that some progress might be made that way. Jeremy Corbyn doesn't look to me, certainly not yet, like the man to lead that. he's having trouble already with his MPs over some of the other flags he's run up the pole.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My thoughts on Mr Corbyn's election as leader? Complicated. I'll watch how he does in his first week or so before forming a judgment.

At the moment I find his selection of MPs for posts in the shadow cabinet disspiriting, particularly the 'soft' jobs-for-the-girls - but then hardly unexpected from someone who thought the problem of sexual harrassment would best be ameliorated by the re-creation of Ladies Only compartments.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@GCabot

No apology required. Your criticism is entirely justified. I should have said GOP grass roots.

I didn't have a very good day yesterday on this thread!

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
AFZ

I think the wheels came off classic Keynesian economics because in general governments followed the ideas in the down cycle but not in the up cycle. But I agree the economic argument that Osborne levels of austerity will probably be counter productive.

I read Corbyn to be arguing both anti-austerity and more progressive taxation (take more from the rich and from business to alleviate poverty). The rubber hits the road on the latter if the policies persuade e.g. Nissan to move production away from Sunderland and out of the UK. That's the sort of reality globalisation and multinational behaviour compel political parties to take note of these days.

There is a lot to be said in favour of appointing an economically literate adviser. Would the new Shadow Chancellor listen? Perhaps his current public image disguises his real worth? I guess we're going to find out.

Barnabus - very much agree with you re how constrained national governments are by global pressures.

I very much am in the same position as AFZ - i.e. have read the same economists and found them time after time convincing and right.

I may well be misunderstanding you, but your comments about following Keynes in the upcyle as well as the downcycle are I think largely based on a myth that even many of the left seem to have bought.

The UK ran only 7 surpluses in the past 50 years and yet our debt has come down as % of GDP massively in that time. Indeed there has even been a paper by the IMF arguing that the cost of deficit reduction is probably larger than the cost of getting our debt down. Lots of countries have enough head room to keep their approach to national debt closer to paying the mortgage through interest only payments.

Put simply, I think Keynes has massively been vindicated over the past 8 years and yet the British public still buy the myth that the deficit is the only indicator that matters.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Put simply, I think Keynes has massively been vindicated over the past 8 years and yet the British public still buy the myth that the deficit is the only indicator that matters.

Precisely. The one thing that makes me positive about Corbyn's Labour is a willingness to argue this point. If he does it well, if it breaks through to the public consciousness then all bets are off and we will see a massive change in the political landscape.

IF.

AFZ

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
hardly unexpected from someone who thought the problem of sexual harrassment would best be ameliorated by the re-creation of Ladies Only compartments.

and from the Corbyn policy website

quote:
Consultation on public transport

Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself.
However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.

I don't see how he said that women only carrages would be the best way to solve the problem

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Put simply, I think Keynes has massively been vindicated over the past 8 years and yet the British public still buy the myth that the deficit is the only indicator that matters.
Precisely. The one thing that makes me positive about Corbyn's Labour is a willingness to argue this point. If he does it well, if it breaks through to the public consciousness then all bets are off and we will see a massive change in the political landscape.

IF.

AFZ

He will have to overcome a bit of human psychology.

It seems that people readily believe misfortune to be the result of wickedness, which must be paid for by suffering punishment. So plagues, defeats, sickness and disasters are seen as judgements on individuals or peoples, who must then suffer. Think Ninevah, think Job. We are deep in this myth. We had it too good, and now we must pay. It's bad economics, but it's great collective psychology. People voted Tory because they promised pain.

Jeremy Corbyn is the liberal preacher to Osborne's repent or be damned. He has to persuade us that God is kind and gracious, that the market does not seek to crush us, but to work through us. He needs to help us enlarge our sense of us.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Luigi

I don't think the upcycle downcycle thing was a myth pre-Thatcher. I'm old enough to remember "you've never had it so good". I think the pre-1980 stats will bear this out, but as always am happy to be proved wrong. Post 1980 deficit stats have more to do with the ascendance of Chicago-school economics (monetarism) and their application. Reducing the deficit and prudence kind of go hand in hand in the public conscience these days.

I think Keynes has indeed been vindicated. It's a tough educational job to move the public perception but there's much to be said for making that aim central to the economic policy platform of Labour in opposition. Because of other baggage, I'm pretty sceptical about Jeremy Corbyn's credibility in leading that battle. But time will tell, I guess.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

And from the US Presidential election thread, while thinking about economic policies, I offer us all this gem from Soror Magna

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna on the President thread:

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
...
I'd nevertheless be interested in a reality-based, non-spin justification for the cruel conduct of the Repblicans.....
Easy peasy - the Republican economic rules are very, very simple. If you want rich people to work harder, you have to give them more money. If you want poor people to work harder, you have to give them less money.

Cross out Republican, insert Tory?

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Barnabus - I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

When you say:

quote:
I don't think the upcycle downcycle thing was a myth pre-Thatcher. I'm old enough to remember "you've never had it so good". I think the pre-1980 stats will bear this out, but as always am happy to be proved wrong. Post 1980 deficit stats have more to do with the ascendance of Chicago-school economics (monetarism) and their application. Reducing the deficit and prudence kind of go hand in hand in the public conscience these days.

I am not clear what you are getting at. Could you explain it in more detail. I don't think the deficit reduction myth was strong pre-1980s or for that matter in the 1980s / 1990s. After all Reagan pushed it right up and it was largely regarded as a non-issue.

My point was that in the last 8 years a myth has grown up based around the deficit.

Also I am not clear what you are getting at re the upcycle and downcycle. Or what you are referring to re the post 1980s deficit stats.

[ 15. September 2015, 15:24: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Lungi

I was agreeing with you about the current deficit myth and reinforcing the understanding that Keynesianism was improperly applied pre 1980. The notion that Keynesianism had failed and governments should go the Chicago way was a different myth. My attempt to clarify clearly didn't work. Ah me, I seem doomed on this thread!

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Barnabus

Thanks - I am clearer! [Smile]

I realise that when trying to cover a great deal of ground and with phrases that mean a number of things to different people, it is very difficult to be all things to all people when writing something.

I am all too aware of how difficult it is to keep to the point and still communicate fully on threads like this. I certainly find it a challenge.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

After Jeremy Corbyn turned up for a service at St Paul's Cathedral today wearing a mis-matched suit, unbuttoned shirt and, according to some reports, took a lunch bag intended for Veterans, I did wonder whether he is actually a Tory mole planted thirty years ago.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

He was in a dark suit and tie, I am not sure why this constitutes a news story.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I did wonder whether he is actually a Tory mole planted thirty years ago.

Glad someone else said that first, I've been thinking it for while. Apparently he stood in "respectful silence" during the national anthem. Does he really need to hand the Daily Wail even more ammunition?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

"according to some reports." - I'd love to know which. I've seen the picture; bloody hell you need to look closely to see his top button isn't done up.

Big, fat, hairy, fucking, deal.

I'm glad to note that he respectfully stood, but did not sing, during the Monarchist Anthem. Appropriate for a Republican; it's what I do if unfortunate enough to be in a place where the damned thing's sung. Do you not think that if he'd sung it, despite his republicanism, he'd have been pilloried for hypocrisy by the same voices currently getting at him for not singing? Course he would! Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Gah. Breath of fresh air if you ask me, much needed change from the conventional, boring, political clones we've had for too long.

[ 15. September 2015, 19:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He was in a dark suit and tie, I am not sure why this constitutes a news story.

He wasn't in one suit: his jacket was dark blue but his trousers appeared to be black. He wore a tie but his top button was undone and the tie hung loose around his neck. Expecting wannabe Prime Ministers to dress properly for formal occasions shouldn't be a big deal, no doubt why it became a news story when he failed to do so.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Hmm, having seen the coverage of the privy council stuff I am guessing the choice of headlines was:

Hypocrite self-confessed republican actually sings GOD SAVE THE QUEEN ! So much for his self-righteous principles !
Or
Corbyn DOES NOT sing the national anthem, how completely disrespectful what do you expect for a self-confessed republican !

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He was in a dark suit and tie, I am not sure why this constitutes a news story.
He wasn't in one suit: his jacket was dark blue but his trousers appeared to be black. He wore a tie but his top button was undone and the tie hung loose around his neck. Expecting wannabe Prime Ministers to dress properly for formal occasions shouldn't be a big deal, no doubt why it became a news story when he failed to do so.

If you judge people solely people by appearances, you become extremely easy to con.

Consider, Corbyn made a special effort to dress more formally for that service - as did the miltary officers attending. Cameron dressed exactly as he always did.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Hmm, having seen the coverage of the privy council stuff I am guessing the choice of headlines was:

Hypocrite self-confessed republican actually sings GOD SAVE THE QUEEN ! So much for his self-righteous principles !
Or
Corbyn DOES NOT sing the national anthem, how completely disrespectful what do you expect for a self-confessed republican !

Exactly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can't believe these pathetic comments about Corbyn's clothes. Good grief, where are we living, when are we living? It's like watching some black and white film with people in spats. Mind-numbing really.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He was in a dark suit and tie, I am not sure why this constitutes a news story.
He wasn't in one suit: his jacket was dark blue but his trousers appeared to be black. He wore a tie but his top button was undone and the tie hung loose around his neck. Expecting wannabe Prime Ministers to dress properly for formal occasions shouldn't be a big deal, no doubt why it became a news story when he failed to do so.

Your original comment of "mismatched suit" and "unbuttoned shirt" made it sound like he turned up looking like he'd just spent the night on a mate's sofa after a fairly alcoholic party. In reality, he looks perfectly respectable in the pictures I've seen.

I'm far more concerned about what politicians seek to do than how they look.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

When I read comments like this, I do think that this country is doomed, if it contains lots of people who worry about matching jackets and trousers and unbuttoned shirts. It's like a kind of intellectual and spiritual arthritis.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't believe these pathetic comments about Corbyn's clothes. Good grief, where are we living, when are we living? It's like watching some black and white film with people in spats. Mind-numbing really.

I know. Depressing innit? Anything to deflect from the real issues facing the country, like people starving to death when they're sanctioned and being declared fit to work days before they die. But, look, top button undone!

I'm not fooled. You're not fooled. I just hope enough of the voting public aren't fooled.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In reality, he looks perfectly respectable in the pictures I've seen.

Well, readers can judge for themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I read comments like this, I do think that this country is doomed

Funnily enough, I rather think the country is doomed if we stop dressing properly.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

You can always trust a man in a nice suit to have your best interests at heart.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

"Just look at his appearance. He's obviously unfit to rule the country" [Roll Eyes]

Prioritys

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, I rather think the country is doomed if we stop dressing properly.

Are you being serious?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Funnily enough, I rather think the country is doomed if we stop dressing properly.
Are you being serious?

Well I think that certain sartorial standards are important, yes.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I couldn't give a toss about his appearance, but when you attend a solemn service to commemorate people who gave their lives to save this country and by extension civilisation, you join in with the ceremonies or you stay away, and that means - at a bare minimum - singing the fracking national anthem. I'm no great monarchist myself, but this was not a place to air his arrested-development polytechnic student political hangups, it a was a place to show some respect for people who did more for this country than he ever has or will.

I was unlikely to vote for Corbyn before, I'm sure as hell not going to now.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[crosspost] So do I, but I would go for clean, apparently undamaged, not indecent, and free of offensive slogans.

[ 15. September 2015, 19:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I couldn't give a toss about his appearance, but when you attend a solemn service to commemorate people who gave their lives to save this country and by extension civilisation, you join in with the ceremonies or you stay away, and that means - at a bare minimum - singing the fracking national anthem. I'm no great monarchist myself, but this was not a place to air his arrested-development polytechnic student political hangups, it a was a place to show some respect for people who did more for this country than he ever has or will.

I was unlikely to vote for Corbyn before, I'm sure as hell not going to now.

Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all. I am not wildly impressed when people wear weapons into a church either.

[ 15. September 2015, 19:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I expect the tabloids tomorrow will be full of unbuttoned shirts and not singing the anthem. I suppose it's symbolic of a cultural divide really.

Hope against depression - I mean, that this obsession with form over content depresses the hell out of me. Parts of British culture are rancid.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Both are entirely appropriate. Fascism wasn't defeated by people quoting the beatitudes at Hitler, and the vast majority of the people being commemorated would have sung "God save the King" with pride.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

It's not an either / or. You can be a good socialist and dress properly. It can be done.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Its a church not a victory parade, there are other places you can do those things. Though possibly this is a debate for a different thread.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's not an either / or. You can be a good socialist and dress properly. It can be done.

Not a terribly recent photo ....

I am guessing you regret the passing of the bowler hat too ? (Though I have to admit I rather like hats and wish people wore them more often.)

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Both are entirely appropriate. Fascism wasn't defeated by people quoting the beatitudes at Hitler,

It was not, but had it been, then we might not have had so many wars since.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's bad enough that our "national" anthem is in fact a monarchist ditty. It's absolutely fucking ridiculous when people get upset about you not singing words that as a republican you cannot possibly mean.

I don't think the monarchists have the slightest idea, nor do I imagine they care, just how offensive it is to be told that your "national" anthem is this rancid little piece of sycophantic jingoistic shite.

Or how much of a compromise and a concession to other people it is to even stand for it.

[ 15. September 2015, 20:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Not a terribly recent photo ....

A little more up to date.

quote:
I am guessing you regret the passing of the bowler hat too ? (Though I have to admit I rather like hats and wish people wore them more often.)

The picture I use for my desktop wallpaper probably answers that question...

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I suspect that your more recent photo is still from before I made it to secondary school !

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

And what a surprise - "Sandwichgate" (please, give me a break) turns out to be bollocks: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/sandwichgate-jeremy-corby_n_8140678.html?utm_hp_ref=jeremy-corbyn

And is anyone surprised that arch-blogknob Guido Fawkes was involved?

It's very telling that people are making up shit and attacking his sartorial style. Very telling.

[ 15. September 2015, 20:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Incidently, when someone states 'unbuttoned shirt' I assume they mean something like this.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I couldn't give a toss about his appearance, but when you attend a solemn service to commemorate people who gave their lives to save this country and by extension civilisation, you join in with the ceremonies or you stay away, and that means - at a bare minimum - singing the fracking national anthem. I'm no great monarchist myself, but this was not a place to air his arrested-development polytechnic student political hangups, it a was a place to show some respect for people who did more for this country than he ever has or will.

I was unlikely to vote for Corbyn before, I'm sure as hell not going to now.

Silence is far more respectful than mouthing along to a sung prayer to a God he doesn't believe in about an institution he does not support. Since when is lying through your teeth an act of respect?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Expecting wannabe Prime Ministers to dress properly for formal occasions shouldn't be a big deal, no doubt why it became a news story when he failed to do so.

Gordon Brown was notorious for turning up to black and white tie dinners in a lounge suit, and he has been Prime Minister.

It's all in aid of making a political point. Neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Corbyn is short of money - both can easily afford to buy the proper clothing, but they seem to see it as some kind of betrayal of socialist principles to wear the posh man's clothes.

And it's a load of claptrap. My "normal attire" is a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. This is what I wear to work, and it's what I usually wear to church. If someone's getting married, I put on a suit, or morning dress (and I button my clothes up properly!) It is only courteous.

Whereas Corbyn, slobbing around with his shirt undone like a fourth-former having a crafty fag behind the bike sheds, is just rude.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

"Slobbing around" is absolutely nothing like how he looked.

Again, making up shit to attack the man. If it hadn't been pointed out, I'd not even have noticed the top button being undone. Have you lot really got nothing more important to be concerned about?

[ 15. September 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Incidently, when someone states 'unbuttoned shirt' I assume they mean something like this.

Yes. And that's the sort of image they're trying to put in your mind. Playing the man instead of the ball.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My "normal attire" is a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. This is what I wear to work, and it's what I usually wear to church. If someone's getting married, I put on a suit, or morning dress (and I button my clothes up properly!) It is only courteous.

Whereas Corbyn, slobbing around with his shirt undone like a fourth-former having a crafty fag behind the bike sheds, is just rude.

Well, some people would say that wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church is rude! But we all have our own standards, and by Mr Corbyn's standards, his outfit for the service was smart. He wasn't Mr Dapper, but he'd made an effort. It looked all right to me, anyway.

BTW, did Mr Corbyn sing any of the 'normal' hymns, or was he silent throughout the whole service?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

My reservations about Jeremy Corbyn are nothing to do with his inappropriately casual attire (it's true that he'd never get into the Members' Enclosure at any racecourse dressed as described) or his attitude to paramilitaries, past and present (which are no better or worse than those of many parliamentarians) but that he has a long record of voting against the Party Line. He gives me no problem on the policy front but it gives the Labour Whips one hell of a job getting the vote out to support a party led by a someone who didn't see party discipline as important when he was a backbencher.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Incidentally, when I got married I tried to make it known I didn't want people to go out of their way to be conventionally "smart" seeing as I had no intention of doing so and would be wearing a weskit and collarless shirt. Most of them did anyway. I didn't find it "courteous" or "discourteous" - it's just clothes. Way too much importance attached to something so meaningless.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Really the answer to comments about Corbyn's appearance ought to be two words: Boris Johnson

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Really the answer to comments about Corbyn's appearance ought to be two words: Boris Johnson

Ah, ah, but he's a lovable buffoon, donchaknow, he doesn't mean any disrespect by it; he's one of us.

Pass the champers, old thing.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The media are so unoriginal. This is just an attempt to rerun the Michael Foot duffel coat story. Here's an extract from the Wiki article.

quote:
The right-wing newspapers nevertheless lambasted him consistently for what they saw as his bohemian eccentricity, attacking him for wearing what they described as a "donkey jacket" (actually he wore a type of duffel coat) at the wreath-laying ceremony at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day in November 1981, for which he was likened to an "out-of-work navvy" by a fellow Labour MP.

[ 15. September 2015, 22:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My reservations about Jeremy Corbyn are ... that he has a long record of voting against the Party Line. He gives me no problem on the policy front but it gives the Labour Whips one hell of a job getting the vote out to support a party led by a someone who didn't see party discipline as important when he was a backbencher.

But, if you're going for developing a consensus within the party, to discuss policy and explain why you think it's the best option, treat your fellow MPs with brains they can use to work out what is the best for their constituents and country rather than sheep to bleat out the soundbites created by party PR gurus and be herded into the right lobby ... well, what need then of whips?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some of these reactions to Corbyn seem so OTT and hysterical, and I puzzle as to what is going on. I suppose there is outrage and fear that someone should not pay homage to the deep snobbery in the British establishment. Well, otherwise I can't understand the bizarre comments. I mean, 'sandwichgate' is amazing really, a complete fabrication in order to smear Corbyn. This comes out of fear, doesn't it?

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Really the answer to comments about Corbyn's appearance ought to be two words: Boris Johnson
Ah, ah, but he's a lovable buffoon, donchaknow, he doesn't mean any disrespect by it; he's one of us.

Pass the champers, old thing.

I would say there is a clear distinction. Boris is pretty much presenting the classic nonchalance of the well-to-do. He keeps enough correct cues to make it obvious that his appearance is not the result of ignorance, but rather the result of a personality that cannot be bothered to hold steadfast to every pedantic rule of fashion. He does not venture so far outside the lines as to create scandal, however.

Corbyn, on the other hand, is either displaying a stunning illiteracy of basic social custom, or is consciously cultivating an image of being defiantly, flagrantly provocative and antagonistic towards the status quo.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, some people would say that wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church is rude!

Yes, of course. And if I go to that kind of church, I dress up.

quote:
But we all have our own standards, and by Mr Corbyn's standards, his outfit for the service was smart.

There are two sets of standards that are important - your own, and the standards of wherever you're going. At my church, for example, there are certain people who are always impeccably dressed. That's their personal standard, and that's fine. These people would no more think of coming to church in a t-shirt than they would think of coming naked. Then there's the standard of my church, which is more or less "come in whatever makes you feel comfortable".

Corbyn may have been smarter than usual, but he still missed the mark. As I said, my usual attire is a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. If I show up to a black tie dinner in a sports jacket, it's still rude, and the fact that any kind of jacket is smarter than my usual style doesn't excuse anything.

At Karl's wedding, he got to dictate the dress standard. His choice was "don't feel you have to 'dress up' in clothes you don't usually wear". That's fine, and apparently most people felt more comfortable dressing up for a wedding anyway. Which, as Karl hadn't said "Don't show up in a tie" was fine.

Being rude and scruffy isn't, on the scale of things, terribly important. As I said earlier, Gordon Brown managed it for a decade and still became Prime Minister. If I was to discuss his successes and failures as a politician, his inappropriate lounge suit wouldn't get a look in.

But the fact that being rude and scruffy is relatively unimportant doesn't make it any less rude.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Really the answer to comments about Corbyn's appearance ought to be two words: Boris Johnson

Funny you should mention him.
Here are Messrs. Johnson and Cameron at the memorial service for the 7/7 victims earlier this year. Cameron looks smart. Johnson is wearing smart clothes.

Here is Boris greeting Mr. Corbyn on the same occasion. Corbyn managed to do his shirt up for this one, although he still didn't manage to wear a suit.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I don't quite know what I make of Jeremy Corbyn. He has some good ideas domestically but takes the whole anti-Imperialist solidarity with unpleasant feckwits thing a bit too far. Being in Scotland, when it comes to anti-austerity leaders 'We've got one already - she's very nice!' to paraphrase Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

But the way the newspapers are losing their collective minds and witch-hunting Corbyn is something else. It reminds me of Project Fear in the independence referendum at its very worst - and we all know how that turned out. They got the No vote, only to find they'd succeeded in immunising 45% of the population (and rising) against the Unionist establishment newspapers and their agenda-setting role in broadcast news. 45% is enough for First Past The Post electoral landslides; the electoral landscape was transformed and hilarity ensued.

Despite the friendly reception Jezza got in Scotland, the polls haven't been tipping. Scottish Labour are so Blairite/ right wing that their leader Kezia Dugdale came out against Corbyn publicly in The Guardian and is now trying to kiss up to him - but no-one believes her, and after Jim Murphy's previous attempt to insincerely wrap himself in the Red Flag, it's not likely to end well.

The crazy attempt to stir up froth about whether JC sings the national anthem or not, just makes me think better of him. This isn't 1981 anymore, there are growing alternative channels for political news and views which can make an end-run round traditional media. Not enough to fully overcome the effect of older voters being more likely to vote and to take their views from traditional media, but enough to make significant changes to electoral behaviour. Corbyn supporters, when analysed demographically, matched the make-up of the general British electorate very closely, except in one thing - they were 25% more likely to get their news and views from social media.

If they can start to close that gap, and find ways to run an effective social media campaign against the newspaper stitch-ups, then they have a chance, but I think they will struggle. The differential turn-out between old and young, digital natives and analogue readers/viewers still looks like too large a gap to me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are two sets of standards that are important - your own, and the standards of wherever you're going. At my church, for example, there are certain people who are always impeccably dressed. That's their personal standard, and that's fine. These people would no more think of coming to church in a t-shirt than they would think of coming naked. Then there's the standard of my church, which is more or less "come in whatever makes you feel comfortable".

Corbyn may have been smarter than usual, but he still missed the mark. As I said, my usual attire is a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. If I show up to a black tie dinner in a sports jacket, it's still rude, and the fact that any kind of jacket is smarter than my usual style doesn't excuse anything.

I don't understand. You say it's okay for people to turn up to church in whatever they feel smart in, but then you say that Corbyn (who was only at church, after all!) 'missed the mark' in the moderately smart outfit that he felt comfortable in.

Whose standards hold sway? Was there in fact a very specific dress code at this event?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Corbyn isn't the Leader of the Opposition in order to be polite, but to lead the opposition. Of course everyone including him should obey good manners, but I am rather afraid that the traditional media will concentrate on all manner of apparent faux pas rather than the meat and drink of his politics. This ridiculous storm about his not singing the National Anthem is probably just the start of it. At least he chose not to sing it, unlike a large number of sportspeople who seem incapable of singing at all.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I don't quite know what I make of Jeremy Corbyn. He has some good ideas domestically but takes the whole anti-Imperialist solidarity with unpleasant feckwits thing a bit too far.

Which seems a fair summary to me.

He seems to have a natural inclination to stand with the underdog, the marginalised, the oppressed. Domestically that will do him well. But, internationally there is an unfortunate tendency for the people who claim to represent marginalised and oppressed communities to be unpleasant (there are of course lots of exceptions). I want to see him continue to stand with those in need, but probably use a bit more nous in which organisations he's seen to support. Although, if he's sincere in seeking to use his influence as Leader of the Opposition to encourage dialogue to reach peaceful resolution of conflicts I can't see how that can happen without talking to, and being outwardly friendly towards, the extremists on all sides of the conflicts as well as the more moderate voices.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It has to be remembered that there is a difference between talking to and supporting. Corbyn has talked to terrorists, he does not support their actions. He's basically a hipster diplomat - he was talking to the IRA before it was cool; now he's ahead of the curve again talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It has to be remembered that there is a difference between talking to and supporting.

Which is a true and important distinction. But, unfortunately, one that can be conveniently forgotten by newspaper editors looking for more "loony left" headlines.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It has to be remembered that there is a difference between talking to and supporting.

But I don't think it surprising if people think comments like

quote:
It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.
John McDonnell

and

quote:
Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.
John McDonnell

sound an awful lot like "supporting".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

First off, neither quote is from Corbyn. Second, I suspect there is some context missing:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/what-did-jeremy-corbyn-s-new-shadow-chancellor-really-say-about-ira

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
First off, neither quote is from Corbyn. Second, I suspect there is some context missing:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/what-did-jeremy-corbyn-s-new-shadow-chancellor-really-say-about-ira

Wow (to the link), not to you. I had, thanks to the press we have in this country, assumed there was going to be some context missing or selective quoting....

If the Staggers is right there, then his clarifications in fact clarify that he meant what he said.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Yes, neither quote is from Corbyn - that's why I made it clear who was being quoted. McDonnell is, however, the person Corbyn has appointed to a very senior post within his shadow cabinet, so has relevance here.

And I don't think the New Statesman provides much 'context' to make people change their view of the quotes. It just makes it sound as though McDonnell is happy to say that "we" (ie, including himself) should honour members of the IRA, but when challenged on it, changes tune to make it "they" might honour the IRA.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It has to be remembered that there is a difference between talking to and supporting. Corbyn has talked to terrorists, he does not support their actions. He's basically a hipster diplomat - he was talking to the IRA before it was cool; now he's ahead of the curve again talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.

'Hipster diplomat' did make me chuckle. It's an odd kind of diplomacy when he only ever talks to one side.

Or perhaps he has spent hours talking to the Ulster Volunteer Force and Israeli settlers but thinks it's uncool to publicise it.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all.

Well, in England the official state religion is the Church of England and the Queen is the head of that church. I should think it quite appropriate.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I couldn't give a toss about his appearance, but when you attend a solemn service to commemorate people who gave their lives to save this country and by extension civilisation, you join in with the ceremonies or you stay away, and that means - at a bare minimum - singing the fracking national anthem. I'm no great monarchist myself, but this was not a place to air his arrested-development polytechnic student political hangups, it a was a place to show some respect for people who did more for this country than he ever has or will.

I was unlikely to vote for Corbyn before, I'm sure as hell not going to now.

Have we now reached the point where insincerity is not only expected from our MP'S but people get offended when they don't display it?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I look forward to the day...maybe it will happen this year...maybe next....when people arguing about Corbyn will quote things Corbyn actually said.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all.
Well, in England the official state religion is the Church of England and the Queen is the head of that church. I should think it quite appropriate.

But there are Christians - let alone atheists - who would quibble with all of that. I suspect that some of my more radical Dissenting forebears would have not wished to sing this national anthem, had it been around in their day. But that wouldn't have been evidence of lack of commitment to their nation.

[ 16. September 2015, 07:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Now, let us get back to some facts. Between 2003-2008, Britain ran small deficits.

Wasn't the UK deficit in 2008, at £77.6bn the highest it had ever been to that point, with the deficit 2003-2008 at £295.5n the highest for a six-year period that it had ever been to that point? (source: ONS) Is this a "small" deficit?

***

I find the reaction to Corby's undone top button all rather OTT. On the other hand, with all the 'posh boy' comments thrown at Cameron, I think that many on the left have little high ground to stand on regarding personalising politics.

What interests me more is whether Corbyn had any ambivalence about the whole business of honouring the RAF. Were we right to declare war in 1939 - surely one day we would have to work with Germany, possibly even be partners with them, so should we not have negotiated rather than resort to war. There was no real threat to UK territory, so in Corbyn's assessment, presumably no grounds for deployment of UK troops.

***

I also find myself wondering why the political right-of-centre seems so keen to 'bring down' Jeremy Corbyn - surely that's what the Labour party is for?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all.
Well, in England the official state religion is the Church of England and the Queen is the head of that church. I should think it quite appropriate.

I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

I find the reaction to Corby's undone top button all rather OTT. On the other hand, with all the 'posh boy' comments thrown at Cameron, I think that many on the left have little high ground to stand on regarding personalising politics.

This, basically. I wonder if this goose sauce will do for the gander...?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
What interests me more is whether Corbyn had any ambivalence about the whole business of honouring the RAF. Were we right to declare war in 1939 - surely one day we would have to work with Germany, possibly even be partners with them, so should we not have negotiated rather than resort to war.

We did. "I have in my hand a piece of paper..."

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.

Agreed.

Singing words you don't believe is no different from saying words you don't believe. Why should there be such social pressure to do so?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I look forward to the day...maybe it will happen this year...maybe next....when people arguing about Corbyn will quote things Corbyn actually said.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Most of the attacks on Corbyn seem to consist of quoting his words back at him.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.
Agreed.

Singing words you don't believe is no different from saying words you don't believe. Why should there be such social pressure to do so?

Well quite, except that's not the world we live in.

The world we live in has just put the shadow equalities minister onto the Today Programme who, without any prevarication or attempt to advance arguments such as yours described it as (from memory):

a "mistake", something that he "shouldn't have done," and most unnecessarily and perhaps damningly of all something which will have "upset and offended many people around the country."

All of that was said without being teed up by the interviewer. With friends like these.... I've never heard a minister, shadow or otherwise, be that bluntly critical of their boss.

[ 16. September 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

A political leader with no spin doctors, no dressers, no need for fudge - what a breath of fresh air!

I imagine a lot of young people will find this 'new' way of doing things very refreshing.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A political leader with no spin doctors, no dressers, no need for fudge - what a breath of fresh air!

I imagine a lot of young people will find this 'new' way of doing things very refreshing.

I think both the "this is awesome" and the "this is dreadful" camps would do well to sit back and see what happens.

I'm finding the zealous bright new dawn certainty of both camps a little over the top at the moment.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

I find the reaction to Corby's undone top button all rather OTT. On the other hand, with all the 'posh boy' comments thrown at Cameron, I think that many on the left have little high ground to stand on regarding personalising politics.

This, basically. I wonder if this goose sauce will do for the gander...?

The point of drawing attention to Cameron's "posh boy" status is to point out that he hasn't a clue about the day to day lives of people at the bottom of the societal heap.

The point of the attacks on Corbyn for his clothing here is - erm - to make an attack on him.

There's a difference.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.
Agreed.

Singing words you don't believe is no different from saying words you don't believe. Why should there be such social pressure to do so?
Well quite, except that's not the world we live in.

The world we live in has just put the shadow equalities minister onto the Today Programme who, without any prevarication or attempt to advance arguments such as yours described it as (from memory):

a "mistake", something that he "shouldn't have done," and most unnecessarily and perhaps damningly of all something which will have "upset and offended many people around the country."

All of that was said without being teed up by the interviewer. With friends like these.... I've never heard a minister, shadow or otherwise, be that bluntly critical of their boss.

I heard that. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I thought he talked absolute bollocks.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

I find the reaction to Corby's undone top button all rather OTT. On the other hand, with all the 'posh boy' comments thrown at Cameron, I think that many on the left have little high ground to stand on regarding personalising politics.

This, basically. I wonder if this goose sauce will do for the gander...?
The point of drawing attention to Cameron's "posh boy" status is to point out that he hasn't a clue about the day to day lives of people at the bottom of the societal heap.

The point of the attacks on Corbyn for his clothing here is - erm - to make an attack on him.

There's a difference.

the problem of that is that it's all opinion. It's grandstanding which suits the accuser to think they *know* therefore their's is alright. The others don't *know* so their's isn't.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.
Agreed.

Singing words you don't believe is no different from saying words you don't believe. Why should there be such social pressure to do so?
Well quite, except that's not the world we live in.

The world we live in has just put the shadow equalities minister onto the Today Programme who, without any prevarication or attempt to advance arguments such as yours described it as (from memory):

a "mistake", something that he "shouldn't have done," and most unnecessarily and perhaps damningly of all something which will have "upset and offended many people around the country."

All of that was said without being teed up by the interviewer. With friends like these.... I've never heard a minister, shadow or otherwise, be that bluntly critical of their boss.
I heard that. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I thought he talked absolute bollocks.

Fair enough - it's not how I thought *she* came across though...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Apparently George Galloway has just told LBC radio that he would've sung the national anthem in those circumstances. Perhaps he's just a Tory sell-out?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I wouldn't sing it either.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to a day when neither of those are true; until then I'll make do with refusing to sing the Monarchist Anthem.
Agreed.

Singing words you don't believe is no different from saying words you don't believe. Why should there be such social pressure to do so?
Well quite, except that's not the world we live in.

The world we live in has just put the shadow equalities minister onto the Today Programme who, without any prevarication or attempt to advance arguments such as yours described it as (from memory):

a "mistake", something that he "shouldn't have done," and most unnecessarily and perhaps damningly of all something which will have "upset and offended many people around the country."

All of that was said without being teed up by the interviewer. With friends like these.... I've never heard a minister, shadow or otherwise, be that bluntly critical of their boss.
I heard that. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I thought he talked absolute bollocks.
Fair enough - it's not how I thought *she* came across though...

The person I heard was a bloke. Probably a different interview. Same line though.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Apparently George Galloway has just told LBC radio that he would've sung the national anthem in those circumstances. Perhaps he's just a Tory sell-out?

Not doing what George Galloway would have done is generally considered sage advice, isn't it?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Now, let us get back to some facts. Between 2003-2008, Britain ran small deficits.
Wasn't the UK deficit in 2008, at £77.6bn the highest it had ever been to that point, with the deficit 2003-2008 at £295.5n the highest for a six-year period that it had ever been to that point? (source: ONS) Is this a "small" deficit?

***

Um, no.
Try this link (ONS data but laid out much better than the ONS ever does).

Please note the first chart. Public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP lower in 2008 than 1997.

There's a lot more to be said about these data and am happy to discuss but maybe not on this thread.

Talking about raw numbers is usually meaningless - except when being used to scare people. Debt/deficit as a percentage of GDP is the important statistic.

The confusion probably comes from financial year vs calendar year. I meant 2002-3 - 2007-8 i.e. pre-crisis. By the end of 2008 things were beginning to change. Anyway the point is that in terms of the government finances Britain was not badly placed pre-crisis despite what some people desperately need you to believe. I apologise for not being totally specific there.

What was a problem then is how unbalanced our economy was. If you listen to Osborne he's solved this problem. If you look at the data, the opposite is true and the fundamentals of our economy are worse.

AFZ

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

One of Tony Blair's nicknames during his PM time was "Teflon Tony". Which recognised the inability of the opposition at the time to launch an effective political attack.

Now political attacks can be either "play the ball" or "play the man". In these early Corbyn days, we are seeing some pretty concerted politican denigration of Jeremy Corbyn, both by "play the ball" and "play the man".

It's been part of his appeal that he doesn't go in for spin-type professional news management. He's not going to go looking for an Alistair Campbell to look after his image, advise him on presentational issues. Some folks find that refreshing.

What we are beginning to see - and I expect we'll see a lot more of it - is that refusing to acknowledge the need for help with presentation and image will make Corbyn very vulnerable to concerted political attack. I suppose there may be some kind of public backlash to this on the grounds of "for goodness sake, give the man a chance". There will be some sympathy and that will help. But if he continues to trip over his feet in public - or give the media grounds for telling stories along these lines - it will do lasting damage to his credibility as a future leader, even with those who are prepared to "give the man a chance".

Whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it), the ability to play the image game is an important attribute in modern political life. Something JC is either going to have to learn fast, or take the smothering consequences if he doesn't want to play the game.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

I thought that Corbyn's tendency to remain silent would hurt his career as Labour leader - I didn't realise it would happen so soon. (I was thinking of his statement that he won't respond to personal attacks.)

It's funny what people read into what people wear and when people are silent. A lot of people seem to be saying that his choices mean that he disrespects veterans of the Second World War. Never mind that he said, afterwards:

“My mum served as an air raid warden and my dad in the Home Guard.

Like that whole generation, they showed tremendous courage and determination to defeat fascism. The heroism of the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain is something to which we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude.

The loss of life - both civilian and military - should be commemorated so that we both honour their lives and do all that we can to ensure future generations are spared the horrors of war.” (source)

None of that matters: he had a button undone and apparently wore a jacket that was a slightly different colour from his trousers. This PROVES that he hates war veterans and Britain and the Queen and kittens and puppies!

Was it just me, or were the lock-step personal attacks against Corbyn on most newspaper front pages slightly creepy? They reminded me of the Daily Mail's famous attack on Ed Miliband, when they called his father "The Man Who Hated Britain". An attack described in these terms:-

"The Mail managed to offend against taste and decency on multiple counts - attacking a man for his deceased father's views, misrepresenting those views, attacking a Jew, attacking a refugee from Hitler."

Who said that? Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph and biographer of Margaret Thatcher (source). For me, that kind of personal attack is more of an offence against taste and decency than wearing a slightly mismatched suit and having one button undone. It's nice for me, as a leftie, to see that there are decent, principled conservatives who see such attacks as tasteless.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Corbyn was bound to come up against the snobbery and intolerance which exists in this country. On the other hand, it's precisely not having a spin doctor which is part of his appeal.

For people like me, it's so refreshing to see a political leader who is not running scared of 'image', yet also, I can see that some people are appalled by this. I doubt if they would vote for him anyway!

I just don't want him to fake stuff. But I suppose politicians are expected to, and this has made some people despair. It's a fascinating clash of cultures.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of Tony Blair's nicknames during his PM time was "Teflon Tony". Which recognised the inability of the opposition at the time to launch an effective political attack.

Now political attacks can be either "play the ball" or "play the man". In these early Corbyn days, we are seeing some pretty concerted politican denigration of Jeremy Corbyn, both by "play the ball" and "play the man".

It's been part of his appeal that he doesn't go in for spin-type professional news management. He's not going to go looking for an Alistair Campbell to look after his image, advise him on presentational issues. Some folks find that refreshing.

What we are beginning to see - and I expect we'll see a lot more of it - is that refusing to acknowledge the need for help with presentation and image will make Corbyn very vulnerable to concerted political attack. I suppose there may be some kind of public backlash to this on the grounds of "for goodness sake, give the man a chance". There will be some sympathy and that will help. But if he continues to trip over his feet in public - or give the media grounds for telling stories along these lines - it will do lasting damage to his credibility as a future leader, even with those who are prepared to "give the man a chance".

Whether we like it or not (and I don't particularly like it), the ability to play the image game is an important attribute in modern political life. Something JC is either going to have to learn fast, or take the smothering consequences if he doesn't want to play the game.

Exactly. Many felt his refreshing honesty would just answer these attacks. But IMV the most astute commentators pointed out that without incredibly strong presentational skills / team, Corbyn will just spend his whole time trying to defend himself from the endless onslaught with little chance to get on to the front foot - either to attack the Government or present new policy ideas

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.

But, the problem is, you're not the media - and what you or I don't see isn't the same as what they see or don't see.

What has been absolutely fascinating in the past 72 hours or so, has been the extent to which the media is indeed in lock-step.

The Murdoch papers you'd expect it from, also the Mail and Express. But this is practically everyone. The BBC, even the Guardian and Independent are joining in. I've never seen anything like it. About the only paper with any circulation worth talking about (so stand fast the Morning Star) that is doing cartwheels of unequivocal joy is the Daily Mirror.

The most fascinating to watch over the coming weeks and months will I think be the Scottish press. The SNP are going to have to play a really interesting game to defend their left flank while perhaps (I don't know how it will pan out) trying not to attack him too much given they spent the last GE campaign trying to be the voice of "proper Labour."

I thought Nicola Sturgeon's comment at the weekend that Corbyn going too far to the left being another argument for Independence was a really interesting observation about the sort of tensions that might now come to the surface within the SNP.

It's certainly interesting times, if nothing else.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure about that 'even' the Guardian and the Indie. The Guardian was one of the most hostile media during the leadership campaign.

If he didn't expect the whole media to be hostile, then he's not the man I take him for.

But Corbyn has found such a response recently, precisely because he does't have a spin doctor, and he speaks as himself. People are tired of political fakery.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about that 'even' the Guardian and the Indie. The Guardian was one of the most hostile media during the leadership campaign.

If he didn't expect the whole media to be hostile, then he's not the man I take him for.

But Corbyn has found such a response recently, precisely because he does't have a spin doctor, and he speaks as himself. People are tired of political fakery.

He might well be. However, Owen Jones in the Graun this morning is I think mostly right that it isn't going to be enough without a media strategy.

In the best of all possible worlds it is just barely theoretically possible to win without winning over a single Conservative voter.

However, back in the real world, 4m people just voted for UKIP and many of those are traditional northern Labour voters who might not really "do" social media...

I've also seen some figures, and if someone can find them before I can I'd be very grateful (because I can't find them) but I think it was politicalbetting, that suggest that thanks to the marginals and the constituency boundaries in reality for Labour to get a majority they're going to have to take 4 in 5 of the necessary votes from the Conservatives.

The echo chamber approach of self-reinforcing social media is spectacularly unlikely to help with this.

[ 16. September 2015, 09:47: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.

Quetzal - I don't think there is much to answer either. I am merely saying that he will find it very hard to move on whilst the right wing press are setting the agenda.

Take the example of the SNP dictating policy to Labour in the last election. There was very little substance to it - and it could be easily countered and the holes in the assumptions were pointed out. However, it dominated the news for many days and no matter how hard Labour tried they struggled to move the debate on.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Well, it's PMQs today isn't it. So we can all watch that and have a meltdown over what he wears, or we can see how he actually gets on in terms of questions.

He seems to have opened the floor for people to choose questions for him to ask. Predictably, hilarity ensues on Twitter, but I don't think he'll choose to ask about the PMs favourite cheese, or whether he'll vote for Ainsley Harriot on Strictly Come Dancing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Sure. I noticed this morning a series of posts on social media from the Corbyn team, but also, he's only been in post for 4 days!

I think it's going to be very interesting also, as to whether someone can buck the trend of politicians being fake, and be popular.

I don't know. He has certainly succeeded thus far by eschewing spin. The media are doing their fake outrage thing, but the test will be whether his momentum continues.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

If he didn't expect the whole media to be hostile, then he's not the man I take him for.

But Corbyn has found such a response recently, precisely because he does't have a spin doctor, and he speaks as himself. People are tired of political fakery.

To borrow from Louise, his actions in not singing make him look like a bit of a "feckwit", regardless of what they show of his fearless sincerity. The feckwittedness is in causing gratuitous offence, for no very good reason, to people whose support you're going to need if you want to be PM. Why do it? What was the point of doing it?

And if it was done without thought, that's even worse. He's a public figure now, in the "goldfish bowl".

He's already got the support of those who are cheering him. Keeping that support should not be his immediate concern. So it's not the expected hostility of the media which is the issue, it is risking losing the respect of those who might have been prepared to give him a chance. He played right into the hands of the media hostility and probably upset a fair few people of moderate views as well. A double own goal.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.
Quetzal - I don't think there is much to answer either. I am merely saying that he will find it very hard to move on whilst the right wing press are setting the agenda.

The problem is it's not "the right wing press" - it's every media outlet with the exception of the Mirror, the Star, the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker. The BBC, Guardian, Observer and Independent are pushing (to a greater or lesser extent) variations on the same line as the Sun, Mail, and Express, Times, Telegraph and Sky.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.
Quetzal - I don't think there is much to answer either. I am merely saying that he will find it very hard to move on whilst the right wing press are setting the agenda.

Take the example of the SNP dictating policy to Labour in the last election. There was very little substance to it - and it could be easily countered and the holes in the assumptions were pointed out. However, it dominated the news for many days and no matter how hard Labour tried they struggled to move the debate on.

But wasn't that because Labour were being coy? I mean, they didn't actually take such issues head-on, but ducked them. I couldn't believe how timid the Miliband team were, as if opposing the Tories was bad manners.

If Corbyn is as coy as this, then sure, there is no point to all the recent excitement. But I expect him to articulate opposition to Tory policies.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

If he didn't expect the whole media to be hostile, then he's not the man I take him for.

But Corbyn has found such a response recently, precisely because he does't have a spin doctor, and he speaks as himself. People are tired of political fakery.
To borrow from Louise, his actions in not singing make him look like a bit of a "feckwit", regardless of what they show of his fearless sincerity. The feckwittedness is in causing gratuitous offence, for no very good reason, to people whose support you're going to need if you want to be PM. Why do it? What was the point of doing it?

And if it was done without thought, that's even worse. He's a public figure now, in the "goldfish bowl".

He's already got the support of those who are cheering him. Keeping that support should not be his immediate concern. So it's not the expected hostility of the media which is the issue, it is risking losing the respect of those who might have been prepared to give him a chance. He played right into the hands of the media hostility and probably upset a fair few people of moderate views as well. A double own goal.

Well, if he had sung the anthem, he would not be Jeremy Corbyn. This is where the faking and lying starts, and I for one, am so relieved that he has not succumbed. Tired of Labour spin.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To borrow from Louise, his actions in not singing make him look like a bit of a "feckwit", regardless of what they show of his fearless sincerity. The feckwittedness is in causing gratuitous offence, for no very good reason, to people whose support you're going to need if you want to be PM. Why do it? What was the point of doing it?

Because the alternative is spin.

Which soon becomes prevarication.

Which soon becomes lies.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I get that, quetzalcoatl. I really do. But sincerity is not enough, however much we might wish it was. Not in the leader of a political party which aspires to govern.

There is always a battle to retain personal integrity in the political fight to gain or regain power. Leaders can and do lose their way on the battleground. But part of the wisdom of that is focusing on the fights you really need to win. Concentrating your energies and efforts on what is, or may be, attainable. And not giving aid and comfort to those who would do you down.

[ 16. September 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But that assumes that the 'endless onslaught' actually is anything but tittle-tattle. It's just high-grade gossip, as far as I can see.

I don't see that there is anything to answer.
Quetzal - I don't think there is much to answer either. I am merely saying that he will find it very hard to move on whilst the right wing press are setting the agenda.

Take the example of the SNP dictating policy to Labour in the last election. There was very little substance to it - and it could be easily countered and the holes in the assumptions were pointed out. However, it dominated the news for many days and no matter how hard Labour tried they struggled to move the debate on.
But wasn't that because Labour were being coy? I mean, they didn't actually take such issues head-on, but ducked them. I couldn't believe how timid the Miliband team were, as if opposing the Tories was bad manners.

If Corbyn is as coy as this, then sure, there is no point to all the recent excitement. But I expect him to articulate opposition to Tory policies.

Part of the answer is they didn't counter it clearly or effectively enough - agreed. However, I think the 'let's just be honest, let's not worry about getting a team that is really clever at making it so that our side sets the agenda' is a lot harder to make work, than quite a few of his supporters think. I hope I am wrong.

[ 16. September 2015, 10:29: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Newsthump nails it:

http://newsthump.com/2015/09/16/everyone-furious-as-agnostic-republican-doesnt-sing-song-about-god-rescuing-a-monarch/

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if he had sung the anthem, he would not be Jeremy Corbyn. This is where the faking and lying starts, and I for one, am so relieved that he has not succumbed. Tired of Labour spin.

Well, he "intends to participate fully in any future such events" so wait and see.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if he had sung the anthem, he would not be Jeremy Corbyn. This is where the faking and lying starts, and I for one, am so relieved that he has not succumbed. Tired of Labour spin.
Well, he "intends to participate fully in any future such events" so wait and see.

Because of course then he can be accused of hypocrisy. He couldn't win this one.

[ 16. September 2015, 11:16: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Unbelievable that a senior public figure can be bullied into doing something that acts against his conscience.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, he hasn't actually done anything yet. Just that he'll fully participate in future. That could be fully participating by standing in respectful silence ...

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Corbyn didn't exactly get deafened by support from his own side when he was first called. He got a warmer welcome from Cameron than them.

His idea of getting questions from "Paul, Andrea" etc etc was a bit different, but the questions weren't actually any different to those you'd expect him to have asked anyway.

He's also got skewered a few times by others such as the SNP who said they looked forward to working with him on opposing Trident, with a few digs about McDonnel's "IRA support" and the importance of the national anthem.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

He didn't sing any of the hymns either.

He did spend quite a lot of time look around, up at the dome, etc: if I had to make a guess I'd say he either hadn't been there before or it was a very long time ago.

And it wasn't a suit: it was a blue jacket with dark charcoal trousers.

Thoughts? I think he and his team need to get a handle on how the UK press will spin his every appearance and cut down on the potential for mud to be thrown. They should make a start be ensuring that he appears decently dressed at the Cenotaph in November, and by either getting him bigger shirts, or making sure he does up his top button when he wears a tie.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

No, apparently he will actually sing the National Anthem.

"A Labour source later told Sky News that Mr Corbyn would be singing the national anthem at future ceremonial events."

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

By yur they've not forgotten a Secretary of State for Wales who couldn't be arsed to learn one verse of "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"*, but tried to mime it instead (badly as it turned out). From that I deduce ignorance, idleness and an attempt to deceive are regarded better than principles.

*"(Old) Land of my Fathers", the official Welsh national anthem.

[ 16. September 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of the wisdom of that is focusing on the fights you really need to win. Concentrating your energies and efforts on what is, or may be, attainable. And not giving aid and comfort to those who would do you down.

How about concentrating your energies and efforts on policy and not wasting time and energy on spin.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of the wisdom of that is focusing on the fights you really need to win. Concentrating your energies and efforts on what is, or may be, attainable. And not giving aid and comfort to those who would do you down.
How about concentrating your energies and efforts on policy and not wasting time and energy on spin.

what if whether you like it or not spin's a fight you need to win *as well*?

what if it can't be either or?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
"A Labour source later told Sky News that Mr Corbyn would be singing the national anthem at future ceremonial events."

'A labour source' says he will, but when asked directly about it Corbyn himself evades the question. How's that 'straight-talking politician free from spin' thing going?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I doubt that Corbyn will decide not to have a media unit, which will advise on presentation and so on.

But this is going on against a background, where, first, many people got sick of the Blair-type spin, which seemed to end up in straight lies. So there has been a kind of revulsion against that.

Second, I noticed the large crowds which Yvette Cooper attracted during her leadership campaign. This is testimony to her ability in media presentation, of course.

Corbyn is learning on the job, obviously. I watched PMQs and I thought he did OK, but then I happen to like the guy. I think he is respectful, articulate, and politically intelligent. We will have to see if he can unnerve Cameron.

I don't think anyone knows. I suspect that the right-wing is nervous of him, hence the onslaught. It's perfectly possible that he will crash and burn, of course, but it's also possible that he will steadily increase in popularity.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Just on "spin" - it has become synonymous with Mandelson, the "dark arts," etc, but at root it's just another word for presentation.

I would argue that the two keys here are content and presentation.

You can go a long way with presentation and no content - til you get found out

You go furthest with both content *and* presentation

Sadly, it's difficult to go anywhere with just content.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I agree on PMQs. The format JC chose didn't give much scope for follow up but he did undoubtedly change the tone to "more grown up". It was noticeable that Cameron restrained himself with Corbyn, but then went into attack dog mode immediately with the SNP! It was undoubtedly his most prattish moment.

I'm also inclined to think that continuing pressure on housing, benefits and health could well pay off longer term. There are only so many times Cameron can say "it's the economy, stupid" as his standard response to the pain of ordinary people. Particularly since it opens up the debate for 'Keynes v Monetarism' in terms of relative effectiveness - as we've been discussing here.

A modest but good opener for JC. He came across as quiet, serious, courteous, decent and reasonable. Now if he can manage to avoid prat falls for a while ....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think many people in Labour and probably outside, became weary of the 'dark arts' as practised under Blair, Mandelson and so on. The art of lying, I suppose.

But there's no need to go to the opposite extreme, and adopt a kind of puritanical zeal, which dismisses presentation. I do doubt that Corbyn will go down that route.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Part of the wisdom of that is focusing on the fights you really need to win. Concentrating your energies and efforts on what is, or may be, attainable. And not giving aid and comfort to those who would do you down.
How about concentrating your energies and efforts on policy and not wasting time and energy on spin.
what if whether you like it or not spin's a fight you need to win *as well*?

what if it can't be either or?

What if instead of continuing to do things the way they have been done for years because it's what everyone does, it were possible to (gasp) do something differently.

If politics is truly frozen in stasis and literally can never be changed for the better then we all may as well give up and never bother to vote again.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There's a pretty fine dividing line between effective presentation and spin. There's a point where effective presentation can move over into misrepresentation. It's the point where getting a desired result is more important than the truth.

Not all news management is spin. It's better to talk about cleaning up the role than disdaining its value.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all.
Well, in England the official state religion is the Church of England and the Queen is the head of that church. I should think it quite appropriate.

I am C of E and I don't sing the national anthem.

And the monarch is not 'head' of the C of E. That role belongs to Jesus. The monarch is 'the supreme governor.'

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Whereas I question the appropriateness of arranging the singing of a national anthem in a church service at all.
Well, in England the official state religion is the Church of England and the Queen is the head of that church. I should think it quite appropriate.
I am C of E and I don't sing the national anthem.

And the monarch is not 'head' of the C of E. That role belongs to Jesus. The monarch is 'the supreme governor.'

I just looked up the lyrics to refresh my memory. It's....really not very good.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He didn't sing any of the hymns either.

Ah, now this is of more interest to me. I presume he's not religious?

This is an issue that will become more and more apparent as we increasingly get non-Christian politicians and PMs. Labour's candidate for London Mayor is a Muslim; if he wins will he be expected to attend 'Christian' civic ceremonies and sing Christian hymns?

At some point this reality will have to be addressed. It'll certainly form part of the case against having an established church.

quote:

He did spend quite a lot of time look around, up at the dome, etc: if I had to make a guess I'd say he either hadn't been there before or it was a very long time ago.

There's no particular reason why he should have been there before.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He didn't sing any of the hymns either.

Nor did he take a selfie.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Labour's candidate for London Mayor is a Muslim; if he wins will he be expected to attend 'Christian' civic ceremonies and sing Christian hymns?

That one is, at least in principle, a done deal. At the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, there were a number of prominent members of other faiths present (some British, some royalty from Muslim countries, ...)

They all stood for hymns, but did not sing, and I don't think anyone expected differently.

I think atheists tend to get less understanding - it's easy for people to understand that a Muslim doesn't want to sing Christian hymns, but Christianity is in some sense still the default religion in the UK; many people don't go to church, but think of themselves as being nominally a bit Christian-ish, and find it harder to grasp a principled atheist opposition to singing hymns.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't understand. You say it's okay for people to turn up to church in whatever they feel smart in, but then you say that Corbyn (who was only at church, after all!) 'missed the mark' in the moderately smart outfit that he felt comfortable in.

The standard dress at a formal public function is a lounge suit (assuming it's not a posh dinner...). This is a formal public function. All the people standing around Corbyn are wearing suits, or some form of dress uniform with medals. Everybody else seems to have understood the dress code.

And you missed my point. I say that it is OK for people to turn up to my church in whatever they feel comfortable, because that is our community standard. When I last went to my mother-in-law's church, I wore a jacket and tie, because her church has different expectations.

If I didn't have any formal clothes (because I was travelling and the church visit was a surprise, for example), and wore the best that I had, I wouldn't be rude. If I deliberately chose to show up in jeans and a t-shirt to make some kind of a point about inclusiveness, I would be rude.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a well-paid public servant for more than thirty years. He can afford a suit. The fact that he chooses not to wear the standard uniform is a choice, presumably to make some kind of point, and is rude.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?

You'd think he'd turned up in a jock-strap and gimp mask the way people are talking. To my mind, he was dressed up.

And what does "rude" even mean in this context? It's not like shouting "get a fucking haircut" whilst driving past someone, as happened to me the other day. That's rude, not wearing a slight variation on a theme. Seems to me that society creates these arbitrary rules just so that it can judge people for failing to adhere to them; they serve no other obvious function. And that really is "rude".

[ 16. September 2015, 15:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?

You'd think he'd turned up in a jock-strap and gimp mask the way people are talking. To my mind, he was dressed up.

It's the snobbery of the English establishment. They have certain codes, and if you don't follow them, you're not 'one of us'. Mind-boggling really, but some people apparently still revere such codes.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I had a job interview the other week. Knowing how these things work I was all tarted up in suit and tied back hair and uncomfortable shiny shoes and pointless piece of rag around the neck (can't remember if the top button was done up [Roll Eyes]

)

When I got there, the bloke interviewing me was in jeans and sweater. Apparently I should have been offended that he had "rudely" "not made the effort". Actually, I wasn't; I just thought "I wish I'd known because then I wouldn't have had to wear this crap myself."

These dress codes, especially the unwritten social convention ones, seem to exist solely to give people reasons to judge one another, to be offended by one another, all based on outward appearance. It seems rather anti-Christian to me; perhaps the church should speak out against conventionally defined dress codes as roots of ill-will and judgement of one's neighbour.

[ 16. September 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that many societies and social groups have codes to define an in-group and an out-group, and clothes are important in this.

In England, this has partly intersected with class and other social metrics, and apparently Corbs is being defined as in the out-group, as not conforming to a certain code.

Not one of us, my dear.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that many societies and social groups have codes to define an in-group and an out-group, and clothes are important in this.

In England, this has partly intersected with class and other social metrics, and apparently Corbs is being defined as in the out-group, as not conforming to a certain code.

Not one of us, my dear.

Yes. Corbyn could probably have got a full house if he'd turned up on his bike wearing cycle clips. That definitely marks you out as an outsider, a weirdo, one of the out-group. Anyone surprised that the New Tricks character with social skills issues and, it turned out, probably Aspergers, rode an old 80s road bike? That's code, that is. As it happens, Brian was my favourite character, the one I identified with. It's his fault that when I decided I needed a specific commuting bike I went out of my way to find an old steel 80s frame and work from there. He made me all nostalgic for the 10 speed (that's 2 x 5, not 10 cogs at the back like on newfangled stuff) "racing" bikes of my youth.

But I digress.

[ 16. September 2015, 15:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs, and hence are trying to monster him in the media. Partly to drown out his ideas, and also drown out himself, that is, the rather quiet courteous and intelligent man that we saw in PMQs.

I suppose they are also nervous that his popularity might continue, or it might increase.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Dangerous game. Everyone'll laugh if you go on about the big scary tiger in the cage when they open the door and find Tiddles from next door.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs

Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unbelievable that a senior public figure can be bullied into doing something that acts against his conscience.

Is that what you see going on?

Seems more likely to me that he's just been listening to his own advisers - rather than the Press bully boys. Something along the lines of "this really is No Big Deal, unless you decide to make it so. Is it really worth the aggro?"

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unbelievable that a senior public figure can be bullied into doing something that acts against his conscience.
Is that what you see going on?

Seems more likely to me that he's just been listening to his own advisers - rather than the Press bully boys. Something along the lines of "this really is No Big Deal, unless you decide to make it so. Is it really worth the aggro?"

Yes, I am hearing, 'Pick your battles'.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.

At the moment I don't think any further gaffes will make much difference - it is a bit like Tesco, who, knowing they were going to make a massive loss this year, accounted for everything else that could cause a loss in this year's results on the grounds that the public are not much more shocked by £2bn than £1bn.

FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.

Ah, but I don't trust you at all. If I did, I would not be involved with Corbyn.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm still sniffing out anxiety here. I think the right-wing are nervous about Corbs
Trust me, we're not. We're really not. My real fear is that if he carries on like this he'll be gone by next week.
Ah, but I don't trust you at all. If I did, I would not be involved with Corbyn.

It all seems very familiar, like the direct opposite of those Tories in the late 90s / early 00s who would say quite sincerely 'we're not credible because we're not talking about the European Union enough'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Ricardus wrote:

FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.

I agree with that. I think he has to recognize the civil religion, and generally leave it alone.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Cue here Dutschke's 'long march through the institutions', subject of much debate in the German left, and interpreted variously but it can be seen as critical of the radicals, who espoused violence.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
At the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, there were a number of prominent members of other faiths present (some British, some royalty from Muslim countries, ...)

They all stood for hymns, but did not sing, and I don't think anyone expected differently.

I think atheists tend to get less understanding - it's easy for people to understand that a Muslim doesn't want to sing Christian hymns, but Christianity is in some sense still the default religion in the UK; many people don't go to church, but think of themselves as being nominally a bit Christian-ish, and find it harder to grasp a principled atheist opposition to singing hymns.

Yet the average British person doesn't seem to be all that proficient at singing hymns anyway. Fewer and fewer of them know the words or tunes. Church weddings and funerals are in decline as people choose secular, hymn-free alternatives.

I suppose there's a vicarious pleasure in seeing a cathedral full of well-brought up people singing in unison, but how many viewers would want to be there themselves, singing? We seem to want for our 'betters' what we don't particularly want for ourselves....

We're still evolving as a society, that's clear.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?

Yes. A suit (especially with tie) looks like you've made an effort to dress smartly instead of putting on whatever came to hand first when you opened the wardrobe. It shows you're taking the occasion seriously instead of treating it as a casual, everyday event.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead. Now one may feel that this is an irrational fight but it is a fight Mr Corbyn did not need to get into.

I expect they are people who left the military years ago; those in the armed forces and those who recently left, especially the "Heroes" who left injured in body or mind don't have many good words for the current government. We're good at remembering our dead, but not so good at looking after those still with us.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you explain to me why a jacket and trousers is "rude" whilst a suit isn't, when they both consist of exactly the same two items of clothing. Is there something magic about the colours matching rather than complementing each other, or something?
Yes. A suit (especially with tie) looks like you've made an effort to dress smartly instead of putting on whatever came to hand first when you opened the wardrobe. It shows you're taking the occasion seriously instead of treating it as a casual, everyday event.

Oh what absolute bollocks.

Putting on a suit involves no effort or thought whatsoever. You open the wardrobe, pick the suit up, and put it on. That's it.

Choosing a complementing jacket and trousers requires you to select trousers, put them on, then consider which jacket would work with them, taking into account the colour of the shirt you intend to wear.

I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Keir Hardie famously refused to conform to the "appropriate" dress code expected for parliamentarians and turned up in a tweed jacket. I suspect he thought that what was good enough for the common man - who could not afford frock coats, top hats and starch collars - was good enough to wear in the Houses of fecking Parliament.

I suspect Corbyn thinks the same. Why should he dress as others insist, wear the "right" colour of poppy, sing the fecking monarchist dirge we mistake for an anthem and conform to all the other shit.

The stupidest part of this is that there are a whole heap of people in St Pauls (as in any other Cathedral) who are not wearing military uniform or suits. Those include the virgers, the priests, the organists, choirboys and so on.

I dare say that there were a lot of other people in the pews who were not wearing this kind of unofficial clothing (but, oops, suddenly it is a kind of official dictat) line either.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?

Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Personally I don't care. So far as I am concerned personally, people can wear whatever they feel comfortable in on any occasion. Sometimes I might think what they do is a bit of a social gaffe, but I'm not going to think any the less of them just for that reason. There are more important things in life.

But I'm not a party leader interested in inclusivity and wanting to win a general election. Those things make a difference. If you're in that position, it isn't just about your own personal preferences any more.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.

That would be a bit like pointing out that it's an arbitrary convention that the sound group /'nobhed/* is interpreted as insulting, rather than (say) as an exclamation of delight that the moon shines softly on the lotus blossom.

* Knobhead, for those unfamiliar with IPA.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think we should take a moment to enjoy this headline writer's gem from the torygraph:

quote:
Jeremy Corbyn's first PMQs wasn't a disaster, which is why it will destroy him

Overeaction, what overeaction ?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...Yet the average British person doesn't seem to be all that proficient at singing hymns anyway. Fewer and fewer of them know the words or tunes. Church weddings and funerals are in decline as people choose secular, hymn-free alternatives.

I suppose there's a vicarious pleasure in seeing a cathedral full of well-brought up people singing in unison, but how many viewers would want to be there themselves, singing? We seem to want for our 'betters' what we don't particularly want for ourselves....

We're still evolving as a society, that's clear.

Declining, I think is the verb I'd use. Not that I think Mr Corbyn's perfectly courteous behaviour was part of that decline, by the way.

[ 16. September 2015, 20:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.

If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Keir Hardie famously refused to conform to the "appropriate" dress code expected for parliamentarians and turned up in a tweed jacket. I suspect he thought that what was good enough for the common man - who could not afford frock coats, top hats and starch collars - was good enough to wear in the Houses of fecking Parliament.

I suspect Corbyn thinks the same. Why should he dress as others insist, wear the "right" colour of poppy, sing the fecking monarchist dirge we mistake for an anthem and conform to all the other shit.

Remember all that fuss about what Mr. Gandhi wore (or didn't wear) when he went to see the King ...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I wonder if Corbyn could have got a worse reaction had he actually challenged the morbid fetishisation of dead military personnel. I presume there must be some limit to the tabloids' faux outrage.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Get with the times people. Not everyone wants to spend their time crushing rebellious Scots. [Devil]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But oppressing Scots is good. It justifes another referendum, and will make the right result more likely.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.

Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

I'd be more impressed if people just admitted it's an arbitrary convention.
That would be a bit like pointing out that it's an arbitrary convention that the sound group /'nobhed/* is interpreted as insulting, rather than (say) as an exclamation of delight that the moon shines softly on the lotus blossom.

* Knobhead, for those unfamiliar with IPA.

I think the insult value of "knobhead" is a bit more widely understood than unwritten dress codes. I certainly wouldn't "know" that a jacket and trousers was verboten and a suit mandatory. I've always assumed they're equivalent; no-one until now has told me otherwise. If you've got a jacket and tie on, you've passed the "smart" requirement to my mind.

I would tend to wear a suit in formal situations simply because, as I said to Ariel, it's easy and requires no effort or thought whatsoever. I'm bemused that it apparently signals the very opposite.

[ 17. September 2015, 09:35: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.

Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"

I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.

That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?

I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...

I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."

For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."

*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits

[Big Grin]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"

I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.

That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.

My late mother never allowed my brother or I toy soldiers, water pistols, or camouflage clothes. She often remarked somewhat ruefully that the fact that we *both* joined up might have been a reaction to that. Does that make her very pacifism an "enabler"?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I know a few people with military connections who are probably disgusted with Mr Corbyn, not out of snobbery but from an almost sacred regard for our military dead.
If only they had a sacred regard for our military live, there might be more of the latter, and fewer of the former.
Who are 'they'? I am talking about people who do indeed care very much that their friends and family come back alive.
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"

I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.

That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.

Yes, I was flabbergasted when I first saw right-wingers saying, 'why don't the men stay and fight (in Syria)?' I wondered who they should fight for - presumably, not Assad. So then it would be one of the more salubrious rebel groups. Would anyone really want their son/grandson fighting in that hell-hole, with the likelihood that your group might morph into an Islamist group, or have to fight IS? I suspect it's a question asked of other people's sons.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, me and my very right-wing mum were talking about this the other day, in regards to the refugee crisis. "Why," she opined, "don't the men stay and fight?"

I pointed out that her beloved grandsons (both 16) are at the perfect age to become cannon-fodder in an irregular war, and that as the father of one of them and the uncle of the other, I'd move heaven and earth to get them out of the situation where they'd be handed a gun and told to fight.

That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.

There's also nothing about any side in that conflict that would make anybody want to fight for them or want to see them win.

That's part of the problem the rest of the world has with it, and why a lot of us are so alarmed at talk of intervening in it. It's all very well people wringing their hands and saying 'something must be done', and ijjit politicians saying 'drop more bombs', or 'send in troops', but unless someone can say what must be done and explain convincingly how to do it, sadly, as far as we are concerned, the answer is that anything we do will only make things even worse than how appalling they are at the moment.

Not enough people are pointing our this obvious truth at the moment.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

In a civil war it is not always obvious which side is the 'right' one to choose. It's been over 400 years since we had a civil war in the UK*, so most of us have forgotten this...

If your own government is trying to kill you and your only hope of survival if you stay where you are is to join a group of rebels and learn to fight (and if you're Christian they'd probably want to behead you instead of recruiting you), and your family needs your help to stand a chance of escaping the conflict, what would you do?

*counting from the Restoration; if you take the Jacobite rebellions as the last gasp of civil war it would be 350 years. Quite a long time, anyway.

[ 17. September 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...

I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."

For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."

*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits

Anyway, he was in a lounge suit at St Paul's, wasn't he? Sports jacket and tie in HoC but for better or for worse that's been acceptable dress, or at least not objected to, there for some years.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But why put people off over nothing? If you're just talking about arbitrary conventions which some folks treat more seriously than you do, what point are you really making by "doing different"? It's hardly a "sell your soul" issue, is it?
Why should you get to decide what someone wears in a church service? What actually did he do wrong, other than refuse to follow an unwritten dress code?
I don't know, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out here and say that I'm in what I expect is a minority on these boards in that I have been involved in organising a State memorial service in St Paul's...

I'd like to see an invitation for the Battle of Britain shindig, because I'd be astounded if was anything other than a clearly written dress-code in the bottom right hand corner.* I'd take a wild stab in the dark that it said "Service dress with medals/lounge suit."

For some reason no one ever specifies what the women are supposed to wear, and there is an exemption for "national dress."

*well, potentially not, this is the RAF we're talking about, maybe it just said "Man at C&A" - the Navy has traditions, the Army customs, the RAF merely habits

Anyway, he was in a lounge suit at St Paul's, wasn't he? Sports jacket and tie in HoC but for better or for worse that's been acceptable dress, or at least not objected to, there for some years.

I think, if we're going to be really pedantic, that strictly speaking at St Paul's he was in *two* lounge suits... [Biased]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I keep on trying to imagine a universe where someone's going to get to the ballot box having read the manifestos and say "well, I agree with all Labour's policies but since that Mr Corbyn didn't do his top button up and his trousers were blue* five years ago I'm going to vote Tory".

And then I realise with horror it's this one.

Depressing, innit?

*Or whatever it was, like it matters, like I give a shit.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Almost as depressing as people making so much effort to ensure they're impeccably dressed so that the media can't criticise them for it that they seem to have insufficient time to think about the implications of their policies and drag the country to Hell - but, a well dressed Hell.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.

Ok, I can see where you are coming from.

On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.

I married a serving officer in the British Army. I'm not unaware of the arguments on the other side... [Paranoid]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]
That's what I mean by 'they'. The ones who enable and support the decision of their loved ones to sign up in the first place. After that, it's literally too fucking late to worry in any meaningful way.
Ok, I can see where you are coming from.

On the other hand, ISTM that if it is right for us to have an army, it is also right that at least some people should join that army, and consequently that the rest of us should allow them to join.

Yes, we should do more than simply allow them to join and remember them when they are dead. Support for those leaving the armed forces, and those injured while serving however, is utterly inadequate and flypasts and two-minute silences are no more than window dressing.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Agreed.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

All this nonsence about dress codes and royalty reminds me of Keir Hardy.

He entered the House of Common in his cloth cap.

He lacked interest in a new royal baby on the grounds that it would be kow-towed to while several miners had recently lost their lives and were unmourned.

So Corybyn is true to the roots of Labour.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
All this nonsence about dress codes and royalty reminds me of Keir Hardy.

He entered the House of Common in his cloth cap.

He lacked interest in a new royal baby on the grounds that it would be kow-towed to while several miners had recently lost their lives and were unmourned.

So Corybyn is true to the roots of Labour.

He is. My Great Grandfather** though, who was a miner in the Durham coalfield, union man, and who knew Hardie relatively well, apparently always reckoned that Hardie's achievement was to get a foot in the door for more electable people to go through one day in the future (that is clearly not word for word how he expressed it, but it's how it was passed on to me by my methodist, Co-Op & Labour Party grandfather*).

Right man to be the first Labour MP, wrong man to be the first Labour PM.

*he, on the other hand, had a lot of time for Manny Shinwell, but was still teaching me abusive skipping rhymes about Ramsey Mac in the 1980s....

**and his father was gaoled in the 1860s for illegal union organising in the Durham coalfield - I've got a lot of his letters home from prison.

[ 17. September 2015, 14:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was sort of eavesdropping on various left-wing friends who were discussing the anthem/top button stuff, and several points were made which I thought were interesting.

1. Privilege. In some ways, Corbyn has been introduced in no small manner to a system of privilege - the great and the good gathered together, in correct clothes, and so on. Of course, to some extent he is fighting against privilege, hence the clash.

2. God. A lot of the upset about the anthem has been as an insult to the Queen, but some atheists have reminded me that it is a religious song. You could argue that we remember the dead, as they ensured our freedom, and part of that is the freedom not to sing religious stuff if you are not religious.

3. Performing. On the other hand, it would be odd to refuse to sing the Messiah in a choir, because you are an atheist. The Messiah is a performance, so some people are suggesting that the anthem is also, and indeed, kissing the Queen's hands.

4. Pick your battles. Speaks for itself really.

What interesting times we live in.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God. A lot of the upset about the anthem has been as an insult to the Queen, but some atheists have reminded me that it is a religious song. You could argue that we remember the dead, as they ensured our freedom, and part of that is the freedom not to sing religious stuff if you are not religious.

Yes, and in that context it's amusing to see a lot of the right wing falling into the position of defending freedom in the abstract but the concrete - not so much.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I think he should at least have worn a suit. It wouldn't have been hard.

But really - it doesn't matter that much. And what distresses me about this incident how emblematic it is. Just about all reporting in the news is about whether Corbyn will conform to ceremonial norms, be they traditional ones (like kissing the Queen's hands) or modern ones (like having a PR army about him). It is as if politics has been replaced by Westminster Fashion Week. The media are deliberately baiting him by trying to pin him down on how he will conduct himself on similar occasions in the future.

I say just about all, because the remainder appears to be members of his own parliamentary party briefing against him. It's a pretty poor spectacle.

To be honest, I don't know what he can do about this. It is true that he's more popular in the Labour Party generally than in Parliament. However, I doubt he's at all popular elsewhere.

I'm afraid for Corbyn - that the Westminster machine will chew him up and spit him out, something that will send no clearer message than that Westminster politics is for the elect, not normal people who happen to be elected.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I keep on trying to imagine a universe where someone's going to get to the ballot box having read the manifestos and say "well, I agree with all Labour's policies but since that Mr Corbyn didn't do his top button up and his trousers were blue* five years ago I'm going to vote Tory".

I can't imagine anyone changing their voting intentions because Jeremy Corbyn didn't wear a suit to St. Paul's. I also don't think that's relevant.

I could give you a long list of things that politicians do that I think they shouldn't do, that wouldn't change the likelihood of my voting for them. I can assure you that if I was faced with a choice between two candidates as dissimilar as Mr. Corbyn and Mr. Osborne, their ability to dress themselves wouldn't alter my vote at all.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Tangent alert, but it's quite an interesting one

Curiously, Keir Hardie's refusing to wear 'the right sort of clothes' because he represented the working man symbolises a dilemma that goes back to the roots of the Labour Party. From time to time it is a serious temptation to it even now.

Back in Keith Hardie's day, the Labour Party was the Labour Representation Committee. It was formed to represent, and to stick up for the interests of only part of the electorate, not all of it. So it was more like the SNP, Plaid, the DUP etc. As a representative of that part of the electorate, he was choosing to wear the clothes that symbolised this.

How ever much some might argue that they don't, both the Conservatives and the LibDems aspire to represent the whole of Mainland Britain. Others may disagree with them and say that they don't, but that is how they see themselves. They aren't overtly factional. There isn't a part of the electorate whose votes they aren't really interested in winning.

For most of the time since 1918, that has been true of the Labour Party. But from time to time, elements in it do overtly present themselves as aspiring to represent only either the working class as they define it or the trade unions as the Party's traditional backers.

If pressed, people from that tradition would probably say that because the workers have been hard done by, the rest of the electorate owe it to them as a matter or restorative justice, to vote for the workers' party.

Whether there's any such symbolism of Jeremy Corbyn's choice of dress for the service, I can't say. He may be seeking to express a sort of Puritanism. He may just be a scruffy dresser. Some people are. Certainly, his style is more that of an FE College lecturer than a working man. For once, this isn't really a comment about Jeremy Corbyn. It's a tangent about a dilemma that sometimes afflicts parts of the Labour Party.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I can't imagine anyone changing their voting intentions because Jeremy Corbyn didn't wear a suit to St. Paul's. I also don't think that's relevant.

I think that shows a lack of imagination on your part [Biased]

It's true people will. Sadly. Maybe not on that entirely but it's all part of a picture, a narrative.

Most people vote emotionally. Almost no-one reads manifestos. Engagement with issues is often very superficial.

So let's see, here are some words the press wants you to associate with Corbyn:

Disrespectful
Unpatriotic
Disorganised
Left Wing
Extreme
Scruffy
Radical

There's a longer list of course, but for most people who don't fully engage in politics, this is how elections are won and lost.

[Disappointed]

AFZ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert, but it's quite an interesting one

It is interesting, but I think your implication - that MPs dress as Mainland Britain (a term I've never heard before - do you mean Middle England?) dresses - is utterly wrong. In fact, I think the vast majority of workers of all kinds do not dress like that at work and are much more likely to dress as Corbyn dresses.

I think the reality is that MPs dress as the perceive the country expects professional people in London to dress - which is not necessarily how they'd dress at work.

I think your points on Hardy are interesting, in that he had a very small electorate (I think I read he had about 4,000 people vote him into parliament) and stood in constituencies where the vast majority of people were working class.

That's not really the situation we're in today. But then I think this is part of the disconnect many have with politicians - they appear to dress, speak, associate and pander to a particular section of society to which the rest are supposed to either fawn or aspire to be.

A politician who refuses to do this and instead dresses as he feels he wants to dress and talks to people he wants to talk to in a way he wants to talk by definition stands out. And people who want politicians who stand and talk and dress in the normal anonymous way don't much like it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFZ

That's pretty much what I was going to say. I think the political argument is "why risk putting off two or three people out of hundred over a minor issue of custom and practice?" And that is based on research which shows that people who change their votes do so for many different reasons, including reasons which many of us would think weren't real reasons.

mr cheesy

quote:
But then I think this is part of the disconnect many have with politicians - they appear to dress, speak, associate and pander to a particular section of society to which the rest are supposed to either fawn or aspire to be.

I think this is also true. It's certainly a part of JC's appeal to those who voted for him, and would probably vote for Labour in a general election anyway. I'm sure his actions have reinforced their views that JC is a good egg, not a kow-tower. But I don't see it broadening his appeal to the "soft centre" and it might cost him some support there.

Truth is, we don't really know yet. But Doublethink and AFZ in particular have persuaded me that there may be scope for reshaping public opinion on the merits of the austerity program. That argument will certainly have some mileage with the serious minded in the soft centre and cause some shift. I think it is worth concentrating on that issue and avoiding getting distracted by shadow and shallow issues. I reckon JC got off to a good start in PMQs and there's scope to build on that.

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

This is such a huge thread that I haven't the energy - or time - to read it all the way through! Has anyone considered that it is doubtful that Mr Corbyn will be leader of the Labour Party in 2020? He is 66 now, so would be in his early 70s by the next election. Perhaps he is acting as more of a stop-gap leader to enable the party to get more thoroughly back to its left-wing roots. Also, don't forget that Cameron will also be replaced before 2020. I honestly don't think politics could get more interesting over the next few years!

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
This is such a huge thread that I haven't the energy - or time - to read it all the way through! Has anyone considered that it is doubtful that Mr Corbyn will be leader of the Labour Party in 2020? He is 66 now, so would be in his early 70s by the next election. Perhaps he is acting as more of a stop-gap leader to enable the party to get more thoroughly back to its left-wing roots. Also, don't forget that Cameron will also be replaced before 2020. I honestly don't think politics could get more interesting over the next few years!

Kinnock has said that one of the biggest reasons Labour didn't win in 1992 was that the Conservatives had ditched Thatcher and people couldn't believe that nice Mr. Major had been party to any of the nasty stuff that had gone on*.

If Cameron stands down (as he has indicated he would) and Osbourne becomes leader, there will be a very strong association between Osbourne and everything the government has done, as they've been just as much a fixture as Blair and Brown. If the Conservatives go for someone else (Boris?) who also doesn't have an association in the public mind, that could be clever for them.

* (Personally, I think he looked the biggest idiot ever in that rally in Sheffield, and had failed to set out his position in a number of key areas, by promising referenda if he won. But that's just me).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I find the clothes/anthem discussion confusing, I mean, I don't really know how many people it will repel, and how many attract. It might also make very little difference.

I don't think Corbyn can walk on egg shells, in case he alarms Middle England, but at the same time, as already said, pick your battles. If he were to launch an attack on monarchy and theism tomorrow, I would say he has gone mad.

It seems obvious that austerity and neo-liberalism are the real targets, and judging from PMQs, he knows that.

I guess that if Labour start sinking in the polls, he will be under serious pressure.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I thought Corbyn looked like a Quaker at Meeting, or a Quaker representing the Friends at some religious function not joining in with the creed. Respectfully. Apart from the atheism, there is a lot in his beliefs and way of doing things that would not sit uneasily among Friends.

A letter in the Guardian this morning informed me that there is a dispensation for Quakers, enabling them not to curtsey or bow to the Queen, and suggesting that now, and in parallel with the dispensation to affirm in courts, this should be extended to people with secular convictions about the matter.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it's certainly interesting that the anthem is seen by some almost as compulsory, and this in a service commemorating those who died for our freedom! I suppose that's the freedom to think as I do.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I thought Corbyn looked like a Quaker at Meeting, or a Quaker representing the Friends at some religious function not joining in with the creed. Respectfully. Apart from the atheism, there is a lot in his beliefs and way of doing things that would not sit uneasily among Friends.

Atheism is not a barrier to being a Quaker

quote:
A letter in the Guardian this morning informed me that there is a dispensation for Quakers, enabling them not to curtsey or bow to the Queen, and suggesting that now, and in parallel with the dispensation to affirm in courts, this should be extended to people with secular convictions about the matter.

Quakers refused to take oaths or remove their hats to those authority - which caused a bit of a problem for people standing for parliament or in a court case - and their relentless refusal to co-operate eventually led to laws which gave them (and anyone else who wanted to exercise it) the right to say no.

Which is quite an example - by refusing to be compelled or cowed, the law was eventually changed to reflect Quaker practice as valid under the law.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I thought Corbyn looked like a Quaker at Meeting, or a Quaker representing the Friends at some religious function not joining in with the creed.

Standing respectfully but not singing hymns because you're an atheist is a reasonable and principled position. I wouldn't argue with atheists who sang along in aid of a quiet life, but I can't quibble with Corbyn's behaviour here either.

(Personally, I think the biggest reason that Labour lost in 1992 was that they were led by Mr. Kinnock. Had John Smith, for example, taken over a year or two earlier, they'd have won, and he would have been the first PM since Palmerston to die in office.)

Not wearing a suit to a function where a suit is the expected dress is scruffy and disrespectful. Possibly, like Keir Hardie, Corbyn has a political point to make with his choice of clothing - but wearing a jacket and tie in place of a suit is a rather fine political distinction to make. It's difficult to argue that the lounge suit is the distinctive dress of a social class that jacket-and-tie wearers are excluded from, for example.

Not doing his shirt up is just plain scruffy - the last time that had any kind of political significance was in rebellious fourth-formers behind the bike sheds.

[ 18. September 2015, 16:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Not wearing a suit to a function where a suit is the expected dress is scruffy and disrespectful. Possibly, like Keir Hardie, Corbyn has a political point to make with his choice of clothing - but wearing a jacket and tie in place of a suit is a rather fine political distinction to make. It's difficult to argue that the lounge suit is the distinctive dress of a social class that jacket-and-tie wearers are excluded from, for example.

We're not going to agree on this.

One can buy a jacket and trousers in the town where I live for £1 each. I'm not sure how much a properly fitting lounge suit would cost, but I'm guessing in the hundreds of pounds.

Hence, one can easily be excluded from a dress code which insists on a lounge suit rather than a jacket and tie.

And anyway, what the dickens is actually disrespectful about wearing a [clean] jacket? Military people don't even pay for their own dress suits, why should civilians have to try to match up to their standards?

You're really struggling on this one. The man wore perfectly respectable clothing but refused to toe the line on unspoken military dress in a non-military civil service.

quote:
Not doing his shirt up is just plain scruffy - the last time that had any kind of political significance was in rebellious fourth-formers behind the bike sheds.

His collar button was undone.

By goodness, some people need to stop reading the Telegraph and think about things that actually matter.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One can buy a jacket and trousers in the town where I live for £1 each. I'm not sure how much a properly fitting lounge suit would cost, but I'm guessing in the hundreds of pounds.

Hence, one can easily be excluded from a dress code which insists on a lounge suit rather than a jacket and tie.

Presumably if one buys a matching jacket and trousers for £1 each one has a suit?

While a suit from M&S is probably a couple of hundred quid I imagine that there are cheaper options out there (and charity shops often stock high quality second-hand clothing). I suspect that very few people are 'excluded' from wearing a suit. Certainly not a man who's been on an MP's salary for the last thirty years.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I can't imagine anyone changing their voting intentions because Jeremy Corbyn didn't wear a suit to St. Paul's. I also don't think that's relevant.
I think that shows a lack of imagination on your part

It's true people will. Sadly. Maybe not on that entirely but it's all part of a picture, a narrative.

I agree. I don't think this incident will make or break Corbyn but, rather like Ed Miliband's unfortunate photo with the bacon sandwich, it's one small piece that will go into forming an overall picture of the man and people will judge him on that overall picture. It might not be too late for him to get his act together.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One can buy a jacket and trousers in the town where I live for £1 each. I'm not sure how much a properly fitting lounge suit would cost, but I'm guessing in the hundreds of pounds.

Hence, one can easily be excluded from a dress code which insists on a lounge suit rather than a jacket and tie.

Presumably if one buys a matching jacket and trousers for £1 each one has a suit?

While a suit from M&S is probably a couple of hundred quid I imagine that there are cheaper options out there (and charity shops often stock high quality second-hand clothing). I suspect that very few people are 'excluded' from wearing a suit. Certainly not a man who's been on an MP's salary for the last thirty years.

What's so special about a "suit"? In car dealerships and many other stores you see spotty 'Erberts wearing £39 suits from ASDA that do exactly nothing for their appearance. Golly, the suits shine more than their shoes do!

How about attacking Corbyn for the policies he wants to see adopted rather than his appearance or history? Cameron and Osborne are tidy dressers, but their policies are little short of evil. FWIW I think Corbyn will persuade enough of the public that this is so, and that is why the opposition to him is grabbing every straw it can to discredit him on a personal level with such desperation. If they get in an argument about policies then the Tories know it will do them no good.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What's so special about a "suit"?

It's about dressing appropriately smartly at a formal occasion. I'm surprised that so many don't appear to grasp this.

quote:
How about attacking Corbyn for the policies he wants to see adopted rather than his appearance or history? ...FWIW I think Corbyn will persuade enough of the public that this is so, and that is why the opposition to him is grabbing every straw it can to discredit him on a personal level with such desperation. If they get in an argument about policies then the Tories know it will do them no good.

Well it's not an either / or. But I don't know what you mean by 'history'? I think people will judge him on what he's done in the past, which is why stories about the kind things he's said about rotten people are so damaging.

But to re-iterate, there's certainly no desperation: I was at a Tory mayoral hustings the other day and the man chairing the meeting proposed a round of applause for Jeremy Corbyn. I think there were a few cheers thrown in too.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What's so special about a "suit"?

It's about dressing appropriately smartly at a formal occasion. I'm surprised that so many don't appear to grasp this.

I'm equivocal over this. Perhaps he should have turned up in a doublet and hose, with a lovely brocade cloak. That's smart, right? Or in full sail, like my friend Umo sometimes does for church.

What you're saying is that there are social norms that are essentially a tyranny of conformity. Turn up looking like you ought and mouth the right words. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the occasion or the words.

Alternatively, what he wore was most likely what he wears for all formal and civic events in his constituency. But I find people who worry about 'formal' and 'dress codes' more than they ought have other, bigger problems.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I don't believe they're a tyranny at all. But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... How about attacking Corbyn for the policies he wants to see adopted rather than his appearance or history? ...

Quite right too. I'm not a Conservative. I'm not on the right. But I suspect virtually the only point on which he and I agree with each other is that the earth is not flat.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Doc Tor(on the subject of JC and what he wore to the St Paul's service)

quote:
I'm equivocal over this. Perhaps he should have turned up in a doublet and hose, with a lovely brocade cloak. That's smart, right? Or in full sail, like my friend Umo sometimes does for church.

What you're saying is that there are social norms that are essentially a tyranny of conformity. Turn up looking like you ought and mouth the right words. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the occasion or the words.

Alternatively, what he wore was most likely what he wears for all formal and civic events in his constituency. But I find people who worry about 'formal' and 'dress codes' more than they ought have other, bigger problems.

Its nothing to do with being 'smart' or not, or conforming in attitude: its to do with those accepted conventions about dress which are there as a mark of respect.

I know several people who, like Mr Corbyn, make a point of not wearing the expected/accepted clothing to things like weddings, funerals, etc. In almost every case this is more to do with them making a point - and the point we receive is that it is all about them. At a friend's mother's funeral someone turned up in a shocking pink suit: it caused immense distress to the widower and the deceased's children, and was definitely done as a 'look at me' gesture.

In the case of a politician, dressing in such a way as to cause comment may be a deliberate ploy in that it almost guarantees that people will spend their time discussing the latest sartorial solecism, and so the politician neatly diverts attention away from what they're saying.

Of course, in the case of Mr Corbyn it could just be that he is socially clueless and gauche, but I doubt it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think if he had wanted to make a particular point about dress he'd have turned up in shorts and a polo shirt, and certainly not bothered to turn up in a dark coloured outfit.

If he'd wanted to be specifically distespectful to the queen I imagine he wouldn't have stood for the national anthem.

I think that some of the reaction over this stems from people not having much experience of what people do when they actually wish to convey disrespect.

People didn't express their issues with Thatcher's state funeral by not doing up a collar button and wearing a slightly mismatched jacket.

[ 19. September 2015, 16:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably if one buys a matching jacket and trousers for £1 each one has a suit?

Have you ever bought a jacket and trousers from a charity shop? The chances of getting both matching in your size are negligible - trust me on this.

quote:
While a suit from M&S is probably a couple of hundred quid I imagine that there are cheaper options out there (and charity shops often stock high quality second-hand clothing). I suspect that very few people are 'excluded' from wearing a suit. Certainly not a man who's been on an MP's salary for the last thirty years.

Bullshit.

You are seriously telling me that if he'd turned up in a shiny cheap suit, nobody would have complained?

It isn't about his salary, it is totally about the expectations some people have as to what is suitable clothing for a civil event.

And we're all assuming that there was a defined dress code. Do we know that for a fact?

[ 19. September 2015, 17:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In the case of a politician, dressing in such a way as to cause comment may be a deliberate ploy in that it almost guarantees that people will spend their time discussing the latest sartorial solecism, and so the politician neatly diverts attention away from what they're saying.

Of course, in the case of Mr Corbyn it could just be that he is socially clueless and gauche, but I doubt it.

I suspect what actually happened, is that having won the election he'd had about five seconds to think - or do much else than try to work out what to about the shadow cabinet.

His sons gave him a new jacket, as has been widely reported, and as it was the smartest thing he had he wore it with the smartest trousers he had.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I suspect what actually happened, is that having won the election he'd had about five seconds to think - or do much else than try to work out what to about the shadow cabinet.

His sons gave him a new jacket, as has been widely reported, and as it was the smartest thing he had he wore it with the smartest trousers he had.

I wonder if he has ever had to be the focus of attention in this kind of civil event before. I doubt it.

My bet is that there was no dress code and that some are just looking for a reason to point to the strange shaped and bearded socialist who dared enter the hallowed ground of the ruling classes without asking their permission or playing by the unwritten rules.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Another point - my grandfather was a career soldier. In retirement he regularly attended memorial events in churches, at war memorials, at regimental dinners and so on.

Given that he retired (I think) prior to the 1970s, he had no uniform.

He used to stand there in his only tweed jacket, with his medals and with tears rolling down his cheeks.

If you are saying that Corbyn was dressed inappropriately, then you are saying that my Grandfather was dressed inappropriately.

You might want to think about that.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

In other news, it turns out Corbyn's prior commitment that led to him turning down free tickets to the Rugy world cup was his constituency surgery.

Boris Johnson feels he has the wrong priorities.

[ 19. September 2015, 17:15: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are saying that Corbyn was dressed inappropriately, then you are saying that my Grandfather was dressed inappropriately.

You might want to think about that.

Your grandfather probably wasn't the newly elected leader of a political party. He was an old soldier who had every right to be at military ceremonies in his own right. Corbyn was an invited dignitary who wouldn't have been on the guest list for this particular occasion otherwise. He could have made an effort to treat it as the special occasion it was, he chose not to, the rest is history.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are saying that Corbyn was dressed inappropriately, then you are saying that my Grandfather was dressed inappropriately.

You might want to think about that.
Your grandfather probably wasn't the newly elected leader of a political party. He was an old soldier who had every right to be at military ceremonies in his own right. Corbyn was an invited dignitary who wouldn't have been on the guest list for this particular occasion otherwise. He could have made an effort to treat it as the special occasion it was, he chose not to, the rest is history.

Hello? Hello? Is there a sense of proportion in the house?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In other news, it turns out Corbyn's prior commitment that led to him turning down free tickets to the Rugy world cup was his constituency surgery.

Boris Johnson feels he has the wrong priorities.

What's it got to do with Boris? Boris didn't even go to a school that plays it.

Doesn't it depend whether one is interested in a sport whether one goes to watch it or not? Some people would love to get free tickets to a Rugby match. Some would regard it as about the most boring way they could imagine spending an afternoon. At 66 (as he is) a person is entitled to decide they may not have long enough left to want to waste time doing things that they don't want to do.

What's much more irritating is the way every public figure, clergy person, new bishop or whatever feels they have to proclaim which football team they support. One wonders how often this is genuine or whether they imagine it demonstrates they are normal, one of the lads, the sort of chap one might like to have a drink with.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Meanwhile, I understand you can now buy T shirts with "Threat to National Security" printed on them.

Guess which colour the T shirts are? I'm very tempted...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Meanwhile, I understand you can now buy T shirts with "Threat to National Security" printed on them.

Guess which colour the T shirts are? I'm very tempted...

I'd expect them to be yellow and purple.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE] He could have made an effort to treat it as the special occasion it was, he chose not to, the rest is history.

He was dressed far more smartly than is normal for him, which suggests he did make an effort. It may not conform to your exacting standards circa 1857 but that's not the same thing.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've started to notice a number of men of his age group utilising Corbyn-chic. The beard, the dress code, round Waitrose*, in the church fair I went today, just on the street.

Were they there before and I just didn't notice, or do they suddenly feel liberated to be themselves?

*for non-UK readers, an upmarket supermarket, believed, falsely, to be more expensive than others, and in which the staff are sharers in the company profit.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
He was dressed far more smartly than is normal for him, which suggests he did make an effort. It may not conform to your exacting standards circa 1857 but that's not the same thing.

Many people probably haven't a clue what his normal standards are. He's been a backbencher for years suddenly thrust into the limelight, how are we supposed to know what his usual dress sense is and make allowances for it on an individual scale. There is a formal dress code for these kinds of events, he didn't live up to it and it wasn't much of an effort IMO.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've started to notice a number of men of his age group utilising Corbyn-chic. The beard, the dress code, round Waitrose*, in the church fair I went today, just on the street.

Were they there before and I just didn't notice, or do they suddenly feel liberated to be themselves? ....

Very few of us can grow a beard in a week.

More importantly, and as information for blokes, more useful - do you find them chic? Is it a look that pulls?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
More importantly, and as information for blokes, more useful - do you find them chic? Is it a look that pulls?

'Fraid not. Every time I see him I'm reminded of Bernard Cribbins as Wilf in the Doctor Who Christmas Special 2007.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It strikes me that if you've already taken agin Corbyn, he can do nothing right.

And I think you're looking for 'Obi Wan' Corbyn. He's our only hope.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've started to notice a number of men of his age group utilising Corbyn-chic. The beard, the dress code, round Waitrose*, in the church fair I went today, just on the street.

Were they there before and I just didn't notice, or do they suddenly feel liberated to be themselves? ....
Very few of us can grow a beard in a week.

More importantly, and as information for blokes, more useful - do you find them chic? Is it a look that pulls?

It needs to be allied with thoughtful conversation and an ability to listen and respect other people's opinions...

I think the long shorts are a bit of a push rather than a pull!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... I think the long shorts are a bit of a push rather than a pull!

It's very difficult to work out what women find attractive, but I'd always suspected long shorts don't thrill many of you.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another point - my grandfather was a career soldier. In retirement he regularly attended memorial events in churches, at war memorials, at regimental dinners and so on.

Given that he retired (I think) prior to the 1970s, he had no uniform.

He used to stand there in his only tweed jacket, with his medals and with tears rolling down his cheeks.

If you are saying that Corbyn was dressed inappropriately, then you are saying that my Grandfather was dressed inappropriately.

You might want to think about that.

I don't quite understand the point here. Why would your grandfather wear his uniform after retiring anyway?

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In other news, it turns out Corbyn's prior commitment that led to him turning down free tickets to the Rugy world cup was his constituency surgery.

Boris Johnson feels he has the wrong priorities.

The thing about being Leader of the Opposition is that you get invited to big, national events in your capacity as Leader of the Opposition. In particular, it was the opening ceremony he didn't up to, wasn't it?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How about attacking Corbyn for the policies he wants to see adopted rather than his appearance or history? Cameron and Osborne are tidy dressers, but their policies are little short of evil. FWIW I think Corbyn will persuade enough of the public that this is so, and that is why the opposition to him is grabbing every straw it can to discredit him on a personal level with such desperation. If they get in an argument about policies then the Tories know it will do them no good.

To be honest, they're not very good at that either:

Corbyn: We will renationalise the railways line, by line as the franchises come up for renewal
Conservative statement: This will cost billions

So, when the franchise holder walked away from the East Coast Mainline it performed better, had higher passenger satisfaction and returned a profit to the exchequer... yep sounds like a terrible policy to me.

{To be honest, the franchises are not the real problem, it's the fact that all the rolling stock was basically given to finance companies to lease back - that's where the real profiteering is. But franchises first is a very reasonable policy).

AFZ

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I believe I predicted this exact operationalisation of the policy earlier in the thread, I claim my five pounds [Big Grin]

(Before you get the franchise back, you reframe the massive public subsidy as the state buying back the rolling stock.)

[ 20. September 2015, 07:37: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It strikes me that if you've already taken agin Corbyn, he can do nothing right.

Oh, I don't know. He has three ideas worth pinching: ban HS2, stop fracking and introduce fair rent controls. But only three.

quote:
And I think you're looking for 'Obi Wan' Corbyn. He's our only hope.

This is not the droid I'm looking for.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
And I think you're looking for 'Obi Wan' Corbyn. He's our only hope.
This is not the droid I'm looking for.

We had a choice of three droids and Corbyn. We voted Jedi.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[crosspost]In response to comment about which Corbyn ideas might be good.[/crosspost]

That will be easier to evaluate after the party conference when we know what polciy platform will be under his leadership.

Best sunday paper attack today is that his great great grandfather ran a workhouse.

[ 20. September 2015, 08:09: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Best sunday paper attack today is that his great great grandfather ran a workhouse.

I'm quite enjoying what the papers have been coming up with so far. One of the best has been Corbyn accused of eating surplus Costa sandwiches intended for the homeless.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

When there was no evidence of him eating them, only of walking off with them - and if he is anything like someone I know, who often redistributes such things, to hand them over to someone else who needed them.

And opening up what people's ancestors did to criticism could be very damaging to the other side.

[ 20. September 2015, 10:45: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When there was no evidence of him eating them, only of walking off with them - and if he is anything like someone I know, who often redistributes such things, to hand them over to someone else who needed them.

If this a reference to the incident at St Paul's, I very much suspect that he did eat them as he specified what sandwich he wanted. Unless one of Jeremy Corbyn's principles is to re-distribute only egg sandwiches to the needy.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What's so special about a "suit"? In car dealerships and many other stores you see spotty 'Erberts wearing £39 suits from ASDA that do exactly nothing for their appearance. Golly, the suits shine more than their shoes do!

I have worked in the Houses of Parliament. The vast majority of male MPs wear a lounge suit when the House is sitting (of varying degrees of quality and price). There is a dress code for parliamentary staff which reflects this.

So yes. I think by choosing perhaps not to own a suit, and certainly not to wear one in the Commons Chamber, Jeremy Corbyn is making a choice and a statement that he is different from the rest. Whether that is a good, bad, irrelevant statement is for others to decide.

[ 20. September 2015, 14:17: Message edited by: Badger Lady ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's partly a rejection of the snobbery of the establishment, isn't it? I don't own a suit, and I've never worked anywhere where one was required. In fact, I never wear a tie, except at funerals and the like.

It's an interesting example of political semiotics, or something like that; I'm not sure if it's important or not. I think sometimes these symbolic things do become important, for example, the French Revolution tried to change all kinds of symbols, and some of them stuck, and some were reversed. The obvious example is the national anthem.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
I have worked in the Houses of Parliament. The vast majority of male MPs wear a lounge suit when the House is sitting (of varying degrees of quality and price). There is a dress code for parliamentary staff which reflects this.

So yes. I think by choosing perhaps not to own a suit, and certainly not to wear one in the Commons Chamber, Jeremy Corbyn is making a choice and a statement that he is different from the rest. Whether that is a good, bad, irrelevant statement is for others to decide.

I've never worked in the HoC, but am totally accepting that there are workplaces with a dress code.

However, I am totally not accepting that visitors to a church should comply to an arbitrary dress code which may or may not have been stated, which is only for to fit in with the uniform of the military and which is not expected of old soldiers.

The church is for everyone, as I was reminded during a Cathedral service this morning, whether you are wearing the full vestments like the clergy or shorts and sandals like the man opposite me in the pews.

Ultimately we're not trying to impress each other in church, but attempting to humble ourselves before the deity.

Given Mr Corbyn doesn't believe in the deity, it seems to me that some should be giving him more credit for respectfully putting up with a religious service he finds objectionable and for wearing muted clothing - rather than continuing with this nonsense about whether or not a non-matching jacket offends the memory of the war dead.

If you really think this is what my grandfather fought for and what his generation are thinking about in memorial services, then you are out of your tiny mind.

And if this really is the only thing that the majority of the country think about, then the idea of remembrance is truly broken.

And if those attending Cathedral services truly are bothered by the clothing people are wearing (which in my experience of attending a lot of Cathedral services, they're not at all), then maybe they should take a moment to contemplate why they're more bothered about other people than their own souls.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's partly a rejection of the snobbery of the establishment, isn't it?

It could be, which arguably is a good thing. Personally, I'm always torn between admiring and enjoying the pageantry and silliness of parliamentary stuff; and thinking, OTOH, that so much of it actually doesn't matter. Not really.

Alternatively, he could be asserting an individualistic eccentriciy of his own, at the expense of communal identity. Like the national anthem. How far do these things represent the unifying sense of belonging, of the people, or institution, he represents? And, therefore, how far can he deviate from that - insisting on his personal, albeit principled, individualism - without detracting from his role as focal point of unity for, eg, the Labour party, or the authority of Parliament?

A bit like a Bishop who prefers to wear mufti while leading worship? Debateably, it doesn't matter that s/he dresses traditionally for worship. But, equally, what is lost in sacrificing the focussing of the unity of the congregation, through accepted custom and symbolism, and their sense of being a recognizable community under a recognizable authority?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I would think that Corbyn might criticize various Tory governments which set out to destroy a sense of community, e.g. by targeting poor and disabled people.

Hence, any claim of an overall British community could be seen as bad faith, since the rich are often not interested in the welfare of the poor. The inequality in our society seems to mock this idea of national unity.

I'm not saying that that leads to not wearing a suit! In fact, I don't know what C thinks about these things - it's possible that he is indifferent to clothes.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Given Mr Corbyn doesn't believe in the deity, it seems to me that some should be giving him more credit for respectfully putting up with a religious service he finds objectionable and for wearing muted clothing - rather than continuing with this nonsense about whether or not a non-matching jacket offends the memory of the war dead.

This reminds me a bit about poor Michael Foot who got such a roasting in the press about wearing a duffle coat to the Remembrance Day cenotaph service. Stuffiness, class snobbery? It was very unpleasant how they went after the poor guy.

Interesting interview with Corbyn in The Church Times - taken from a July interview in Third Way. Here are a few snippets:

'I'm not anti-religious at all.... I go to churches... mosques... temples... synagogues. I find religion very interesting. I find the power of faith very interesting... I think the faith community offers and does a great deal for people.... There doesn't have to be wars about religion.... we have much more in common than separate us.'

I have no idea how conciliatory he was being, how sincere. I don't know him or his work, so have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Just thought it was interesting.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The inequality in our society seems to mock this idea of national unity.

I agree with your first statement, in the context you put it in. I suppose I was thinking more of the unity of his own party, looking to its head as a focal point of its own identity. And also the unity of parliamentary institutionalism; though maybe that's more about uniformity and conformity, than actual unity?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Talk of unity seems farcical, when we see the media mounting ferocious attacks on Corbyn. They are so respectful of the office of Opposition leader that that they construct smears and misrepresentations about him. And that's just the Guardian!

Well, he's naive if he didn't expect that. He would get attacked whatever he did, I think the right wing are nervous about him, so they are trying to caricature him.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, I don't know what C thinks about these things - it's possible that he is indifferent to clothes.

Well, that should liven up the PMQs [Ultra confused]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Talk of unity seems farcical, when we see the media mounting ferocious attacks on Corbyn. They are so respectful of the office of Opposition leader that that they construct smears and misrepresentations about him. And that's just the Guardian!

Were you similarly outraged when, for example, William Hague was widely mocked by the press for wearing a baseball cap?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I do think there is a significant difference between saying so-and-so looks silly in a choice of clothing (though I think that is a dodgy concept of news in itself) and saying - via that sartorial choice I can tell he doesn't give a toss about our war dead.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

What the actual fu*k?

Is this real?

British army could stage mutiny under corbyn says senior serving general.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Quite possibly. Chuka Umunna thinks that if Corbyn is elected there could be riots. The farming community aren't exactly impressed by the new shadow agriculture minister either.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
What the actual fu*k?

Is this real?

British army could stage mutiny under corbyn says senior serving general.

Scaremongering, and we've seen it before.

The armed forces already have plenty of reasons to mutiny from the lousy treatment the have had from recent and current government. More deployments on operations, real-term cuts to pay and pensions which are shown up by difficulties in retaining experienced personnel.

We heard this back in the mid seventies when that fine soldier General Sir Walter Walker stated that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a 'proven Communist. He, and a few others of less stature, got in a rare froth about the trade unions and tried to get some support from, well, almost anywhere, including South Africa.

Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on :

quote:
Quite possibly. Chuka Umunna thinks that if Corbyn is elected there could be riots. The farming community aren't exactly impressed by the new shadow agriculture minister either.

There were actual riots only a few years ago under The Coalition.

If your response to someone not singing the National Anthem is mutiny, you need to acquire a sense of proportion. Quickly.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae:
If your response to someone not singing the National Anthem is mutiny, you need to acquire a sense of proportion. Quickly.

I don't think that's the reason...

Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on :

You mean there's actually reasons which justify treason.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

YMMV, but it isn't about the National Anthem. You might like to have a look at the link in George Spigot's post upthread.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
YMMV, but it isn't about the National Anthem. You might like to have a look at the link in George Spigot's post upthread.

There's absolutely no reason for a coup or mutiny, but people appear to require far less than that to work themselves up to a lather though.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I find it incredible. I mean I doubt it would happen but to even threaten it. It would ultimately mean a lot of people would end up having to try and engage in direct action against our army. There are a lot of people who would not stand to see the end of democracy in this country.

Posted by Robertus Liverpolitanae (# 12011) on :

I did read it. Denouncing Corbyn for alleged treasonous utterances in the past andt hreatening future treasonous actions in response seems bizarrely hypocritical.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

They obviously serve a very good brandy in the officers' mess.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When there was no evidence of him eating them, only of walking off with them - and if he is anything like someone I know, who often redistributes such things, to hand them over to someone else who needed them.

If this a reference to the incident at St Paul's, I very much suspect that he did eat them as he specified what sandwich he wanted. Unless one of Jeremy Corbyn's principles is to re-distribute only egg sandwiches to the needy.

I didn't see a source which gave that info - can you direct me to it? I only saw photos.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

I didn't see a source which gave that info - can you direct me to it? I only saw photos.

It is total bollocks, and google would have told Anlican't what Guido evidently didn't.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Interesting interview with Corbyn in The Church Times - taken from a July interview in Third Way.

Christians on the Left (formerly the Christian Socialist Movement) did a series of interviews with the candidates. Corbyn was the only one who shlowed any religious literacy.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I heard a woman on LBC this morning complaining that the left wing press were making a terrible fuss about something Cameron is reported as doing at Oxford, when no-one has been reporting about what Corbyn has been up to in more recent stages of his life. Which she somehow knew about, despite the silence.

The press revealing hideous secrets about Cameron and cannabis* is the Daily Mail.

*And a pig's head.

None of which is as bad as what we already knew about the Bullingdons.

[ 21. September 2015, 10:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

The book by Lord Ashcroft is being exclusively serialised in the Dail Mai(/fail/heil/wail/whatever). I wasn't aware they'd become left wing?

Surely the worst story about Jeremy Corbyn is that he was party to failing to declare £3.45 of electoral expenses when acting as an agent for a candidate in 1979! I mean it's shocking isn't it?

Given the choice between reading about that and #piggate I know which I'd choose. Neither, so back to work....

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The book by Lord Ashcroft is being exclusively serialised in the Dail Mai(/fail/heil/wail/whatever). I wasn't aware they'd become left wing?

They can now claim to not be politically biased, and will drag up muck on leaders of all parties. Yep, they're politically neutral, and pigs fly (though, the drugs do help with that).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The book by Lord Ashcroft is being exclusively serialised in the Dail Mai(/fail/heil/wail/whatever). I wasn't aware they'd become left wing?
They can now claim to not be politically biased, and will drag up muck on leaders of all parties. Yep, they're politically neutral, and pigs fly (though, the drugs do help with that).

I reckon the Daily Mail is getting up steam to support an attempt to replace Cameron in a couple of years time, citing the "soft line" he has taken on immigration, Europe and benefits cuts. They probably feel he is out of touch with mainstream Conservatives and much of the party.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Well, he's said he wouldn't contest the next election, and his CV will always include winning an election outright. I don't know how much politicians really think about "protecting their legacy" - but his achievement will be quite simple - "I won".

So I don't know how much they really care about who comes next. So the Daily Mail presumably want a proper hardliner - which of course the leader of the Labour Party ought never to be....

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I reckon the Daily Mail is getting up steam to support an attempt to replace Cameron in a couple of years time

With friends like this ...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It does show that Corbyn isn't the only party leader who has been too friendly with ham ass.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I wonder if Corbyn will be able to persuade his mps not to oink during the next pmqs.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It does show that Corbyn isn't the only party leader who has been too friendly with ham ass.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

This amuses me more than it should: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-russian-embassy-is-trolling-david-cameron-over-pig-gate--Z1UsuwVu8x

(It is safe for work.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Most of us did things when we were young that embarrass us now.

I'm sure she's too nice a person to do such a thing. But suppose the legends recently reported are true. Suppose also that at some time Jeremy Corbyn were to drop Diane Abbott from the Shadow Cabinet. And suppose then, she were to public an article in the press about how he snored, or how he had a tiny dingle-dangle. Would that be any different or any more relevant than pig-gate?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Very true.

The stuff about his prior knowledge re Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status is much more significant.

I also would *not* want the labour mps to do barnyard impersonations.

I do think what the Russian Embassy is doing is interesting though - do you normally troll like this of you are a diplomatic mission ?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

The David Cameron pig thing is (or should be) completely irrelevant to politics.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I do think what the Russian Embassy is doing is interesting though - do you normally troll like this of you are a diplomatic mission ?

Diplomacy comes in many forms. Not all of those forms involve playing nice towards the other guys so that they will like you.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Russian activity on the internet is well known; some people think they employ thousands to do all kinds of stuff, defending Russia obviously, but also more bizarre stuff. But then maybe many countries do this.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I do think what the Russian Embassy is doing is interesting though - do you normally troll like this of you are a diplomatic mission ?
Diplomacy comes in many forms. Not all of those forms involve playing nice towards the other guys so that they will like you.

Indeed, but what do you think they are intending to achieve ?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

A victory for their commie friend Corbyn. Duh.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yeah, cos Russian government support is going to play well with the electorate, I don't think.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I do think what the Russian Embassy is doing is interesting though - do you normally troll like this of you are a diplomatic mission ?
Diplomacy comes in many forms. Not all of those forms involve playing nice towards the other guys so that they will like you.
Indeed, but what do you think they are intending to achieve ?

Maybe they're just sending the message that Russia doesn't have to worry about whether it upsets Britain or not.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I do think what the Russian Embassy is doing is interesting though - do you normally troll like this of you are a diplomatic mission ?
Diplomacy comes in many forms. Not all of those forms involve playing nice towards the other guys so that they will like you.
Indeed, but what do you think they are intending to achieve ?

Cause a bit of chaos, try to destabilise things here and there? There's presumably a reason why Russia Today liked to cover the Scottish independence referendum so thoroughly, for example.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The David Cameron pig thing is (or should be) completely irrelevant to politics.

Indeed. Conversely, the way he handled Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status really stinks. But don't expect a substantive answer from Mr Cameron. He'll be snide and dismissive.

Ultimately, for a wealthy individual who spent years avoiding UK tax to give to the Conservative party large amounts of money is democratic but for the leader of the opposition to have links with the unions (current membership around 60x that of the Conservative party) and for the unions to give money to Labour is bad for democracy.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think it's bad for democracy for any individual or organisation to fund political campaigns and therefore expect special treatment. Whether that's a rich individual funding the Conservative Party election campaign and expecting a senior position within government (and getting pissed off when given a junior position) or a trade union expecting a policy package that favours them.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The David Cameron pig thing is (or should be) completely irrelevant to politics.

(Since writing the above I've changed my mind but have posted in the pig thread so as not to derail.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I suspect that Pig-Gate will now work very much in his favour over the next few months. Replacing Cameron more quickly with Osborne (which might happen) will still leave the taint of "the posh and what they get up to".

Jeremy Corbyn has had an unexpected (to me at least) filip both to his settling in to the job and Labour's future prospects. Sometimes it's all about being in the right place at the right time.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

A recent opinion poll on this (to the extent that we can trust polls these days, especially rapid reaction ones) suggested that about 60% of respondent said this alleged incident didn't change their view and a further 13% or so didn't know whether it changed their view. I'd query the extent to which this is a 'filip'.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Have there been any headlines in the last two days about how Corbyn is a threat to national security because he doesn't do his top button up? No?

I'd look on that as a result.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Corbyn should have expected the press to examine every action and decision he makes in the first few weeks with minute detail for any little thing that's out of place. Instead the press are talking about what may turn out to be a load of porkies about Cameron. When it blows over, if the press turns back to Corbyn they'll have to get over the "old news" factor of his being in the leadership seat for a few weeks. If Corbyn keeps his head, gets on with making solid and hard to discredit statements, asking good questions in PMQs, avoids any major social gaffs etc then the next time the press spot light falls on him will be Labour Party Conference and at that point he can concentrate on policies - which is his strength, like or hate what he believes he can speak coherently and passionately in defence of those beliefs.

[which is a long winded version of what Doc Tor said]

[ 22. September 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I do sort of feel sorry for Corbyn's fans. Barely a fortnight after welcoming a new politics based solely on principled policy discussion that is oh-so-serious, along comes a juicy personality driven story.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I do sort of feel sorry for Corbyn's fans. Barely a fortnight after welcoming a new politics based solely on principled policy discussion that is oh-so-serious, along comes a juicy personality driven story.

I don't think they care.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Corbyn's given a brief interview to the New Statesman, refused to comment on the pig claim which is pleasing. Has ended up with someone in his team who worked for both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnston - interesting.

[ 23. September 2015, 19:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

To continue on from what doublethink just posted...

Nailed it:

quote:
But to the political story of the week – the allegation that David Cameron put “a private part of his anatomy” into a dead pig’s mouth – Corbyn has “absolutely no response at all”. He adds, however, “I am concerned about the alleged knowledge, or not, of the non-dom status of some of his friends in the House of Lords.”

Corbyn interview.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Hardly a ringing endorsement from Peter Mandelson. It looks like he is still trying to pull strings and makes him look a bitter middle-aged man.

Then again, the comments are in The Guardian. If the Labour Party loses its association with that paper, maybe it will gain credibility overall, which will piss-off the slacktivists who will probably turn to supporting the Green Party.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, I wouldn't have expected Mandy to be pro-Corbyn. On the otherhand, a relatively senior party figure well known as having opposed Corbyn during the leadership campaign saying "wait and see" is a move towards preventing an implosion in the party. Whether he's right that Corbyn makes Labour unelectable or not, an internal war and party splintering certainly will make Labour unelectable.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... If the Labour Party loses its association with that paper, maybe it will gain credibility overall, which will piss-off the slacktivists who will probably turn to supporting the Green Party.

Can any party afford to lose its less enthusiastic voters? Is discouraging those not of the true faith ever a good political strategy in a system where you have to win elections? Never forget there's everything to play for.

As I keep on trying to remind people, the Conservatives have an overall majority with only 37% of the vote. That's hardly a mandate to govern rather than just administer. The LibDems have recently said they're going to ignore a convention that is alleged to exist that opposition parties aren't supposed to vote against policies in the governing party's manifesto, on the grounds that a party that ⅔ of the voters voted for someone else, doesn't have a mandate for its manifesto. I agree with that argument.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

That seems a very unusual convention. If they aren't supposed to vote against the governing party, you have to wonder what an opposition is for...

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

It's a convention for the House of Lords which arises because the Lords have no democratic legitimacy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Presumably the notion is that everyone who voted (in this case) Conservative voted for everything in the manifesto, and therefore the Conservatives have a mandate from the people to enact those policies. Therefore, to vote against those policies is to vote against the wishes of the electorate who voted the Conservatives into government.

The mandate argument can be seen to be valid if a party gets a large majority. But, in that case presumably their MPs will vote for that policy and it doesn't make any difference what the Opposition do. Conversely, if the government majority is very small such that they need to whip all their members through the vote then an effective Opposition can potentially overturn a manifesto policy. But, in that situation a claim for a mandate from the electorate is very weak.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

On the otherhand, such a convention for the Lords makes more sense. Which is an additional comment following a cross-post.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

But the government can always trump the House Of Lords by using the parliament act can't it? Or perhaps there are some other stupid conventions about using that, or they are humiliated by having to or something...

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

and here's a link to a dodgy Wikipedia page to give background and explanation.

Salisbury Convention

According to this the Lib Dems have been backing away from the convention for some time.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
It's a convention for the House of Lords which arises because the Lords have no democratic legitimacy.

It's bizarre that a party which wins about 25% of the possible votes wins > 50% of the available seats.

Then again, why should there be any convention for any opposition to not vote against manifesto promises when the government party or parties can't.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've always been puzzled by parties which claim a mandate (I first noticed it with Mrs Thatcher) when they have not commanded the majority of the electorate. I am left to assume that this is under the Strephon principle, and they got it from the Queen of the Fairies.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Whenever I hear the term mandate I recall the dozen or so handed out by the League of Nations after the War To End All Wars. They were no more than a marginal improvement on old-fashioned colonialism, so I'm very sceptical and cynical whenever anyone claims a mandate.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've always been puzzled by parties which claim a mandate (I first noticed it with Mrs Thatcher) when they have not commanded the majority of the electorate. I am left to assume that this is under the Strephon principle, and they got it from the Queen of the Fairies.

I don't know how much it was used before that, but it was a favourite phrase for Harold Wilson.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The concept of a mandate on manifesto policies from a general election fails on at least three points IMO

It is almost unheard of for a party to get more than 50% of votes cast, certainly the support of more than 50% of the electorate would be so unlikely as to be impossible.
It is highly unlikely that anyone voting for the party agrees with everything in the manifesto. I would be surprised if even David Cameron doesn't think there are a few minor policies that were put in for party unity that he personally disagrees with.
It is unlikely that there is a single policy in the manifesto that 100% of the people voting for that party agree with. That would even be true for apparently defining policies (eg: I doubt that all the people who voted SNP agree with Independence.

About the only way a policy could be said to have a mandate from the electorate is if they were asked directly in a referendum with a two option (ie: yes/no) question. Even then there would be circumstances when it would be reasonable to question whether that does actually represent what the people want.

AIUI, Corbyn has been seeking to establish cross-party consensus politics. Which is an act of negotiation on each policy, with what was in the party manifesto as a starting position rather than a non-negotiable fixed point. Which is a way of conducting business that I find commendable. But it does run the risk of alienating supporters for whom that policy was of such importance that it is almost non-negotiable (which is what happened with the LibDems over tuition fees).

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Anyone else catch the Andrew Marr interview ? I think he did well.

[ 27. September 2015, 09:42: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog regularly but I think this is pertinent.

quote:
Wren-Lewis:
What a strange world we are now in. The government goes for rapid deficit reduction as a smokescreen for reducing the size of the state. No less than a former cabinet secretary accuses the Chancellor of this deceit. Yet when a Labour leadership contender adopts an anti-austerity policy he is told it is extreme and committing electoral suicide.

My reservations about Corbyn have always been primarily principled-pragmatism. By which I mean, I am genuinely deeply concerned by the damage this Conservative government are causing to my country and they need to be beaten. I do wonder if the Overton window means Corbyn is too far out of the box but...

As Wren-Lewis observes there is a massive disconnect between the reality of Osborne's dishonesty and radical right wing agenda and its representation in the media as mainstream. Which is mirrored by how close Corbyn is to mainstream economics and how he is presented as deeply radical. Allowing for the fact that Wren-Lewis's whole Stitcht is the huge gap between what economic research actually shows to be sound policy and what the media presents as such, this is still a big deal. The media is silent on Osborne.

Now here's the thing, the smug condescension of many Conservatives about Corbyn's electability... what if they're wrong? What if people will see through the lies and then see this man of principal with whom they may not fully agree but he will be offering something very different and - by that point - clearly desperately needed. In which case, we are at the beginning of a big change in the political landscape.

I am not yet ready to predict that. Much as I hope for it, in the same way I hoped Blair would be more left than he was, I am realistic about the challenges that lay ahead.

However I have a folder of all the newspaper front pages that greeted Corbyn's election as leader. I am keeping them to bring out when (if) the complacent certainties are shown to be as foolish in electoral terms as they are in policy terms.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone else catch the Andrew Marr interview ? I think he did well.

I found I could watch it via the BBC website, even though iPlayer gives me a "you can't watch that" usually.

I don't think Andrew Marr is the most aggressive of the political interviewers. But, Corbyn responded to all the questions - even though on a couple of occasions his response was "a colleague is addressing that in conference this week, wait and see", which was good support for his colleagues rather than attempting to steal their thunder. Stuck to his guns (even though he probably hates that expression) over the opening of democratic processes through consultation when pressed on what would be the situation when (eg: over Trident) there may be a difference in opinion between Corbyn and his cabinet and conference.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

This is a very smart move.

If they do the PR right, it will become much more difficult for Osborne to get away with his fantasies.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
[
If they do the PR right, it will become much more difficult for Osborne to get away with his fantasies.

AFZ

I'd really rather not think about Osborne's fantasies....

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.

Er isn't your last point the key bit here? Surely the Tories unless they take leave of their political senses will be working very hard to ensure the public aren't allowed to forget it's a Labour appointed group?

Not for the first time, it reminds me of the great Dad's Army 17 stage plan to attack a tank:

Mainwaring: "Any questions?"

Walker: "Yeah. While we're doing all this, what's the tank going to be doing?"

Meanwhile, all George has to do is cherry pick some good quotes from the IMF and say "the IMF say this, Labour's advisors say...."

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

It might be useful (genuinely) as a way of taking some of the heat of John McDonnell, but otherwise the line to take from every other party in Westminster may as well be "Labour contracts out economic decision making because its own team don't have any credibility/can't decide for themselves."

That may well be hugely and gratuitously unfair, but it also probably what's going to happen.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

For most of the other parties and the hostile press (i.e. pretty much all of it with the exception of the Morning Star and the possible exception of the Mirror) any stick is good enough to beat Corbyn with and if it breaks, well, you've got two.
'Ha! Look how dangerous this lot are with their untested and amateurish economic policy!'
'OK, we'll get Stiglitz and some other signiifcant people in to advise, and we'll ask for access to the Bank of England and the OBR so that we can get some independent economic modelling'.
'Ha! Look how indecisive this lot are with their contracted out policymaking!'

As Harold Wilson used to say, always remember, comrades, that the Tories are bastards.

[ 28. September 2015, 10:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?

ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think the committee of economists is a smart move even though the Tories could find a different group, and even though they can characterise it as 'Labour need advice,' (not a strong argument, as it is hard to portray taking advice as weakness rather than responsibility).

Labour wants to attack the Tory claim that austerity is required by the implacable logic of the economic situation. Demonstrating that there is an alternative, but well-informed view, is sufficient. You don't have to show that it is a better supported view, simply that it is a reasonable view and that therefore austerity is a choice, and one we needn't make.

Unfortunately the Shadow Chancellor has already committed himself to deficit reduction and a balanced budget.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Unfortunately the Shadow Chancellor has already committed himself to deficit reduction and a balanced budget.

But, austerity isn't the only route to a balanced budget and deficit reduction.

Stimulation of the economy to generate growth will do it as well. A growing economy means more people in work and earning more, and hence more tax income and less welfare payments. That should lead to balanced budgets if you're reasonably careful where you spend your money. And, a growing economy also reduces your deficit - both relative to GDP (which will rise), but also in real terms if you manage a small budget surplus to pay off more than just the interest.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.

[ 28. September 2015, 13:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.

But that's why the austerity argument holds water in enough people's eyes. Most people cannot easily or simply earn more, and probably aren't owed anything by others.

Hence they always do (i), and think the government should too.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.

It's about as persuasive as the Falconer Commission on Assisted Dying. That was founded on the hope that people would think that because he'd been Lord Chancellor, they would not notice that he wasn't Lord Chancellor any more. It was no more than his personal collection of kite-flyers chosen because they already agreed with the conclusion he wanted them to reach - which surprise, surprise, they did.

i.e. It fools those who want to be fooled or those who can't be bothered to check.

Incidentally, this name, Wren-Lewis that keeps getting quoted on this and other threads - is he objectively a well-known and respected economist that we all ought to have heard of? Or is he just someone that Alienfromzog happens to like, went to school with or was taught by?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.
But that's why the austerity argument holds water in enough people's eyes. Most people cannot easily or simply earn more, and probably aren't owed anything by others.

Hence they always do (i), and think the government should too.

Sure. But, to but it bluntly, they're being dumb.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?

ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"

I may be mistaken (but I don't think I am this time) but I'm sure economics was originally titled "Political Economy" or even "Political Economics", which gives a clue as to the origin of the craft, namely a statistical tool for politicians.

Economists are about as objective as football fans.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Simon Wren-Lewis is an Oxford professor of economics, who formerly had government jobs. He worked for the Treasury from 74-81. He has a Wikipedia page and a blog called Mainly Macro, which is quite readable.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, this name, Wren-Lewis that keeps getting quoted on this and other threads - is he objectively a well-known and respected economist that we all ought to have heard of? Or is he just someone that Alienfromzog happens to like, went to school with or was taught by?

I just like his blog a lot - he explains his assertions with numbers and charts and stuff. I have no formal training in economics but I have read a lot in the last few years. More to the point he is an internationally renowned Oxford Prof of economics so he is a very credible person. Similarly Stiglitz carries significant gravitas.

AFZ

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Just tuned in for his speech....

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

His speech long on utopian hoped-for principle; vacuous accommadatory phrases and empty of all specific proposals.

Its one thing to say we will listen to everyone. But there comes a point in real life when some hard decisions have to be taken and the "all things to all men" approach will not suffice.

Corbyn is a man of principle. Trouble is that his principles, put into practice, are not acceptable to the majority of the electorate. So he prevaricates. In 4 years time such prevarication will not wash and he will, at last, have to nail his colours to the mast.

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Really? You don't believe him, but what the press invent?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
His speech long on utopian hoped-for principle; vacuous accommadatory phrases and empty of all specific proposals.

I haven't had time to listen to it in full, but one of my FB friends was in the hall. He said:

quote:
Just back from Labour conference. Jezza's speech was packed with ideas - from sick pay for the self employed, through investment in council housing and deficit reduction to better mental health service and improving the army. The spin from the right wing press? He said nothing. Incredible.

What am I going to hear when I listen to it? No specific proposals, or what my mate said?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?

ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"

I'd say more that if a significant number of economists are against austerity, it makes sense for that debate to be reflected in Parliament. Or rather, something is wrong with our legislators if nearly all of them support policies whose support is far less overwhelming among those people whose job is to guess whether they'd work or not.

Also, one of the accusations against Mr Corbyn is that he is stuck in the 1980s. Dr Stiglitz certainly is not. (In fact I believe in the 1980s he would have been on the opposite side to Mr Corbyn.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What am I going to hear when I listen to it? No specific proposals, or what my mate said?

I imagine you could take the same speech and spin it as either "lots of specifics" or "lots of platitudes but no specifics" depending on your mood.

In truth? I expect there weren't any "specifics" because nobody puts the level of detail I'd call "specific" in a policy speech. Policy speeches are full of big pictures and guideposts, not nitty-gritty. This is true whatever the political persuasion of the speaker.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It just strikes me (as of R4's PM programme) that a good chunk of the reporting was about Corbyn's complaint that he's continually being misreported. The reporter reporting about the complaint of misreporting said there was no point in complaining about misreporting, and that reporters were right to complain about being complained about.

Given that, Corbyn clearly has a point. He's going to have to bypass the traditional media's reporting of things he's said, and instead put himself directly and unfiltered in front of as many people as possible.

Which is why I'm going to give up an hour to listen to whole thing myself.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

May I elaborate on my point out of my own experience?

During the war years in Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe used every opportunity on the world stage to espouse a narrative based upon the Christian principles he imbibed at an RC school. He spoke of justice and the liberation of the oppressed etc etc which resonated with Christian and Liberal values.

Come 1980 and his access to power. Those sound-bytes were ditched overnight. He sent his Korean trained 5th Brigade into Matabeleland and massacred 1000s of black people who supported Nkomo rather than him. Genocide on a grand scale and the West remained silent! Years later he sent his War Veterans (most of whom were semen at the time of the Struggle) to invade commercial farms and thereby wrecked the economy irreparably.

The point is that all his facile "liberalsim" and plausible moral justification was torn up and disappeared into thin air the moment he gained power. Result = today Zimbabwe is a basket case of the first order.

I see little difference between Mugabe and Corbyn in their tactical ploy to win power. Its window dressing to confuse the masses. Once in power all morality is ditched.

The story of Zimbabwe is a salutary lesson for us. Economic ineptitude dressed up in high-sounding moral platitudes and worthy sounbites added to an unacknowledged Marxist-Leninist philosophy is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

You missed out HS2 and the bomb magnets. If you spend money to build and renovate houses you will reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy more than the shiny kit ever will. As for taxing the rich and middle classes out of existence then, well, the current policy is only reducing poverty and disability by killing the poor and disabled. Yes, benefit cuts, especially replacing Disability Living Allowances by Personal Independence Payments, are doing just that.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?

In what way has Mr Corbyn not 'come clean' about his views on Trident and the monarchy? If you mean why didn't he put them in his speech, Mr Corbyn has also been fairly clear that he wants a debate within his party before committing to a position on Trident, and he has also said numerous times that abolishing the monarchy is not a fight he wants to get into.

As for 'taxing the rich and middle classes out of existence', this is the sort of hysteria that The Daily Telegraph dole out to any left-wing leader, such as the revolutionary Communist 'Viva Cuba Libre' Lady Thatcher under whose premiership the top rate was 60p, or the radical far-left Trotskyist Mr Osborne whose first act as Chancellor was to put up VAT (is this right? - Ed.).

As for creating a Marxist-Leninist paradise, you are of course correct to highlight that there is no difference at all between Lenin, Keynes and Stiglitz; you could hardly slip a sheet of paper between them.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I see little difference between Mugabe and Corbyn in their tactical ploy to win power. Its window dressing to confuse the masses. Once in power all morality is ditched.

The story of Zimbabwe is a salutary lesson for us. Economic ineptitude dressed up in high-sounding moral platitudes and worthy sounbites added to an unacknowledged Marxist-Leninist philosophy is a recipe for disaster.

.........Wow.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Tinfoil hats over here...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
May I elaborate on my point out of my own experience?

You may, because it reveals such a super-abundance of hyperbole - nay, not since the Great Hyperbole Disaster of '02 where literally everybody everywhere died - that we can now safely ignore anything you say, have said or will in future say on this thread and/or topic, forever.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?
In what way has Mr Corbyn not 'come clean' about his views on Trident and the monarchy? If you mean why didn't he put them in his speech, Mr Corbyn has also been fairly clear that he wants a debate within his party before committing to a position on Trident, and he has also said numerous times that abolishing the monarchy is not a fight he wants to get into.

As for 'taxing the rich and middle classes out of existence', this is the sort of hysteria that The Daily Telegraph dole out to any left-wing leader, such as the revolutionary Communist 'Viva Cuba Libre' Lady Thatcher under whose premiership the top rate was 60p, or the radical far-left Trotskyist Mr Osborne whose first act as Chancellor was to put up VAT (is this right? - Ed.).

As for creating a Marxist-Leninist paradise, you are of course correct to highlight that there is no difference at all between Lenin, Keynes and Stiglitz; you could hardly slip a sheet of paper between them.

He most certainly did mention Trident in the speech, making extremely clear he thinks it's the wrong thing to do. Then he said he wants to discuss it and persuade people, and also to provide alternative work for all the people currently in the industry.

His problem will come if he can't persuade the party, and he will look extremely compromised. He talked about the media portrayal of "discussion as disagreement, compromise as conflict etc etc" as well.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

lowlands_boy - Fair enough, I didn't actually watch the speech, I was just taking shamwari's word for it.

As he seems so well-informed about Mr Corbyn's secret plot to unleash armed thugs against his opponents' farms in the name of V. I. Lenin, I see no particular reason to doubt the accuracy of his account.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Typical. Responses suggest that I equate Corbyn with Mugabe in all respects.

What I am saying is that both use moralistic soundbytes when out of power in an effort to persuade well meaning people to support them. Nobody could have argued persuasively on moral grounds against Mugabe prior to his coming to power.

But once in power??

I do not question Corbyn's sincerity. But I have serious reservations about some of those backing him to the hilt ( Mclusky et al) and who will financially call the tune.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

What I am saying is that both use moralistic soundbytes when out of power in an effort to persuade well meaning people to support them.

You could argue that the current Tory government did just that [and you are after all the one who introduced the Mugabe comparison].

.. and I'm far more concerned about some of the backers of Cameron, most of whom have their hands considerably nearer the levers of power than McCluskey etc.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Typical. Responses suggest that I equate Corbyn with Mugabe in all respects.

Certainly in the respects which actually matter:

quote:
I see little difference between Mugabe and Corbyn in their tactical ploy to win power. Its window dressing to confuse the masses. Once in power all morality is ditched.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that Corbyn, an elected MP for decades, an a member of the governing party for many of them, has changed substantially between what he says and what he does?

Indeed, the current complaint from the right is that he's inflexible and intransigent, and needs to compromise and ameliorate his rigid dogma in order to win people over.

He's either one or the other. Make up your mind.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

The possibility of a Prime Minister who understands that mass murder is a Bad Thing is, IMV, rather a promising sign.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.

Neither would I. Yet another reason to support him.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

It's certainly the ultimate trump card for him as far as that debate goes, but of course the lifespan of the deterrent would far outlast the potential reign of one PM.

It will be interesting to see how these debates in the Labour party pan out, and in how many of them Corbyn ends up as "the loser" (albeit that he mentioned in his speech that he doesn't see it like that).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Just for those on here keeping the reports for the day they can look back and say "look, told you the media didn't get it" (can't remember who that is but I think there're a couple), can I offer what I think is a pretty good summary of yesterday's speech from the Economist, which I'm tempted to file under "look, the media did get it" - but obviously will do for yours too?

Economist

I think this just about sums up where Corbyn is currently for me.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think is a pretty good summary of yesterday's speech from the Economist, which I'm tempted to file under "look, the media did get it" - but obviously will do for yours too?

Economist

Whenever I read an editorial from the Economist, I'm reminded of James Fallows critique of the magazine.

[FWIW I'm a past subscriber - though not for several years - but the tendencies Fallows identifies have been exacerbated over time].

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

tangent/

A subscriber of many years' standing, I find myself agreeing somewhat with this assessment, but I've yet to find anything better written.

/tangent

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The possibility of a Prime Minister who understands that mass murder is a Bad Thing is, IMV, rather a promising sign.

Is this merely facile rhetoric or are you suggesting there have been Prime Ministers who have thought mass murder was a Good Thing? If so, can you name them?

There have been political leaders who have thought this. I could name them, and so could you. But fortunately, they haven't been ours. It is something for which we should be grateful.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Churchill

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Corbyn as a Marxist-Leninist? Farcical. He and McDonnell strike me as moderate Keynesians. It shows how far right the political narrative has gone, that Keynes can be seen as extremist.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The possibility of a Prime Minister who understands that mass murder is a Bad Thing is, IMV, rather a promising sign.
Is this merely facile rhetoric or are you suggesting there have been Prime Ministers who have thought mass murder was a Good Thing? If so, can you name them?

There have been political leaders who have thought this. I could name them, and so could you. But fortunately, they haven't been ours. It is something for which we should be grateful.

Pressing the button is mass murder. If you're willing to do that, then by definition you're willing to commit mass murder. If you're willing to commit mass murder, presumably you don't consider it a bad thing, or you'd not be willing to do it.

Previous Prime Ministers have been, or claimed they have been, willing to commit mass murder in this way. Therefore, by simple logic, facile or otherwise, none of them thought mass murder was always a bad thing, because all of them have been willing to base a defence strategy on the willingness to do it.

[ 30. September 2015, 12:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That's because people create euphemisms to pretend that killing someone who never raised an arm to harm you is anything other than murder, and the killing of a large number of such people isn't mass murder. It's just 'collateral damage' [Roll Eyes]

, that makes it OK doesn't it? [Mad]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

I can understand why some people wouldn't want to call it murder but by any meaningful definition that makes sense and avoids political spin it is murder.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pressing the button is mass murder. If you're willing to do that, then by definition you're willing to commit mass murder. If you're willing to commit mass murder, presumably you don't consider it a bad thing, or you'd not be willing to do it.

Previous Prime Ministers have been, or claimed they have been, willing to commit mass murder in this way. Therefore, by simple logic, facile or otherwise, none of them thought mass murder was always a bad thing, because all of them have been willing to base a defence strategy on the willingness to do it.

Big non sequitur alert

No. Sorry. That's a non sequitur on an almost heroic scale.

Virtually everyone who has had to commit their country to war, at least since 1918, and largely even before, has done so regretting it. Apparently even the Kaiser had qualms, and had to be persuaded that it was too late to change his mind.

On World at One about two hours ago, Labour multilateralists were unanimous in saying that one has deterrence in the abiding hope one will never have to use it. Unattractive though this may be to some people's simplistic world view, I'm fairly confident that is the unanimous visceral belief of the leading figures in all the other parties as well, and in virtually all the leaders in other countries. Almost everybody thinks that mass murder, whether done by the state or anyone else is a thorough bad thing. Virtually all leaders hope they will never be faced with a situation where they have to decide between mass murder of other people and mass murder of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

There are a few exceptions. There are leaders who have though that the eradication of undesirable racial groups (e.g. Jews, Armenians - though that was just before my 1918 cut off point), or undesirable social groups, kulaks, most of the population of Cambodia, are legitimate and desirable objectives. But fortunately, most of the time, they are unusual.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

(Reply to Alan Cresswell above).

Yes, Chomsky has written quite a lot on this, including his bizarre dialogue with Sam Harris, wherein Chomsky outlines his well-known argument that collateral damage is often anything but, and refutes Harris's argument that the Western powers 'don't intend to kill large numbers of people, so that's OK'. (Available online, didn't give a link, rather o/t).

[ 30. September 2015, 14:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.

I believe they are wrong. It's not the name, it's the mass death that's the problem.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pressing the button is mass murder. If you're willing to do that, then by definition you're willing to commit mass murder. If you're willing to commit mass murder, presumably you don't consider it a bad thing, or you'd not be willing to do it.

Previous Prime Ministers have been, or claimed they have been, willing to commit mass murder in this way. Therefore, by simple logic, facile or otherwise, none of them thought mass murder was always a bad thing, because all of them have been willing to base a defence strategy on the willingness to do it.
Big non sequitur alert

No. Sorry. That's a non sequitur on an almost heroic scale.

Virtually everyone who has had to commit their country to war, at least since 1918, and largely even before, has done so regretting it. Apparently even the Kaiser had qualms, and had to be persuaded that it was too late to change his mind.

On World at One about two hours ago, Labour multilateralists were unanimous in saying that one has deterrence in the abiding hope one will never have to use it. Unattractive though this may be to some people's simplistic world view, I'm fairly confident that is the unanimous visceral belief of the leading figures in all the other parties as well, and in virtually all the leaders in other countries. Almost everybody thinks that mass murder, whether done by the state or anyone else is a thorough bad thing. Virtually all leaders hope they will never be faced with a situation where they have to decide between mass murder of other people and mass murder of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

There are a few exceptions. There are leaders who have though that the eradication of undesirable racial groups (e.g. Jews, Armenians - though that was just before my 1918 cut off point), or undesirable social groups, kulaks, most of the population of Cambodia, are legitimate and desirable objectives. But fortunately, most of the time, they are unusual.

There is no "have to use it". There are no conceivable circumstances where using it could be justifiable, or even advantageous. It depends on a threat that cannot possibly be acted on. It's a colossal waste of money based on an immoral threat. The only way its proponents can argue they're not willing to commit mass murder (or mass killing of innocent civilians if you prefer) is to be lying when they say they'd use it. It's either directly immoral or dishonestly so.

Which is why approve Corbyn's unwillingness to do it, and his honesty in saying so.

You can insult me by calling that "simplistic" if you like - I call it "principled".

[ 30. September 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Pfft - Mr Corbyn's refusal to press the button is nothing. I've heard that Ayatollah Khomeini has ruled out taking the bacon butty test on Iranian TV, and the Pope has rejected any suggestion of marriage during his papacy. It's even reported that Peter Robinson has spoken unfavourably of Irish unification.

(Honestly, what were people expecting him to say?)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Virtually all leaders hope they will never be faced with a situation where they have to decide between mass murder of other people and mass murder of the people they are supposed to be protecting.

How would launching Trident prevent the British public from being murdered? I thought the point was that we'd only press our button if the Soviets pressed theirs first - in which case, we're dead anyway. And if we're going to die, we should avoid dying in a state of mortal sin.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.
I can understand why some people wouldn't want to call it murder but by any meaningful definition that makes sense and avoids political spin it is murder.

Not so. Murder is killing outside certain legally defined parameters and with certain legally defined mental intentions. As it happens I think that it would be wrong to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike because the whole case for having nuclear weapons is to deter such a strike and if they've failed in that there's no justification for their use. I also think that conventional bombing of cities is morally wrong. But I wouldn't use the word 'murder' to describe even the bombing of Dresden or Coventry.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has put an interesting twist on the Trident renewal debate this morning, by stipulating that if he were Prime Minister, he would never push the button anyway.
Neither would I. Yet another reason to support him.

Agreed. Trident is a total waste of money and deters nothing.

I like the man better each time he speaks.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There is no "have to use it". There are no conceivable circumstances where using it could be justifiable, or even advantageous. It depends on a threat that cannot possibly be acted on. It's a colossal waste of money based on an immoral threat. The only way its proponents can argue they're not willing to commit mass murder (or mass killing of innocent civilians if you prefer) is to be lying when they say they'd use it. It's either directly immoral or dishonestly so.

Which is why approve Corbyn's unwillingness to do it, and his honesty in saying so.

You can insult me by calling that "simplistic" if you like - I call it "principled".

It would depend what you were advocated and on how considered a basis, whether I'd call your position simplistic.

If you are saying that there is a straightforward dichotomy, that everyone who is not a unilateralist thinks mass murder is a Good Thing, then, yes, I would call that simplistic. It would be up to you whether you classed that as an insult, or a badge to be worn with pride. Likewise if you were to say that you regard your position as principled and every other position as unprincipled.

If on the other hand, you were to say that you had considered the reasons why others have not taken the same position as you have, that you recognise that they are doing so because they are more pessimistic than you, and not because they are bloodthirsty scoundrels who are itching for the opportunity to wipe out vast swathes of their fellow humans, but you don't agree with them, then I would not call that simplistic.

Otherwise, it's a bit like not only setting the following multiple choice question in a history exam about Neville Chamberlain in 1938, but only allowing the candidate to choose one of the choices:-
Was he:-
1. a mug?
2. a principled man who after his experience of the last one, was horrified by the thought of another World War?
3. a wuss?
4. sneakily really supporting Fascism?
5. shrewdly buying an extra year to re-arm?
6. someone with too limited an imagination to realise just how vicious his enemy was?
7. trying hard to preserve peace in Europe?
8. a man who believed he had to give Hitler the chance to show he could do the decent thing, even if he then showed he wasn't going to?, or
9. this was all 75+ years ago, and irrelevant to us now because we know better?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I am certainly enjoying listening to Corbyn (and McDonnell), and they strike me as moderate social democrats, not at all the far left extremists being portrayed in the media.

I also detect in people that I know, quite a lot of interest in their ideas. I think the sticking point will be the economy, however. There is the Middle England Fear Factor here, which applies to anyone with a mortgage, or savings, or some kind of financial interest, which is a lot of people.

I don't know how Corbyn is going to reassure such people that their money is safe with them, not because he might suggest nationalizing their bank accounts, but simply because of uncertainty, and the fear factor about the unknown.

Of course, ironically, they may well not be safe with Osborne, in economic terms. But Osborne has managed so far to spin a narrative which convinces people.

Still, I am interested in what comes next with Corbyn. He is, well, refreshing, after the New Labour apparatchiks, and the Tory unpersons.

I also love the stony faces of some Labour MPs, when asked about him. Priceless. They are not sure whether to stick or twist.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Otherwise, it's a bit like not only setting the following multiple choice question in a history exam about Neville Chamberlain in 1938, but only allowing the candidate to choose one of the choices:-
Was he:-
1. a mug?
2. a principled man who after his experience of the last one, was horrified by the thought of another World War?
3. a wuss?
4. sneakily really supporting Fascism?
5. shrewdly buying an extra year to re-arm?
6. someone with too limited an imagination to realise just how vicious his enemy was?
7. trying hard to preserve peace in Europe?
8. a man who believed he had to give Hitler the chance to show he could do the decent thing, even if he then showed he wasn't going to?, or
9. this was all 75+ years ago, and irrelevant to us now because we know better?

2 + 7 with a side order of 5. I have read that Neville Chamberlain, post-Munich, was one of our most popular Prime Ministers. Very few opposed him at the time.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I have to say I foundthis in the Staggers of all places quite interesting. Corbyn, the Nirvana paradox, and why inter alia multilateral disarmament might make nuclear war more likely!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

This is all very interesting, but of course the more time that the Labour Party spends discussing the merits or otherwise of nuclear weapons, the more they gently distance themselves from floating voters who care about such things as the health service, tax rates, the police and their children's education.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'd go with that, Sioni. My grandfather, who admittedly had no particular knowledge of it apart from having joined the Red Cross in 1938 to train against the war which he knew was coming, was of the view that Chamberlain was buying time.
Hard cheese on Czechoslovakia, of course, but which of us can say for sure that we would have made a better decision?

[ 30. September 2015, 19:39: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'd go with that, Sioni. My grandfather, who admittedly had no particular knowledge of it apart from having joined the Red Cross in 1938 to train against the war which he knew was coming, was of the view that Chamberlain was buying time.
Hard cheese on Czechoslovakia, of course, but which of us can say for sure that we would have made a better decision?

I think that's an interesting perspective. If indeed that was Chamberlain's strategy, there is a strong case that he was playing a poor hand very well. Probably no comfort for Czechoslovakia but I don't think anything could have saved them at that point.

Conversely "This means Peace in our time" is either good acting or sounds completely foolish with hindsight.

YMMV, of course.

AFZ

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace. Where ? When ? We have been at war for the majority of my lifetime. There were concentration camps in Europe when I was a teenager. Wars in central Europe lasting for years. There have been bombings intermittently in the UK all my life. A country was annexed this decade.

What, exactly, has been deterred ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.

Do they? It may have kept a certain kind of peace but does anyone argue that it has averted all war?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

When I was younger they used to say, it averted war in Europe, then the break up of Yugoslavia happened. Lately, I don't know what it is that trident is supposed to prevent. That is my question.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace. Where ? When ? We have been at war for the majority of my lifetime. There were concentration camps in Europe when I was a teenager. Wars in central Europe lasting for years. There have been bombings intermittently in the UK all my life. A country was annexed this decade.

What, exactly, has been deterred ?

This is really a devil's advocate position for me, but I think the answer is that it's stopped war from being worse. My mom would tell me that no one's dared to have a "serious" war--and by serious she means serious for the people in the powerful countries--because of the nuclear deterrent.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.
Do they? It may have kept a certain kind of peace but does anyone argue that it has averted all war?

Well, the Tory MP (and former soldier) on PM this evening came very close to saying that. He also asserted that Trident is 'independent of the USA'.

That'll have the White House snorting into their cheerios in the morning.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace. Where ? When ? We have been at war for the majority of my lifetime. There were concentration camps in Europe when I was a teenager. Wars in central Europe lasting for years. There have been bombings intermittently in the UK all my life. A country was annexed this decade.

What, exactly, has been deterred ?
This is really a devil's advocate position for me, but I think the answer is that it's stopped war from being worse. My mom would tell me that no one's dared to have a "serious" war--and by serious she means serious for the people in the powerful countries--because of the nuclear deterrent.

That could conceivably be due to the nuclear deterrent - but it could equally well be because people looked at the last two world wars and thought - we're buggered if we want to go through that again.

I note that although we had a legal agreement with Ukraine, in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons, saying we'd help them if they were attacked. We actually didn't intervene in the annexation because no one wanted a war with Russia.

I am not convinced that is because they thought it would become a nuclear war - I think they just didn't want another large scale European war.

Conversely, Russia did not obtain Crimea by saying give us your territory or we'll drop a nuke on you. Nor have they tried that in any of the other wars they have fought with none nuclear powers in the last however many years.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It strikes me that the most effective defence against nuclear attack is to be able to stop a nuclear strike hitting your territory - which would require advanced conventional or cyber sabotage capability, or some kind of missile shield.

The only special thing about nukes is they are a highly efficient delivery system for mass death and poisoning. If you had a burning need to do that pre-emptively, you can do it with convential weapons it just takes longer. (I.e carpet bombing a city, chemical weapons, biological weapons, dropping ebola in the water supply or whatever.)

We simply don't have a enoungh nuclear weapons to destroy Russia entirely - its too big and they have way more than us and our land mass is comparatovely tiny. Mutally assured destruction from a UK perspective simply means Russia makes this island uninhabited, slaughtering about 65 million people, and the one submarine at sea tries to take out a couple of cities.

Depending on what the prime minister may or may not have written in a letter.

A day later, when they surface and discover that Radio 4 is no longer broadcasting the Today programme (yes, seriously, they had to get MOD permission when they wanted to broadcast 15 sec of silence a year or so ago).

As a military strategy it is ridiculous - even before you start to consider the ethics of it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.

[ 30. September 2015, 22:43: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think the sticking point will be the economy, however. There is the Middle England Fear Factor here, which applies to anyone with a mortgage, or savings, or some kind of financial interest, which is a lot of people.

Of course the wider irony is that in the longer term the housing market has to be rebalanced wrt the rest of the economy, and so at some point someone will have to pose policies that triggers the Fear Factor - or we do the whole thing via another crash.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK. Home ownership was beyond the means, not to say the dreams, of the vast majority of people. Houses became more affordable in relation to salary/wages as councils began to build large scale affordable housing.

It's quite reasonable to assume that council housing made rental properties less lucrative, which in turn would have reduced the price of houses as they would have ceased to be good income-earning assets.

The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not quite so. Well into the C20 council housing was often actually more expensive to rent than some private rented housing, because the quality was better- so you probably got more for your money but that's no good if you hadn't got the money in the first place. This was also a period (after 1915 and especially after 1945) of private sector rent controls. But on your second point Stuart Low, who is a housing academic at York, makes a similar argument to yours. He argues that the key decision point came in the early 1970s when much of the council housing built in the 30s, 40s and 50s had had its debt paid off: then, he argues, council rents could have been made much lower and that would have brought down rents all round because council renting could have developed as a low-cost mass alternative. But, he says, the Heath government decided not to allow this, just because it would have reduced values and landlord income in the private sector.

[ 01. October 2015, 07:54: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Mass killing. 'Mas murder' begs the question. You may think it'd be murder, and others might think it'd be murder, but rightly or wrongly quite a lot of established opinion doesn't think that killing lots of civilians by aerial bombing or missile attack in a war is mass murder.
I can understand why some people wouldn't want to call it murder but by any meaningful definition that makes sense and avoids political spin it is murder.
Not so. Murder is killing outside certain legally defined parameters and with certain legally defined mental intentions. As it happens I think that it would be wrong to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike because the whole case for having nuclear weapons is to deter such a strike and if they've failed in that there's no justification for their use. I also think that conventional bombing of cities is morally wrong. But I wouldn't use the word 'murder' to describe even the bombing of Dresden or Coventry.

Semantics. Still an evil action that should not have been done. I'm not that bothered whether it ticks the "murder" box or not; ordinary people still ended up dead in their thousands while presenting no threat to the people killing them.

Enoch; I did not say that anyone was a bloodthirsty maniac waiting for a chance to kill; I said they do not accept that mass killing is always wrong. If they did, they would not advocate a nuclear deterrent. That they do shows that they think there are circumstances in which killing millions of civilians is justified. I am glad that at least Corbyn agrees with me that there are no such circumstances.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK.

The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.

In this case the situation would be even worse, as you'd be positing deep economic depression. Economic growth since the 70s has been propped up by the premise that people's outgoings post retirement would be lower than that during their lifetime because their housing costs had already been paid for.

[ 01. October 2015, 08:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

Why do you assume that? 100 years ago approximately 90% of housing was privately rented in the UK.

The last three decades have seen that situation go into reverse. There is every reason to expect that we will return to a similar situation as 1915, albeit with better quality housing.
In this case the situation would be even worse, as you'd be positing deep economic depression. Economic growth since the 70s has been propped up by the premise that people's outgoings post retirement would be lower than that during their lifetime because their housing costs had already been paid for.

Which of course isn't economic growth at all, but an increase in the cash value of a certain type of asset. You may as well treat an increase in the price of gold as economic growth.

If anything has kept rentals high it has been a shortage of rented accomodation, both in the social and private sectors coupled with an overheated credit supply for house buying (and we all know what that led to). I've bored everyone before with my posts about the number of empty homes in Britain (between 500,000 and a million depending on how and what you count) but if even a tenth were brought into use it would house upwards of quarter of a million people and reduce rents.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

But freeing up empty homes would hit landlords hard in the pocket, destabilise the buy-to-let market, and as a knock-on, push mortgage-holders into negative equity.

If you already have a house, it's in your best interests to make sure that the supply of housing stays below demand.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But freeing up empty homes would hit landlords hard in the pocket, destabilise the buy-to-let market, and as a knock-on, push mortgage-holders into negative equity.

If you already have a house, it's in your best interests to make sure that the supply of housing stays below demand.

Maybe.

But I would like to see some proper data on this. I would speculate that given how much demand out-strips supply, it would be really easy to create a 'soft-landing.' Even releasing 100,000 new homes now wouldn't (I think) cause a crashing in rents, just a (much-needed) stabalisation.

And I speak as a private landlord.

AFZ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Here's the Empty Homes Network website. Links to Government statistics are here, which shows a reduction in empty social housing, but there's still a lot of it around.

The headline figure is that over 200,000 homes have been empty for over six months in England, and 610,000 overall.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Which of course isn't economic growth at all, but an increase in the cash value of a certain type of asset. You may as well treat an increase in the price of gold as economic growth.

No, I'm not referring to house prices at all - but going to the original post, which assumes that 90% of people will continue to have to pay rents till they die (and remember the life expectancy in 1915 was around 55) - which will entail greater savings throughout their life in order to make this possible. Hence a decrease in consumer spending and a knock on effect on growth (and ironically an increase in asset bubbles due to the glut in savings, coupled with a lack of investment opportunities).

[ 01. October 2015, 12:38: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.

ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
When people argue for the nuclear deterrent, they always say it has kept the peace.
Do they? It may have kept a certain kind of peace but does anyone argue that it has averted all war?
... asserted that Trident is 'independent of the USA'.

That'll have the White House snorting into their cheerios in the morning.

I'm finally going to call someone on this - citations on the non-operational independence-from-the-US of UK trident please? Preferably governmental rather than pressure group...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I thought we needed the UN to release the codes to allow us to launch our nukes, even with massive weapons of destruction over our heads. I saw it on Doctor Who, it must be true.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.
ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.

That's not more autonomous - they are of little use without the body of the missile.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13442735

My mistake, they require several days notice to fire. And they have to get the warheads serviced in Georgia, USA - so they'll be bugger all use if we ever end up in serious conflict with the USA.
ahem, *missile bodies* serviced in the USA - we build our own warheads.
That's not more autonomous - they are of little use without the body of the missile.

That's not really to do with autonomy in the strict sense - missile bodies and rocket motors are on a rotation of several years for maintenance - so just a small percentage at any one time. So realistically the worst they could say would be:

"I can't believe you've just fired all those nuclear missiles - if you think we're giving you any more you can think again."

Given the end of days scenario represented by use of nuclear weapons I'm not sure the threat of impounding the small percentage of the total that happens to be Stateside at the time is much of a cramp on autonomy to be honest!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... asserted that Trident is 'independent of the USA'.

That'll have the White House snorting into their cheerios in the morning.
I'm finally going to call someone on this - citations on the non-operational independence-from-the-US of UK trident please? Preferably governmental rather than pressure group...

It's a fair cop, guv, but are state secrets likely to be the thing I can look up on the internet?

Let me put it another way: can you think of any scenario whatsoever that would lead to the UK launching its nuclear weapons without the clear and certain knowledge that the USA has done the same, and at the same mutual enemy?

I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.

I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.

I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

That's a non sequitur. It might also mean that the UK is more likely to be more considerate towards its allies and take its commitments to co-operate with them more seriously.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Here is Hansard from 1995 reporting questions concerning the independence (or otherwise) of Trident. Lord Henley (for the government) is being distinctly cagey.

AFAICS we aren't supposed to know if Trident (or its predecessor, Polaris), is independent. My take is that it is only independent once it has failed to deter, Britain has been turned to glass (well, mostly), Radio 4 has ceased broadcasting and the PM's letters to Trident commanders say "Fire".

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My take is that it is only independent once it has failed to deter, Britain has been turned to glass (well, mostly), Radio 4 has ceased broadcasting and the PM's letters to Trident commanders say "Fire".

I don't disagree with that at all.

However, given those are the only conceivable circumstances in which we'd be firing I'd have said that the independence vests precisely in the fact that it's up to someone in/from the UK whether we fire or not. Precisely because we can choose whether or not to launch the things any time we like, without being ordered to by another state or converesely another state vetoing it. Sounds pretty independent, regardless of who we're paying for roadside breakdown assistance in the meantime.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
can you think of any scenario whatsoever that would lead to the UK launching its nuclear weapons without the clear and certain knowledge that the USA has done the same, and at the same mutual enemy?

*Dark Forces Humour Alert*

Just noticed that last bit - the joke in the British forces was always that regardless of what everyone else was doing, in the event of launching a general nuclear exchange we weren't going for the Soviet Union but France.

Because if everyone's going to die anyway why break the habit of a 1,000 years at the last minute?

I wouldn't be surprised for a second if the French didn't have the same joke but reversed...

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

As we have covered elsewhere on the ship, there are a lot of red-herrings around Trident.

If you believe that they are horrific and unjustifiable in all circumstances that's a perfectly reasonable position to hold. And I suspect one held by a lot of people. To then go on about costs and 'truly independent' is all nonsense.

The Submarines are British, the warheads are British. The Missiles (IIRC) are on a lease system from the US. Given that no-one knows were a nuclear submarine is when it's on deep-sea patrol, it's not realistic to think that the US could suddenly recall them. So for all practical purposes they are fully and totally under the control of the missile sub and the command and control systems (which are understandably secret) of the British government.

There is one sense in which they are not fully independent but it's a bit technical and irrelevant. Trident missiles are very clever, they can hit a target thousands of miles away with an incredible degree of accuracy. In order to do this the launching sub must know it's location from GPS satellites. These satellites are shared with the US navy submarine force and so in theory the US could stop the UK from launching by shutting down the satellites. This seems a little far-fetched to me as I can't envisage a scenario in which they would. Aside from a mad UK leader threatening to launch an unprovoked attack.

So for an intents and purposes, the UK has an independent nuclear deterrent.

Whether that's a good thing or not is an entirely different matter.

AFZ

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.

And if it was a nuclear missile not under your nation's control, you'd be fairly insane not to.

As in, "oh look, a UK launch at a target we don't wish to destroy", abort mission.

I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.

[ 01. October 2015, 18:15: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I did not know about the GPS thing, in which case, if were going to launch a nuclear strike against Britain - I'd probably take out the satellites at the same time as launching the first strike. If I have the capability to do one, I have the capability to do the other.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.

The guidance software is all written by US engineers.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I can't. I can envisage the USA launching without approval from its NATO allies. I can envisage the USA launching without telling its NATO allies. I cannot for the life of me believe the UK would dare do anything of the sort.

I therefore conclude, with some degree of certainty, that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.
That's a non sequitur.

It's no more a non sequitur than believing that Estonia couldn't unilaterally mount an invasion of Russia, but the USA could.

It is a fond fancy to think of anything happening in NATO without full US agreement, and an equally fond fancy to believe that NATO members have a veto on US military action.

So, while I take on board that we can refuse to launch (one outcome of 'independent'), we cannot choose to launch, except when everything is lost anyway. You may conclude that Trident is therefore worth having, but I fail to be convinced.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I disagree, if another power services the weapons then they know exactly how they work. It is therefore possible to sabotage them covertly. It would certainly be technically possible to install something in the missile body that could be activated after the missile was in flight that could either divert or destroy the missile in the air.

And if it was a nuclear missile not under your nation's control, you'd be fairly insane not to.

As in, "oh look, a UK launch at a target we don't wish to destroy", abort mission.

I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.

and if it was a nuclear missile you'd let another country service for you, to quote you, "you'd be fairly insane not to" crawl all over it when you get it back, and have your own software engineers go through it with a toothcomb, to be as sure as you can be that none of those hypothetical "well they coulds" have been done...

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

hypothetically...obviously...

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Of course, but that doesn't mean you'd find it. It is a fairly huge, and obvious, security vulnerability.

As is software hacking.

And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Do you think we need a dedicated nuke thread ?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do you think we need a dedicated nuke thread ?

not really, it's the same conversation that was happening the other week on another thread - I'm not sure anyone'll change position so it would have to be in DH eventually! Happy to leave it there if others are and get back to Corbyn?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I also disagree that it is not worth those of us in favour of unilateral nuclear disarment engaging in this part of the debate. We may be able to convince others to support the same end goal, for different reasons.

Maybe.

But:

The truth is that Trident (and replacement) is a surprisingly cost-effective way of doing what it's meant to do. (It really is cheap compared to the cost of trying to achieve the same thing any other way). Given that most of the money is spent in the UK and the total costs people talk about are over the whole 40 year lifespan of the system, the economics are irrelevant. The questions that matter are these:

1. Does it make strategic sense to have a nuclear deterrent?
2. Is it morally acceptable to have a nuclear deterrent?

The answer to 1 has a lot to do with credible threats and whether non-state action is the real danger in the next 50 years - or more precisely, if the existential threat to the nation from a foreign power (of for example, the cold war) is no longer a real concern. And, of course whether holding strategic Nukes actually helps or not. The answer to 2 lies in the don't want to but could and would if you forced us line of thinking.

If the answer to either of these is no, then everything else is moot. If the answer to both those questions is yes then Trident is the way to do it and all the rest about cost and independence etc. etc. is just nonsense.

So, that's why I think they red-herrings. Although of course a lot of politicians are pro-Trident because it's a macho thing to have Nukes and makes them feel good. That is also not a good argument.

AFZ

P.S. Taking out the US GPS satellites used by the navy is no small thing. For starters there is a lot of them.

[ 01. October 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[Crosspost]

Kk - I do find it annoying that commentators appear to expect a fully agreed and worked through policy programme in a fortnight.

If anyone tried to present that it would be a cobbled together mess with insufficient detailed implimentation and costing information - because 14 days is in no way a reasonable length of time for that.

People are acting like that is somehow bizarre.

[ 01. October 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

My problem with question 1 is no one will tell me what trident/replacement is meant to deter - therefore it is extremely difficult to reach an opinion whether it is now, has been or will be effective.

My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.

I think that fair and compelling. It seems that the Labour leader also feels that way. As I said if that is the answer then everything else is, in my view, irrelevant.

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My problem with question 1 is no one will tell me what trident/replacement is meant to deter - therefore it is extremely difficult to reach an opinion whether it is now, has been or will be effective.

My primary objection to trident is that I believe that revenge genocide is morally abhorrent and wholly futile.

Doesn't it also invite further attacks? Of course, it depends on the scenario, but if you say that the aggressor is Russia, which has fired a missile on a British city, and a British sub retaliates and hits Moscow, are the Russians going to say, OK, fair enough, that's a draw? Well, they might, but they might also think, let's simply erase the UK from the map. Then British subs do what?

Of course, with other aggressors, you get a different scenario, e.g. Iran. But how do you calculate the outcome?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then British subs do what?

Keep listening for Radio4, and open the prime-ministerial letter; which may contain; strike, hold, use your own judgement, or place yourself under US/Aus command.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
but if you say that the aggressor is Russia, which has fired a missile on a British city, and a British sub retaliates and hits Moscow, are the Russians going to say, OK, fair enough, that's a draw? Well, they might, but they might also think, let's simply erase the UK from the map. Then British subs do what?

In that scenario the British subs do nothing. Unless it's one of those very few times when one sub is heading out to patrol and another is still there there will only be one sub. That missile launch on Moscow will reveal it's position, the next Russian move will be to sink it. End of British deterrent. The only logical way to use a submarine based deterrent system is to launch all the missiles at once (at least all the missiles from a single boat), at which point the boat becomes irrelevant and the enemy can sink it if they feel it's worth the effort to remove what is no longer a threat.

PS. I think the GPS signals are used for missile guidance after it breaks the surface, with more traditional internal inertial system to provide backup and a redundancy against GPS loss (who care's if your nuke goes off 20m from the target?). GPS signals do not penetrate more than a few cm of sea water, so the subs might deploy a buoy occasionally to verify position from GPS but rely on other means for routine navigation.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.

The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.

So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm going to put this opinion piece here.

quote:
If the US pulled the plug on the UK nuclear program, Trident would be immediately unable to fire, making the submarines little more than expensive, undersea follies.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.

So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.

Well, my anti-crocodile powder is a great success, as I sprinkle it every night in the back garden, and guess what, so far (touch wood), we have been crocodile free. In fact, the manufacturers have asked me to contribute a testimonial, which I am happy to do, as keeping crocs away is something of an obsession of mine. Recommended!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: In that scenario the British subs do nothing. Unless it's one of those very few times when one sub is heading out to patrol and another is still there there will only be one sub. That missile launch on Moscow will reveal it's position, the next Russian move will be to sink it. End of British deterrent.

But a jolly good deterrent it was, old chap.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, there is the argument that having a deterrent like Trident is in effect, painting a target on yourself. It might stop a small state from attacking, since there would be retaliation, but presumably, in an Armageddon situation, a state such as Russia would calculate that retaliation from the UK would enable Russia to erase the UK permanently with a massive attack. Presumably, the US and Russia would be busy erasing the world.

Incidentally, this discussion is an example of how Corbyn's rise has brought about discussion of various political topics, which normally exist in a deep slumber, both within Labour, and across the political spectrum.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.

So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.

If you argue that MAD worked in the sense that a true East / West confrontation never happened, you probably can't avoid the conclusion that the major powers fought multiple conflicts through surrogates because they were terrified of fighting each other directly. Whilst this may be less horrific for the main powers, I suspect that is no comfort to those affected.

Interstingly, even if you disagree with Corbyn, it's difficult to avoid the fact that he is and has been entirely consistent on this: opposing nuclear weapons and our role in other conflicts.

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, nobody knew that Corbyn was against nuclear weapons and against war. Or at least, he kept this very secret, never spoke about it in public, didn't go to anti-war meetings and demonstrations.

The sneaky bastard, why didn't he tell us before the leadership election about this?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to put this opinion piece here.

quote:
If the US pulled the plug on the UK nuclear program, Trident would be immediately unable to fire, making the submarines little more than expensive, undersea follies.

I'm tempted to go through this line by line as a fisking but I got bored of spotting errors about 3 paras in.

"the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington" - no it doesn't

"British subs must regularly go to Kings Bay Georgia for maintenance" - no, the missile bodies, NOT the submarines - they're maintained in, er, Devonport (see below)

"the four UK boats are copies of US Ohio class Trident submersibles" - no they aren't. The tubes are the same (odd that, what with them firing the same missile), but the submarines? That's just untrue.

"the UK nuclear site at Davenport" - Devonport

Does it get better?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

And MAD is still a ridiculous military strategy with little apparent success.
The idea of MAD is that nobody will use a nuke, because if they do, everyone will.

So far, nobody has used a nuke in warfare since Nagasaki. So in a sense, that's "success". It's not supposed to prevent any kind of armed conflict.
Well, my anti-crocodile powder is a great success, as I sprinkle it every night in the back garden, and guess what, so far (touch wood), we have been crocodile free. In fact, the manufacturers have asked me to contribute a testimonial, which I am happy to do, as keeping crocs away is something of an obsession of mine. Recommended!

Was going to post this but quetzalcoatl beat me to it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

So long as nuclear weapons exist, MAD makes perfect sense to me for one perfectly valid reason - the ability to guarantee to any other nuclear-armed nation that if they wipe us out we will wipe them out in turn is the most certain way to prevent them from wiping us out in the first place.

It's not about "revenge genocide". It's about making sure there's no genocide to avenge in the first place.

Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them throws his gun away then there's nothing* to stop the other from shooting him and walking away whistling a happy tune.

And frankly, telling the other person that you won't shoot even if he does is functionally the same as throwing your gun away. Either way, it means there wouldn't be any negative consequence for him if he kills you.

.

*= well, except kindness, empathy and common human decency. But anyone who relies entirely upon those things for their safety is a fucking idiot - and that goes double for a national leader who is responsible for the safety of their entire population.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So long as nuclear weapons exist, MAD makes perfect sense to me for one perfectly valid reason - the ability to guarantee to any other nuclear-armed nation that if they wipe us out we will wipe them out in turn is the most certain way to prevent them from wiping us out in the first place.

It's not about "revenge genocide". It's about making sure there's no genocide to avenge in the first place.

Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them throws his gun away then there's nothing* to stop the other from shooting him and walking away whistling a happy tune.

And frankly, telling the other person that you won't shoot even if he does is functionally the same as throwing your gun away. Either way, it means there wouldn't be any negative consequence for him if he kills you.

.

*= well, except kindness, empathy and common human decency. But anyone who relies entirely upon those things for their safety is a fucking idiot - and that goes double for a national leader who is responsible for the safety of their entire population.

<my italics> This works while we don't have a 'third man' ie a 'rogue' group getting hold of a nuke or two. If said group doesn't have an obvious sovereign territory to retaliate against, you're fucked.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.

Fixed that for you.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This works while we don't have a 'third man' ie a 'rogue' group getting hold of a nuke or two. If said group doesn't have an obvious sovereign territory to retaliate against, you're fucked.

This is true. But it's just as true whether we have nukes or don't, so could be said to be irrelevant to the question.

Of course, the other way MAD doesn't work is if the other person (or state) wants you dead so badly - or is so insane - that they don't care if they die as well or not. But again, if that's the case then you're fucked whether you have nukes or don't.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.

If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

For now we'll just export war and be killed gradually, but no less surely.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

Or you could invest in a bullet proof suit instead of a gun.

MAD is crap because it does not protect. And insane world leaders are a thing that happens at regular intervals.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

Someone will sneeze, at some point. How do you defend against that?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Someone very nearly did. Given this little fun episode and this well known bit of willy waving I think it's fair enough to fear that it is, in fact, only a matter of time before MAD kills us all.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Technically, they actually did sneeze, only someone was there with a hanky.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

Well we say we expect almost every other country in the world to do this. We would not be impressed if, say, South Korea decided that they wanted to have some nuclear weapons. I bet they could fairly easily make some, and they have rather more reason to want some than we do.

The point about the Mexican stand-off with guns that you describe is that it is an incredibly dangerous situation. If you were dealing with that situation, the very first thing you would try to do is get everyone to put the guns down. Everything else would take second place until that happened.

I can just about see that the US might be a special case. They could argue as the "world superpower" and "world policeman" they should be the last ones to put the gun down. I think that's arguable. But there seems much less defence for Britain to have nuclear weapons. If Britain, then why not Germany, or Spain, or Brazil, or Australia, or... anyone really?

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Picture two men pointing guns at each other. Both know that if either of them shoots then the other will shoot back, and therefore neither will shoot. But if one of them sneezes, they're both dead.
Fixed that for you.
If you can figure out a way to get every single country in the world to swear off nuclear weapons for ever and ever amen then I'll be the happiest bunny in the warren. Until then, it remains the case that MAD is the best defence against being nuked.

One thing is certain - we will never have a nuclear free world while the UK holds these WMD. Stomping into Iraq on the pretext that they were not allowed to own the very weapons that we had was the most hypocritical thing about the whole Sadam Husein episode. How can we speak out against a weapon that we have stockpiled and are renewing. We believe in them; why shouldn't others.
If we want the nukes gone, we must lead the way.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Maybe we should make a list of all the other things we should do because if we don't someone else will.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

I can just about see that the US might be a special case. They could argue as the "world superpower" and "world policeman" they should be the last ones to put the gun down. I think that's arguable.

If you accept that the US ought to be global policeman, that is. Personally I have very grave reservations about any one state assuming this role, whoever they may be.

Also it seems fairly clear to me that the days of US as the sole global superpower are coming to a close and we need to get ready to welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Corbyn missing first Privy Council Meeting he could attend due to 'prior engangement'

Any thoughts?

AFZ

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Well, I'm ambivalent towards Mr Corbyn as I've said, but the article also points out that Mr Cameron took three months to attend, so this story seems to be just mischief-making.

That said, as far as I can see all of the arguments against the monarchy apply a fortiori against the Privy Council, which has actual and rather sinister powers despite its lack of democratic legitimacy - ask the Chagossians (whose cause Mr Corbyn has defended in the past - one of his good points IMO).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Perhaps the temptation to have a strong word with one particularly ham-faced Privy counsellor regarding the calumnious defamation spoken from a stage in Manchester yesterday would have proved too great, and he's wisely withdrawn himself.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, I'm ambivalent towards Mr Corbyn as I've said, but the article also points out that Mr Cameron took three months to attend, so this story seems to be just mischief-making

I agree. Judging by the reason he missed the RWC opening ceremony he probably has a good reason too.

What worries me is that he needs to pick his battles. The way this will be spun is un-prime-ministerial.

I like that he cares more about doing good than looking good but he's got to win too.

AFZ

P.s. I agree with you about Diego Garcia: one of the most shameful episodes in our nation's history.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps the temptation to have a strong word with one particularly ham-faced Privy counsellor regarding the calumnious defamation spoken from a stage in Manchester yesterday would have proved too great, and he's wisely withdrawn himself.

I can't imagine Cameron arses himself to turn up all the time either. Surely he can get intelligence briefings on account of being the PM, rather than having to turn up to a free lunch for it.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Owen Jones was very much a Corbyn supporter from the beginning. This piece is very interesting:

quote:
Jones in the Guardian:
It is a moment of anguish that should have caused discomfort in both No 10 and No 11. “You’re about to cut tax credits when you promised you wouldn’t,” an anguished mother yelled from last night’s Question Time audience
[she voted Conservative in May]

When I shared the video of the disillusioned Tory voter, some of the responses were less than sympathetic. She was berated for bringing it on herself and for having an “I’m all right, Jack” attitude. This is political suicide. Tory voters having their tax credits chipped away desperately need to be love-bombed. You are told you are doing the right thing. You are told that you are hard-working and you are striving. And yet you are being penalised. Hundreds of thousands of those affected are self-employed people, a natural constituency for the Tories.

I do not think that everyone who voted Tory was being selfish. I think they believed what they were told.

It's no good shouting about Tory lies. We have to, have to, have to win the argument.

I had a look back at last night's QT. Just before this bit, the Conservative MP described Labour as a threat to Education and Health because both desperately needed a strong economy. The implication being obvious.

The thing is though. The Tories have delivered the opposite. Show this to the people and the Conservative party's support will collapse.

As I've said elsewhere, the reason why the Tories should be worried about Corbyn is because he will call them on this. On Austerity, on Tax Credits, on the real effects of their policies in a way previously Labour were not brave enough to do. The reason why the Tories aren't worried is because they are confident that their propaganda machine and tame press will win.

Watch this space.

AFZ

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

I do not think that everyone who voted Tory was being selfish. I think they believed what they were told.

It's no good shouting about Tory lies. We have to, have to, have to win the argument.

Up to a point. The problem is that there were plenty of stories in the press prior the election about various vulnerable groups (such as the disabled) who feared the consequences of the brutal cuts that were being talked about. To that extent there were also a large number of people who who bought into the strivers/shirkers deserving/undeserving dichotomy, and assuming which group the Tories would assign them to.

So the fury is not so much that their eyes have been opened to the extent and reality of the cuts, but that they feel they have been categorised incorrectly.

The easiest thing in the world would be to re-draw the dichotomy slightly to include a few of the more vocal.

[ 16. October 2015, 20:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I do struggle with the idea than any grown adult would believe that the tories are on the side of the working poor. I've a lot of sympathy for the victims of this government but I do have to ask how dumb you have to be to be taken in by this shower. Being a bit dense is not a reason to punish someone, of course, but I hope the lady concerned and others will learn this basic, fundamental political truth: never trust a tory.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

One of the biggest problems with political life is that all parties think they can prevent the UK economy from being subject to pressures from elsewhere in the world. Sure, governments can try to put in place measures which will lessen the impact of, say, a global downturn, but they can't wrap the economy in cotton wool.

Where we do have a problem is that there are some in British public and political life who think that the normal laws of fiscal prudence shouldn't (don't?) apply to a nation state: a level of economic ignorance which is frightening. The fact that this mirrors the ignorance of large numbers of the electorate doesn't help or make it any better.

In another thread there is a discussion about health care costs and affordability: this becomes more and more pertinent to the UK economy generally as the NHS budget takes an ever greater share of GDP with no sign of such increase stopping, rather that it is likely to accelerate.

To get back to J Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party: what puzzles me at the moment is his total silence on the row about Tom Watson: startling if TW was just a backbencher, extraordinary since TW is his deputy. Of course, this might have something to do with the many scandals involving the local authority children's homes in Islington when JC was a councillor there and Margaret Hodge was Chair of the SS Committee...

[ 17. October 2015, 10:13: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I do struggle with the idea than any grown adult would believe that the tories are on the side of the working poor. I've a lot of sympathy for the victims of this government but I do have to ask how dumb you have to be to be taken in by this shower. Being a bit dense is not a reason to punish someone, of course, but I hope the lady concerned and others will learn this basic, fundamental political truth: never trust a tory.

I agree with your conclusion [Biased]

but that's a little beside the point.

The thing is, in our democracy (any democracy?) most people today have very little engagement. People don't vote rationally, they don't think things through. Hence why rhetorical devices and propaganda are much more effective than the truth. Divide and rule works really well.

I suppose with someone like this woman one of two responses are possible: 1. "Well you brought it on yourself" 2. "This is what the Tory policy means for people like you - oh and all these other groups too"

I think Owen Jones' point (and he's more left than me) is that 2. is the only rational response - these are the people Labour needs in order to win.

I don't know, I wonder if people are guilty of a kind of I'm alright Jack approach and are learning a sorry lesson that the Tory's division of workers/shirkers (or whatever this week's version is) puts them on the wrong side. I suppose it's easy to be self-righteous but for me, it's more important to win.

Not because winning is the important thing but because to enact the right policies, power is needed. That means winning.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the biggest problems with political life is that all parties think they can prevent the UK economy from being subject to pressures from elsewhere in the world. Sure, governments can try to put in place measures which will lessen the impact of, say, a global downturn, but they can't wrap the economy in cotton wool.

No, no, no, no, no.
The biggest problem is that the worldwide economic crisis has been used to justify unjust policies. Moreover they are bad policies from a purely economic perspective. It's not that Osborne is doing harsh but necessary things, it's that he's doing unnecessary and damaging things that are also very harsh. No one is looking for utopia here, just learning the lessons of the 1930s would do for me.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where we do have a problem is that there are some in British public and political life who think that the normal laws of fiscal prudence shouldn't (don't?) apply to a nation state: a level of economic ignorance which is frightening. The fact that this mirrors the ignorance of large numbers of the electorate doesn't help or make it any better.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here but you're close to comparing the national economy to a household budget.

This is a really bad idea in economic terms
This is a really good idea in political rhetoric terms.

This is a really good place to start.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In another thread there is a discussion about health care costs and affordability: this becomes more and more pertinent to the UK economy generally as the NHS budget takes an ever greater share of GDP with no sign of such increase stopping, rather that it is likely to accelerate.

This isn't true. The NHS budget is not increasing in terms of share of GDP. It might need to but it's not. Moreover, Britain's healthcare spend (as a proportion of GDP) remains around the European average, below France and Germany and half of the US. So, whilst it would be foolish to suggest there is no problem here, it is shrill in the extreme to suggest that it is a major threat to the UK economy at this point.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
To get back to J Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party: what puzzles me at the moment is his total silence on the row about Tom Watson: startling if TW was just a backbencher, extraordinary since TW is his deputy. Of course, this might have something to do with the many scandals involving the local authority children's homes in Islington when JC was a councillor there and Margaret Hodge was Chair of the SS Committee...

This one is just odd. I'm not sure if you're suggesting Corbyn (and others) were involved in a cover-up, but either way the idea that the majority of the media would not be throwing such at Corbyn if there were a story here - given what nonsense has already been thrown at him - is just ridiculous.

AFZ

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

I suppose with someone like this woman one of two responses are possible: 1. "Well you brought it on yourself" 2. "This is what the Tory policy means for people like you - oh and all these other groups too"

I think Owen Jones' point (and he's more left than me) is that 2. is the only rational response - these are the people Labour needs in order to win.

The problem with Owen's arguments is that he continues to use the vocabulary of 'strivers' (vs presumably 'shirkers'. Any strategy based around this - in the long run - just enforces the dichotomy pushed by the Tories in the last election, with a minor re-drawing of the borders so that a slightly different set of people are now the 'in' group.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

I suppose with someone like this woman one of two responses are possible: 1. "Well you brought it on yourself" 2. "This is what the Tory policy means for people like you - oh and all these other groups too"

I think Owen Jones' point (and he's more left than me) is that 2. is the only rational response - these are the people Labour needs in order to win.
The problem with Owen's arguments is that he continues to use the vocabulary of 'strivers' (vs presumably 'shirkers'. Any strategy based around this - in the long run - just enforces the dichotomy pushed by the Tories in the last election, with a minor re-drawing of the borders so that a slightly different set of people are now the 'in' group.

I'm not sure that's fair. Jones has written a lot about how this dichotomy is totally false. I think in this context he's aiming at a proof-by-contradiction. i.e. There's no doubt that this lady is a striver... therefore...

AFZ

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

There's a real irony in someone talking about "normal laws of fiscal prudence" accusing other people of economic ignorance. When you have control of your currency you have many more options available to you that lessen the impact of a recession and speed the recovery from it. A nation state also has to be wary of the multiplier effects of its actions. If a household cuts it's spending then that doesn't (usually) lead to a fall income as well. If someone insists on using the household analogy the best comparison is refusing to spend money on putting petrol in the car you use to get to work because you'd have to put it on the credit card. True you won't add to your debt in the short term, but that won't help you when you get sacked for not showing up to work.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Picked up the Daily Telegraph in the hotel morning room. Sigh. I used to regard it as holy writ. Full of snipes against Corbyn. Snipes which polarize me FIRST toward him on the issues of the sniping: he has Hamas supporters and has endorsed the IRA and won't launch nukes.

I have to then dig in to my response deeper. Jeremy is right to empathize with Hamas, the IRA, to see where they are coming from, that they are forced in to extremism by their powerlessness. I buy ALL of that. Including understanding why Palestinians start murdering Jewish civilian occupiers.

Which is a foul, feckless, deranged evil response to institutionalized evil. One I'd have praised in the Warsaw ghetto. In Britain if the Nazis had won. Which I've been ambivalent about in the war against apartheid. Just exposing my own inconsistencies there.

I voted for Jeremy and take responsibility for that. I will take this up with him in my continued support.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Done.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

The problem with Owen's arguments is that he continues to use the vocabulary of 'strivers' (vs presumably 'shirkers'. Any strategy based around this - in the long run - just enforces the dichotomy pushed by the Tories in the last election, with a minor re-drawing of the borders so that a slightly different set of people are now the 'in' group.
I'm not sure that's fair. Jones has written a lot about how this dichotomy is totally false. I think in this context he's aiming at a proof-by-contradiction. i.e. There's no doubt that this lady is a striver... therefore...

Really? Looking at the various interviews with her, she states that her business is currently making no profit. So essentially her income amounts to the various tax credits which she is collecting; welfare in all but name.

Which is absolutely fine. There should absolutely be a safety net, and it is somewhat nonsensical that we are in a situation where people are better off (in some circumstances) by re-classing themselves as self employed. The cuts to tax-credits are being used to fund tax cuts elsewhere to the more well off.

The issue here is prior to the election there were plenty of stories around projected cuts - including cuts to disability benefit. That so many people on relatively low incomes were so willing to vote Tory was party down to the inability to feel that they had a common cause with the disabled (among other groups). Continually harping on about 'strivers' is unlikely to make this more likely.

[ 18. October 2015, 23:22: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

To what extent do you think that the fact of Corbyn's platform is influencing actions such as; the withdrawal from the Saudi prison contact, Tories becoming concerned about the tax credit issue, Cameron getting round to writing to the Saudi government about specific cases etc ?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

chris stiles:

quote:
...it is somewhat nonsensical that we are in a situation where people are better off (in some circumstances) by re-classing themselves as self employed.

It may seem nonsensical to you, but it is one of the reasons why the much-trumpeted unemployment figures are so low. People who are classed as self-employed but whose businesses are not making any profit (or not enough to live on) aren't counted as unemployed. Any other businesses that employ them don't have to finance their NI payments and make them members of the company pension scheme, so using freelancers works out cheaper than employing someone to do the same job; and you only have to pay them when they are actually working on something for you.

Presumably this woman has started up her own business in an attempt to find work that fits around her childcare responsibilities. I can relate to that; that's why I am self-employed, and although my own business does make a reasonable profit now it took nearly a year to build up a reasonable list of clients.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It may seem nonsensical to you, but it is one of the reasons why the much-trumpeted unemployment figures are so low. People who are classed as self-employed but whose businesses are not making any profit (or not enough to live on) aren't counted as unemployed.

My 'nonsensical' remark was a comment on the macro level situation - clearly people need the money to survive, and so placing additional hoops through which to make them jump seems perverse. I can completely understand that the decision might make sense for each party (the Jobcentre gets someone off JSA and thus into 'employment', the claimant gets more from the government than they would have otherwise).

quote:

Presumably this woman has started up her own business in an attempt to find work that fits around her childcare responsibilities. I can relate to that; that's why I am self-employed, and although my own business does make a reasonable profit now it took nearly a year to build up a reasonable list of clients.

In this case, this woman has been running her business since 2013, and doesn't generate a profit. Her sole 'income' is from tax credits, which she can claim as long as she works for at least 16 hours a week[*]. I am not begrudging her that money at all, however I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare - it seems to me to be a form of politicised spite against those even less fortunate.

[*] There is an additional twist here in that she says that many of her clients are on tax credits themselves, and she fears the impact the cuts will have on her business.

[ 21. October 2015, 09:35: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I am not begrudging her that money at all, however I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare - it seems to me to be a form of politicised spite against those even less fortunate.

This is an important issue.

There is a dual-culpability here.

The Tories for deliberately fermenting this view for their own political ends.

People who vote for them on the basis that the evil recipients of benefits (not lovely pensioners or hard working people like me) are the problem.

Either way this woman has had a change of heart. Whether you doubt her motives or not, the Left has a choice in its response. To win the argument surely something of "Yep, this is what the Tory policy does to you and lots of other innocents" rather than "It's you're own fault, I've no sympathy" is the more effective strategic response?

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think that an element of Tory practice being to employ their chums in Fleet Street to spin a web of half truths and misrepresentation to dupe people into voting for them against their best interests could also be highlighted.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

To win the argument surely something of "Yep, this is what the Tory policy does to you and lots of other innocents"

Sure, if you want to win the immediate argument you do that. To actually change the view in the long run you have to challenge their definition of 'innocents' and 'welfare' though - which is where I felt the reiteration of the word 'striver' was unhelpful (presumably if you can't strive, you are chopped liver).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare

Whatever other failings I may have (which vary depending on who you speak to [Biased]

), I'm happy to say this is not one of them. They could abolish every single form of welfare or tax credit tomorrow and I wouldn't be a penny worse off.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare
Whatever other failings I may have (which vary depending on who you speak to ), I'm happy to say this is not one of them. They could abolish every single form of welfare or tax credit tomorrow and I wouldn't be a penny worse off.

Unless and until you are struck down by illness or disability / are made redundant / retire...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think that an element of Tory practice being to employ their chums in Fleet Street to spin a web of half truths and misrepresentation to dupe people into voting for them against their best interests could also be highlighted.

Surely not? I always thought that the Press was totally neutral, disinterested and incorruptible. [Two face]

(Problems is, many folk seem to think that it is, and swallow everything they're peddled, whether it be about "welfare scroungers", migrants being given "luxury flats" or whatever).

[ 21. October 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Surely not? I always thought that the Press was totally neutral, disinterested and incorruptible.

(Problems is, many folk seem to think that it is, and swallow everything they're peddled, whether it be about "welfare scroungers", migrants being given "luxury flats" or whatever).

Whaaat? Admittedly I'm even more biased against the press than most. But I don't know anyone who thinks that.

My impression is that most people thought that Drop the Dead Donkey was almost too ready to give the media the benefit of the doubt. Here's a link for any shipmate from outside the UK who's strayed onto this thread.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare
Whatever other failings I may have (which vary depending on who you speak to ), I'm happy to say this is not one of them. They could abolish every single form of welfare or tax credit tomorrow and I wouldn't be a penny worse off.

You wouldn't need to increase your pension contributions ?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

How is your insurance against redundancy?

Please do not give me I am in a secure job waffle. I was assured that my contract was rolling in the NHS, which turned into 3-year contract due to internal politics.

Jengie

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I am questioning the reasoning and motives of people who vote to 'cut welfare' (welfare bad) but don't seem to count the payments they receive as a form of welfare
Whatever other failings I may have (which vary depending on who you speak to ), I'm happy to say this is not one of them. They could abolish every single form of welfare or tax credit tomorrow and I wouldn't be a penny worse off.
You wouldn't need to increase your pension contributions ?

Probably not, no - unless my employer's final salary scheme went tits up. But then I'd be screwed either way.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Well yes, but your state pension + your final salary pension is what you would be livign on post retirement. So therefore, if state pension was stopped - you wouldn't be getting it so there whatever it is 130 a fortnight worse off ?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I'm not expecting to get a state pension by the time I retire anyway. Even if such a thing still exists by then, demographics alone will probably dictate that it's only given to the very poorest pensioners. And the odds are that I won't be in that category.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Ah - so what you're saying is that if all the benefits are abolished you wouldn't be any worse off than you would be assuming all the benefits were abolished?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not expecting to get a state pension by the time I retire anyway. Even if such a thing still exists by then, demographics alone will probably dictate that it's only given to the very poorest pensioners. And the odds are that I won't be in that category.

Demographics be buggered and austerity too. It's the "shits in suits" that will cut pensions (and benefits), irrespective of the state of the economy.

The economy will recover and overtake the position it was in before the credit crunch, but pensions and benefits will continue to be cut because those who have the influence to overrule all but the bravest of democratically elected governments are determined to maintain the drift towards greater inequality of incomes, which has been going on for at least 35 years now.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Marvin, would you be equally well off if you, your wife and/or children got sick and you had to take time off work for treatment or to care for them?

Sick employee or family member = Lack of reliability for work = zero job security, employment law having been changed to allow employers to get rid of workers quickly and easily under the Tories. No employment, no pension plan.

Plus there's all the welfare state provision from the NHS for the health care of the sick - that's more welfare, always assuming the NHS is still viable enough to do any caring for anyone.

People who end up homeless have lots of reasons for doing so:

struggling to work as they have PTSD following a work incident,
getting divorced and losing their house to their wife and children.
getting sick and behind on their mortgage payments.

I've met homeless people who ran their own company but had their house repossessed, not for anything they did, but because a big customer failed owing a shed load of money.

None of us are far from being reclassified as welfare claimants and skivers.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0